Start Button returning in Windows 8.1 with updated Charms Bar, insiders claim

Set for a public preview in June, Windows 8.1 has just got another set of rumoured features, this time suggesting the update will resurrect the Start button and generally make many of the Metro features easier to use for desktop users.

ZDNet's Mary Jo Foley has reportedly been tipped off by insiders that Microsoft has numerous interface adjustments in the works, most notably of which are the addition of an optional Start button and an updated Charms Bar with a focus on desktop ease of use. Following the trend of increasing usability for desktop users, the Start screen will also reportedly be getting a facelift. Notably, these features may not be arriving in the Windows 8.1 public preview in June, but would potentially be seen in the final iteration of the updated operating system.

Foley notes that despite continual rumours that Windows 8.1, code-named "Blue," will be a complete overhaul in the wake of consumer backlash over the Metro-based, touch-based design, the update will aim to build upon current features rather than replace them. One hopes that making the radically different UI of Windows 8 easier to use for consumers switching from earlier iterations of the OS will improve the lacklustre sales numbers.

Despite the increase in Windows 8 tablets available, the majority of users will be in a desktop environment. As such, features of the OS clearly based for touch purposes may be updated in 8.1 as not to alienate these non-mobile customers.

Windows 8.1 will be available as a public preview Microsoft's BUILD conference in June.

Source: ZDNet

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia teases new Lumia in advert ahead of Tuesday event

Next Story

How does Bill Gates have time to save the world? "I don't mow the lawn"

200 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I like Windows 8, and I also look forward to the small improvements as they will make the OS more discoverable and usable for a lot of people.

Sinofsky leaving is the best thing that could've happened - he was a dictator who from all accounts refused to listen to any feedback and kept Win 8 isolated from even the rest of MS.

somehow I find it strange how during Ballmers tenure that two OS's have ended up being labelled trash or lousy. Vista and 8 now. I wouldn't say my feeling that 8 is a failure rather, Ballmer...is the failure.

a company is ONLY as good as its' leadership. I believe after windows8 came out, the old leader for windows left.. correct?

question? why are all the peeps from windows 7 always complain about windows 8 when most of them have stated that they will stick with windows 7 because they love it and swear never to use it but come to say they NEED to change windows 8 to be more windows 7 why try to change something that you like on windows 7 and put it on 8.

About Modern UI

Universe = 100m of licenses.
Users that installed an alternate start menu = 12m (for only 2 software) + ??? (for the rest of software), let's say 20m.
Licenses that are sitting duck = 41m (never installed or activated).
Users that don't like the new menu but don't want to install a third party apps or simply don't know that exist an alternative = ??m, may be 10 or 20m.
Users that don't mind about the start menu = ???m may be 10 or 20m.

So, there are more users that don't like the new menu than the people that like.

Deal with it!.

Brony said,
About Modern UI

Universe = 100m of licenses.
Users that installed an alternate start menu = 12m (for only 2 software) + ??? (for the rest of software), let's say 20m.
Licenses that are sitting duck = 41m (never installed or activated).
Users that don't like the new menu but don't want to install a third party apps or simply don't know that exist an alternative = ??m, may be 10 or 20m.
Users that don't mind about the start menu = ???m may be 10 or 20m.

So, there are more users that don't like the new menu than the people that like.

Deal with it!.

Deal with what? Your fake figures?

Atleast Brony's number are more realistic than phony MS marketing of 100 million license sold figure, where majority of those so called licenses are collecting dust in OEM's warehouse and people who purchased Windows 8, because it was so cheap, but did not like it much and reverted to windows 7

Microsoft is acting on feedback which is the correct thing to do, it is actually a good thing, and yet and all the people here can do is "HAHAHAHA ALL TEH FANBOIS WERE SO WRONG, WIN8 IS A FAILURE, JUST LIKE VISTA....NO, WAIT, JUST LIKE NEW COKE! HAHAHA!"

When Microsoft takes feedback into consideration, they get bashed. When they do their own thing, they also get bashed. Seriously. People are being unreasonable here. Why don't ya'll go pray to the mighty Apple, i'm sure they'll listen to your feedback of wanting gadgets on iOS homescreens. /s

I didn't want to comment on this article because I thought it's ridiculous that this would get nearly 150 comments, but reading the comments here, it makes me want to stab myself in the eye.

FalseAgent said,
Microsoft is acting on feedback which is the correct thing to do, it is actually a good thing, and yet and all the people here can do is "HAHAHAHA ALL TEH FANBOIS WERE SO WRONG, WIN8 IS A FAILURE, JUST LIKE VISTA....NO, WAIT, JUST LIKE NEW COKE! HAHAHA!"

Do you watched the Nat Geo show about the 80?.

An optional start button? How about an optional start menu and optional metro interface? i would also love to see an option for aero glass but that's wishful thinking.

How will this install over existing Win 8 OS? Can you apply it like a service pack? Certainly a complete reformat will not be necessary?

Yay!!

MS is wising up, if it's not already to late!

Dumbest thing they've ever done is change the UI of the start screen like they did! I almost hate to think of the size of this 8.1 update though!!

Why wouldn't these changes be in the preview? If they're so committed to listening to customers then these changes SHOULD be in the preview. Not another SURPRISE we changed it! at RTM again like the removal of Aero Glass.

I'm happy the addition of this likely monstrous Start button is reported to be optional. I really do hope it is optional. We already have many ways of accessing the Start screen without an ugly ever-present button on the taskbar.

Ive been using Windows 8 for 2 weeks now.

As a Power User I haven't had too much issues however I brought StartX and ModernMix. These for me are pretty much what Windows 8 is missing. Boot to Desktop, Ability to Run Metro Apps in Windows and Start Menu.

Sure their are other things that can be done better however using these options would have been a much more sensible transition from pre 8 to 8 for current desktop/laptop users while allowing a good tablet/touch experience for tablet users.

Julius Caro said,
maybe now people won't be forced to find obscure ways to turn off the damn thing on a desktop computer .

Like pressing the power button, like on every other device we have today?

Julius Caro said,
not always is the damn thing easily accesible. it is on tablets, phones and laptops.

Then how do you turn the thing on?

I honestly am loving how so many idiots around here think that the thought or idea of bringing the start button back means the start menu will return. Microsoft wouldn't just scrap such a huge implementation such as the start screen just because a button was brought back.

Majority of people are truly naive when it come to new technology. Most of them never even fully test it or adapt to it and windows 8 was a great example. Windows 8 is fast,modern,clean and powerful.
You get the best of world Desktop and Metro. iPad capability is very limited by the OS and it got a lots of app but how many of them really blow you away?

In fact, Windows 8 give you literally everything from hardcore game to productivity like Adobe stuff and much more. Imagine it has a Kepler GPU etc: GTX 660MX (not the RT version or Android) inside the next surface pro...something Apple iPad can never provide you. Yet, the surface cost a little bit more but you can do a hell lot more than you think.

People are confused between 'Start button' and 'Start Menu'. The button is coming back but not the menu. When you click the 'Start button', it will open the modern interface.

StandingInAlley said,
People are confused between 'Start button' and 'Start Menu'. The button is coming back but not the menu. When you click the 'Start button', it will open the modern interface.
Going through the posts, the guys who don't like the start screen clearly understand that it's a button. I don't see any post on here where someone is confused between the two.

After thinking about Windows during my long shower, I believe Microsoft forced that start screen upon us for the "Apps". They are really pushing the whole App phenomenon. What's funny is, I have a few family members(normal users) who never visit the App Store. They stick to the desktop. Microsoft could have easily given an option during setup that asks if you want the new UI or Classic. Another thing I noticed here on Neowin is that when Apple first got into the phone game and were pushing Apps, users on here called it "lame". Now these same users are pushing Windows Apps. Funny how the world turns!

I firmly believe it's so that they can cover all the bases at the same time, being the desktop, laptops, tablets and phones. I think DRM'd applications from an App store is secondary.

I have yet to use a Modern app on my rig, in fact I have so many odd ball issues with W8 on my rig I just dual boot back into Windows 7 and only go back to W8 when new drivers are available. Granted I am running tri sli in Window 8 and Nvidia has nothing but issues. No problems in Windows 7 however. I will say as I always have, Windows 8 is with the start screen is great for touch devices, it is horrible for non touch screens.

But hey it's just my opinion and many other too. If you like it, good for ya, I sure don't.

Windows 8 is a Frankenstein with two interface that usually do not talk each other.
Modern UI = "good" for touch device (in fact, it is not yet good) and bad for non touch device.
Desktop = good for non touch device and bad for touch devices.

I hope they give the peeps who like metro to keep the start button off because I really don't like it anymore I mean when I return to windows 7 I think that its just a waste of space and also let me be clear I said "I" not "everyone "

Stardock's next app will be one to remove the Start Button in Win7 and replace it with the hover image that currently exists in Win8.

Mr.mister said,
I hope they give the peeps who like metro to keep the start button off because I really don't like it anymore I mean when I return to windows 7 I think that its just a waste of space and also let me be clear I said "I" not "everyone "
You and I are perfect examples of consumers who like different things about Windows. Which is great! What's troubling was the way Microsoft handled Windows 8. Their take it or leave it approach. This approach has back fired. They can garner more sales and consumer confidence if they can release an update that caters to you and I Mr.mister.

But what about all the fanboys that said it was perfect? Why would they "fix" something that's perfect? Quoting sales figures to ignore millions of unhappy users is ridiculous...but that mentality explains quite a lot.

>>But what about all the fanboys that said it was perfect?
Well, it IS perfect for them. Not perfect for (you?). Different perspective, that is. Again, since we don't have any reliable stats we can't say "millions hate win8" or "millions love win8". What we know is that some people loved the changes and some hated.

That's the spirit! Seriously, it's not "perfect" when such a large number of customers have already made it clear they don't like it, it ceases being "some" and I would think all the negative forum posts, press reports and the fact that almost everyone I personally know including myself all share the same opinion that it's not good along with actual "stats" serve as evidence that they are indeed "unhappy". If you don't already work for Microsoft, you should really think about applying, you already have the proper outlook.

Just curious, but why do people want metro apps on a desktop? Having a single application taking up an entire 22" monitor for example seems really weird to me. I don't understand why anyone would want that. It was called Windows because programs ran in their own window, not giant full screen apps. Just my opinion of course but I just don't see the point of having phone apps on my desktop.

Most don't "want" it. Microsoft took a heavy handed approach on an unpolished product. With a little work, it could have been great for everyone, but they didn't test it well enough or just decided to completely ignore users workflow needs.

This is the same question I asked Dot Matrix above^. I am not understanding this fascination with desktop apps. They are perfect for tablets and phones. I can go to The Netflix website and watch a movie, don't need an app. I can quickly log in to my Banks website(USAA, Navy Federal, Pentagon Federal) and check my accounts, don't need an app. Apps are great for small screens, when going to the World Wide Web is cumbersome. I spent over $2000 on my two 27inch IPS monitors for better multitasking and these apps waste screen space and my time. Some kind soul please explain this fascination with desktop apps, pretty please!

If the Metro app is made well it WILL suit full screen/large screen scenarios. There are a handful of apps I've used that are very nicely set out and content is much more of a focus than in say, a web page.. or a traditional windowed desktop app.

One thing I have noticed that doesn't gel well on Desktop with Metro apps is sideways scrolling. Feels unnatural (i.e. Wikipedia app)

For one thing, there are more screen sizes than "10-inch tablet" and "20+-inch desktop monitor". If I'm on a 13-inch ultrabook, or even a 17-inch laptop, I can definitely appreciate the lack of window chrome, etc.

Skyfrog said,
Just curious, but why do people want metro apps on a desktop? Having a single application taking up an entire 22" monitor for example seems really weird to me. I don't understand why anyone would want that. It was called Windows because programs ran in their own window, not giant full screen apps. Just my opinion of course but I just don't see the point of having phone apps on my desktop.

Desktops? What about mobile devices?

Actually I do have an example where the modern IE is useful on a non-touchscreen system. When modern IE is shown snapped to the side it zooms out to give an overview instead of the typical zoom level. This means that I can refresh it and glance that the site I'm working on does what I was expecting without it obscuring my maximised code window. Similarly when I expand modern IE , the desktop goes into the snapped view and turns into handy icons.

It's hard to explain the improvement without trying it but I can refresh a web page and go straight back to coding without waiting to see if the web page refreshed OK.

Sure it makes me want a touch screen on the laptop but it works well when you start using the Win+. and Win+Shift+. keys.

Yeah Win-"." is one of the more useful but little-known Win8 shortcut keys (even more obscurely, you can double-click on the divider bar for the same effect). I really hope that with the expansion of split-screen options (a good thing) they don't lose the advantages of the current snap view.

Isn't that bottom left corner...essentially the same as a Start Button? Doesn't that button next to the spacebar on the keyboard essentially the same was a Start Button? Isn't that button on the bottom of the bezel of TabletPCs essentially, the START BUTTON? lol. I can sorta, just barely, understand the want for a Start Menu, but a Start Button just baffles me. What Microsoft needs to do is have some tutorial at the beginning, not just that "go to any corner, swipe from any side" crap, but an actual tutorial, maybe using their News app or something that takes like 3 minutes to do. People who get new things like to learn about it usually, so it shouldn't be a big issue.

I can see where you're coming from but also I get the comments where people complain that it's harder to discover without an actual button there.

I actually have my primary desktop on the RIGHT hand side of a dual monitor setup at work, so the corner pixels wouldn't be easy for me to hit easily. I say "would" because I use the Windows key instead like any other actual power user.

Hey Dot, you always comment and state your opinion no matter how many people hate Windows 8 and I respect that. On the other hand, why must Windows 8 have exactly what Windows Phone 8 has? Two different pieces of hardware. Help me understand the fascination of a desktop computer acting like a phone. I don't get it. Who wants to play cut the rope or temple run on a desktop? What's the deal with apps? We already have applications! No?

JHBrown said,
We already have applications! No?

Where did I mention desktops? What about tablets? Why are you ignoring those? I also want the apps and live tiles for my desktop, because I like using them.

I'm posting this right now through Metro IE.

Edited by Dot Matrix, May 13 2013, 10:03am :

Frankly, for Windows 8.1, Microsoft really needs to push app development. They have all these amazing apps for Windows Phone 8, but next to nothing for Windows 8.

The U.S. Win8 store seems to have a ton of popular apps... a lot which are actually available internationally on WinPhone 8... I hope those devs realize that and fix that! I do agree though...

j2006 said,
The U.S. Win8 store seems to have a ton of popular apps... a lot which are actually available internationally on WinPhone 8... I hope those devs realize that and fix that! I do agree though...

from a dev perspective I can see why that is - the WP dev center has about three location choices, IIRC along the lines of US, US minus China, and Worldwide, but the Windows dev center makes you individually pick the countries you are targeting.

Maybe most of us don't miss the Start Button.

But millions, of millions, of millions of Windows users around the world, sadly, yes. Even just for shutdown or restart the computer.

And other million of people doesn't know how to open the Desktop on Metro UI.

That's the point.

Cheers.

Whenever I see this "debate" pop up, the thought that comes to mind is:

Windows '95 called, they want their start menu back.

I do not miss the start menu one bit, it's a relic from a bygone era that outlived its usefulness in today's world. The start button on the other hand I do see one *single* place it could come in handy - Windows Server 2012 (anyone who's used remote desktop in windowed mode to a 2012 server knows what I am talking about here).

There's a Metro App for Remote Desktop that Works great with Touch laptops. But I do agree with you that for Windows Server would help.

Nashy said,
That's funny. Cause I use mine all the time.

I am making an assumption here that you are talking about windowded RDP sessions. What's funny, and what about my suggestion WOULDN'T make your life just a bit easier?

Nashy said,
That's funny. Cause I use mine all the time.

Likely because you are one of those users that always likes to dig under the start menu for programs you use regularly when instead you can pin them and forget about digging into the start menu. Or if you are a power user then learn your shortcut commands to open programs and settings/control panel.

I misunderstood Nashy in my previous reply, obviously.

Point is this, the Start Menu is two decades old and back then it served a purpose. It is irrelevant in today's age with all of the different devices that we use. 20 years from now I doubt any of us will remember what all this fuss was even about.

I gotta wonder if any Mac fans come read these debates to laugh at us all squabbling over something as trivial start menu.

I don't want to pin stuff. It's messy, and I hate it. I want my desktop nice a clean, with a start button that opens a menu, not a cluttered Metro screen.

Windows 7 called, it wants me to tell you about pinning apps to your taskbar and quick search after pressing the start button on your keyboard. Oh it also wanted me to let you know the same things work in Windows 8.

Nashy said,
I don't want to pin stuff. It's messy, and I hate it. I want my desktop nice a clean, with a start button that opens a menu, not a cluttered Metro screen.

You can keep your desktop nice and clean with the metro start menu. The desktop is still there, the start screen just replaced the start menu. Do you leave your start menu open all the time? I know I only ever have it or the start screen open for 2-3 seconds while launching a program.

Thank you.

FYI. I bought it, I used it, I hated it. It really is that simple, just because you like it, doesn't mean everyone does. Judging by the numbers, the majority don't.

Nashy said,
Thank you.

FYI. I bought it, I used it, I hated it. It really is that simple, just because you like it, doesn't mean everyone does. Judging by the numbers, the majority don't.

What numbers? The number of people whining about it online? There's always people whining about every new Windows online.

Nashy said,
Market share.

The one that's steadily increasing?

And how about that 100 million licenses sold to date, the same as Windows 7 at this point in its life?

There is no arguing with people like you. Logic doesn't make sense.

VHMP01 said,
There's a Metro App for Remote Desktop that Works great with Touch laptops. But I do agree with you that for Windows Server would help.

Official or third party? Name for it is...?

Slowly increasing you mean. Has 8 made 4% yet?

You can't use OEM and VLC licences, mate. Don't insult your argument like that. Anyway, why argue, Microsoft obviously think it's going great to back pedal on never having the start button back.

brent3000 said,
I still don't see the big need for a start button or the boot to desktop mode...

Hey if it stops the irrational hating then whatever. It's not like it takes a long time to put an icon on the taskbar or to have it automatically boot to the desktop. People who aren't irrational know it's not a big deal but some people are just a little crazy.

Boot to desktop already exists, it's called installing Windows 7 The start button might be good to have as default for your average user transitioning from 7 to 8 but if it IS there by default I will be disabling it as I've been thriving without a start button since September 2011 (or something like that, lol)

God I hope they don't bring back the ****ty old start menu. I haven't clicked All Programs in about 5 years. Bunch of idiots who don't know how to use quick search. Click start, type what you want, done. Windows 8 doesn't behave any differently.

If Microsoft bring back the start button it had better just launch the improved start screen.

Only "idiots" call other people idiots just because they want choice. You are actually accepting Microsofts "walled" in approach to their next generation OS, if that's what you call it. People hate Apple? It's exactly what Microsoft is doing now.

JHBrown said,
Only "idiots" call other people idiots just because they want choice. You are actually accepting Microsofts "walled" in approach to their next generation OS, if that's what you call it. People hate Apple? It's exactly what Microsoft is doing now.

No it's not... You can still install whatever you want... It is completely different.

And there's a difference between wanting choice and NOT wanting change... This is the latter, not the former.

JHBrown said,
Only "idiots" call other people idiots just because they want choice. You are actually accepting Microsofts "walled" in approach to their next generation OS, if that's what you call it. People hate Apple? It's exactly what Microsoft is doing now.

I use the same search function in Windows 7. Imo it is much faster than going to the full screen start screen and searching for an item that is grouped into different categories.

Everyone should remember that it is gonna be a "start button" not a "start menu". It will take you to the metro screen, not the old windows 7 start menu.

Microsoft, listen carefully: WE DO NOT WANT Metro apps and WE DO NOT WANT START SCREEN. Admit you'd screwed up W8 and fix it before it's too late.

lexp said,
Microsoft, listen carefully: WE DO NOT WANT Metro apps and WE DO NOT WANT START SCREEN. Admit you'd screwed up W8 and fix it before it's too late.

Who is this "we"?

Well, sorry, "We", but I do want Metro apps, and the Metro Start Screen. Thanks. It's far more functional, and more eloquent than that old waste of corner space.

lexp said,
Microsoft, listen carefully: WE DO NOT WANT Metro apps and WE DO NOT WANT START SCREEN. Admit you'd screwed up W8 and fix it before it's too late.

Just don't use the metro apps on a desktop. What is everyone always complaining about? That the start screen is full screen for all of 2-3 seconds while you're using it to launch a program?

mrp04 said,

Just don't use the metro apps on a desktop. What is everyone always complaining about? That the start screen is full screen for all of 2-3 seconds while you're using it to launch a program?


Agreed. It's really ridiculous. You don't want to use the modern apps, then don't. Problem solved...

lexp said,
"We" are those people who do not want metro apps and a start screen. And I reckon we're in a majority.

Far from it. 100 million Windows 8 licences to 12.4 million alternative softwares. That's not even close to being a majority.

lexp said,
Microsoft, listen carefully: WE DO NOT WANT Metro apps and WE DO NOT WANT START SCREEN. Admit you'd screwed up W8 and fix it before it's too late.

You

lexp said,
"We" are those people who do not want metro apps and a start screen. And I reckon we're in a majority.

It's not a majority... it's the same old tech bloggies that hide behind their screens whining all the time, not accepting of change or don't understand you don't have to use them. Consumers and productivity enthuisiants love them... have you ever gone to your local best buy for example and see how others react? Every time all I hear is wow this is cool... beautiful.. fast... fun!... which is why there is demand for more apps. Get your facts straight silly.

M_Lyons10 said,

Agreed. It's really ridiculous. You don't want to use the modern apps, then don't. Problem solved...

and if you don't want to use the start menu then don't use it, let the people that want it have it back.

Superboy said,

and if you don't want to use the start menu then don't use it, let the people that want it have it back.

I honestly don't care if they put it back in. But they're not doing that. This article says the BUTTON is back, not the MENU.

We don't like Windows 8 BECAUSE the start menu is gone. We like it because it's a better OS.

Dot Matrix said,

Far from it. 100 million Windows 8 licences to 12.4 million alternative softwares. That's not even close to being a majority.

You like being delusional then so be it. But it does not change the mere fact acknowledged by people having more knowledge on this issue. Windows 8 is a flop product and no matter how much Metro fan boys claim otherwise and keep repeating marketing 100 million magic number it does not change the fact that Metro is crap. Personally I don't hate windows 8 as I am using it for myself but I don't like Metro as have to use Startisback to get back the functionality which I am looking for. Without that neat little program I would be still on Windows 7.

Auditor said,

You like being delusional then so be it. But it does not change the mere fact acknowledged by people having more knowledge on this issue. Windows 8 is a flop product and no matter how much Metro fan boys claim otherwise and keep repeating marketing 100 million magic number it does not change the fact that Metro is crap. Personally I don't hate windows 8 as I am using it for myself but I don't like Metro as have to use Startisback to get back the functionality which I am looking for. Without that neat little program I would be still on Windows 7.

Opinion != fact.

Auditor said,
Thats true in a similar manner 100 million license sold != 100 million users currently running windows 8.

Same thing with Windows 7 at this point in its life. They're measuring licenses the same for Windows 7 and Windows 8. They're sold pretty much the same in this amount of time. You can twist it however you want.

Microsoft is heading the in right direction for its desktop users, not to say Windows 8 isn't! I hope they will add an option to size down the start screen so it will be within the desktop. I also hope they will add a standalone shutdown/logoff/sleep option button in the charms and in the start screen. I think an icon in task bar to launch the charms bar would be nice too. I think Windows 8 is an improvement over previous Windows, but Microsoft went a little quick improving it!

Thank you for the mature and constructive comments. Tired of all these people throwing a tantrum and overreacting to the littlest of things and most of all not open to change nor truly understanding the direction Microsoft is trying to go for in their overall vision.

j2006 said,
Thank you for the mature and constructive comments. Tired of all these people throwing a tantrum and overreacting to the littlest of things and most of all not open to change nor truly understanding the direction Microsoft is trying to go for in their overall vision.

Dude - even when people post mature, constructive comments explaining why it is they don't like the way Windows 8 works, they're shot down by the immature trolls, dismissing them as whiners... or being backwards... or unable to adapt to change. You make out as if the folks who are embracing Windows 8 are somehow forward thinking visionaries and that those of us who dislike it are cave dwelling luddites.

I've already explained my reasons for disliking Windows 8 - and I think have been fair, and rational about it. I am open to change, I do understand the direction Microsoft are trying to go in... but I think they've done a rotten job of doing it thus far.

techbeck said,
Interested in the start screen face lift.

Yeah, that's an odd one there. I really don't expect anything that extreme. Just the current design maturing... Though I am hoping for more options for organizing my programs...

M_Lyons10 said,

Yeah, that's an odd one there. I really don't expect anything that extreme. Just the current design maturing... Though I am hoping for more options for organizing my programs...

My guess is that the statement refers to the ability to change the size of the tiles, which would be indeed be a new feature introduced by 8.1.

I'm really looking forward to 8.1, but I'm one of the FEW people who likes Windows 8 on a Desktop machine. I think the Start screen is a worthy successor to the old Menu and the explorer tweaks and increased speed make it a step forward from Windows 7.

I recently bought the vivotab smart so I could delve into Windows 8 on a tablet and it is actually pretty great I have to admit.

Honestly I love it on my desktop and know others who like it as well, and them not being anywhere as capable with computers as I am. I'm thinking if one of my monitors in my triple setup go out I might replace one with a touch screen. I would love it if you could tell the start screen to appear on a non-primary screen by default even after a restart as I wouldn't want the touch to be my primary monitor.

I think they are further fixing the metro side of things for multi-monitor setups. I only use one myself but I have friends with 2 or more that bitch about Metro multi-monitor support and I have no rebuttal.

I think for the desktop, a touchpad peripheral or touch mouse with Win8 gestures would be better than one of the monitors being touch screen, but that's mostly a guess.

Just so you guys know a start button is different than a start menu, the start menu will not be returning. They may add a start button that will take you to the modern start page. Also they probably will add an option at install if you want to boot to desktop instead of the start page.

brent3000 said,
Theres already this in the bottom left corner, just some uses don't seem to move their mouse far enough to get to it...

Have you ever tried to hit the "invisible" spot using the pen of a Tablet PC? It is not easy at all and therefore, while I do not particularly care for the start screen, I am looking for the reintroduction of the start button because it would be ver useful.

Fritzly said,

Have you ever tried to hit the "invisible" spot using the pen of a Tablet PC? It is not easy at all and therefore, while I do not particularly care for the start screen, I am looking for the reintroduction of the start button because it would be ver useful.


Why are you using the hot corners on a tablet? Swipe in from any edge. Learn2computer.

NyaR said,
It is very different. Press start, type "Contr", and hit enter. Are you at control panel? I am.

Right click on the bottom left hot corner

But as Mat said, works the same as any other start button

Fritzly said,

Have you ever tried to hit the "invisible" spot using the pen of a Tablet PC? It is not easy at all and therefore, while I do not particularly care for the start screen, I am looking for the reintroduction of the start button because it would be ver useful.


On my Surface and ThinkTablet2 I have theres a big button on the device, don't know why that would not be more appealing to use over a section on the screen

siah1214 said,

Why are you using the hot corners on a tablet? Swipe in from any edge. Learn2computer.

Contrary to what some people think not all Tablets have a Touch screen. It is important to think before speaking....

brent3000 said,

On my Surface and ThinkTablet2 I have theres a big button on the device, don't know why that would not be more appealing to use over a section on the screen

I fell in love with the concept of the " Tablet" in 2002 because I can handwrite with it. Drop the pen and push a button when I could, having the "start" button visible, just hit a specific point is easier and more fluid.

Fritzly said,

Contrary to what some people think not all Tablets have a Touch screen. It is important to think before speaking....

you (or at least I) can swipe in from the left with a stylus on Windows 8 to open the Charms bar

Fritzly said,

Have you ever tried to hit the "invisible" spot using the pen of a Tablet PC? It is not easy at all and therefore, while I do not particularly care for the start screen, I am looking for the reintroduction of the start button because it would be ver useful.

1) You flick out the Charms bar on the right side with your thumb and hit the Start button.

2) All tablets also have a physical Start button on them.

We don't need another Start button! Even for desktop users, adding a Start button is totally pointless and wastes taskbar space, as it will work exactly like it does now with the hot corner. I just hope it's optional in 8.1 and it's not enabled by default.

Matthew_Thepc said,

you (or at least I) can swipe in from the left with a stylus on Windows 8 to open the Charms bar

I can as well but simply hitting a button is easier and faster.... at least for me.

Fritzly said,

Contrary to what some people think not all Tablets have a Touch screen. It is important to think before speaking....

Isnt that called a monitor?
Im curious, can you enlighten me on the device you have?

Win+W
Mouse

Just so you know 8.1 is to fix this split between Files, Settings and Apps which is great...

But until then hot keys away

brent3000 said,
Isnt that called a monitor?

Braindead much? He's obviously having a convertible without a touchscreen, you know those things that have been pushed by Microsoft since 2001…

brent3000 said,

Isnt that called a monitor?
Im curious, can you enlighten me on the device you have?

no it's called a RF digitizer... what MS has used in tablets since 2001 has no touch capabilities but has RF stylus capabilities

Fritzly said,

I can as well but simply hitting a button is easier and faster.... at least for me.

Does your tablet have a Windows button??? That might solve your problem. That's one big reason why they don't have a start button on the task bar now, because it would be redundant for every device that had a physical button instead.

W32.Backdoor.KillAV.E said,

1) You flick out the Charms bar on the right side with your thumb and hit the Start button.

2) All tablets also have a physical Start button on them.

We don't need another Start button! Even for desktop users, adding a Start button is totally pointless and wastes taskbar space, as it will work exactly like it does now with the hot corner. I just hope it's optional in 8.1 and it's not enabled by default.

Charm: As I stated below I do not see the advantage to follow the procedure you described instead of just clicking a button.
Start button: I am not the Kali, I have two hands and if the left one hold the Tablet and the right one hold the pen in order to hit the physical button I would have to either place the Tablet somewhere or drop the pen, push the button and pick up the pen again.
Finally I have no problem if you say " I do not need the start button" but avoid using the "We" unless you refer to yourself using the majestic plural. We are all entitled to post our opinion but not to claim we speak on behalf of everybody else.

brent3000 said,

Isnt that called a monitor?
Im curious, can you enlighten me on the device you have?

No, it is not:
Toshiba Portege' M400
Lenovo ThinkPad x230 with outdoor readable screen hence no touch capability

The Lenovo Helix I ordered will be my first Tablet with touch.

Fritzly said,

Start button: I am not the Kali, I have two hands and if the left one hold the Tablet and the right one hold the pen in order to hit the physical button I would have to either place the Tablet somewhere or drop the pen, push the button and pick up the pen again.

It takes all five fingers to hold a pen? It makes sense to use two fingers to hold the pen and then with either of your last three fingers, press the button.

Pluto is a Planet said,

It takes all five fingers to hold a pen? It makes sense to use two fingers to hold the pen and then with either of your last three fingers, press the button.

Personally I use three fingers to hold a pen, besides for me hitting a non-hidden button on the taskbar is simpler and more natural but If you are so obsessed with the start button you are free to do it your way...... "To each his own"

NyaR said,

Bad example I said without testing.

Try "Mouse"

Without start button you've gotta navigate to settings before pressing enter which breaks workflow.


Yeah, I just had to post that since you obviously didn't test it

But I do agree with your point - the decision to separate settings and apps is one of the few things I don't like about Windows 8

Fritzly said,

Personally I use three fingers to hold a pen, besides for me hitting a non-hidden button on the taskbar is simpler and more natural but If you are so obsessed with the start button you are free to do it your way...... "To each his own"

I'm obsessed with a physical start button what lol? I guess to me my own!

Pluto is a Planet said,

I'm obsessed with a physical start button what lol? I guess to me my own!

Not a physical one, the "invisible one" that it seems will be reintroduced as an option.
But indeed similis cum similibus...

Start Button (that functions like the traditional Start button in previous Windows versions) and a boot-to-desktop option. That's all you need to do Microsoft, aside form improvements to performance and compatibility...

I would like when you open the start screen, you could see the desktop as well while looking at it (desktop users). So the metro tiles would be over the desktop and when an metro app is launched, the regular metro background appears. However, for tablet users, the metro mono-color background would be there all the time.

Elessar said,
Start Button (that functions like the traditional Start button in previous Windows versions) and a boot-to-desktop option. That's all you need to do Microsoft, aside form improvements to performance and compatibility...
While leaving the option for it to remain as it is today of course.

Elessar said,
Start Button (that functions like the traditional Start button in previous Windows versions) and a boot-to-desktop option. That's all you need to do Microsoft, aside form improvements to performance and compatibility...

The start menu isn't coming back, only the little windows icon in the bottom left corner. You can already click in the bottom left corner to bring up the start screen. That's all this button will do.

You can get "All Programs" by creating a Menu Bar directed to:

C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs

Get over it, all your legacy programs straight from the Menu! And Boot to desktop:

C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\StartUp\calc.exe

Simple!

To each their own, but I simply find the traditional Start menu to be far more useful than what Windows 8 currently has. Thankfully I have Start8 if MS doesn't truly bring the Start menu back in 8.1.

Edited by Eric, May 13 2013, 11:40am :

zeke009 said,
While leaving the option for it to remain as it is today of course.

Funny. This was the EXACT same thing that many of us asked for when Win8 came out.
Remember the abuse we got for asking for this "option"?

"Live with it"
"Stick with Win7"

Elessar said,
To each their own, but I simply find the traditional Start menu to be far more useful than what Windows 8 currently has. Thankfully I have Start8 if MS doesn't truly bring the Start menu back in 8.1.

That's exactly how I feel.

JHBrown said,
Almost Microsoft! Still not enough for me to turn people away back to 7.

and whats your reason for speaking for the rest of the world ?

j2006 said,
.... I don't get why people like you comment.
Same reason I don't get why people like you waste time replying to people like me. What a dilemma!

JHBrown said,
Still not enough for me to turn people away back to 7.

What's it to you? If YOU don't like win 8 and don't want to use it, doesn't mean others shouldn't too.

Let each person decide for him/herself.

j2006 said,
.... I don't get why people like you comment.

I don't see an option to dislike your comment otherwise you would have gotten one.

Lackluster sales numbers and your reference is an article from 2012 even though your own editorial posted that it is selling on par with Windows 7?

Wow, biased much? Try to at least attempt to prove it next time...

dagamer34 said,
Windows 8 has sold as many licenses as Windows 7 at the same point in time.

Key word is "sold". Not sure if phones are considered in that figure, but all the Surface tablets that are loaded with it are counted in that figure. And we all know how well those are flying off the shelves. A "sale" doesn't mean people are using it, which considering the adoption rate, isn't anything to get too excited about.

Astra.Xtreme said,

Key word is "sold". Not sure if phones are considered in that figure, but all the Surface tablets that are loaded with it are counted in that figure. And we all know how well those are flying off the shelves. A "sale" doesn't mean people are using it, which considering the adoption rate, isn't anything to get too excited about.

Phones? Are you crazy? There are no phones running Windows 8... of course phones aren't included.

And as for "sales", it was the same with Windows 7. Same accounting procedures. Same PCs potentially not sold but just sitting on shelves.

rfirth said,

Phones? Are you crazy? There are no phones running Windows 8... of course phones aren't included.

And as for "sales", it was the same with Windows 7. Same accounting procedures. Same PCs potentially not sold but just sitting on shelves.

Windows Phone 8 is a version of Windows 8....

And please read what I said... A sale means nothing until a customer buys the product and uses it. A huge chunk of them are licenses sold to OEMs and are literally sitting on shelves. 8 has a crappy adoption rate. 7 had no such problem.

Astra.Xtreme said,

Windows Phone 8 is a version of Windows 8....

And please read what I said... A sale means nothing until a customer buys the product and uses it. A huge chunk of them are licenses sold to OEMs and are literally sitting on shelves. 8 has a crappy adoption rate. 7 had no such problem.


No it's not... Using the same kernal != The desktop OS on a phone. Nor does Microsoft (or anyone else) bundle the sales of Windows and Windows Phone as a single sales figure.

Second, you say that Windows 8 is sitting on shelves while Windows 7 did not have that problem, however the sales figures show Windows 8 selling on pare with Windows 7 in the same time frame. The same sales AND accounting procedures were used to calculate sales for both products, so your assertion makes no sense.

dagamer34 said,
Windows 8 has sold as many licenses as Windows 7 at the same point in time.

so basically people have bought computers that came with Windows 8 and hated it so much that microsoft had to bring back the start menu? How did they manage to miss that in their market research?

Astra.Xtreme said,

And please read what I said... A sale means nothing until a customer buys the product and uses it. A huge chunk of them are licenses sold to OEMs and are literally sitting on shelves. 8 has a crappy adoption rate. 7 had no such problem.

you're full of ****. usage share shows the majority of these licenses are in use.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-weekly-201314-201319

and theres so much wrong in your statements, its comical. you don't even know what adoption rate means.

CJ33 said,

so basically people have bought computers that came with Windows 8 and hated it so much that microsoft had to bring back the start menu? How did they manage to miss that in their market research?

I didn't know that bringing back the start button as optional also brought back the start menu...since the start button will just launch the start screen.

Astra.Xtreme said,

Key word is "sold". Not sure if phones are considered in that figure, but all the Surface tablets that are loaded with it are counted in that figure. And we all know how well those are flying off the shelves. A "sale" doesn't mean people are using it, which considering the adoption rate, isn't anything to get too excited about.

comparing apples to apples, this is the same "sold" figures for win 7, and is an indication of demand from OEMs

CJ33 said,

so basically people have bought computers that came with Windows 8 and hated it so much that microsoft had to bring back the start menu? How did they manage to miss that in their market research?

Start button is just a bitmap in the corner, its hardly a major change its being made out to be ..................

cetla said,
So many will be disappointed that the Start button will get to the Start screen

not really not at all in fact the start screen is like a new start menu but people all over the world do not have surface tablets so they want a start button

vcfan said,

you're full of ****. usage share shows the majority of these licenses are in use.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-weekly-201314-201319

and theres so much wrong in your statements, its comical. you don't even know what adoption rate means.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-weekly-201014-201019

Same period, same amount of time after Windows 7 was released, over twice the percentage in adoption, almost 3x.

Doesn't seem like he was full of **** to me, licenses sold are as high as Windows 7 maybe, but adoption is still low.

FISKER_Q said,

http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-weekly-201014-201019

Same period, same amount of time after Windows 7 was released, over twice the percentage in adoption, almost 3x.

Doesn't seem like he was full of **** to me, licenses sold are as high as Windows 7 maybe, but adoption is still low.


not saying your argument is wrong, but wouldn't you have to factor in how many more PCs there are, and Windows tablet sales (idk if they're counted in the chart you linked)?

Matthew_Thepc said,

not saying your argument is wrong, but wouldn't you have to factor in how many more PCs there are, and Windows tablet sales (idk if they're counted in the chart you linked)?

Yep, that is correct.

That does, of course, also impact the Windows 8 vs. Windows 7 sales figures, as they should've sold more to compensate for new PC's, anyway I'm not sure what the exact figures are, but I'm sure it hasn't doubled since Windows 7 was out.

Anyone with the numbers are more than welcome to adjust the percentages i showed.

rfirth said,
Phones? Are you crazy? There are no phones running Windows 8... of course phones aren't included.

Say what? - WMP8 is Windows 8 NT kernel and all! There were even some screenshots earlier in its development of when WMP8 crashed, and asking the user to insert the "Windows installation disc and restart their "computer.""

Astra.Xtreme said,

Windows Phone 8 is a version of Windows 8....

you win the stupid comment of the day award! Windows phone 8 is not windows 8. That's like saying apple includes sales of ios devices in their Mac OS sales reports

dvb2000 said,

Say what? - WMP8 is Windows 8 NT kernel and all! There were even some screenshots earlier in its development of when WMP8 crashed, and asking the user to insert the "Windows installation disc and restart their "computer.""


sorry but your completely looking at this wrong, sharing the kernel does not make it a version of windows 8, if so embedded and server would be included.

windows 8 is windows 8
WP8 is WP8
Server 2012 is Server 2012
Windows embedded 8 is windows embedded 8
next xbox is next xbox

all share same base kernel

Actually W8 and WP8 share more than the kernel. Have a look at the Windows Phone Runtime and compare it to the WinRT. The WinPhoneRT contains a subset of WinRT…

MFH said,
Actually W8 and WP8 share more than the kernel. Have a look at the Windows Phone Runtime and compare it to the WinRT. The WinPhoneRT contains a subset of WinRT…

that may well be the case, but that wasn't my point. My point was sharing some core features does not blur the product lines, which is what i was responding to, someone saying they think wp8 sales numbers are included in w8 sales numbers, which is bat **** crazy!

FISKER_Q said,

http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-weekly-201014-201019

Same period, same amount of time after Windows 7 was released, over twice the percentage in adoption, almost 3x.

Doesn't seem like he was full of **** to me, licenses sold are as high as Windows 7 maybe, but adoption is still low.

you guys are pathetic.you don't even understand what you read. I never said anything about adoption rate,i am only talking about the licenses sold and the usage of such licenses. that's what I called him out for.

and about adoption rate, macOS has higher adoption rate than even windows 7. what does this mean? **** all

vcfan said,

you guys are pathetic.you don't even understand what you read. I never said anything about adoption rate,i am only talking about the licenses sold and the usage of such licenses. that's what I called him out for.

and about adoption rate, macOS has higher adoption rate than even windows 7. what does this mean? **** all


Thanks for the unnecessary insult, but Adoption rate != Adoption. I'm talking about adoption, which is similar to usage.

His argument was that copies were sold, but not used. You tried to contradict with some statistics, but they don't support your claim as i have shown by comparing it to Windows 7 usage in the same period.

vcfan said,

you guys are pathetic.you don't even understand what you read. I never said anything about adoption rate,i am only talking about the licenses sold and the usage of such licenses. that's what I called him out for.

and about adoption rate, macOS has higher adoption rate than even windows 7. what does this mean? **** all

Wow, calm down...
You clearly don't understand what adoption rate is...

Astra.Xtreme said,

Windows Phone 8 is a version of Windows 8....

And please read what I said... A sale means nothing until a customer buys the product and uses it. A huge chunk of them are licenses sold to OEMs and are literally sitting on shelves. 8 has a crappy adoption rate. 7 had no such problem.


Windows Phone 8 is not a version of Windows 8 in any way. They're entirely different operating systems.

Anthony Tosie said,

Windows Phone 8 is not a version of Windows 8 in any way. They're entirely different operating systems.

Yes, we know... About 20 people have already voiced their opinions on that.

The kernel is still the same though...

FISKER_Q said,

Thanks for the unnecessary insult, but Adoption rate != Adoption. I'm talking about adoption, which is similar to usage.

Similar, but not the same. You know this, as you have demonstrated in your post here: http://www.neowin.net/news/sta...iders-claim#comment-2197089

You are playing very fast and loose with these numbers and terms, so much so that your conclusions are virtually meaningless. You say "adoption, which is similar to usage" which is true, but different in a very important way: the first is a percentage of the total market and the other is a figure in absolute users. I know you know this difference, and yet you proceed to draw conclusions despite the fact that you admit you don't know how the market has changed since 2009. If you don't have more data, what you say is simply conclusory and should be discounted as such.

This leads to another important distinction you fail to make: you say these are compared over the same period but they are not. They are compared over the same period three years removed. If you're going to compare adoption %, you can't make a direct comparison across time without first normalizing the data to account for externalities, i.e. change in market size. When you have a percent of something, and the size of that something is unknown, a direct comparison of the percentages is meaningless!

Case in point: Microsoft sold Windows 7 licenses at a virtually constant rate from 2009 through 2012. However, if you look at the statcounter data you posted, Windows 7's adoption rate is not linear. In fact it slows over time. In fact, this is precisely what you would expect if the market size is growing, yet the sales rate stays constant.

Initially, Windows 7 was growing at .07% points per day in 2009. By the end of 2012, it was growing at .026% points per day. This is despite the fact Microsoft was selling Windows 7 licenses at an average of 20.15M + -2.37M units per month through 2012. If the market wasn't growing fast enough to affect this rate, then the adoption rate would have stayed linear!. That is to say, every time Microsoft sold an additional 20M units, they saw diminishing returns in the % of adoption.

Now let's look at Windows 8. Microsoft is selling licenses at the same rate as they were Windows 7 licenses. Now let's look at the adoption %... growing at 0.24% per day, the same rate statistically as Windows 7 was growing in Oct 2012. And now, on top of the growth in PCs Microsoft is feuling themselves, statconter added to the market tablets as well. So again, each time Microsoft sells 20M units, they'll see an even more diminished return than with Windows 7, because Apple and Android grew the market by X million tablets as well.

This is the closest comparison to Windows 7 we can get and yet no one is making it because it yields a favourable conclusion for Windows 8. Instead, you and others are comparing apples to oranges by looking 3 and 6 years into the past and doing a straight x>y comparison without normalizing or any other considerations as to how the data was manipulated or collected. Sure this fits your world view, but you're demonstrating a lack of even high school-level knowledge of statistics by doing so.

Edited by ModernMech, May 13 2013, 5:29pm :

FISKER_Q said,

Thanks for the unnecessary insult, but Adoption rate != Adoption. I'm talking about adoption, which is similar to usage.

His argument was that copies were sold, but not used. You tried to contradict with some statistics, but they don't support your claim as i have shown by comparing it to Windows 7 usage in the same period.

it is absolutely useless to try to make someone like you acknowledge the truth,because you will keep repeating the same tired arguments that hold no weight. this is the last time I will explain it to you. it doesn't matter what percentage windows 7 had at that time. it doesn't say how many users that is, unless you have other evidence that helps determining such usage.

now look at the recent stats. Ipad for example, has sold close to 150 million units. Windows 8 usage beats ipad usage by roughly 20%. Even if half of those ipads are out of commission, that leaves 75 million in use. Add the windows 8 numbers,and you have your close to 100 million.

there are also between 100 and 200 million mac users, accoding to forbes, and windows 8 usage is close to eclipsing that macOS userbase number.

but lets not use logic,and instead use vague percentages to try to twist the truth to make us feel better about our choices in platforms.

sales numbers are not down, and neither is usage.

Astra.Xtreme said,

Yes, we know... About 20 people have already voiced their opinions on that.

The kernel is still the same though...


It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Having the same kernel doesn't mean it's the same operating system, much like having the same engine doesn't make two different brands and models of cars the same.

ModernMech said,

Sure this fits your world view, but you're demonstrating a lack of even high school-level knowledge of statistics by doing so.

That's quite hilarious since your "statistics" are un-backed with proof and are basically wrong...

Here are the actual facts:

Win 7 was released on Oct 22, 2009.
By May 2010, it had a market share of roughly 13%.
By Dec 2010, it had a market share of roughly 22%
Source: http://www.netmarketshare.com/...mp;qpnp=2&qptimeframe=Y

Win 8 was released on Oct 26, 2012.
By May 2013, it had a market share of roughly 3-4%.
By Dec 2013, if it continues on a linear trend, it might hit 7-8%. It's very doubtful 8.1 will have a severe impact.
Source: http://www.netmarketshare.com/...mp;qpnp=2&qptimeframe=Y

Make all the excuses you want, but the adoption rate between 7 and 8 is HUGE. And this is why there is a HUGE difference between sales and usage. A company can bombard as much of their crap as they want into a market, but it means nothing until people actually use it. Sure this fits your world view, but you're demonstrating a lack of even high school-level logic by doing so.

Astra.Xtreme said,
That's quite hilarious since your "statistics" are un-backed with proof and are basically wrong...

Apparently you didn't actually read anything I wrote. If you want to refute my points, at least try to understand them, since you go right on ahead and compare numbers from 2010 and 2013 directly without any comprehension of what you are comparing. This is the very definition of comparing apples to oranges. Let's take a look at how this actually works, since you don't seem to understand:

Here are two simulated markets, changing over time.
http://i.imgur.com/NDHFRup.png

In the first, 100% of sales are added to the total market size, with zero conversion from the competition. Here you see even if all of the sales you make get into the hands of users adoption rates will still go down. By your logic, you would say the product is selling worse in period 7 than in period 1, even though it is selling at the same rate.

In the second market, the market size is not growing but the new competitor is stealing 100% of its share from the competition. Here the best you can expect is constant adoption rate. With these bounds it is clear that no matter what Microsoft does, in a real market adoption rate is guaranteed to go down over time if they sell at a constant rate. The only way they can change this is by selling at a higher rate or the market shrinking.

As for not backing up my claims, I provided actual data from Statcounter and Microsoft in my post, which supports my conclusion. But if you want to go by Net Applications usage, let's go ahead:

Windows 7 adoption rate Nov 09 - Apr 10: 1.6% points per month
Windows 7 adoption rate May 12 - Oct 12: 0.8% points per month

So Microsoft sold Windows 7 at a constant rate, yet its adoption rate was cut in half by 2012. This is exactly the case I pointed to above where most conversions came from new units. In fact it looks like a 25% conversion rate to already sold PCs, which makes sense (most people buy Windows on a new PC than an upgrade). This is not a case of saturation, because its not installed on even 50% of PCs according to Net Applications. No, it is a case of diminishing returns and selling at a constant rate in a market with an installed overhead.

So how is Windows 8 doing?

Windows 8 adoption rate Oct 12 - Apr 13: 0.6% points per month. Again, taking into account statistical noise (and the fact Net Applications weights the data from their small network with outdated usage data from 2009), there's not too much distinction between these two rates.

ModernMech said,

Apparently you didn't actually read anything I wrote. If you want to refute my points, at least try to understand them, since you go right on ahead and compare numbers from 2010 and 2013 directly without any comprehension of what you are comparing.

Ummm what are you talking about? We are both comparing adoption rates and the only difference here is that you are making excuses for the gaps that you clearly don't understand the magnitude of...

ModernMech said,

Again, taking into account statistical noise (and the fact Net Applications weights the data from their small network with outdated usage data from 2009), there's not too much distinction between these two rates.

Statistical noise? Seriously?
That 1% difference per month is HUGE. Do you realize how many PCs that equates too? If you think that "noise" accounts for the millions and millions of PCs that this percentage refers to, then you are seriously delusional...

Ummm what are you talking about? We are both comparing adoption rates

I am comparing adoption rates from 2012 to adoption rates from 2012. You are comparing adoption rates from 2009 to adoption rates to 2012. If you don't understand why what you are doing is completely wrong after illustrating it with real world data from statcounter, net applications, Microsoft, and a simulated market then there's no hope for you.

That 1% difference per month is HUGE.

Again, I'm not interested in your comparisons from 2009 to 2012. They are completely invalid in drawing the conclusions you're trying to draw. A rate difference of .8% and .6% is virtually meaningless without knowing more from Net Applications. They massage their data significantly with country-level weighting, which has a drastic effect on error bars. Coincidentally, these are not reported.

You have a habit of saying I'm wrong without actually contradicting me. The analysis you link to is the same analysis I did with statcounter data. There is no difference other than the dataset used, which is an arbitrary choice. Your link does not disprove me, it's just another data, no more wrong or right than the one I provided.

Nonetheless, again, we do not know how large the errors on the data actually are. With the amount of post-processing Net applications does (far more than statcounter) to compensate for their relatively small ad network, I wouldn't be surprised if it's +- 2%

vcfan said,

you guys are pathetic.you don't even understand what you read. I never said anything about adoption rate

And yet mysteriously I find this little gem that you posted previously in the same thread:

"its comical. you don't even know what adoption rate means" - vcfan

ModernMech said,

Here is one more for you. Microsoft recently estimated

You do realize that the moment you enter into an argument about windows 8 by starting it off with "Microsoft recently estimated" that you have automatically lost your argument, right?

I mean seriously...

Order_66 said,

You do realize that the moment you enter into an argument about windows 8 by starting it off with "Microsoft recently estimated" that you have automatically lost your argument, right?

2B PCs have been sold since 2007, 90+% of which run a Windows OS. That's in just the last 6 years. 1.4B seems like a lowball estimate to me. Want to come back with some other estimate, and I'll be happy to use those.

ModernMech said,

I am comparing adoption rates from 2012 to adoption rates from 2012. You are comparing adoption rates from 2009 to adoption rates to 2012. If you don't understand why what you are doing is completely wrong after illustrating it with real world data from statcounter, net applications, Microsoft, and a simulated market then there's no hope for you.

You clearly don't understand the context. Comparing 2012 to 2012? That doesn't even make sense. The discussion is comparing 7 to 8, so the only way to do that is by looking at the adoption spanning from the first few months of each. Yes there is a margin of error due to the number of total PCs on the market, but it's not that huge of a difference. Certainly not to account for the 1% per month difference in adoption rates.

ModernMech said,

Again, I'm not interested in your comparisons from 2009 to 2012. They are completely invalid in drawing the conclusions you're trying to draw. A rate difference of .8% and .6% is virtually meaningless without knowing more from Net Applications. They massage their data significantly with country-level weighting, which has a drastic effect on error bars. Coincidentally, these are not reported.

No, that is the only correct way to make the comparison... Plus Statcounter has similar numbers, so we can pretty reliably say the numbers are as good as we can get. You saying otherwise is not statistically backed and is simply your opinion, which weighs of no value to us.

ModernMech said,

You have a habit of saying I'm wrong without actually contradicting me. The analysis you link to is the same analysis I did with statcounter data. There is no difference other than the dataset used, which is an arbitrary choice. Your link does not disprove me, it's just another data, no more wrong or right than the one I provided.

The data I sourced to absolutely proves you wrong. None of your explanations can account for that 1% gap... I gave physical data and you're simply saying "nope" and not proving anything.

ModernMech said,

Nonetheless, again, we do not know how large the errors on the data actually are. With the amount of post-processing Net applications does (far more than statcounter) to compensate for their relatively small ad network, I wouldn't be surprised if it's +- 2%

Both sources have similar data...
Again, you don't seem to understand the magnitude these percentages correlate with...

hahaha what a joke. its total bull****. its deliberate bull****. statcounter doesn't just track windows, they track other platforms too,and this moron is using wrong information for his calculations.

1 week ago Microsoft stated windows 8 sold 100 million licenses

1 week ago, statcounter had windows 8 at 5.23%

BUT statcounter is not just counting windows. they are counting mac, ipad, android and Linux.

mac OS has 7.15%
ios has 3.82
Linux 1.28
android 1.2

all these other platforms have close to 14%,therefore windows take 86% of the cake. if 86% represents 1.4 billion windows devices, then in total,statcounter is tracking 1.67 billion devices. 5.23% of 1.67 billion devices is 85 million. I consider that most of those licenses in use.

just stop, please. this idiot tried to go there and thought he was being smart, in the end he proved the opposite of what he was trying to prove.

I should add, if you use the figure modernmech posted, the average in the last 7 days at 6% for windows 8, guess what, it ends up showing as 100M, I am not ****ting you.

vcfan said,
I should add, if you use the figure modernmech posted, the average in the last 7 days at 6% for windows 8, guess what, it ends up showing as 100M, I am not ****ting you.

So its market share jumped almost 1% in the duration of a week? We all know that's complete BS...

vcfan said,

hahaha what a joke. its total bull****. its deliberate bull****. statcounter doesn't just track windows, they track other platforms too,and this moron is using wrong information for his calculations.

1 week ago Microsoft stated windows 8 sold 100 million licenses

1 week ago, statcounter had windows 8 at 5.23%

BUT statcounter is not just counting windows. they are counting mac, ipad, android and Linux.

mac OS has 7.15%
ios has 3.82
Linux 1.28
android 1.2

all these other platforms have close to 14%,therefore windows take 86% of the cake. if 86% represents 1.4 billion windows devices, then in total,statcounter is tracking 1.67 billion devices. 5.23% of 1.67 billion devices is 85 million. I consider that most of those licenses in use.

just stop, please. this idiot tried to go there and thought he was being smart, in the end he proved the opposite of what he was trying to prove.

Read the article... It's funny how you call the writer an idiot, but you obviously didn't even read what he wrote...
It clearly states that Statcounter's total population it polls is 1.25bn.
Given that and using the 5.23% figure (whether it's true or not), it calcs to 65M Win 8 PC's in use. Or 35% of these "sales" sitting on shelves.

Astra.Xtreme said,

Read the article... It's funny how you call the writer an idiot, but you obviously didn't even read what he wrote...
It clearly states that Statcounter's total population it polls is 1.25bn.
Given that and using the 5.23% figure (whether it's true or not), it calcs to 65M Win 8 PC's in use. Or 35% of these "sales" sitting on shelves.

I did read what he wrote,this is from the article,which is completely bogus,as I explained earlier


Using the 1.4bn figure for the Windows installed base, we get a range for the number of machines running Windows 8:

NetMarketShare (3.82%): 53.5m PCs running Windows 8

StatCounter (4.74%): 66.4m PCs running Windows 8.

again,hes using a usage percentage of windows 8 of all devices even non windows,and applying it to the installed base of windows(1.4 billion),which is completely wrong. you cant deny that

and even if you want to use the 1.25billion figure, it doesn't work that way. you've just proven that you don't understand what the point of statcounter is. it doesn't claim to track every device in existence. it has a sample size of 1.25 billion device,and based on the sample size,it tracks usage percentages. this doesn't mean there are only 1.25 billion devices. this is fact. you cant argue that. that's how "ratings" work. nielson ratings for tv do the same thing. they have a smaller sample size to real usage,and based on usage from their sample size,they interpolate the data. not every household has a tv tracker. only a small fraction of tv watchers have a tv tracker.

if you want to use this data to interpolate 'real' figures, this is hows its done.

5.23% of 1.25 billion is indeed 65 million, but that's 65 million from their sample size,not real device figures. if we interpolate to real device numbers, that means there are 420 million extra device unaccounted for because we know windows has an installed base of 1.4 billion,and based on statcounter percentages, adding the other devices equates to 1.67 billion devices total. 5.23% of 420 million is 22 million. so then we add 65 million and 22 million and we come out to 87 million.

there is no other way around it. this is using the information in the article, but using correct calculations. the guy is indeed an idiot. he claims to be an analyst but he doesn't know simple math. I should forward this to his employer.

vcfan said,

5.23% of 1.25 billion is indeed 65 million, but that's 65 million from their sample size,not real device figures. if we interpolate to real device numbers, that means there are 420 million extra device unaccounted for because we know windows has an installed base of 1.4 billion,and based on statcounter percentages, adding the other devices equates to 1.67 billion devices total. 5.23% of 420 million is 22 million. so then we add 65 million and 22 million and we come out to 87 million.

there is no other way around it. this is using the information in the article, but using correct calculations. the guy is indeed an idiot. he claims to be an analyst but he doesn't know simple math. I should forward this to his employer.

Okay, I see what you're getting at now, and you are right for the most part, but your correction factor may not be entirely correct. I'll go about it a different way.

I'll start with the StatCounter numbers. First let's calculate the number of Windows PCs it uses in it's 1.25bn total sample size. The percentages for April are as following: 7 (54%), 8 (4.75%), XP (21.6%), Vista (6%), for a total of about 86.35% for Windows PCs. We'll neglect the older Windows versions since it won't alter the result much. So 86.35% of the 1.25bn sample size is 1.08bn. MS claims there are actually 1.4bn Windows machines, so let's calculate what they believe is the total computer ecosystem using this percentage since it's statistically accurate. StatCounter shows 1.08bn Windows PCs out of 1.25bn total sample, so if there are 140bn actual Windows PCs, the actual sample size of the world must be 1.62bn. So now we can reliably calculate the amount of Win 8 PCs being used. Using April's stat of 4.75% into the 1.62bn sample size, there are just under 77m being used. This is still 23% of "sales" sitting on shelves.

Now let's quickly do the same calc for the NetMarketShare numbers. Adding up the same Windows versions, you get 91.6%, but let's round up to 92% to account for some of the older versions. They use a sample size of 1.5bn here, so 92% of that is 1.38bn, which is certainly close to what Microsoft's numbers are. Now let's calculate total sample size compared to 1.4bn Windows PCs, and we come out with 1.52bn total sample size. They say Windows 8 is 3.82% of the sample, so that equates to 58m. Even worse results than StatCounter.

If I did some of the math wrong, let me know, but clearly the actual numbers don't look too hot.

Edited by Astra.Xtreme, May 14 2013, 4:23pm :

Astra.Xtreme said,

Okay, I see what you're getting at now, and you are right for the most part, but your correction factor may not be entirely correct. I'll go about it a different way.

I'll start with the StatCounter numbers. First let's calculate the number of Windows PCs it uses in it's 1.25bn total sample size. The percentages for April are as following: 7 (54%), 8 (4.75%), XP (21.6%), Vista (6%), for a total of about 86.35% for Windows PCs. We'll neglect the older Windows versions since it won't alter the result much. So 86.35% of the 1.25bn sample size is 1.08bn. MS claims there are actually 1.4bn Windows machines, so let's calculate what they believe is the total computer ecosystem using this percentage since it's statistically accurate. StatCounter shows 1.08bn Windows PCs out of 1.25bn total sample, so if there are 140bn actual Windows PCs, the actual sample size of the world must be 1.62bn. So now we can reliably calculate the amount of Win 8 PCs being used. Using April's stat of 4.75% into the 1.62bn sample size, there are just under 77m being used. This is still 23% of "sales" sitting on shelves.

yes this is exactly what I was arguing for. the other calculations were wrong. although we still disagree on calculating either 4.75% vs 5.23%. im still going with 5.23% because the last 2 week average is 5.26%, and the average in the last 4 weeks is 5.1%. it makes more sense than using the 4 weeks average of april, since the announcement was only done 1 week ago. doesn't this make more sense? if you average out the two percentages used by the both of us, it still shows 80% usage from those licenses, a far cry from "most sitting on shelves".

Astra.Xtreme said,

Now let's quickly do the same calc for the NetMarketShare numbers. Adding up the same Windows versions, you get 91.6%, but let's round up to 92% to account for some of the older versions. They use a sample size of 1.5bn here, so 92% of that is 1.38bn, which is certainly close to what Microsoft's numbers are. Now let's calculate total sample size compared to 1.4bn Windows PCs, and we come out with 1.52bn total sample size. They say Windows 8 is 3.82% of the sample, so that equates to 58m. Even worse results than StatCounter.

If I did some of the math wrong, let me know, but clearly the actual numbers don't look too hot.

as for netapplications, if we use the 92% of 1.52 billion and get to 1.38billion like you said, we can do some calculations for windows 7. one year ago,in june 2012, Microsoft said they sold 600 million windows 7 licenses. windows 7 averaged 20 million licenses a month average for its lifetime. if we use that average for the 6 months after that announcement,which ends up being until the release of windows 8, and lets say 5 million a month thereafter, we end up with an extra 150 million extra licenses. So we can estimate windows 7 sold about 750 million licenses up to today. if we use netapplications statistics, 44.72% of 1.38 billion is 617 million. are we to say that there are 130 million windows 7 licenses sitting on shelves? this is such a massive number that doesn't make sense.

Also I tend to trust statcounter more because they include recent stats for ipads and android tablets that give us even more information to compare with. Ipad for example sold 40 million in the last 6 months. Is it not reasonable to favor such statistics because they are recent, and we know for a fact these are physically purchased ? all you have to do is look at the graph for windows 8 and watch the line grow from the beginning,and compare installed base to ipads.

vcfan said,

yes this is exactly what I was arguing for. the other calculations were wrong. although we still disagree on calculating either 4.75% vs 5.23%. im still going with 5.23% because the last 2 week average is 5.26%, and the average in the last 4 weeks is 5.1%. it makes more sense than using the 4 weeks average of april, since the announcement was only done 1 week ago. doesn't this make more sense? if you average out the two percentages used by the both of us, it still shows 80% usage from those licenses, a far cry from "most sitting on shelves".

Well we have to use the 4.75% figure because it goes along with all the other data for that month. In order to use a different percentage, we'd need the rest of the data to go along with it.

vcfan said,

as for netapplications, if we use the 92% of 1.52 billion and get to 1.38billion like you said, we can do some calculations for windows 7. one year ago,in june 2012, Microsoft said they sold 600 million windows 7 licenses. windows 7 averaged 20 million licenses a month average for its lifetime. if we use that average for the 6 months after that announcement,which ends up being until the release of windows 8, and lets say 5 million a month thereafter, we end up with an extra 150 million extra licenses. So we can estimate windows 7 sold about 750 million licenses up to today. if we use netapplications statistics, 44.72% of 1.38 billion is 617 million. are we to say that there are 130 million windows 7 licenses sitting on shelves? this is such a massive number that doesn't make sense.

I think you have the right idea, but there are too many assumptions in those calcs. We'd have to find specific sales information for 7 and then work with those actual numbers. Regardless, there probably is a pretty substantial amount of licenses that were sold and still un-used. After the ~4 years since it's release, that's to be somewhat expected.