Windows 8 HAS NO START MENU


Recommended Posts

Time to ditch Windows imo. Yes, my opinion and choice.

Where are you heading? Apple are doing the same thing to OSX. Gnome3 heads in the same direction? Hope ReactOS or Haiku is finished before all my Win7-PCs break down?

If you have windows Explore Pinned to the taskbar you *wouldn't* need the start menu for *computer* or Control Panel

Ever since Windows95: WIN+E?

Didn't Metro show up first in Windows Media Center?

The logical precursor to Metro showed up in WMC as 10 foot user interface?

Yeah but that was all about innovation shooting onwards and upwards, this is dumbing back down to simplicity sacrificing the desktop experiece for the iPad generation, i dont want a tablet and i dont want my windows experience hampered for the people that do want a tablet experience.

As for touch screen monitors i dont want finger oils all over my screen hampering my viewing experience, touch for desktop is an idiotic idea.

this!

So you're not even going to give it a chance and try it out? What a surprise. I imagine in the next few years (or 5 to 10 years), the immersive experience will be how one accesses and uses all apps, including heavy apps like Visual Studio in PhotoShop; I expect they'll find a way to develop these apps in an immersive manner without hindering user experience or productivity.

I hope the port VS to this mess then the dumbest one will notice that it's a bad idea?

You're not listening to what I'm suggesting. This is exactly what I asked you: If you're able to search to easily find applications in Windows 7, why do you think Microsoft would take away such a useful feature in Windows 8, especially when they've just added a search feature to Windows Phone's Start Screen?

Yeah they just added it! I wouldn't be surprised if they will add it to Win8 with SP1.

Why would Microsoft design a desktop operating system and then release it if that user interface does not work well on a desktop operating system? You assuming they would do that is asinine. Have Microsoft ever released a desktop or phone operating system that is unusable or doesn't work well?

Yes! A short incomplete list:

  • Windows 1
  • Windows 2
  • Microsoft Bob
  • Windows ME
  • Windows XP Professional 64bit
  • Windows Home Server 2011
  • Windows Mobile 6
  • Windows Mobile 6.5
  • Microsoft Kin

What makes you think Microsoft would even do that?

Because he seems to understand Microsoft more than you do?

Logic does not dictate that the large tiles were designed for small touchscreen devices; they do work well with those, but they weren't designed specifically for those.

Right, they are just waisting a whole lot of space on the screen?

[*]Windows ME

I loved Windows ME :cry:

anyway I think this is nothing to make such a big deal from

nothing bad happened when the start menu came to replace .. what was in in Windows 3.1.. task manager or something?

I believe this was covered in the windows8 is chromless discussion. No start menu on tablet devices (think ipad here), but you will have a start menu on normal devices (think pc's and laptops). In the video he is using a tablet which confirms no start menu on tablet devices.

perhaps these two threads should merge...

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1012052-windows-8-ui-is-chromeless/page__hl__chromeless

I know most of these are just rumors and I wont completely rule it out until I try it but I would much prefer the classic start menu to that start screen. I don't use search to find my programs I use the start menu 100% and I have no interest in owning any of this touch stuff that everyone seems to be talking about these days especially on a desktop.

Oh my, that looks like a mess right there :rolleyes: . Not everyone has a twitter account or care about social media craps that much. I personally just want a professional desktop to get my work done.

And to anybody who said that this UI is usable with a keyboard and mouse. Go watch the video again, especially the part where he struggled to use the interface on a Samsung S9 and he had to quickly move on to other devices (which all had a TOUCH SCREEN) before people realized that he was lying. The S9 didn't work as well as the one with the touch screen. Also the one with the ARM processors do not have Aero enabled :rolleyes: ... The UI was really consistent across all devices :rolleyes: !!

i use the start menu alot...

but for 3 things.

search.

my computer

control panel.

If i can set aside tiles for this and make the START button to open a small search box or something it will be super!

As far as the search option goes, that is already possible from what I can tell. The bar that has the Windows Flag on it and slides out from the right side has a search button I believe.

I loved Windows ME :cry:

I only experienced it as a crashing POS at my cousin's pc - had to be reinstalled on a regular basis, even Win95-OEM and Win98-FE seemed to be more stable?

nothing bad happened when the start menu came to replace .. what was in in Windows 3.1.. task manager or something?

Nothing^^ If I recall it correctly the programs minimized to Icons like in Windows 1?

That is another thing I don't want in my OS, I don't want any social media stuff integrated with it.

Couldn't agree more - deep integration of this stuff has kept me away from WP7?

If they put the Metro UI into Windows 8 as default then im moving to OSX, its doing the same thing trying into integrate IOS into their desktop OS but they are doing it better, i dont want to have to switch from desktop to Fisher Price My First Touch UI with all its pretty rainbow colours just to launch an app.

I wouldn't be to surprised if Apple went full blown iOS for the desktop eventually, they seem to like the one app at a time and app centric model..... Lion is just the first step towards something like that

Nothing^^ If I recall it correctly the programs minimized to Icons like in Windows 1?

start menu replaced program manager, which was basically a window that held MDI child windows of icons called "groups", running apps minimized to what is now called the desktop, or back then called the background....

Windows 7's start menu is completely redundant for me and anyone who knows how to properly use Windows 7. I NEVER EVER navigate the start menu programs folder. I use the start menu search box to launch everything. It's so much faster and easier. So, it is a nice move on Microsoft's part to remove the start menu from Windows 8's default UI. They can easily put the search box somewhere else.

(Repost from the other thread)

Windows 7's start menu is completely redundant for me and anyone who knows how to properly use Windows 7. I NEVER EVER navigate the start menu programs folder. I use the start menu search box to launch everything. It's so much faster and easier. So, it is a nice move on Microsoft's part to remove the start menu from Windows 8's default UI. They can easily put the search box somewhere else.

(Repost from the other thread)

You went from in one second slamming people for using the start menu to in the next second saying you use the start menu for everything. Did you even catch that?

You went from in one second slamming people for using the start menu to in the next second saying you use the start menu for everything. Did you even catch that?

He goes from slamming people who use the start screen to navigate it for apps. To saying how he uses the search bar in the start menu. And how they can remove the start menu, aslong as they keep the search bar. Somewhere outside of the start menu. Maybe a command to open just the search bar? Ctrl+G or something.

Did you even catch that? :rolleyes:

He goes from slamming people who use the start screen to navigate it for apps. To saying how he uses the search bar in the start menu. And how they can remove the search bar, somewhere outside of the start menu. Maybe a command to open just the search bar. Ctrl+G or something.

Did you even catch that? :rolleyes:

Yes, I did catch that. Did you catch the fact that the search is LOCATED IN THE START MENU? And that we're talking about the start menu, that again, INCLUDES THE SEARCH? :rofl: He slams the start menu as a whole, not specifically the menu which you can use to navigate. And given that this topic is about the entire start menu being gone, including the search, his point is doubly confusing. You two do realize that clicking the start orb will now kick you back out to the Start screen, not simply keep you in the desktop with a search menu... right?

Of course they can add the search somewhere else. They can add a list of applications somewhere else, too, and that's what we're discussing, is it not? But that doesn't make it any less stupid. Why kick me out, take me to a search and/or application menu, that's going to kick me right back into the desktop if it's an application designed for the desktop? It's stupid.

Yes, I did catch that. Did you catch the fact that the search is LOCATED IN THE START MENU? And that we're talking about the start menu, that again, INCLUDES THE SEARCH? :rofl: He slams the start menu as a whole, not specifically the menu which you can use to navigate. And given that this topic is about the entire start menu being gone, including the search, his point is doubly confusing. You two do realize that clicking the start orb will now kick you back out to the Start screen, not simply keep you in the desktop with a search menu... right?

What makes you think that a search box can ONLY be placed within the Start Menu? They can and WILL have a search button in the Start Screen. There's no point whatsoever in maintaining the bloated Start Menu purely to facilitate the search box.

Edit: I posted before you added the second paragraph.

Of course they can add the search somewhere else. They can add a list of applications somewhere else, too, and that's what we're discussing, is it not? But that doesn't make it any less stupid. Why kick me out, take me to a search and/or application menu, that's going to kick me right back into the desktop if it's an application designed for the desktop? It's stupid

The old desktop will remain a part of Windows 8 to maintain legacy application support. But as more and more "modern" apps start to emerge, there will be less and less need to visit the old UI. It's somewhat like the conversion from DOS to Windows. You have to use the command prompt to use legacy console based apps. But as time went on the number of console apps began to disappear. The same will happen over time with "classic" Windows apps.

What makes you think that a search box can ONLY be placed within the Start Menu? They can and WILL have a search button in the Start Screen. There's no point whatsoever in maintaining the bloated Start Menu purely to facilitate the search box.

Edit: I posted before you added the second paragraph.

I only added my second paragraph to reiterate what I've already said. Your post doesn't address that point, either: why should it kick me out to the start menu, only to kick me right back into the desktop? That's beyond stupid if that's truly how it's going to work.

I only added my second paragraph to reiterate what I've already said. Your post doesn't address that point, either: why should it kick me out to the start menu, only to kick me right back into the desktop? That's beyond stupid if that's truly how it's going to work.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. But I assume you are talking about the switch to the old UI whenever a legacy app will be launched? Yes, that will create incosistency, but as I mentioned in the last part of my post, this will disappear over time -- maybe by the time Windows 9 is launched there will be "modern" apps for everything.

But as more and more "modern" apps start to emerge, there will be less and less need to visit the old UI.

Heard the exact same thing about .NET and later about WPF and how it is the next big thing we will see as a standard for Windows programs. Did it happen? No! The majority of the programs on your PC is still native Code and there is no major mainstream program that utilizes WPF!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      579
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!