win8 Windows 8 Start button isn't coming back, but there will be a tutorial

[Jan Veteran]

Do you honestly expect it to change much before it RTM's in a few months time?

It could do seeing as a lot of changes to the UI are coming in RC, just look at Explorer.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

at this point in development microsoft is done with functionality/features and are now just cleaning up the UI

[HawkMan]

True but it is not ready yet. Microsoft should have waited for another or two Windows releases.

How is it not ready yet ? it works great, is a full replacement for the old start menu and then some.

[LittleNeutrino Veteran]

with windows odd numbers are generally better lol.

[firey]

Basically condenses "at a glance" info in one spot, and allows for more than 1 notification to be showing at a time.

Doesn't that do what the notifcation bar does? Except instead of a bunch of icons.. it's one bar?

[.Neo]

Yes, the idea of instructions is an awful one. Everyone should just be expected to know how things work, even if they've never used anything like it before (Y)

/s

Wow, way to miss the point. (Y)

[JaredFrost]

Huh? Most operating systems have "invisible menus" in the form of right-clicking on the desktop and Windows 7 also had the Aero Peak functionality in the bottom-right corner of the screen, in addition to Aero Snap. Once you get used to the changes they really aren't an issue, though some of the functionality could - and likely will - be improved. Including a tutorial is a positive thing, not a negative thing. It just seems that you can't please the critics.

There's a huge difference between a context menu and a main OS menu used to open programs/change settings and even close a program.

[JaredFrost]

And let the PC market continue to suffer?

Awesome Reaper logic.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

There's a huge difference between a context menu and a main OS menu used to open programs/change settings and even close a program.

is there? have you heard of "BlackBox"? it's main menu is the context menu on the desktop and other places

and it's not the only UI that works this way

(blackbox is still pretty popular now a days)

[JaredFrost]

is there? have you heard of "BlackBox"? it's main menu is the context menu on the desktop and other places

and it's not the only UI that works this way

(blackbox is still pretty popular now a days)

I guess that depends on how you define popular, if you use the whole PC market, blackbox is probably less -popular- than Windows ME.

Ignoring that, those people CHOSE to use BlackBox, which is likely fully customizable, they could choose not to use it if they wanted

I want the same thing for Metro in Windows 8, choice.

[Calum Veteran]

Wow, way to miss the point. (Y)

Do you mind expanding on that, please? I'm positive I got his point. He said that if instructions are required for Windows 8 then something has gone wrong, so I pointed out to him that no one can expect everyone to understand how Windows 8 works if they haven't ever used anything like it before. Nothing has gone wrong if instructions are required for Windows 8. As I say, I'm sure I got his point.

It doesn't matter that people are used to previous versions of Windows. Windows 8 is a different version; thus, people shouldn't expect it to work like previous versions, even if it has done for the past 17 years.

[xWhiplash]

Do you mind expanding on that, please? I'm positive I got his point. He said that if instructions are required for Windows 8 then something has gone wrong, so I pointed out to him that no one can expect everyone to understand how Windows 8 works if they haven't ever used anything like it before. Nothing has gone wrong if instructions are required for Windows 8. As I say, I'm sure I got his point.

It doesn't matter that people are used to previous versions of Windows. Windows 8 is a different version; thus, people shouldn't expect it to work like previous versions, even if it has done for the past 17 years.

So we do not have a right to get angry at Microsoft? If they released Windows 9 and ONLY allowed to have one application open at a time NO MATTER WHAT, we are just supposed to deal with it because it is a new version?

What the heck happened to everybody? The day Windows 8 DP was released, everybody started saying the desktop NEEDS (not should, or could) but it absolutely NEEDS to change or else the desktop environment is dead. What brought this up in the first place? The desktop does not NEED to change.

What is it so horrible to keep the same UI design we have had for 17 years? There is no better UI design out there. Lets be honest here, compared to what Windows 7 can do and what Windows 8 can do, Windows 7 is by far the better interface. I am not limited on what windows are on my screen (besides the monitor screen estate).

Also, how is the desktop market suffering? How will windows 8 make it better? Do you honestly believe the average consumer is going to look at a desktop today and say "no", but tomorrow when Windows 8 is on the computer they will jump up and down like a kid and want the computer?

If somebody wants a desktop computer, they typically do not care what comes on it. They probably use Windows XP or Windows 7 at work, so they already know how to use a 17 year old UI.

I am sorry, it just really irks me when the second people started using Windows 8 they have been saying the desktop environment NEEDS to change or the world is doomed.

Give me one good reason why it NEEDS to change? To have the same UI as your phone? I am sorry, that is personal preference. Even if the world agrees that it would be better, that does not mean it needs to be changed.

[HawkMan]

Hmmm, last I checked I can do everything I can on windows 7 in m windows 8 install, only with a better faster more flexible start menu(screen)

[Dot Matrix]

So we do not have a right to get angry at Microsoft? If they released Windows 9 and ONLY allowed to have one application open at a time NO MATTER WHAT, we are just supposed to deal with it because it is a new version?

What the heck happened to everybody? The day Windows 8 DP was released, everybody started saying the desktop NEEDS (not should, or could) but it absolutely NEEDS to change or else the desktop environment is dead. What brought this up in the first place? The desktop does not NEED to change.

The Ford Model-T didn't NEED to change either. Also, I can have more than one fullscreen app open at a time. Just saying.

What is it so horrible to keep the same UI design we have had for 17 years? There is no better UI design out there. Lets be honest here, compared to what Windows 7 can do and what Windows 8 can do, Windows 7 is by far the better interface. I am not limited on what windows are on my screen (besides the monitor screen estate).

Because whether you like it or not computers have changed these past 17 years. If you can't see that, then I feel sorry for you, but today, computers are more interactive than they were 17 years ago. I/O devices have evolved since then, and have come to include new devices, that the 9x desktop has no chance in Hell of playing nice with. Better methods of coding have also appeared on the scene. You're basically arguing why should I move to Win16 when 8-bit works great, or why should I move to win32 when 16 bit works great. Why move to Win64 when 32 bit does what I need?

Also, how is the desktop market suffering? How will windows 8 make it better? Do you honestly believe the average consumer is going to look at a desktop today and say "no", but tomorrow when Windows 8 is on the computer they will jump up and down like a kid and want the computer?

If somebody wants a desktop computer, they typically do not care what comes on it. They probably use Windows XP or Windows 7 at work, so they already know how to use a 17 year old UI.

Maybe not, but then again, let me ask you this: Do you really think we'd be using this "17 year old" UI forever? Quite frankly, I'd be more worried if Microsoft kept arguing *for* this UI. They did that once, and it failed to make way into the tablet market, sure desktop users love it, but when computers are ever increasingly mobile, trade-offs needed to be made, or you subject yourself to maintaining (in Microsoft's case) THREE separate operating systems, with THREE separate sets of compatibility. For a company with limited resources, that's torture. For developers, that's even more torture.

I am sorry, it just really irks me when the second people started using Windows 8 they have been saying the desktop environment NEEDS to change or the world is doomed.

Give me one good reason why it NEEDS to change? To have the same UI as your phone? I am sorry, that is personal preference. Even if the world agrees that it would be better, that does not mean it needs to be changed.

I have listed these reasons above. You could subject yourself to the same old, and pretty much roll over and die in the ever increasingly competitive market, or you could play around with new ideas, and bring new ideas to the table. You decide which one you would pick if you were a business owner.

[Xilo]

No start button = I'll be sticking to Windows 7. Don't want this ****ty Metro UI pushed on me.

[xWhiplash]

You can keep the same UI design and make it better. Did we all forget Windows 7 and the superbar?

I think I will stick with the "17 year old interface" and use WIndows 7 still. Windows 8 severely breaks my workflow (unless I go into the desktop mode, and I do not want do that every time I start the computer).

I need a lot more power than what the Metro interface allows, I need to have a lot of windows and programs open, and sometimes I need to have them visible at all times.

[Calum Veteran]

So we do not have a right to get angry at Microsoft? If they released Windows 9 and ONLY allowed to have one application open at a time NO MATTER WHAT, we are just supposed to deal with it because it is a new version?

What the heck happened to everybody? The day Windows 8 DP was released, everybody started saying the desktop NEEDS (not should, or could) but it absolutely NEEDS to change or else the desktop environment is dead. What brought this up in the first place? The desktop does not NEED to change.

What is it so horrible to keep the same UI design we have had for 17 years? There is no better UI design out there. Lets be honest here, compared to what Windows 7 can do and what Windows 8 can do, Windows 7 is by far the better interface. I am not limited on what windows are on my screen (besides the monitor screen estate).

Also, how is the desktop market suffering? How will windows 8 make it better? Do you honestly believe the average consumer is going to look at a desktop today and say "no", but tomorrow when Windows 8 is on the computer they will jump up and down like a kid and want the computer?

If somebody wants a desktop computer, they typically do not care what comes on it. They probably use Windows XP or Windows 7 at work, so they already know how to use a 17 year old UI.

I am sorry, it just really irks me when the second people started using Windows 8 they have been saying the desktop environment NEEDS to change or the world is doomed.

Give me one good reason why it NEEDS to change? To have the same UI as your phone? I am sorry, that is personal preference. Even if the world agrees that it would be better, that does not mean it needs to be changed.

My posts in this thread referred to nothing in your post, so I don't understand why you posted that in reply to me. My post specifically referred to the other poster's assertion that there is a problem if instructions are required for a new, completely different version of Windows. I didn't comment on whether I think the changes are good or not (personally, I like them, but that wasn't part of my post and it isn't something I have time to discuss right now).

Of course you have a right to be angry at Microsoft if you wish, but that doesn't relate to my suggestion that there is not a problem if instructions are required (for some people) when using a completely new and different user interface.

[xWhiplash]

My posts in this thread referred to nothing in your post, so I don't understand why you posted that in reply to me. My post specifically referred to the other poster's assertion that there is a problem if instructions are required for a new, completely different version of Windows. I didn't comment on whether I think the changes are good or not (personally, I like them, but that wasn't part of my post and it isn't something I have time to discuss right now).

Of course you have a right to be angry at Microsoft if you wish, but that doesn't relate to my suggestion that there is not a problem if instructions are required (for some people) when using a completely new and different user interface.

I was referring to your last line of your post "..people shouldn't expect it to work like previous versions,,"

[Calum Veteran]

I was referring to your last line of your post "..people shouldn't expect it to work like previous versions,,"

That part of my post still doesn't relate to anything you wrote in yours. I didn't suggest that the desktop environment needs to change or that keeping the same user interface would be horrible. I didn't even suggest people should "deal with" the change. I merely pointed out that people shouldn't expect it to work like previous versions. They can be angry if they believe it worked better previously, though, of course. But they shouldn't expect Microsoft to not change things around, even dramatically :)

[nub]

Your arguments are bad and you should feel bad.

The Ford Model-T didn't NEED to change either. Also, I can have more than one fullscreen app open at a time. Just saying.

Sure, the Model-T didn't have to change, but changes should be for the better. If an app is taking up the entire screen (fullscreen), then no. You can't have two open at the same time. Running in the background maybe, but not two apps open side by side.

Because whether you like it or not computers have changed these past 17 years. If you can't see that, then I feel sorry for you, but today, computers are more interactive than they were 17 years ago. I/O devices have evolved since then, and have come to include new devices, that the 9x desktop has no chance in Hell of playing nice with. Better methods of coding have also appeared on the scene. You're basically arguing why should I move to Win16 when 8-bit works great, or why should I move to win32 when 16 bit works great. Why move to Win64 when 32 bit does what I need?

Moving from 32-bit to 64-bit doesn't place limitations on you like the metro UI does. Its not an argument about not liking or wanting change. Its an argument that the change is bad.

Maybe not, but then again, let me ask you this: Do you really think we'd be using this "17 year old" UI forever? Quite frankly, I'd be more worried if Microsoft kept arguing *for* this UI. They did that once, and it failed to make way into the tablet market, sure desktop users love it, but when computers are ever increasingly mobile, trade-offs needed to be made, or you subject yourself to maintaining (in Microsoft's case) THREE separate operating systems, with THREE separate sets of compatibility. For a company with limited resources, that's torture. For developers, that's even more torture.

Tablets and Desktops are two VERY different devices. They are not used in the same way. Placing a tablet UI on a desktop places artificial limitations on desktop users. They have input devices that allow for more advanced interaction, but they are being forced a step backwards with metro apps. Trade-offs could be mitigated. Both tablet and desktop versions of Windows 8 could have the same core, same hardware abilities, just with an interface optimized for each environment. Hell, you wouldn't even have to make separate versions, have it detect (or user input) what kind of device it is. Metro apps don't have to be completely removed from the desktop environment. Why can't the metro UI live inside of window? This would give you all the same features of metro apps without taking filling the entire screen. (Hell have a fullscreen button, if you want it you can have it.)

I have listed these reasons above. You could subject yourself to the same old, and pretty much roll over and die in the ever increasingly competitive market, or you could play around with new ideas, and bring new ideas to the table. You decide which one you would pick if you were a business owner.

New isn't always better.

[BajiRav]

You can't have two open at the same time. Running in the background maybe, but not two apps open side by side.

Are we still talking Windows 8 here or iOS/Android?

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

Are we still talking Windows 8 here or iOS/Android?

Is that the yardstick for the capabilities of a desktop operating system now? iOS?

[HawkMan]

Is that the yardstick for the capabilities of a desktop operating system now? iOS?

Not his pont, read the quoted part.

[jakem1]

You can keep the same UI design and make it better. Did we all forget Windows 7 and the superbar?

Sure, I remember it. The first time it showed up there were howls of protest from people who didn't like the fact that the old familiar taskbar was changing. I lost track of the number of people who claimed that XP would be around for ever if MS went ahead with the changes to Windows 7. Fast forward a few months and everyone loves Windows 7 and the new taskbar.

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

Not his pont, read the quoted part.

Apart from Metro Snap, which is extremely inflexible, nub is right that you can't have two Metro apps open side by side. :/