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

[Rickkins]

So you're saying you have noactual argument, you probably haven't even tried it?

Oh, you caught me. :rolleyes:

Actually, I still have it set up as a dual boot option but after 1 week it had me so discouraged that I threw in the towel.

[JaredFrost]

You can't have both choice and a fast sappy new windows. Redundant duplicated code makes everything slower and costs may timesas much resources in bug hunting and QnA.

And is pointless when the start screen, does everything the start menu does, only better and faster. I stead of ~8 pinned apps, you have ver 40 without scrolling, fully sorted as you want, grouped according to your preferences and with a start screen that opens faster, tiles are faster and easier to find, and combined with muscle memory, you're launching apps faster than the old start menu.

That's your defense now? do you really think having both as an option will have any measureable affect on performance? let me help you out with that one, no it wont.

Metro is pointless, the command prompt does everything Metro does only faster, instead of having to search aimlessly for your icon, then clicking on it, you could just type in the name and blamo! you have your program.

See, even I can make a stupid idea sound good.

Not to mention all the things you mentioned are subjective, and if you combine that with muscle memory, the programs you were launching are already open.

PS: I saw no reason to make a serious post anymore, because none of you seem keen on it.

[HawkMan]

Actually it will have a noticeable performance. However you ignored the more important pats that it would cause twice the code, and quadruple the bugs and quadruple the QnA, thus requiring far more resources during developement and future patching. Unnecessarily.

And how is an organized metro start screen searching aimless for your icon? Oh that's right, it's the opposite of that, so your made up sarcasm scenario is completely irrelevant.

And no they're not subjective. The screen loads faster, not subjective. The icons are organized bybth user, not subjective. They're bigger and easier to see, not subjective. There's 40(more with scrolling) instantly visible pinned favorite apps as opposed to 8, not subjective. Organized big icons in known larger locations are easier and faster to click, especially with muscle memory, not subjective.

Hence, metro is not subjectively faster. And because of the way your eyes and brain operate, when you use the start menu, you're not focusing on anything else anyway, so you'll be distracted from whatever you're doing for shorter with the start screen.

Now, if you're going to argue, try to do it like an adult and preferably with actual arguments.

[JaredFrost]

Actually it will have a noticeable performance. However you ignored the more important pats that it would cause twice the code, and quadruple the bugs and quadruple the QnA, thus requiring far more resources during developement and future patching. Unnecessarily.

And how is an organized metro start screen searching aimless for your icon? Oh that's right, it's the opposite of that, so your made up sarcasm scenario is completely irrelevant.

And no they're not subjective. The screen loads faster, not subjective. The icons are organized bybth user, not subjective. They're bigger and easier to see, not subjective. There's 40(more with scrolling) instantly visible pinned favorite apps as opposed to 8, not subjective. Organized big icons in known larger locations are easier and faster to click, especially with muscle memory, not subjective.

Hence, metro is not subjectively faster. And because of the way your eyes and brain operate, when you use the start menu, you're not focusing on anything else anyway, so you'll be distracted from whatever you're doing for shorter with the start screen.

Now, if you're going to argue, try to do it like an adult and preferably with actual arguments.

First of all the code already exists and is relatively bug free for those features, and second, unless you're running some ancient PC, it will have close to zero impact on performance

And my scenario was supposed to be as ridiculous as yours, and it was.

The screen loads faster than what? what are you comparing it to? the last Metro screen? I don't know what you were using before, but the start menu is instant

The start menu is also organized, not only that, it allows layered organization you can basically organize your organization, and bigger icons is not a selling point

my vision is perfect, I dont need some obnoxiously large tile to launch a program, my mouse clicks are pixel sized, not finger sized, even if you were blind you can

increase the size of the Start Menu icons and text, I wonder how they're going to do that for Metro tiles, since there is no clear definition of text in the tiles, the accessibility

options(if they existed) wouldn't know what to highlight.

And somehow muscle memory only applies to Metro for you, but that also applies to the Start Menu, so continuing to use that as some kind of advantage Metro has is pointless.

When I am opening a new program, I am not changing my focus to the start menu, if I am doing something else my primary focus is on that task, Metro will change that

That is not good, that is a bad thing.

All this would be a non-issue if there was just the option to CHOOSE which you want to use, and don't bother with the performance excuse, that is not why they don't add it and you know it.

[MorganX]

I've heard the exact opposite. Most people that still use XP at work, are pushing for Windows 7 because they've used it at home.

See, I'm fair: ^^^This is actually true.

[MorganX]

Why not have Metro on the desktop? No one is forcing you to use the fullscreen apps, but the Start Screen provides a huge benefit to those specifically *on* the desktop as much as those working on tablets. Why dig around a small menu, and countless submenus, when you can have a larger area to work with? Why dig around the menu at all when you can just type to search and be done? Doing that would provide you with an opportunity to be in and out of the Start Screen in a matter of seconds.

I agree with being able to live with Metro, once you understand it is the Start Menu. Saying it is a benefit to heavy desktop users is just stretching things way too much. Your characterization of digging through a small menu and countless submenus is ridiculous. And anything in a sub-menu will be better found with search than countless Metro tiles which no one will leave. FWIW, all you do in Windows 7 is hit the windows key and type for search. Exactly the same as in Metro.

Metro does nothing better than the Start Menu + Taskbar in Windows 7. But it is equally as functional. The issue is how much annoyance and extra work you feel is acceptable. There's no way around it putting a touch UI on a desktop.

[HawkMan]

First of all the code already exists and is relatively bug free for those features, and second, unless you're running some ancient PC, it will have close to zero impact on performance

And my scenario was supposed to be as ridiculous as yours, and it was.

The screen loads faster than what? what are you comparing it to? the last Metro screen? I don't know what you were using before, but the start menu is instant

The start menu is also organized, not only that, it allows layered organization you can basically organize your organization, and bigger icons is not a selling point

my vision is perfect, I dont need some obnoxiously large tile to launch a program, my mouse clicks are pixel sized, not finger sized, even if you were blind you can

increase the size of the Start Menu icons and text, I wonder how they're going to do that for Metro tiles, since there is no clear definition of text in the tiles, the accessibility

options(if they existed) wouldn't know what to highlight.

And somehow muscle memory only applies to Metro for you, but that also applies to the Start Menu, so continuing to use that as some kind of advantage Metro has is pointless.

When I am opening a new program, I am not changing my focus to the start menu, if I am doing something else my primary focus is on that task, Metro will change that

That is not good, that is a bad thing.

All this would be a non-issue if there was just the option to CHOOSE which you want to use, and don't bother with the performance excuse, that is not why they don't add it and you know it.

Metro screen opens faster than the start menu. And while it's bug free now. You seem to have zeromknowledge of coding and QnA. Every new change they do every new patch, needs to be tested against ALL features and functions. Meaning redundant code like the start menu wil, cost significant resources,then there's the possibility of introducing bugs due to related code functions.

And whiteout can use muscle memoryn the pinned start menu favorites, there's still only ~8, and not organized nicely not groups.

And no, when you open the start menu your entire focus is on that, your brain and vision is not special in that regards. You don't notice it, but it is. You only think the start screen is worse because you're not used to it, once you're used to it, it'll be second nature and you'll notice it even less than the start menu.

And yes there is a performance issue, the start menu is significant code, and it has it's performance issues. And as I said numerous times, the resourced in maintaining to paradigms is the man concern.

[migo]

That's your defense now? do you really think having both as an option will have any measureable affect on performance? let me help you out with that one, no it wont.

Metro is pointless, the command prompt does everything Metro does only faster, instead of having to search aimlessly for your icon, then clicking on it, you could just type in the name and blamo! you have your program.

See, even I can make a stupid idea sound good.

Not to mention all the things you mentioned are subjective, and if you combine that with muscle memory, the programs you were launching are already open.

PS: I saw no reason to make a serious post anymore, because none of you seem keen on it.

You clearly haven't used Windows 8 if you're bringing up the command prompt as an argument. The start screen works better than the command prompt.

[migo]

I agree with being able to live with Metro, once you understand it is the Start Menu. Saying it is a benefit to heavy desktop users is just stretching things way too much. Your characterization of digging through a small menu and countless submenus is ridiculous. And anything in a sub-menu will be better found with search than countless Metro tiles which no one will leave. FWIW, all you do in Windows 7 is hit the windows key and type for search. Exactly the same as in Metro.

Metro does nothing better than the Start Menu + Taskbar in Windows 7. But it is equally as functional. The issue is how much annoyance and extra work you feel is acceptable. There's no way around it putting a touch UI on a desktop.

It's worth the annoyance. The UI doesn't change when you go from a tablet to desktop, or to phone. You can have a tablet that you take around with you and use on the go, and when you get home go to your desktop that works the same way. Only one thing you need to know instead of two. The argument you're using for why you think Metro is bad is actually the reason why it's really good.

[JaredFrost]

Metro screen opens faster than the start menu. And while it's bug free now. You seem to have zeromknowledge of coding and QnA. Every new change they do every new patch, needs to be tested against ALL features and functions. Meaning redundant code like the start menu wil, cost significant resources,then there's the possibility of introducing bugs due to related code functions.

And whiteout can use muscle memoryn the pinned start menu favorites, there's still only ~8, and not organized nicely not groups.

And no, when you open the start menu your entire focus is on that, your brain and vision is not special in that regards. You don't notice it, but it is. You only think the start screen is worse because you're not used to it, once you're used to it, it'll be second nature and you'll notice it even less than the start menu.

And yes there is a performance issue, the start menu is significant code, and it has it's performance issues. And as I said numerous times, the resourced in maintaining to paradigms is the man concern.

Of course I know, it's just not significant enough to mention, so I don't mention it.

And I don't know what Start Menu you were using, but mine has 15 pinned items right now, and just bumped it to 23 for fun, where did you pull this 8 pinned items limit from?

Of course my brain and vision aren't special, but you seem to be saying something that takes up the whole screen vs something that doesn't even take up a quarter takes

the same amount of focus, it doesn't, -normal- brains it isn't full focus or no focus, there are different levels of it.

Here's an example, Let's say I am playing a game in windowed mode and I want to open notepad to write a quick note about something, with the start menu I can do that without taking full focus from that game

just some focus is taken, now with Metro full focus is taken away from the game till I open Notepad, assuming this is notepad for the Desktop

And these alleged performance issues are not a concern for someone with a PC that isn't over 5 years old, will there be an impact? of course, so does animated tiles

What will use more resources? obviously Metro, but the whole performance concern could be bypassed depending on how the option to disable was implemented

You clearly haven't used Windows 8 if you're bringing up the command prompt as an argument. The start screen works better than the command prompt.

Why would I argue against it if I've never used it? I've been using it on and off since the DP, I have the CP dual booted right now, I've tried to like it and I don't

I like a lot of the other changes in Windows 8, other things I don't like, unfortunately one of those things is Metro, and that's a pretty big one to not like.

It was pretty clear my command prompt thing was a joke, I never claimed it was a good one though.

[HawkMan]

15 pinned start menu items is not organized or intuitive, especially compared to the start screen.

And actually, metro with live tiles, uses less resources and is faster than the start menu. So sorry.

And not significant, so you really have no clue whatsoever about developement and coding do you...

[JaredFrost]

15 pinned start menu items is not organized or intuitive, especially compared to the start screen.

And actually, metro with live tiles, uses less resources and is faster than the start menu. So sorry.

And not significant, so you really have no clue whatsoever about developement and coding do you...

It's as organized as you make it, just like Metro, and it is very intuitive, you see what you want and you click on it. Unlike Metro, even if you don't see it in Metro, it might still

be there who knows, maybe the tutorial will intuitively tell you where the invisible things are.

I still don't see how you're saying Metro is faster than the Start Menu when the Start Menu is instant, if you're trying to say Metro is like 0.001ms faster that's just ridiculous

And by not significant I mean for a company like Microsoft with the market penetration they have, the company resources required to do that would be insignificant to the overall

profits they would be making. And those things are of NO concern to me anyway.

[Order_66]

I honestly believe that.

:rofl: :woot:

[Auroka]

As long as I have a Windows key on my keyboard I couldn't care less if there isn't a Start button.

[+devHead Subscriber²]

And is pointless when the start screen, does everything the start menu does, only better and faster.

Whoa whoa whoa. The Start screen does not do everything the Start menu does. Here are some important things the Windows 7 Start menu does that has been tossed out with this full-screen tablet UI Start screen:

1. Frequently Used Apps in the menu. This functionality is completely gone in the new Start screen. If you want the programs you run most frequently, you have to place them in a group at the beginning of the Start screen view so they're readily available. But it's not dynamically changing.
   
2. Jumplists for programs (either on MRU list of apps or Pinned Apps). I've got Word, Excel, and Access pinned on my Windows 7 Start menu, and can quickly open a document right from there. Now, there's only the MRU list in these Office Apps, or the option to pin them to the taskbar. All the Jumplist functionality that exists in the Windows 7 Start Menu is gone on the Metro Start Screen.
   
3. Flyout menus for things like My Computer, My Documents, Pictures, Control Panel. All gone on the Start Screen.
   
4. Shutdown, Restart or Sleep directly from the Start menu. Again, functionality removed from Start Screen itself. You have to now click the invisible and undiscoverable 'Charms' bar, click Settings button (which really gives no indication it's what should be used for Shutting down or rebooting) and then click what you want to do. This is faster for you? Really?
   

Please do not say that the Start Screen is better. It doesn't do nearly what the Start menu does, and its certainly not faster!

With Windows 8, it seems like the developers all for this new Metro Start Screen first implemented it, and then started realizing all the tweaks they would have to make with the rest of the UI to make it usable for regular Desktop/Laptop, non-touch device users. I mean the whole Power menu from a right click on the hidden Start button is cool, but it feels like it was added in because, well, heck, there is no way to quickly get to such things (Like Control panel, for example) without such a shortcut.

You hover over in the right upper or lower side of your Desktop and the Charms bar comes up. Great. But, oh wait, it covers up the clock and network connection indicator, so now they have to plop that in a big black box over on the left hand side of the screen so you can still see what time it is, because it's now covered by the Charms bar. That was the impression I got, when I first saw that. I was like, oh hey cool, the time comes up in a little black box on the left of the screen, and then I noticed, oh, of course it does; it's being covered by the stupid Charms bar.

And now, how can we switch back to Metro apps from the Desktop? Well, we can't use the right side of the screen, hey let's use the left side for switching back to the Metro apps that you thought were closed. Oh no, they're not closed, and good luck figuring out how to close them. But here's how to you can get back to them.

This is the impression I got after working with Windows 8 for a few weeks.

[HawkMan]

And according to microsofts user stats, you're about the only person in the world who uses recent programs and jump lists in the start menu, well actually a few people use recently used programs, but they use them as pinned apps, so it makes more sense to pin them.

Same with fly out menus, not use.

As for shutdown, it's a function you're at most supposed to use once a day, outdoes need prime real estate. And your computer has a shutdown button as well. It makes no sense to waste that space on it.even so, that has hardly anything to do with stuff you can't do with it.

And yes it is faster. It opens faster, try under heavy load. Ad it's faster to find your applications. Especially if you take some time to organize them. And after a week it's second nature to find them anyway. So. Or power users with lots of frequently used apps, yes it's faster. Certainly not slower by any means.

Also you don't need to close metro apps, a tombstones metro app uses no resources, a live tile uses a few kilobytes. And the tombstones app will close itself. But you can close them if you want by pulling them down, a the first use demo/tutorial will explain/show.

[C:Amie]

And according to microsofts user stats, you're about the only person in the world who uses recent programs and jump lists in the start menu, well actually a few people use recently used programs, but they use them as pinned apps, so it makes more sense to pin them.

Same with fly out menus, not use.

Please can you provide a source for that statement, I would like to explore the data. I for one have used both since their inception.

[jakem1]

1. Frequently Used Apps in the menu. This functionality is completely gone in the new Start screen. If you want the programs you run most frequently, you have to place them in a group at the beginning of the Start screen view so they're readily available. But it's not dynamically changing.
   
2. Jumplists for programs (either on MRU list of apps or Pinned Apps). I've got Word, Excel, and Access pinned on my Windows 7 Start menu, and can quickly open a document right from there. Now, there's only the MRU list in these Office Apps, or the option to pin them to the taskbar. All the Jumplist functionality that exists in the Windows 7 Start Menu is gone on the Metro Start Screen.
   
3. Flyout menus for things like My Computer, My Documents, Pictures, Control Panel. All gone on the Start Screen.
   
4. Shutdown, Restart or Sleep directly from the Start menu. Again, functionality removed from Start Screen itself. You have to now click the invisible and undiscoverable 'Charms' bar, click Settings button (which really gives no indication it's what should be used for Shutting down or rebooting) and then click what you want to do. This is faster for you? Really?
   

1. Most people run the same set of applications every day at which point the frequently used apps list is no more useful than just pinning apps to the Start menu. After the first couple of days of using any PC my FUA list is pretty much static. This is, therefore, useless functionality that can be abandoned. The ability to pin and arrange tiles on the Start Screen is much more useful.

2. Jumplists are useful but they are also available on the Taskbar. Nothing is lost by removing them from the Start screen.

3. Some people might use these but I doubt many do. Apart from the fact that they are not switched on by default they are a relic of the Windows 95 Start menu that don't even make sense on the Windows 7 Start Menu. The same functionality can easily be replicated on the Taskbar if you have to have it.

4. I rarely use these functions as I don't ever shut PCs down and my laptops hibernate when I shut the lid. I can't understand why this is such a big deal that anybody would complain about it but I guess there's no reason why MS couldn't add a shutdown button somewhere on the Start screen. It would be a bit redundant on an ARM-based tablet though.

None of the points you raise is really a big deal. They represent differences, not problems.

[+devHead Subscriber²]

And according to microsofts user stats, you're about the only person in the world who uses recent programs and jump lists in the start menu, well actually a few people use recently used programs, but they use them as pinned apps, so it makes more sense to pin them.

Same with fly out menus, not use.

As for shutdown, it's a function you're at most supposed to use once a day, outdoes need prime real estate. And your computer has a shutdown button as well. It makes no sense to waste that space on it.even so, that has hardly anything to do with stuff you can't do with it.

And yes it is faster. It opens faster, try under heavy load. Ad it's faster to find your applications. Especially if you take some time to organize them. And after a week it's second nature to find them anyway. So. Or power users with lots of frequently used apps, yes it's faster. Certainly not slower by any means.

Also you don't need to close metro apps, a tombstones metro app uses no resources, a live tile uses a few kilobytes. And the tombstones app will close itself. But you can close them if you want by pulling them down, a the first use demo/tutorial will explain/show.

Very well, but I didn't address user stats from Microsoft about who uses which features on the Start menu in Windows 7. I said that you cannot say it's faster and better and that the Start Screen contains all the same features as the Start menu in 7. Because it doesn't! Besides, I've shown plenty of people how to use the Jump-lists and fly-out menus on the Start menu and they love it! Why wouldn't you want to quickly get to something in your Documents folder or a specific setting in Control Panel from a fly-out menu rather than click Control Panel and then find it in the open window and then double click that? Of course it's underused, by default Microsoft has such features only as links instead of menus.

It's not faster to find my applications, I have to switch over to a giant full screen of apps and leave the Desktop! That's just retarded, I'm sorry.

I didn't say anything was slower in that it's less responsive, but opening a Word document now requires I click the Start screen button, get to the screen, click Word, then open the document from within Word's MRU. That isn't faster. Ever.

[+devHead Subscriber²]

1. Most people run the same set of applications every day at which point the frequently used apps list is no more useful than just pinning apps to the Start menu. After the first couple of days of using any PC my FUA list is pretty much static. This is, therefore, useless functionality that can be abandoned. The ability to pin and arrange tiles on the Start Screen is much more useful.

2. Jumplists are useful but they are also available on the Taskbar. Nothing is lost by removing them from the Start screen.

3. Some people might use these but I doubt many do. Apart from the fact that they are not switched on by default they are a relic of the Windows 95 Start menu that don't even make sense on the Windows 7 Start Menu. The same functionality can easily be replicated on the Taskbar if you have to have it.

4. I rarely use these functions as I don't ever shut PCs down and my laptops hibernate when I shut the lid. I can't understand why this is such a big deal that anybody would complain about it but I guess there's no reason why MS couldn't add a shutdown button somewhere on the Start screen. It would be a bit redundant on an ARM-based tablet though.

None of the points you raise is really a big deal. They represent differences, not problems.

1. You're probably right, but to me that's the problem. This new Start screen with none of the functionality of the Windows 7 start menu is designed for the mass of dolts out there who use their computer just to surf the net and post on Facebook and Twitter. So, Microsoft has targeted them, and instead of making it so that others who do more with their computers than that can have what they want, they've left us in the dust. To me, it's not useless functionality that can be abandoned. I don't need gigantic tiles that are designed for touch on my PC.

2. But what if I don't want to pin everything that I use a Jump-list for on the Taskbar? Too bad, I have to now. That's not better or faster, and I don't care whether most people don't use such functionality.

3. Again, why does that functionality have to be plopped on the Taskbar now? Oh, because we need a touch-centric looking Start screen now that simply can't have such abilities. I get it.

4. I agree it would be redundant and not really useful on an ARM based Tablet device. But guess what? I don't have a tablet, I have a Desktop computer! I don't need a tablet UI anywhere for anything!

You're right, they are differences. The differences between designing a user interface for a desktop or laptop and one for a touch device like a smartphone or tablet. And now, the Start screen is designed more for a tablet than my computer. Now if everybody is going to abandoning their non-touch desktops and laptops in the next few years for one these fad tablet devices that aren't design for content creation but only consumption, great. Otherwise, it's just a shoe-horned interface that is not as productive as what exists in Windows 7.

[jakem1]

1. You're probably right, but to me that's the problem. This new Start screen with none of the functionality of the Windows 7 start menu is designed for the mass of dolts out there who use their computer just to surf the net and post on Facebook and Twitter. So, Microsoft has targeted them, and instead of making it so that others who do more with their computers than that can have what they want, they've left us in the dust. To me, it's not useless functionality that can be abandoned. I don't need gigantic tiles that are designed for touch on my PC.

2. But what if I don't want to pin everything that I use a Jump-list for on the Taskbar? Too bad, I have to now. That's not better or faster, and I don't care whether most people don't use such functionality.

3. Again, why does that functionality have to be plopped on the Taskbar now? Oh, because we need a touch-centric looking Start screen now that simply can't have such abilities. I get it.

4. I agree it would be redundant and not really useful on an ARM based Tablet device. But guess what? I don't have a tablet, I have a Desktop computer! I don't need a tablet UI anywhere for anything!

You're right, they are differences. The differences between designing a user interface for a desktop or laptop and one for a touch device like a smartphone or tablet. And now, the Start screen is designed more for a tablet than my computer. Now if everybody is going to abandoning their non-touch desktops and laptops in the next few years for one these fad tablet devices that aren't design for content creation but only consumption, great. Otherwise, it's just a shoe-horned interface that is not as productive as what exists in Windows 7.

1. I don't see how people are dolts for not using hundreds of different applications a day. I tend to use the same 6 to 10 applications every day at work and I'm not using Facebook or Twitter. My Start Menu is completely static. I might use a couple of additional applications from time to time but Windows knows that I use them infrequently so it doesn't add them to the frequently used list (as you'd expect). The end result is that the list is static and the frequently used functionality is redundant.

If you feel that none of this applies to you then I'm afraid you are the minority and it doesn't make sense to design just for you.

2. You're just splitting hairs given that the jump list only works for pinned or frequently used apps on the Start Menu. Pinning these apps to the Taskbar is a no-brainer and something you probably should do anyway given that they are apps that you use frequently.

3. Whether the Start Screen works well with touch is irrelevant because it also works well with a mouse. The menu functionality you describe is poorly designed and only gets worse each time Microsoft adds something to the Control Panel. Furthermore, access to drives, folders and control panel items is available through search and arguably a lot easier and a lot faster to access that way. You're stuck with a Windows 9x mindset and ignoring improvements introduced with the addition of search to the Start Menu/Screen. The menus you use are redundant and, once again, you will find that they are only used by a small minority of people.

4. If you have a desktop PC then there are countless ways that you can configure it to shut down. I fail to see how this is even a problem given the fact that at most you'll only shut your PC down a couple of times per day. I also think it's important that Windows 8 works consistently across PCs and tablets so users have a consistent/familiar experience. Losing easy access to a little-used button seems a small sacrifice to make to accomplish this.

It's quite clear that you've picked up habits from ancient versions of Windows and are just resistant to change. Windows 8 works just as well with a keyboard and mouse as it does with touch and it's just silly to suggest that it's less productive when you're stuck using some of the least productive/useful functionality that probably should have been dumped years ago.

[Rickkins]

Ever notice that among the pro metro crowd that it is always the users fault for not liking something and never any fault on behalf of ms.

Kinda tells ya something, doesn't it....

[dafin0]

Ever notice that among the pro metro crowd that it is always the users fault for not liking something and never any fault on behalf of ms.

Kinda tells ya something, doesn't it....

ummm isnt that always the argument for something that someone else likes but someone else doesnt :/

and please stop trolling, yes you are trolling because you are trolling for some type of arguing response.

[Rickkins]

ummm isnt that always the argument for something that someone else but someone else doesnt :/

and please stop trolling, yes you are trolling because you are trolling for some type of arguing response.

One more time, this time in English please. (sorry, but I've lost my magic decoder ring.)

[dafin0]

One more time, this time in English please. (sorry, but I've lost my magic decoder ring.)

yep i totally messed that up :p... ehh time i call it a night