what do you need the start button for?

[KevinN206]

My brother has iMac... I like it, there are no icons on the desktop... the tasks on dock... which I want...

I like menubar that sits at top of the screen and dock at the bottom on the iMac...

Windows 8 has tiles on the desktop... which I don't want... I like the desktop with NO icons ... just display the weather info ... like I have it on my Windows 7. I may stick with Windows 7 for the rest of years until they end their support.

I know Mac do not have start button... I know mac is not the same as the rest of OS available today...

Hopefully I get either iMac or Mac Mini within a few months... I will see. If not, I stIck with Windows 7 for the rest of the years.

if i have a tablet, Windows 8 is fine on it... no problem..

There's no tiles on the desktop. The desktop is, well, almost exactly like Windows 7. The tiles start screen is merely a replacement of the start menu. That's it.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I have a 30" monitor + 23" in portrait next to it. Windows 8 works just fine on it. I don't spend more than 2 seconds in the start screen when I need to launch a program. I also do not need to look at some other window while my start screen is open, and neither does anyone else. I press start, type a few letters in, and press enter. Same as Windows 7 but I get all the new features of 8.

Exactly. I have a 30" 1600p and a 42" 1080p HDTV connected to my system and have found Windows 8 to be an improvement. It is clear that Metro Start has been designed as much for high resolution displays as it has for tablets or smaller screens.

The start screen is actually pretty awesome. I have weather pinned on it. All I need to do is hit the start button and it updates the weather on there. Hit the start button again and I'm back to where I was. More and more things will integrate into there and I will be able to just hit the start button to see any notifications, then hit it again to go back to where I was. I find this very efficient.

I've never found weather apps to be particular useful and certainly not on the desktop; occasionally I'll use the one on my phone but I see it as more of a "because I can" sort of app. And while tiles support dynamic info I don't really find it to be an advantage on the desktop, at least not with the apps currently available. The biggest advantage I've found for Metro apps is the ability to snap one to the side of your monitor, which is great for a news app like News Republic. However, I expect it will take many months - possibly even years - before it really starts to come into its own and become truly useful. Certainly it's a lot better than the gadgets nonsense they added in Vista, which I never found a use for - I imagine that gadget usage in Win7 is even lower.

[migo]

I've actually seen a fair amount of gadget use in both 7 and Vista. Among people who don't know that it slows the system down.

People need to think of Windows 8 like the PS2 or PS3 at launch. Backwards compatibility is offered to start until the Windows 8 native apps are offered.

[Rickkins]

what do you need the start button for?

Uh, to access the start menu...duh...

[+DKAngel Subscriber²]

ive got no need for it, dont really use it much now as i have everything pinned to the superbar

[Dot Matrix]

Uh, to access the start menu...duh...

Good news then, there's TWO on screen ways and one hardware way of accessing the Start Screen! :yes:

[Rickkins]

Good news then, there's TWO on screen ways and one hardware way of accessing the Start Screen! :yes:

Just a wee small note here; if had meant "Start Screen" I wouldda said "Start Screen". But you knew that already...diddn'tya... :rolleyes:

[Dot Matrix]

Start Menu is dead man, and with good reason. Time to move on.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

Just a wee small note here; if had meant "Start Screen" I wouldda said "Start Screen". But you knew that already...diddn'tya... :rolleyes:

start menu, start screen, same difference, they both launch apps there you go

[Rickkins]

Start Menu is dead man, and with good reason. Time to move on.

Get a grip...it'll be the main "new" feature of Win9....

[HawkMan]

No it won't.

[Dot Matrix]

Get a grip...it'll be the main "new" feature of Win9....

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I honestly don't care what method is used so long as it doesn't reduce the functionality. I've noticed that the metro start screen is less useful than the start menu when it comes to search.

For example:

Win7 - WinKey, type photo... PHOTOSHOP APPEARS... HIT ENTER

Win8 - WinKey type photo... Windows Live Movie Maker, Windows Live Photo Gallery appear... NO PHOTOSHOP UNTIL I TYPE THE WHOLE DAMN THING!!!

This is just bloody irritating.

This should work exactly as in Windows 7. Did you delete the Photoshop shortcut? If it shows up in the All Apps view, then search should find it without you typing the whole thing.

[PGHammer]

Its needed if you have say 100+ programs installed. I doubt you would remember the names of all 100+.

Actually, no - it still isn't.

Search is accessible at least four different ways (from the desktop) - for keyboard users (especially on desktops) the Windows logo key (by itself) is by far the easiest way. Hitting that one key by itself triggers Search; adding letters narrows the parameters to applications with that letter or set of letters. WinKey+O, for example, gives the options of Opera, Osmos, Outlook, and Oracle VM VirtualBox. WinKey+V drops (naturally) Opera, Osmos, and Outlook, but replaces them with VMware and Visual Studio (however many iterations of Visual Studio I have installed, as 2010 and the current beta of 2012 can coexist). Applications, games, utilitites, etc. installed on network shares or mapped cloud shares (as long as the computer can see them) are also included in Search by default (this will likely be the one feature that can help sell Windows 8 in enterprises - especially mobile enterprise users). Even better, it doesn't matter how organized (or not) the StartScreen is. Clutter is irrelevant.

[soumyasch]

It not the start button I want, rather the start menu. In fact, its more like I dont want the start screen.

I almost never use the start menu to browse through the programs list. I search, and that too I look at only the first two or three results. And to some extent, I use the pinned list of 5 or 6 apps, that I don't use frequently enough to get a place on the taskbar but frequently enough to not warrant a search everytime. Since what I use the start menu for uses so little screen estate, devoting a full-screen start screen is totally useless for me. In fact, those giant colorful blocks prove more of a distraction, rather than being useful. At least the start menu was small and subtle enough, but the strat screen shoves everything in your face. With the start menu, all the junk could be hidden behind the all programs menu never to be seen, but the start screen makes it impossible to ignore. Just a search bar tucked in some corner would be enough for my needs, not some 1920x1080 grid of colorful blocks. I could focus on just the search bar with the start menu and ignore the rest, because I can't ignore the start screen is why I do not want it.

[soumyasch]

Even better, it doesn't matter how organized (or not) the StartScreen is. Clutter is irrelevant.

I would say that if what and how things are on the start screen doesn't matter, the start screen itself is irrelevant. You are using search to get your stuff and never browse the list of stuff, why forced to see the list - everytime you open the start screen - at all? Just the search bar and a results pane would be enough, aint it? That's what the start menu, to me, was.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

I would say that if what and how things are on the start screen doesn't matter, the start screen itself is irrelevant. You are using search to get your stuff and never browse the list of stuff, why forced to see the list - everytime you open the start screen - at all? Just the search bar and a results pane would be enough, aint it? That's what the start menu, to me, was.

Now there's a point, something like Quicksilver for Mac, or heck even just the Spotlight function (although Quicksilver works a lot better than Spotlight). No need for the start screen at all, just a search bar.

[techguy77]

Metro will fail so bad with Windows 8 that it is not going to be type of failure where people will install Windows 8 and bitch about it but type of failure where people won't give a damn about Windows 8 meaning won't even install it. MS is being arrogant and ignorant this time around...they will have to suck it up.

I don't have much of problem with Metro Screen as i have problem with no solution by Microsoft when i remove every pin and Metro App from it. I have no organized place to put my shortcuts like Start Menu used to be. And Metro Screen is annoying crap between where start and where i end my work flow. Metro does not belong to PC. Usability of it fails. Who doesn't see this should be embarrased of any word spoken as far as technology goes.

[seta-san]

i haven't used it myself. it looks like the Wii's app design except everything is so big that that it might make it hard to find things. It also looks like an interface that lends itself to running only a single program at a time but would be horrible at multitasking.

[seta-san]

i haven't used it myself. it looks like the Wii's app design except everything is so big that that it might make it hard to find things. It also looks like an interface that lends itself to running only a single program at a time but would be horrible at multitasking.

[seta-san]

Metro will fail so bad with Windows 8 that it is not going to be type of failure where people will install Windows 8 and bitch about it but type of failure where people won't give a damn about Windows 8 meaning won't even install it. MS is being arrogant and ignorant this time around...they will have to suck it up.

I don't have much of problem with Metro Screen as i have problem with no solution by Microsoft when i remove every pin and Metro App from it. I have no organized place to put my shortcuts like Start Menu used to be. And Metro Screen is annoying crap between where start and where i end my work flow. Metro does not belong to PC. Usability of it fails. Who doesn't see this should be embarrased of any word spoken as far as technology goes.

i would personally skip windows 8. both mac and windows seem to have fallen into a design rut..

windows 2000/ME <-crap

windows xp <-good refinement

windows vista <-crap

windows 7 <- good refinement

leopard <- crap

snow leopard <-good refinement

lion <-crap

mountain lion <-likely good refinement

windows 8 <- likely crap

[HawkMan]

yeah except Windows 2000 was anything but crap, saying it was just shows how disconnected form reality you are. In fact it was in many ways better than XP.

XP itself was not a good refinement, the only good thign with XP was better directX compatibility, but in every other way you might as well run 2000, at least untill SP2.

Vista was in fact not crap either, it was perceived as crap because that's what the media said, most people who called it crap never actually even tried it or even knew anything about OS' much less vista. The problem was immature drivers, which sorted itself within a couple of months, and after SP1 it was a great OS', a faster recovery than XP which was far worse in it's original state.

As for Windows 8, as anyone who's actually used it and used it with an open mind willing to give the metro start screen a try, it is not crap, it is in fact a great improvement for the majority of users and how they use windows, and if you're willing to change your usage pattern a little bit, it's a great improvement for those who use windows in other ways to.

[seta-san]

yeah except Windows 2000 was anything but crap, saying it was just shows how disconnected form reality you are. In fact it was in many ways better than XP.

XP itself was not a good refinement, the only good thign with XP was better directX compatibility, but in every other way you might as well run 2000, at least untill SP2.

Vista was in fact not crap either, it was perceived as crap because that's what the media said, most people who called it crap never actually even tried it or even knew anything about OS' much less vista. The problem was immature drivers, which sorted itself within a couple of months, and after SP1 it was a great OS', a faster recovery than XP which was far worse in it's original state.

As for Windows 8, as anyone who's actually used it and used it with an open mind willing to give the metro start screen a try, it is not crap, it is in fact a great improvement for the majority of users and how they use windows, and if you're willing to change your usage pattern a little bit, it's a great improvement for those who use windows in other ways to.

windows 2000/me were unrefined crap out the gate. And guess what. Drivers are just as much of a part of the windows experience as windows itself. Microsoft failed terribly in getting hardware manufacters on board for the changes to archetecture going into vista and they did an even worse job getting software programmers out of the mindset of always asking for admin privilieges.

[HawkMan]

Err, not 2000 was pretty damn well refined out the gate, not sure what you've been smoking but you definitely where not working in IT at that time.

As for Vista drivers, MS can't force anything on anyone, they make the software, they can't force Nvidia to make good drivers. they had a whole year on them, like everyone else. and Creative not only had a year, they helped design the new audio system. If they can't deliver good drivers, get hardware from someone who could, Vista worked fine for me from release, heck it worked fine from Beta 2 onwards in fact, and I had Nvidia and played BF2 on it, with better framerates ont he same hardware than XP provided thanks to the new DX even if the game wasn't coded for it, but it still offered better framerates due to the way the old DX ran inside the new. though the difference wasn't always there and generally was to small for any discernible difference. on the other hand, neither was it generally slower.

As for Admin privs. actually they did a pretty good job at that, new programs released after Vista generally learned to play well with the correct privs pretty fast, the exceptions where a few high end apps that take longer to recode out of bad practices (you can't change basic bad code in 3D Studio and Photoshop overnight), and some small crap apps by devs who had no idea what good code is or any proper education or training in good coding practices, and on that same though, you had the Firefox team which fits fine into that category, though their reason they kept asking for admin privs was because they on purpose changed the default browser for ALL users of the computer when you installed the browser, later they changed it so it asked to change, and then it set it default fo ALL users. either way bad coding practice. had they at least giving options of No, Me or All.

[theyarecomingforyou]

windows 2000/me were unrefined crap out the gate

As has already been stated, Windows 2000 was actually a very good operating system. It was basically XP without the distasteful, oversized blue interface. There were some compatibility issues - both drivers and games - but that was because the software and hardware ecosystems were incredibly poor back then and Microsoft hadn't standardised most of the driver components.

Certainly it's ridiculous to try to equate 2000 to ME and even when you were challenged you did nothing to validate your position. We should be engaging in intellectual discussion and articulating out perspective on the situation rather than resorting to needless vulgarity (like the constant use of term "crap").