windows 8 Do you like or hate Windows 8?

[Noir Angel]

Your right, the mouse is so horrible. I would rather use touch screen to do my Photoshop touch ups and designs. I would rather have my hands up in the air trying to select a portion of programming code so I can delete or change it. I would love to work with my video production time lines without a mouse.

The mouse is not going anywhere. What is all of this hate on the mouse now? There is nothing better for gaming, programming, video production, graphics design (other than those graphic tablets but I cannot stand those, I prefer my mouse), and audio production than a keyboard + mouse combo.

Really? The minute Windows 8 was released, EVERYBODY started HATING the Start Menu and the mouse it seems. Wow.

But your needs aren't important, none of ours are! All that matters is that people can play angry birds and see the weather in 10 different cities without having their poor little minds being confused by switching between a tablet and a desktop ;)

[sanctified Veteran]

If they're going to go overboard with something, I'm glad it's minimalism. It's much easier to scale back from that than to scale back from going overboard with complexity (the direction OSX is taking with Lion and Mountain Lion).

How is OS X any complex?

[trag3dy]

Yes, that's the $64 000 000 question isn't it?

Yeah, and one they haven't replied to yet.

[jesseinsf]

I like most of windows 8. The start screen is not an issue for me. It's the metro interference when bringing you mouse close to the corners to click on something. It would be better to center the quick launch taskbar and put the notification section in the "Charms" bar. And the "Charms" bar should only activated where the so called "Aero Peak" section is on the bottom right corner. The Metro "Open Apps" section on the top left of the desktop is quite annoying, it should only be activated where the Start Screen is accessible.. Anyway that is my thoughts. :-)

[migo]

How is OS X any complex?

Notice how each of the apps follows its own UI aesthetic? That's a sharp break from everything Pinstripe Aqua or Brushed Metal.

[sanctified Veteran]

Notice how each of the apps follows its own UI aesthetic? That's a sharp break from everything Pinstripe Aqua or Brushed Metal.

If anything OS X is one of the most GUI coherent systems. Despite a couple exceptions with the pro apps every standard OS X app follows their HIGs. I dare to say that a lot of third party apps follow them too.

[Stoffel]

But your needs aren't important, none of ours are! All that matters is that people can play angry birds and see the weather in 10 different cities without having their poor little minds being confused by switching between a tablet and a desktop ;)

And here we go again. You ask for options, but don't want to give others any. You don't need touch, fine. Use KB and mouse.Win8 is perfectly fine using KB and mouse. But what about people who want to use touch. Why don't you give people the choice to use touch if they want to. You again show us selfish behavior and expecting MS to build an Os just for you. Grow up

[Noir Angel]

And here we go again. You ask for options, but don't want to give others any. You don't need touch, fine. Use KB and mouse.Win8 is perfectly fine using KB and mouse. But what about people who want to use touch. Why don't you give people the choice to use touch if they want to. You again show us selfish behavior and expecting MS to build an Os just for you. Grow up

Aww, sounds like someone has a crush. I'm flattered and all but not interested, sorry :)

[Stoffel]

Aww, sounds like someone has a crush. I'm flattered and all but not interested, sorry :)

What is so wrong about thinking about the majority of people?

Us here on Neowin are by no means an average user. I understand you want to use Windows in a certain way. But the way you talk about it is like it's your way or the high way. You don't need touch, fine, loads of people will actually like it, and MS is catering for the majority of the people. You can still use Win 8 just like you did Win 7, minus a full start screen. But you only see that a few seconds anyway, what's the problem?

[Noir Angel]

And as I have repeated 3 times now, I DO NOT WANT THE START SCREEN REMOVED, I JUST WANT A WAY TO DISABLE IT, SO THAT THOSE OF US THAT DON'T WANT TO USE IT DON'T HAVE TO. I disagree strongly with a lot of people's rationalisations for why Microsoft are forcing the change upon people and am voicing that fact in a reasonable debate amongst sensible adults. The fact that I disagree with their rationalisations doesn't mean that I want to take away their ability to use the start menu.

Christ almighty, how many times do I have to repeat myself before the point I'm trying to make has a chance of registering itself in your brain?

Oh, and sorry to bust your nugget but the users that have Windows 8 on a touch screen are likely to be in the minority not the majority ;)

[migo]

If anything OS X is one of the most GUI coherent systems. Despite a couple exceptions with the pro apps every standard OS X app follows their HIGs. I dare to say that a lot of third party apps follow them too.

Apple doesn't follow their own guidelines, or rather they make them up as they go.

[PGHammer]

If you don't have to use it then what is it's purpose? If the change is so amazing and is the way of the future but you can bypass it's use completely then honestly, what is the point? That doesn't even make any sense and is just change for the sake of change. We're talking about on desktop computers here, not tablets so don't bring those up. I don't get how you can argue for something that you claim you don't even have to use.

As for the other.. comparing a laser sight on a gun in real life to aim assist in a game on the pc..I don't even know where to start. They are completely different. And I wasn't "jumping all over those that choose to use it" as you put it. I was just pointing out that there is a reason games don't have aim assist on the pc and that is because the mouse is a more precise input device than touch screen, motion controls, or console controllers. That is a fact and will remain that way for a quite a few more years at least.

Because there are folks that use computers that DO use those features - the computing world does NOT revolve around me.

Just because I don't use a particular feature (I mentioned touch support on desktops - it's there DESPITE my not using it), why begrudge others that want to use it, using it?

You, sir, are a *purist* when it comes to PC gaming. You decry PC games that have aim-assist as *console ports* - even those that don't exist for the console market.

While there ARE more console games than PC games that have aim-assist, to insist that there are NO PC titles that have aim-assist is to ignore recent rants by your fellow purists.

The closest you will find to an OS that does what you want, and nothing more, outside of Windows, is a Linux distribution; however, even most Linux distributions (even enterprise-focused distributions such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Oracle Linux) do too much, according to your own tenets.

What you are asking for, to put it plainly, is a *niche OS*.

Niche flavors of Windows generally are disasters - can you name ONE that has been any sort of success?

Windows *overall* is successful largely BECAUSE of that general-purpose/multipurpose *jack-of-all-trades* design.

iOS is a niche OS, and Apple is taking great pains to avoid coming anywhere NEAR Windows, even with OS X.

However, Google (especially with Android) is coming after Windows, albeit in the low end of the portable space.

While Microsoft can, to an extent, dismiss Apple, it can't - and shouldn't - dismiss Google, and especially not Android.

[trag3dy]

I'm not begrudging anyone anything. I just think that if the largest most talked about feature of windows 8 can largely be ignored and not used then there is no purpose to having it.

I don't want a niche OS. I want Windows 8 with an option to use the start menu how I like it. That's all. Not some hacked in third party replacement program that may break at any given moment. I honestly don't think that's to much to ask.

If Microsoft gave the option to use the old start menu then that in no way hinders anyone elses uses of the new start screen if they want to use that. I understand things change and evolve but for me the evolution that MS took with the start screen just doesn't work. That it does for others is great, I'm not arguing that MS deny them that option, I never have. I'm arguing for an option that would make most people who criticize windows 8 happy.

All the while most of what I see from Windows 8 supports is them trying to tell us how we're doing it wrong, or why they think we should like it.

[PGHammer]

I'm not begrudging anyone anything. I just think that if the largest most talked about feature of windows 8 can largely be ignored and not used then there is no purpose to having it.

I don't want a niche OS. I want Windows 8 with an option to use the start menu how I like it. That's all. Not some hacked in third party replacement program that may break at any given moment. I honestly don't think that's to much to ask.

If Microsoft gave the option to use the old start menu then that in no way hinders anyone elses uses of the new start screen if they want to use that. I understand things change and evolve but for me the evolution that MS took with the start screen just doesn't work. That it does for others is great, I'm not arguing that MS deny them that option, I never have. I'm arguing for an option that would make most people who criticize windows 8 happy.

All the while most of what I see from Windows 8 supports is them trying to tell us how we're doing it wrong, or why they think we should like it.

Thing is, trag3dy, it wouldn't make the majority of those critics happy. The majority of those same critics don't just want the Start menu back, they also want the StartScreen gone. It is very much *my way or the highway*. If they just wanted the Start menu back, all sorts of third-party tools (none of which are hacks per se) abound.

I'm going to tell folks why I actually don't WANT the Start menu around, and why I defend the StartScreen - despite being a keyboard-and-mouse user; the Start menu actually detracts more from the desktop than the StartScreen does.

The reason why it does is the very reason why the critics of the StartScreen defend the Start menu - it shares space with the desktop. The deeper you have to go into the Start menu, the more it overhangs the desktop. You wind up rearraging your desktop shortcuts to compensate - therefore taking time that you could be using to be productive - doing actual work - and using it for fiddlework.

The StartScreen, on the other hand, shares NO space with the desktop at all. It has its own space. You can rearrange, or not, as you need to. Because I go to it far less than the Start menu, I spend absolutely no time fiddling around with it.

However, if I NEED to go to the StartScreen - for anything - I have several ways to get there; however, the fastest involves one keyboard key - the Windows logo key - the SAME key that used to launch the Start menu. No mousing around at all.

Even better, that same key ties you into Index Server - that horrifically-underused component that's been part of Windows since 2000 Professional, because (get this) the StartScreen is now itself searchable by a method other than the Mark I Mod 0 eyeball (which is the only way to tackle the Start menu). For once it doesn't matter how many programs you install, or how they are arranged, for that matter. That means *no more fiddlework*.

I want to spend the majority of my time with Windows actually USING it - for work or play or whatever - not doing fiddlework just to be able to.

In other words, I defend the StartScreen - as a keyboard-and-mouse user - because it actually suits my needs far better than the Start menu does. Touch doesn't have anything to do with it.

If anything, I'm a very keyboard-centric Windows user. My biggest nitpick with the Start menu, in fact, has been that it has never tied into Index Server. I've been a *kitchen-sink* sort of installer - as are a lot of folks using a GUI - any GUI; it's not even close to being a Windows-user-only-problem - for years. That the Start menu never tied into Index Server has, in fact, been something I have complained about, and vociferously at that. (I'm not the only one, either; check out the posts on the Windows 7 Taskforce blog.) The *mouse* - not the keyboard - is what I see as an accessory. (That is likely a byproduct of my rather lengthy pre-GUI computing life.) The Start menu is very much mouse-biased; the StartScreen is not.

Could that be, in fact, where the anti-StartScreen (in fact, anti-8-in-general) criticism is coming from?

The very reason I ask is that the Start menu (especially in Vista and 7) almost invites thinking of the mouse as the primary means of interaction with Windows in general - with the keyboard nearly reduced to an afterthought.

The StartScreen (unlike the Start menu) DOESN'T scream *mouse*.

[Tuishimi]

I am loving Windows 8. But then again I use it in desktop mode for programming so... I might not have to worry about switching back and forth from Metro to Desktop like some people might.

[Dashel]

You wind up rearraging your desktop shortcuts to compensate - therefore taking time that you could be using to be productive - doing actual work - and using it for fiddlework.

The StartScreen, on the other hand, shares NO space with the desktop at all. Because I go to it far less than the Start menu, I spend absolutely no time fiddling around with it.

However, if I NEED to go to the StartScreen - for anything - I have several ways to get there; however, the fastest involves one keyboard key - the Windows logo key - the SAME key that used to launch the Start menu. No mousing around at all.

For once it doesn't matter how many programs you install, or how they are arranged, for that matter. That means *no more fiddlework*.

The Start menu is very much mouse-biased; the StartScreen is not.

We don't want hacks, we want a simple built in option. We don't even care if its not the default behavior and 90% of people never discover it.

Unlike XP, the current Start is static so I'm not sure where all this overhang is coming from. Desktop shortcuts? Really? In Metro there is no Desktop so I guess that's another way to 'solve' that problem.

So after a bunch of to do, you really only admit that you use the Start menu less now than you have in the past (which was minimal). You still admit that people aren't going to take the time to organize/fiddlework it (of which the classic menu allowed power users superior customizations options that has become harder since XP) so no gain there. All I keep hearing is how it fits you better since you never use it anyway. What a sterling recommendation.

Maybe that's the real issue here, those of us that meticulously organized and maintained our Start Menus going back to our DOS app launchers to the ones that say **** it, I'll just drop shortcuts everywhere.

The new Start is accessed the same as the old, as well as most of the average searches (apps and docs) so I'm still scratching my head on how Win8 Start has revolutionized anything there.

[seta-san]

i haven't used it yet. but i'm probably going to skip 8 and i have a reason.

microsoft seems to be locked into a certain pattern

ME =suck

XP =great

Vista= unrefined

7=great

8= i'm giong to assume is at the very least unrefined.

9=presumably a refined version of 8

[migo]

ME is 9x codebase, not NT.

It's really 2000 unrefined, XP refined, Vista unrefined, 7, refined. You're likely right about 8 being unrefined and 9 being refined.

[PGHammer]

We don't want hacks, we want a simple built in option. We don't even care if its not the default behavior and 90% of people never discover it.

Unlike XP, the current Start is static so I'm not sure where all this overhang is coming from. Desktop shortcuts? Really? In Metro there is no Desktop so I guess that's another way to 'solve' that problem.

So after a bunch of to do, you really only admit that you use the Start menu less now than you have in the past (which was minimal). You still admit that people aren't going to take the time to organize/fiddlework it (of which the classic menu allowed power users superior customizations options that has become harder since XP) so no gain there. All I keep hearing is how it fits you better since you never use it anyway. What a sterling recommendation.

Maybe that's the real issue here, those of us that meticulously organized and maintained our Start Menus going back to our DOS app launchers to the ones that say **** it, I'll just drop shortcuts everywhere.

The new Start is accessed the same as the old, as well as most of the average searches (apps and docs) so I'm still scratching my head on how Win8 Start has revolutionized anything there.

What I said is that the Start menu (even in Windows 7, which I am currently using), juts out into the desktop space *any time you open it*; the further you go into the Start menu, the more space it eats.

The StartScreen *can't* do that, as it shares not a lick of space with the desktop. In short, my biggest peeve with the Start menu is eliminated.

My second biggest peeve is that if you do *kitchen-sink* installs, you have to spend time fiddling around and organizing the Start menu because of the first peeve.

My third biggest peeve is that the Start menu is NOT searchable via any method except the Mark I Mod 0 human eyeball. (This naturally ties into the second peeve.)

The StartScreen - unlike the Start menu - *is* tied into Index Server - which has been a core Windows feature since 2000 Professional, and has been an option in Windows NT Workstation since Service Pack 4.

What time I do spend in the StartScreen is simply to find an application that has no shortcut on my desktop or anywhere else (which is because it's not used as often as those shortcuts that ARE on my desktop, or my Taskbar).

The linkage between the StartScreen and Index Server means less (far less) fiddlework - in my case, I don't have to organize the StartScreen at all.

I have more time to be productive, have fun, etc. because there is that much less in the way of fiddlework I have to do.

[Dashel]

What I said is that the Start menu (even in Windows 7, which I am currently using), juts out into the desktop space *any time you open it*; the further you go into the Start menu, the more space it eats.

The StartScreen *can't* do that, as it shares not a lick of space with the desktop. In short, my biggest peeve with the Start menu is eliminated.

My second biggest peeve is that if you do *kitchen-sink* installs, you have to spend time fiddling around and organizing the Start menu because of the first peeve.

My third biggest peeve is that the Start menu is NOT searchable via any method except the Mark I Mod 0 human eyeball. The StartScreen - unlike the Start menu - *is* tied into Index Server - which has been a core Windows feature since 2000 Professional, and has been an option in Windows NT Workstation since Service Pack 4.

What time I do spend in the StartScreen is simply to find an application that has no shortcut on my desktop or anywhere else (which is because it's not used as often as those shortcuts that ARE on my desktop, or my Taskbar).

With XP sure, but I don't see how you can say that in Vista/Win7 that the Start menu grows the deeper you go (so its odd to bring that up). Occlusion is a static size.

I can only wonder in puzzlement how Start sharing space is worse than the jarring flip flopping. And you still sound like you are saying, well, I don't have to drill down anymore, cause I just don't bother. Not a testament to better.

I'm also puzzled by the claim that Start searching was so broken prior to Win8. What kinds of new searches are you talking about that you can now do? How does this create less reorganizing in Win8 Start? Or are you comparing to XP again?

You use desktop shortcuts instead of Start, nuff said. Maintaining the Start menu used to be a hallmark of a good user. Not wanting to spend a tiny fraction of time maintaining your OS sounds like a lazy average user talking (those same users can't pin stuff now nor will they unpin stuff in Win8, fiddlework).

[PGHammer]

With XP sure, but I don't see how you can say that in Vista/Win7 that the Start menu grows the deeper you go (so its odd to bring that up). Occlusion is a static size.

I can only wonder in puzzlement how Start sharing space is worse than the jarring flip flopping. And you still sound like you are saying, well, I don't have to drill down anymore, cause I just don't bother. Not a testament to better.

I'm also puzzled by the claim that Start searching was so broken prior to Win8. What kinds of new searches are you talking about that you can now do? How does this create less reorganizing in Win8 Start? Or are you comparing to XP again?

You use desktop shortcuts instead of Start, nuff said. Maintaining the Start menu used to be a hallmark of a good user. Not wanting to spend a tiny fraction of time maintaining your OS sounds like a lazy average user talking (those same users can't pin stuff now nor will they unpin stuff in Win8, fiddlework).

What I said was that outside of search-by-eyeball (which is problematical with a large Start menu with many program groups) you couldn't do it at all.

Hyperorganizing the Start menu sounds a lot like someone with a ton of time on their hands. (Same goes with hyperorganizing the *desktop shortcuts*.) Doing either - let alone both - is not work - it's using time that could be SPENT working doing something else. I don't plod worth anything, and I loathe *fiddlework* - I'd much rather be productive. With Windows 8, I don't HAVE to organize the StartScreen precisely *because* it's searchable - isn't that supposed to be the whole reason FOR Index Server (which came to Windows' core feature set with Windows 2000 Professional, which pre-dates XP)? File-based search (which did exist pre-8, and is now also accessible via the Charm Bar-based Search by default) is not what I am referring to. I am referring to *application-based* search, which was utterly impossible pre-8, for the sensible reason that the Start menu had no connection to Index Server unless you did a roundabout search via Windows Explorer - in short the pre-8 way takes how many extra steps, whereas with Windows 8, it takes a single keyboard press, and no mouse-clicks at all.

My desktop only has more icons in 8 than it did in 7 because I have more games installed in 8 than I did 7; if anything, I have fewer applications (of any sort) installed in Windows 8, due to some third-party applications and utilities being replaced by core-OS functionality. And by games I'm referring to Win32 games - not WinRT or Web-based games; WinRT-based games are on my StartScreen - not my desktop.

[Windows Nashville]

Yeah, because there's just no way someone without Metro could have the common sense to organise their files properly, huh? :rolleyes:

Look ma! All like magic, no desktop mess and I did it all without Metro! (and I have more than 1 TiB of video files in my library and more than 400 GB of games on my hard drive so I have more than enough content). Absolutely amazing, huh?

And that looks infinitely better than the garish images posted in the Win 8 Screenshots thread every day. Anyone who needs Metro in order to get his computing environment organized has clearly not bothered to learn how to use Windows at all.

[Dashel]

What I said was that outside of search-by-eyeball you couldn't do it at all. I am referring to *application-based* search, which was utterly impossible pre-8, for the sensible reason that the Start menu had no connection to Index Server unless you did a roundabout search via Windows Explorer - in short the pre-8 way takes how many extra steps, whereas with Windows 8, it takes a single keyboard press, and no mouse-clicks at all.

Hyperorganizing the Start menu sounds a lot like someone with a ton of time on their hands. With Windows 8, I don't HAVE to organize the StartScreen precisely *because* it's searchable.

Ok, you're going to have to help me here PG because I'm baffled by your search example. Yes, application based searches are new, but I fail to see how that effects finding and launching applications themselves. I can more easily search within apps, but beyond that the default Win7 Start is actually an all around better search out of the box. I honestly don't understand the constant references to the indexing service. Again, not an app lauch issue so I'm still confused as to how the new search makes lauching apps easier or has any impact whatsoever on the connectivity or cleanliness of the Start Screen.

I mean, isn't that the whole point of the Start Menu changes starting with Vista and eventually leading here? As you say, that users can just search instead of organizing their menus? (It coincidentally got harder to organize that same menu for those of us that liked a well tended garden). Using Search over hierarchy didn't start with Win8 nor do I see how the depreciated Indexing Service has anything at all to do with it.

Can you at least give a clean example?

[KingCracker]

I haven't been messing with it long I only installed it today but I like it so far so i'll probably upgrade.

[dvb2000]

Microsoft loses $494m last quarter. That's just the beginning when they try and force inferior tablet O/S's onto desktop users!