Recommended Posts

if all you did with the start menu is to open it and search your computer then i dont understand your problem.

either click in the lower left corner and just start typing for a search, or press windows key and start typing. not really that hard :-S

metro apps suck imo, they take way to long to load and i dont use them expect the skype and leo app. especially leo is great if snapped to the side of the monitor if you need to do some frequent translations.

As for the start screen, my frequently used applications are pinned to it and i find it alot easier to get to them then in windows 7 or before

It does take some time to get used to using. I only used it off and on since March, but since it was officially released I've used to constantly on my desktop and overall it has been a pleasure to use. Once you "force" yourself to do more with the Modern UI, you find out how easy it is to use. There are some things I still need to do on the desktop, but that should change as better apps are released.

I was concerned if MS made the right move, but after using it regularly, that is a definite yes.

No start8 here, that's going back to the past, but Decor8 is an awesome program.

I don't see why so many people have a hard time with this. It took me all of about 30 seconds to get used to it. You still move to the bottom left, you still click something that says "Start", just instead of it being desktop + start, the start fills your screen. IMO, this is actually better because you can see MORE apps on the screen.

The only area of contention is the metro tiles, im getting used to them, but other than that 8 is so much better for me that I hate using 7 on my work laptop. If it takes you more than 5- 10 minutes to get used to 8, you probably are too old to grasp new things...

That's what I don't understand, Microsoft.

Why not give users who shelled out their own hard-earned money for Windows 8, a choice -- Metro or the 'classic' Start button ?

'Different' is not always better.

Because the start menu was an outdated part of the operating system. https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1081755-do-you-like-or-hate-windows-8/page__view__findpost__p__595048551

As for the thread starter, I wouldn't bother with a start menu replacement. Just use the start page, for me it works almost identical to the start menu. I open it (usually using the start button on my keyboard) and start typing to launch a program. I don't use many metro apps and don't bother with the live tiles.

How much time it took you to adjust to windows 8?

not possible

That's what I don't understand, Microsoft.

Why not give users who shelled out their own hard-earned money for Windows 8, a choice -- Metro or the 'classic' Start button ?

'Different' is not always better.

excactly if windows 8 had a start menu and users had a choice, it would have a lot more positive launch.

About 5 minutes, the only time I used the start menu was to open explorer (which I now do on Windows 8 using Win + E) and starting an app via Win -> Type -> Enter (which can still be done on Windows 8). I never use metro apps though.

I've been using it for a week now and I still feel pretty much lost.

I miss the start menu! All I did there is used the search and click My Computer but I keep going to the corner of the screen searching for it.

Metro is ..idk, not for me. Why the apps takes a few seconds to load? Sure, every application we use takes a few seconds to load but with metro the stupid splash screen stops me from doing any thing else. It's like metro takes me to a completely other place in windows with its full screen etc' and i don't like it. Makes me feel disconnected.

This is hilarious. The first two pages of replies to this post were people giving alternatives to what Windows 8 really is, or ways to get around the Start Screen. And yet on other areas of the forum if you say something bad about Windows 8, you'll get absolutely railed. I'm posting this from a Win8 PC, which i mostly dislike. But I'm like the OP: It still just doesn't seem like any improvement (except for faster boot times, perhaps)

Because the start menu was an outdated part of the operating system. http://www.neowin.ne...t__p__595048551

I'm not starting a flame war or mentioning the start menu but by your logic it's time to get rid of cars becuase they're an outdated part of travel. And graphics because they're an outdated part of seeing things. Heck, let's get rid of toilets because they're an outdated part of everyday life.

I'm not starting a flame war or mentioning the start menu but by your logic it's time to get rid of cars becuase they're an outdated part of travel. And graphics because they're an outdated part of seeing things. Heck, let's get rid of toilets because they're an outdated part of everyday life.

The toilets and cars analogies don't work for me.

As for the start menu being outdated did you read the link I posted? Basically said the start menu was so outdated that it wasn't compatible with recent technologies that they wanted in Win 8.

And yet, with all the technological difficulties, they managed to put it in the preview but not in the RTM ?

The start menu wasn't in the preview, the code for the start menu was still available as you can't just remove something like the start menu without major testing which is why you were able to apply a hack to get it back.

And yet, with all the technological difficulties, they managed to put it in the preview but not in the RTM ?

You said it wrong.. They hadn't removed it fully in the preview. It completely reverted the entire Explorer shell to put the start bar back. You lost single dialogue copy, ribboned browsing etc etc.

You didn't just bring back the start bar, you brought back the entire older shell.

The toilets and cars analogies don't work for me.

As for the start menu being outdated did you read the link I posted? Basically said the start menu was so outdated that it wasn't compatible with recent technologies that they wanted in Win 8.

haha, and yet all the start menu replacements apps proof excact opositive, start menu can and does work great, truth is MS wants to force millions of people to use their pathetic app store, force them to use tablet/phone apps, force them to get used to square metro interface in hopes that more people will buy their insignifican phone platform that has only 5-6% market share.

Don't care if it has a start button or not, it still will not replace Windows 7 till MS fix the issues.

I am finding Windows 8 a very broken OS for mouse and keyboard use.

Unsupported file formats, having to resort to the command line to make network links just to be able to play music and then have it fail .Along with a few other things.

Has the feeling of a console with an OS running in the background, this needs to be reversed.

Not as much as a disaster as expected but still a major headache.

I'm not stressing I'll continue to dual boot till I'm happy to switch permanently.

I am finding Windows 8 a very broken OS for mouse and keyboard use.

Unsupported file formats, having to resort to the command line to make network links just to be able to play music and then have it fail .Along with a few other things.

Mouse and keyboard use works just the same as within all previous Windows releases, same goes for file formats, there is no compatibility lost when it comes to what is supported.... So I'm not exactly sure why you would be having any issues...

haha, and yet all the start menu replacements apps proof excact opositive, start menu can and does work great, truth is MS wants to force millions of people to use their pathetic app store, force them to use tablet/phone apps, force them to get used to square metro interface in hopes that more people will buy their insignifican phone platform that has only 5-6% market share.

When exactly did I say the start menu didn't work???

What I said was the start menu wasn't compatible with the newer technologies that MIcrosoft wanted to use.

Sure they could have kept the start menu and re-wrote it to be compatible but they wanted to use the same codebase on both their tablets and desktop which is why we've got the start page.

It works almost identically to the start menu for me, in both Windows 7 and Windows 8 I open them with the Windows key and start typing for the program I'm looking for and launch it using the arrow keys and enter.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

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

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

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!