Do you want the start menu in Windows 8?

[thomastmc]

Hmm, lets see, which is the more precise control mechanism again? Which one requires a larger hit target? Is calling the SS a full screen menu (NSS) anything but painfully obvious? Funny, seems pretty clear that RT is the glove that makes Desktop users feel analog.

You edited my quote so as to take away relevant context...

Equating the start screen to a full screen menu was meant to be both sarcastic and ironic, in response to your understanding of a metaphor. (I shouldn't have to explain that)

[Edited: After reading back I realized that much of your post wasn't in response to me, but rather to another poster that you failed to quote.]

[Mr. Gibs]

Office does not use WinRT so I'm not sure what you're implying...

Um pretty sure there's a version of Office for WinRT?

[MFH]

Um pretty sure there's a version of Office for WinRT?

Nope, there is one for Windows RT, but it's not based on WinRT,,,

[Mr. Gibs]

Nope, there is one for Windows RT, but it's not based on WinRT,,,

Oh oops I didn't see in your original post that you meant WinRT (as in the api set). Saw Dot Matrix's and figured you guys were talking about Windows RT.

Confusing...don't know why they couldn't have given it a different name.

Anyways according to people on here WinRT (api set) is just as powerful as Win32.

[Orange Battery]

What would be very welcome would be an option to get the start page taking only half the desktop. I have seen a few people trying to follow website instructions about how to organise or use the start page but are unable to see the instructions while also having the start page open. The Start page needs to have a much better way of managing desktop applications and their start menu shortcuts. I used to use my start menu a lot because I could never remember the name of half the applications I had.

One last great to have, the option to slide the start page across the screen by mouse pointer, in a similar way to sliding the lock screen when you start windows. I have rsi and the mouse I use doesn't have a scroll wheel which means using the arrow keys or slider at the bottom of the screen, would be so much easier to click and swipe a non tile area of the screen.

[The Evil Overlord]

Seeing as this is now linked on front page, https://www.neowin.net/news/from-the-forums-more-thoughts-on-the-windows-8-start-menu-debate

I was wandering... how many warwagons is this thread worth now...?

[Noir Angel]

More powerful apps and access to the full MS Office suite doesn't count?

Pretty bad example given that those are essentially full win32 desktop apps compiled for ARM with a tablet UI ;)

[jp.vdvyver]

death to start menu!

the Start Screen is the Future!

[Quppa]

Anyways according to people on here WinRT (api set) is just as powerful as Win32.

It's absolutely not, nor is it meant to be. It's possible to use a limited subset of Win32 in Modern apps, and it's possible to use some WinRT APIs in desktop applications. With luck we'll see WinRT extended in future versions so it can be used to build traditional desktop applications, not just full-screen, low-information-density applications designed primarily for touch input.

As for the topic, the Start Screen is basically worse in every way for me as a desktop user (covers an entire screen, disrupts workflow, no folder/hierarchy support, breaks up search into multiple screens, doesn't have the equivalent of the right-hand side links of the Vista/7 Start Menu, lacks jumplist support and context menu options, removes quick access to shutdown options), yet I'm not compelled to rely on a third-party replacement (StartIsBack looks the most promising, however). I certainly hope there is enough of a backlash to make Microsoft reconsider and re-introduce the Start Menu, but I manage to avoid using the Start Screen almost entirely (I used the Start Menu much more), so I'm more concerned about other aspects of recent Microsoft releases, like the premature death of ClearType :)

[MFH]

Anyways according to people on here WinRT (api set) is just as powerful as Win32.

It's not - it actually can't due to the limitations that the put in it. (e.g. no direct access to the filesystem,...)

like the premature death of ClearType :)

Wait what? ClearType is dead? Isn't the Surface Screen Technologie even called ClearType?

[nekrosoft13]

HELL YES I DO!

[Darrian]

What I don't understand is they already had a Tablet OS it's called "The Windows Phone Operating system". Why couldn't they have put that on a tablet? Apple put their phone OS on their tablet and it looks like they are doing pretty good.

Lol that's pretty much the reason I'll never own an iPad. Well, that and the ridiculous pricetag.

[Xabier Granja]

I really don't understand the issue here. We need to remember that people in these forums are a MINORITY that is tech-focused. Most people don't care at all if they have a start menu or not. Now, somebody will tell me, I know "normal" consumers who miss it! Why of course there will be many, but they're still in the minority. Most people don't know or don't care. Granted this is a new UI they need to get used to, but when faced with both, the start screen is just easier to access than the start menu, at least visually. Mechanically, you need to press the windows key for both, so they're exactly the same.

I don't understand what start screen haters are missing so much from the start menu. It's the same functionality with a different layout that arguably makes much better use of your screen. The start menu is a vertical bloated list of everything you have. The start screen is horizontal - like your screen, statistics show a majority of widescreens these days - and you can simply pin what you want. Some people showed their start screen organization, let me contribute to that trend:

Now, as you can see, the start screen allows you to organize your stuff pretty well. If you're using a program, you access the start screen/menu EXACTLY the same: WIN key press. Alternatively, you hover your mouse to the lower left side of the screen. Both Win7 and Win8 have the same mechanic to open the Start menu/screen.

Now, if you're starting from scratch in Win7, you boot to the desktop and have to press WIN key to go to the start menu, then hover around to different folders for whatever you don't have pinned in the initial menu (which doesn't hold many slots to pin stuff, remember). With Win8, you boot to the start screen, no WIN key press needed. No hovering the mouse to see what different folders hold, everything's there in your view. Also, you can have around 60 tiles or so (guesstimate) visible in a 1080p screen, whereas the start menu only holds a few icons in its first menu. To this, add that the live tiles already give you information and many times you don't even need to open the program, whereas with the start menu you have to enter anything to see updated info.

As you can see in my start screen, I'm still experimenting with things since this is a very new UI, but notice how 4 months after the Win8 launch, yes there are still many apps missing, but the only desktop apps I NEED are Office and Photoshop. Office will be transported to Metro via Office MX gradually, most likely in the next year or two. As the new Metro environment progresses and expands, you can bet Photoshop will make an appearance. Of course I do have many other apps pinned to my taskbar in the desktop, which is mainly for backwards compatibility - things that don't yet exist in the Metro environment. However, having the new stuff does not preclude me from using the desktop stuff, and it's all easily accessible from the taskbar. There's another debate for Win RT and it's lack of desktop support on ARM architectures, but that doesn't affect this debate since we have access to ALL apps with an x86 CPU. However, my point is that, with all the metro apps that are available now that will inevitably improve and expand, if i bought an RT machine now the absolute ONLY application that I NEED that I wouldn't have access to, is Photoshop. One app out of a group of double digits is quite good progress if you ask me.

Which brings me to my next point, which I referenced before: pinning desktop apps to the taskbar, a habit that's the motivating thought behind it being so difficult for me to understand why some people find this start menu lack so offensive. Did you REALLY have that many apps pinned to your start menu? I've been a power user of Windows since the early 1990s and I certainly was a heavy user of the start menu. Once Vista came, I stopped looking around the start menu completely naturally: why look for stuff when I only need to press WIN key and type what I want, it'll search it for me? The same functionality is present in Win7, while Win8 makes it even EASIER: no WIN key press necessary since you're ALREADY in the start screen, just type. 1 step instead of two. Back to my initial topic though, once Win7 came (I don't remember if we could do this in Vista...) I remember I started pinning EVERYTHING to the taskbar. Why go through the WIN key press when everything was right there in front of me in the taskbar? MUCH easier to access than WIN key press + typing what I was looking for. Simply click the icon. The taskbar holds only so much in it in a 1080p display (the majority in the market today, look at statistics like these), whereas the Win8 start screen holds the same in-your-face presentation philosophy PLUS improving it with much more space to show many more programs that, even better, are tiles that already show part of the important info they'll hold once you open them.

How is any of this worse? Seriously I do not understand. I get that people have habits, but we also had habits in the DOS era and we changed them. We had habits when all phones had stupid keys with 3 letters per number and we transitioned to touchscreens just fine. How is the Start screen, which is easily provable to make familiar processes simpler and easier make anything worse? It LOOKS different, big deal. It generally requires less key presses or none at all and makes much better use of your screen space (except multiple windows, I know, but it is obvious that this will come soon, most likely this summer with the Blue wave). I get that people might find habits hard to break, but in my experience over the last 25 years of computing... if a new style/habit makes things easier/simpler, I'm all on board. Sure, it might take a few months to get used to it, but when you do things are simply unequivocally easier.

Finally, I'd like to tackle the debate of touch VS keyboard/mouse. I will not get tired of repeating this message to every individual who brings up this topic: having one more input method does not impede you from using another one. Read: having touch does not prevent you from using keyboard/mouse. My 22" 1080p monitor is a touch enabled one and I've watched myself evolve my use patterns over the last couple years with it - am I constantly reaching for my screen? NO. My arm would get tired. Having all 3 input methods hasn't changed that most of the time my hands are on the keyboard and so I use mouse and keyboard much more often in my desktop PC. However, having all three inputs has made me faster, more productive and dare I say it, it has given me a more comfortable experience with my PC. If I'm typing, I'll most likely use keyboard shortcuts. If my hand is on or near the mouse, I'll most likely click stuff with it. But you know what happens specially in the mornings, when I'm reading my RSS in the morning with a cup of coffee in my hands? My hands are already up, and so it's MUCH easier to simply touch the screen instead of breaking the line with what I'm looking at in order to look at the keyboard/mouse, take my hand to it, go back to look for where my cursor is in the screen, move it to where I was looking in the first place, and click. That's 5 steps to use the mouse instead of 1 with touch: while holding my coffee in my left hand I simply touch whatever link/objetc/what-have-you I was looking at with my right hand because it is more CONVENIENT, it is more comfortable and it is easier. More input methods are a GOOD thing and tech-enthusiasts need to start accepting that. The same people that now hiss at the thought of touch with their Windows OS are the ones who thought the mouse was the stupidest thing ever when mice came out and look how history played out.

To conclude this undeniably very long post - I have many thoughts on these issues... - let me emphasize what I'm trying to ingrain in people's minds: most of the complaints I hear about all these improved input options and simpler UIs are unwarranted. You might like something better or worse, but these reactions where users assure that they find this or that to be intolerable, useless, the seeds of doom for Microsoft... you need to get off your high horse and calm down. What you like best right now is not the best for everybody, nor necessarily for the future of computing. Statistics show what people do with their computers and Microsoft is focusing on statistics to tailor Windows mechanics towards the majority use, all while adapting old mechanics without breaking them (remember, same steps to access start menu/screen, etc). While the new stuff is simpler/easier and more in-your-face, the old mechanics still bring the same results. Things look different, but Win7 looked different from Vista, which looked VERY different from XP, which was a different galaxy compared to Win98, etc. There's certainly many complaints to be had for the new UI and Windows 8, it's surely a work in progress that won't be completely mature for another couple of years. The start menu thing however, is not worthy of all these outrageous feelings and whiny debate.

[PC EliTiST]

Yes, please. MS should bring start menu back and remove everything tablet-related garbage. They should seperate and make them two distinct OSes. They must clear this messy hybrid situation.

And most importantly, they must fix the broken tablet-suited only font-rendering on Metro UI, IE Metro & Desktop versions. There are some people who don't know much and thus, they still use IE... They will lose their vision in a while.

[Radium]

I want the option to enable it. Quite simple, isn't it?

Just add the option with a checkbox where the previous startmenu options used to be.

[Hpo Niks]

NO!

[chrisj1968]

People, People.. I'll say this again.. the setup for Windows 8 (pokes MS as a hint for windows 9) should poke the installation system for whether it is touch or not.If it IS a touch system, then by all means install without the start button. If NOT, then install the start menu.. I use both interfaces but am tethered to a mouse. MS couldn't have been too concerned about the new UI when they failed to get manufacturers on board THEN blamed them for lack luster sales.. SMH.

embrace the future is relative to the computers being used. too few manufacturers AND MS JUST started selling touch systems... couldn't have been that big of a deal ( the future :/ )

[+Gl1tterUnic0rns Subscriber²]

I brought Start8, So I'm afraid I have a nonchalance towards it, but I would prefer a inbuilt solution without having to use a third party solution.

[Churma]

For desktop users and enterprise users it should be an option out of the box. Most of my clients only want Windows 7 due to this. Workflow for enterprise users is a mess with the Windows 8 start screen. A huge loss in productivity.

I will say for touch screen only devices then the Windows 8 start screen is a must.

[Quppa]

Wait what? ClearType is dead? Isn't the Surface Screen Technology even called ClearType?

The Surface's 'ClearType Display' has no relation to ClearType sub-pixel anti-aliasing. They just decided to reuse the same name, for reasons that are unclear (much like they re-used 'Surface'). ClearType (in the traditional sense) is absent from the Metro environment (that is, the Start Screen and all Metro-style apps), IE10 (both UIs), large parts of Office 2013 and various parts of the desktop (the clock, language 'bar', Explorer window titles, the Explorer address and search bars, taskbar window preview titles, etc.). This won't be a problem when we're all using high-DPI devices like the Surface Pro, but look forward to bad font rendering in Windows until then.

[MFH]

That's just sad, I liked ClearType - well atleast now I understand why they're using ClearType as moniker for their displays...

[Raa]

It added a click:

XP: Start > Shutdown/Log Off

7: Start > (depending on your button settings) Shutdown/ Log Off (OR) > (Arrow) > Shutdown/Log Off

I already adressed this in my post. You/I/Anyone hovers over the arrow and it folds out with the options, it's not an extra click.

Moot point anyway.

[Elessar]

Just purchased "Start8". Exactly what I needed. If I had a touchscreen monitor I would fully embrace the Windows 8 Start Screen, but I don't. That pains me is the fact that all those live tiles on the Start Screen are running in the background, eating up (minimal) resources. I just wish I could disable the Start Screen altogether, instead of bypassing it on boot as Start8 does.

[+Warwagon MVC]

I had a dream last night that I some how traded in all of the Yes votes for Mario stars and then when I was done the yes was only at 15% :(

[Noir Angel]

I'm genuinely surprised by the results of this poll. Given the number of shills on this forum I expected an overwhelming preference towards no, so when even on Neowin more say they do want the start menu than do not, you know there's something to it.