Restore Start menu but limit it to Pro edition

[gameboy1977]

Use icon of start button on your keyboard when I go to bestbuy to test windows 8 a few months ago.

[Order_66]

they did ti with win 3.11 to 95, u didnt have a start menu back then and then wulla u have it, people were furious about it and didnt like it

Yes because comparing windows 3.11 and 95 to windows 8 is exactly the same thing!

/s

FFS... The amount of crying over the Start Menu is rather hilarious. You guys act like you're 2 years old after mommy says no to getting a toy...

And the amount of crying by the zealots who side with a company, one that is deliberately trying to FORCE a user-hostile interface onto their long-time and new customers, can be comparable to a 2 year old crying because his friends have left him to play by himself with his new toys that nobody likes or wants anything to do with.

[PGHammer]

Nobody HAS to get used to the user-hostile ui of windows 8, just stick with windows 7 like most people are doing, obviously.

And that is a problem *how*?

The majority of critics of Windows 8 seem to have NOT realized that Windows 7 isn't going anywhere until 202x - in other words, it's not going away for quite a stretch.

Basically, Windows 8 and Windows 7 are meant to co-exist - side by side.

Other than the Start menu, Windows 8 is a SUPERset of Windows 7 - just as XP MCE was a superset of XP Professional. (What was missing by design in MCE was domain support - just as Windows 8 is missing the Start menu.)

Geeze.

Yes because comparing windows 3.11 and 95 to windows 8 is exactly the same thing!

/s

And the amount of crying by the zealots who side with a company, one that is deliberately trying to FORCE a user-hostile interface onto their long-time and new customers, can be comparable to a 2 year old crying because his friends have left him to play by himself with his new toys that nobody likes or wants anything to do with.

Windows 8 isn't trying to force anything on anyone - where, exactly, has Windows 7 gone?

Windows 7 will be supported until, at minimum, 2020 - that tells me that it's not going anywhere.

Nobody is *insisting* that you MUST use Windows 8 - and Microsoft definitely isn't.

[Order_66]

Why must developers undermine their mission just to make a few luddites happy? Microsoft isn't going to bring that back. There is no reason to bring back old, deprecated features. The Start Menu reached it's max potential, and now it's time to move on or die out. Simple as that.

The start menu is FAR from being an old and depreciated feature and is not even close to reaching its max potential and works just as well today as it did yesterday.

The so-called "statistics" that microsoft/Ballmer have claimed to have done to try and show that people are not using the start menu are extremely laughable and reek of dishonesty.

You can buy into the lies and crystal ball mythical predictions based purely on arrogance and money by those at microsoft regarding what the future holds for computing all you want, meanwhile people on windows 7 and previous versions who have work that needs to be done will merrily continue to get it done on an os that just plain works like windows 7 for example, an os that just works and is user friendly, unlike 8.

[PGHammer]

they did ti with win 3.11 to 95, u didnt have a start menu back then and then wulla u have it, people were furious about it and didnt like it

And replacements for it abounded - including a clone of the WorkPlaceShell for OS/2 2.x.

[paulheu]

The Start menu is gone, dead, buried and left behind. The handful of fanatics who cling to it like it was the second coming will have to deal. MSFT removed the hooks which are used by the gazillion hacks so they won't work in Blue any more Good riddance,,

Few years back everyone used UUencode on Usenet, then some guy came up with a little thing called yEnc and a handful of fanatics went nuts over it and how no one would use it and it would be dead in a year and it was horrible. Now UUencode is in the history books and yEnc is what everyone uses and accepts. Not that many of you will have a clue what I am on about here as you are probably too young to know and many may not even know what Usenet is as most will have grown up looking at pictures on your screen.

Point in case, move on... The Start menu will not be back... ever..

[SharpGreen]

The start menu is FAR from being an old and depreciated feature and is not even close to reaching its max potential and works just as well today as it did yesterday.

The so-called "statistics" that microsoft/Ballmer have claimed to have done to try and show that people are not using the start menu are extremely laughable and reek of dishonesty.

You can buy into the lies and crystal ball mythical predictions based purely on arrogance and money by those at microsoft regarding what the future holds for computing all you want, meanwhile people on windows 7 and previous versions who have work that needs to be done will merrily continue to get it done on an os that just plain works like windows 7 for example, an os that just works and is user friendly, unlike 8.

How exactly does a full screen start menu prevent you from getting work done? I've seen this BS excuse a lot lately and am wondering how it came about. Also I think that as screens have gotten bigger and resolutions gotten higher the tiny little window in the corner of the screen that is the start menu has gotten harder to use.

As far as I'm concerned I don't get why people are begging for feature that's been in Win8 since the beginning.

[xendrome]

Point in case, move on... The Start menu will not be back... ever..

Except, the start menu is still there.... so....

[Stoffel]

The start menu is FAR from being an old and depreciated feature and is not even close to reaching its max potential and works just as well today as it did yesterday.

The so-called "statistics" that microsoft/Ballmer have claimed to have done to try and show that people are not using the start menu are extremely laughable and reek of dishonesty.

You can buy into the lies and crystal ball mythical predictions based purely on arrogance and money by those at microsoft regarding what the future holds for computing all you want, meanwhile people on windows 7 and previous versions who have work that needs to be done will merrily continue to get it done on an os that just plain works like windows 7 for example, an os that just works and is user friendly, unlike 8.

Are you not bored of writing the same thing over and over again every time there is a news item or new thread about Win8?

[Dot Matrix]

Except, the start menu is still there.... so....

In the form of the Start Screen, yes...

[Dashel]

The start menu is ...not even close to reaching its max potential and works just as well today as it did yesterday.

That is one point of optimism, its omission has generated innovation in its own right. Something the following poster is only too happy to trade away. Sad really.

The Start menu is gone, dead, buried and left behind. The handful of fanatics who cling to it like it was the second coming will have to deal. MSFT removed the hooks which are used by the gazillion hacks so they won't work in Blue any more Good riddance,

Why do you need to celebrate it so when trading away the preference of another? Or worse, create a system where such tweaks were no longer possible. An OS should be broader than 'formats'.

How exactly does a full screen start menu prevent you from getting work done? I've seen this BS excuse a lot lately and am wondering how it came about. Also I think that as screens have gotten bigger and resolutions gotten higher the tiny little window in the corner of the screen that is the start menu has gotten harder to use.

Its not a BS excuse. If you can't put yourself in a place to figure that question out, the discussion isn't worth having. Most reviewers I think have done an adequate job explaining why. It isn't about 'preventing' or any other such silly absolute.

What resolution do you run at? Win7 start isn't 'tiny' or hard to mouse (or even touch by and large) at 22"@1080 so I just don't understand that complaint. It has also been resized a since classic Start to compensate. Or are you just chasing Retina?

[Kelxin]

Even NeoWin's poll's have proven that almost 50% of the people that have tried Windows 8 don't like the interface / start button.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1081755-do-you-like-or-hate-windows-8/page__hl__windows

Microsoft needs to offer a choice. I'm going over all my reasons for hating it again, anyways, its not like the fanboi's even read my responses in the first place.

[SharpGreen]

That is one point of optimism, its omission has generated innovation in its own right. Something the following poster is only too happy to trade away. Sad really.

Why do you need to celebrate it so when trading away the preference of another? Or worse, create a system where such tweaks were no longer possible. An OS should be broader than 'formats'.

Its not a BS excuse. If you can't put yourself in a place to figure that question out, the discussion isn't worth having. Most reviewers I think have done an adequate job explaining why. It isn't about 'preventing' or any other such silly absolute.

What resolution do you run at? Win7 start isn't 'tiny' or hard to mouse (or even touch by and large) at 22"@1080 so I just don't understand that complaint. It has also been resized a since classic Start to compensate. Or are you just chasing Retina?

It is BS because, as someone who's actually used the OS daily since the Developer Preview (ie. more than a large portion of the whiners in the majority of "win8 sux" threads), I've found that I didn't have to change the way I used my desktop or laptop at all. I mean sure things that were moved, like for instance the shutdown button, that I had to get used to, and for my laptop I don't even bother with it, because I've set it to hibernate/turn off when I close it.

Also there's no way you'll ever convince me the smallish window that was old start menu that after WinXP couldn't expand to make viewing nested folders easier, is better than one that fully uses the available screen space. At 1080p (which my main monitor runs at) a full screen start menu IMO is makes it a lot easier to find things in the list, on the off chance I don't have it pinned somewhere or don't use the search function.

Also the post I was quoting actually did use the word "prevent" which is why I used it.

Even NeoWin's poll's have proven that almost 50% of the people that have tried Windows 8 don't like the interface / start button.

http://www.neowin.ne...ge__hl__windows

Microsoft needs to offer a choice. I'm going over all my reasons for hating it again, anyways, its not like the fanboi's even read my responses in the first place.

Why does one have to be a "fanboi" for not wanting to bring back the old start menu?

[Dot Matrix]

Even NeoWin's poll's have proven that almost 50% of the people that have tried Windows 8 don't like the interface / start button.

http://www.neowin.ne...ge__hl__windows

Microsoft needs to offer a choice. I'm going over all my reasons for hating it again, anyways, its not like the fanboi's even read my responses in the first place.

NeoWin != 100% of the Windows user base.

Microsoft doesn't need to do anything. The Start Menu isn't part of what they want to do, and a few people crying over it isn't going to change a thing.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Do you want the start menu back in windows 8?

Yes 55.02% (318)

No 44.98% (260)

http://www.neowin.ne...u-in-windows-8/

[Stoffel]

Do you want the start menu back in windows 8?

Yes 55.02% (318)

No 44.98% (260)

http://www.neowin.ne...u-in-windows-8/

That's techy people, people here on Neowin don't represent the whole population, only a small fraction

[COKid]

If I had a nickel for every Start Screen/Menu thread on Neowin,...

[NEVER85]

Restoring something that works in favor of something that clearly doesn't work is not the same as "living in the past", far from it actually.

Clearly doesn't work for who? You?

Works just fine for me, but then again, I can actually adapt to change.

[COKid]

Works just fine for me, but then again, I can actually adapt to change.

This is a common refrain, but why is it the case? I mean, some people simply prefer having the start menu. Have a preference is different than not adapting to change. We all have own our tastes, don't we?

On the other hand, I really don't see what all the fuss is about from those who rail against Windows 8 in terms of the Start Menu issue. There are start menu replacements for Windows 8 for those who want them, or people can simply choose to use another OS.

Oh well, I'm sure the debate will rage on. And on. And on...

[Manarift]

The intent of the start screen is to phase out older devices that still rely on screen resolutions of less then 1024*768. Most users now use a screen size of 1366*768. on most systems the small menu wasn't using the space of a full screen so it was in fact leaving a dead space. Lets use windows 95 as an example it was the first computer system to use the start menu as time went on it improved and changed to adapt with what was currently needed over time it improved and changed at the same-time that very code was being left unchanged and used for exploits and virus's. Microsoft design choice was to change to it from the ground up rather then keeping it the old code. Instead choose to Clean up older code by removing it which is key to improving any product and closing any bugs or holes that could be used as zero day exploits or for virus's

[Nick H. Supervisor]

This is a common refrain, but why is it the case? I mean, some people simply prefer having the start menu. Have a preference is different than not adapting to change. We all have own our tastes, don't we?

Thank you! I'm tired of hearing this idea. I prefer the start menu and apparently that makes me a dinosaur, but you don't see me calling people pre-schoolers for preferring the start screen. It's just a preference.

[xWhiplash]

It wouldn't work. First and foremost because there are free start menu replacements out there that work on all versions of Windows 8, so Microsoft including a start menu only in the Pro version wouldn't be an incentive for people to pay.

Businesses that do not want to retrain people and use third party OS tweaks.

Why didn't they at least include such options in the enterprise edition?

[Dot Matrix]

Businesses that do not want to retrain people and use third party OS tweaks.

Why didn't they at least include such options in the enterprise edition?

Because sooner or later businesses *have* to pay training costs. It's unavoidable. Windows 8 (even Windows 9) will be on the market for quite some time before the majority of businesses upgrade, many people will learn on their own how to use the OS, mitigating some of the costs.

[Dashel]

It is BS because, as someone who's actually used the OS...blah blah blah

Also there's no way you'll ever convince me the smallish window that was old start menu that after WinXP couldn't expand to make viewing nested folders easier, is better than one that fully uses the available screen space. At 1080p (which my main monitor runs at) a full screen start menu IMO is makes it a lot easier to find things in the list, on the off chance I don't have it pinned somewhere or don't use the search function.

If you still don't get its not about you or even, again, why they find it jarring, you are just being obtuse. Its not about I can hit button A to do action B, its much more subtle than that. Take off your gloves and find some empathy. How is it virtually every reviewer has noticed it but you have not? Maybe that is the BS you should focus on.

We get it, you won't be convinced people prefer different things and their choice doesn't impede your progress. Please, explain how SS makes finding listed items (ie All Programs) easier, because that does dumbfound me. Annihilating nested folders isn't expanding to make their view and nav easier.

The intent of the start screen is to phase out older devices that still rely on screen resolutions of less then 1024*768. Most users now use a screen size of 1366*768. on most systems the small menu wasn't using the space of a full screen so it was in fact leaving a dead space. Lets use windows 95 as an example it was the first computer system to use the start menu as time went on it improved and changed to adapt with what was currently needed over time it improved and changed at the same-time that very code was being left unchanged and used for exploits and virus's. Microsoft design choice was to change to it from the ground up rather then keeping it the old code. Instead choose to Clean up older code by removing it which is key to improving any product and closing any bugs or holes that could be used as zero day exploits or for virus's

WTFGibberishBSIsThis?!? Are we back to just throwing anything we want at the page to see what sticks? Dead space? Start Menu viruses? I'm praying to Jesus English isn't your first language.

[PGHammer]

Because sooner or later businesses *have* to pay training costs. It's unavoidable. Windows 8 (even Windows 9) will be on the market for quite some time before the majority of businesses upgrade, many people will learn on their own how to use the OS, mitigating some of the costs.

What strikes me as laughable (though the point for once is valid) is that training costs in businesses and enterprises are a BIG reason not to change out an operating system - the reason why it strikes me as laughable NOW is that originally heard it coming from businesses running NT4WS that didn't want to upgrade to Windows 2000 Professional.

Fellow Neowinians, I was in an enterprise (specifically, a broadband-support call center for Big Cable Company) that DID such a changeover; the changeover was the entirety of the eastern US' operations. Every single desktop. (The servers were involved as well - they would upgrade to Windows 2000 Server once all the desktops got upgraded.) Despite the alarums from the IT types, the biggest issues were, in fact, applications - not training. Why? We, as users, pretty much helped each other through the rough patches (the biggest *rough patch* for users was printing - however, once users figured out how to use print-queue browsing to select un-backlogged network printers, it actually got EASIER than NT4WS did). Why would users not help each other through a 7->8 upgrade? Are you implying that users are, in fact, MORE selfish today?

For the average user, the difference is that the Start menu is missing - period. In terms of how to maneuver around the OS, there is NO other difference. How many users - even those still using Windows 7 - center all their operations around the Start menu? Now, if you are a user that does, in fact, center most of how you get to things around the Start menu, its excision is going to be massive. (That is something that I have pointed out going back to the Developer Preview.)

However, other than that, nothing really changed from a user-operations POV between 7 and 8. The Superbar is still there. Taskbar pinning is still there. (In fact, both have gained additional teeth due to applications that launch on startup now appearing on the Taskbar, in addition to the TaskTray - this was not in Windows 7.)

What I am seeing is those that miss the Start menu deliberately calling attention to it - in hopes of staving off a final demise when support for Windows 7 goes away in 202x.