Restore Start menu but limit it to Pro edition

[Order_66]

using SVJN as a reference for anything MS is just silly.

The man hates MS with a passion, and will say anything to discredit them.

Oh yes of course, the reference is never credible in the eyes of a zealot regardless of how 100% verifiable and factual it may be.

But if this same guy says anything positive about windows 8 then he will be praised.

Kinda reminds me of when Forbes called windows 8 a failure, the zealots attacked the source and declared it non credible, but when Forbes said something negative about Apple, Forbes was declared the golden and irrefutable source.

[Dot Matrix]

Oh yes of course, the reference is never credible in the eyes of a zealot regardless of how 100% verifiable and factual it may be.

But if this same guy says anything positive about windows 8 then he will be praised.

Kinda reminds me of when Forbes called windows 8 a failure, the zealots attacked the source and declared it non credible, but when Forbes said something negative about Apple, Forbes was declared the golden and irrefutable source.

You're talking about someone who still clings to XP like it's a life vest. Someone who decried Vista, decried 7 before it was even released, ran away with the secured boot FUD, and wrote Windows 8 off without even running the damn thing for himself.

The man is a buffoon.

its not the same old desktop, it has been bastardized, you click on various icons and you have giant metro prompts jumping out. In stock windows 8, you can't even use desktop normally, when you want to open a app you have to flip-flop between desktop and that horrible hostile metro ui.

Right, because pinning an app to a fullscreen launcher is hostile. Ok. You can also pin to the taskbar, and be done with it.

[PGHammer]

First, it absolutely changes how they maneuver, isn't that what this is all about? Change for the better, change for the future? It changes workflow the first time they open almost anything and changes navigation to find their way back. If you can't see the many pitfalls that are already hitting the help desk, you're blind.

Your other statement was spot on, I'm just not sure how you sweep a mammoth like that under the rug. If you heavily used the Start Menu, you will feel it more than most should not be a point of argument.

You are saying that it changes how the user gets around. If they are fixated on the Start menu, yes - it will. (That is something I stipulated.) You are, in fact, basically saying that ALL users are fixated on the Start menu - that is something that is not only not provable, but not even true; there are users that run Windows 8 - sans a Start menu bring-back - on desktop computers (not just me). The very fact that there ARE users like me out in the wider world means that the Start menu is NOT a universal need. (The forty-plus percent in that poll you sited also says that I have a lot of company - not a majority, but still quite a significant number of Neowinians.)

I'm not even TRYING to sweep the elephant under the rug - amusingly, neither is Microsoft, for all the complaining by Windows 8's detractors. Windows 8 is a superset of Windows 7 - it supports (except for the Start menu) everything that Windows 7 does PLUS. If anything, it's an alternative to Windows 7 for those that need support for features that Windows 7 lacks - if you don't, Windows 7 is still available, and still usable. Better touch support IS part of the superset - however, it's not the ONLY plus that Windows 8 has that Windows 7 does not; because of ModernUI, it's simply the most obvious.

ModernUI apps - just like standard Windows applications, each ModernUI app has to justify itself to build up a user base; to blanket-dismiss ALL ModernUI apps would be ridiculous. (I criticized DotMatrix when it appeared he was trying to dismiss all *standard* Windows applications. Usage cases can be made for each type of application - however, it's up to the applications themselves to make them.) Here's something I want the detractors to chew on - are there ANY traditional Windows applications that you run full-screen, as opposed to windowed? If there are, then such an application CAN be replaced by a ModernUI variant - for the simple reason that such an app can't run windowed. (There are ModernUI apps that are NOT games that I have installed because there are usage cases for them - and I have a 23" FP display. That's right; some applications I run full-screen because it's how that application works best for me. Such an application can be replaced by a ModernUI version - therefore, why not? It's not about touch (this is a desktop - no support for touch at all); it IS, however, about application usability. Just because an application supports touch does not make it unusable by keyboard/mouse users.) If there are full-screen standard Windows applications in your toolbox, at least TRY a ModernUI version, if one exists. I'm not saying you have to adopt it - just give it an honest hearing.

[paul0544]

The amount of crying over the Start Menu is rather hilarious.

I disagree, its just BORING.

[MorganX]

By a room full of an infinite number of monkeys, perhaps.

Monkeys are better at clicking large candy colored tiles. /s

Seriously, is this necessary, just visit another thread if you can't constructively and intelligently respond to the OP's question.

You're talking about someone who still clings to XP like it's a life vest. Someone who decried Vista, decried 7 before it was even released, ran away with the secured boot FUD, and wrote Windows 8 off without even running the damn thing for himself.

The man is a buffoon.

Right, because pinning an app to a fullscreen launcher is hostile. Ok. You can also pin to the taskbar, and be done with it.

How many millions of those are there again? Now how many 7's. Perhaps they cling to what works for them. Microsoft wants them to go to what works for Microsoft. Cuz it's not working for a whole lot o' people at the moment.

Ignoring the issues, inconsistencies and limitations of Windows 8 (rather the Modern UI) is as ignorant as ignoring all of the benefits/improvements of Windows 8 (specifically the Windows 8 Desktop Environment).

[PGHammer]

Just musing here, but I wonder what the correlation is between the amount of people who are resistant to adopting the new Start Screen to people who are resistant to adopting UAC and keep UAC disabled.

As for Windows N and KN versions, you'll never see those offered in the United States. They are custom, sometimes stripped-down editions offered in some overseas markets. It's a little similar to back in the days of Windows 95 there was an edition of Windows called Windows 95 OSR2. You couldn't buy it in any store as it only shipped on OEM PCs, which was a shame because that was the edition everyone wanted. Microsoft doesn't always make every edition of every OS available to every distribution channel.

I can respect the view of someone only wanting to use MS built and approved tools. It's akin to a lot of people only using WHQL-certified drivers. However, sometimes a company won't give you that tool you want or that WHQL-certified driver you need and that's when you need to start thinking about widening the search. At the end of the day all that's important is that you are enjoying your computing experience & sometimes that means using freeware/shareware apps that come from unexpected sources.

I don't think arguing for or against the Start Screen is going to do anyone any good. Even if you took your arguments directly to Redmond and debated them in front of the Windows design team I don't think it'd do any good. Microsoft has proven time and time again they are going to do what they are going to do no matter anyone's opinion.

If you enjoy the Start Screen, then enjoy it. You got lucky this time because let's face it. Microsoft is fickle with their designs. What appeals to one person one day doesn't mean the next design is going to have equal appeal. If you don't enjoy the Start Screen, well...you got the short straw this time. Maybe Microsoft's fickle nature will favor you next go-around. In the meantime, it's your job to make lemonade out of lemons. Whether it's bolting a third-party program or two onto Windows 8 or dropping back to Windows 7 for a bit, at least you have options.

OEM Service Release 2 was *the version everyone wanted* because it included features that Service Pack 1 lacked - at no additional cost in terms of hardware. (Despite attempts at FUD to the contrary, OEMSR2 had the same hardware requirements as the original Windows 95 upgrade and OEM versions - 386DX-25 with 4 MB of RAM and VGA graphics support.) The *big feature* everyone wanted from SR2 was *font smoothing*; surprisingly; it was something that would, in fact, later be released as a standalone patch for all versions of Windows, and would become part of Windows with Windows 98. Why was font-smoothing such a biggie? Font smoothing took off because non-interlaced displays (CRTs, of course) dropped in cost and became FAR more prevalent since the launch of Windows 95 and Windows NT 3.51 - jagged-looking type just plain looked AWFUL! I would know because I went from 1024x768 NI to 1280x1024 NI when OSR2 hit RTM (I was working in a computer shop - local, not "big box") and had purchased a copy of OSR2+Plus (AKA 'OSR2 Kitchen Sink Edition') for an upgrade I was working on - in the meantime, we had OSR2 in our "display" systems. The font smoothing impressed folks; small feature with monster impact. Microsoft certainly didn't expect that - after all, font smoothing had originally been part of Microsoft Plus! - which didn't exactly knock lots of socks off sales-wise. However, entirely due to user demand, it went from cost-plus option to no-cost option to standard feature - and in a mere three years.

[MorganX]

Again, if the Start Menu is a problem, and the Start Page cannot replace the efficiencies of the Start Menu for users who utilized it, I recommend a start menu replacement. I prefer Start8 and it won't be broken as updates to Windows are released. Those relying on old code within Windows, will.

I would just like someone to stick a foot up Stardock's arse, inexcusable not to have a native 64-bit version.

[TAZMINATOR]

If you are not happy with Windows 8, then I suggest that you make your own mod (or find a mod/tweak) so you will have customized Windows 8. If not, then find alternative OS that you might like such as Linux, Mac..

Microsoft makes no promise about bring the start menu back because the OS is not yours... it is belong to Microsoft. You are licensed to Microsoft Windows. You have the right to make changes to it as long as you don't sell your stuff with OS.

Hence, there is lot of third party stuff/tweaks on the internet to make your Windows look better.

Microsoft can do whatever they want whatever they think for the future for the best. If you don't like it, then feel free to leave Windows and find alternative OS you might like.

Same thing you make changes to your car when you got the car... you put after-market stuff on it such as tinted windows, big rims, racing seats, etc. I have see people have no complaints when buying the car but now you have a complaint about missing start menu on Windows. There is 3rd party tweaks on the internet.

People make changes to almost everything, such as cars, houses, OS, so they can be happy with.

That's why there are developers around the world to make Windows better instead of the default version of Windows.

Wake up!

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

And that concludes the thread. :sleep2:

[+Warwagon MVC]

Again, if the Start Menu is a problem, and the Start Page cannot replace the efficiencies of the Start Menu for users who utilized it, I recommend a start menu replacement. I prefer Start8 and it won't be broken as updates to Windows are released. Those relying on old code within Windows, will.

I would just like someone to stick a foot up Stardock's arse, inexcusable not to have a native 64-bit version.

What would the 64bit version give you over the 32bit version?

[nekrosoft13]

Again, if the Start Menu is a problem, and the Start Page cannot replace the efficiencies of the Start Menu for users who utilized it, I recommend a start menu replacement. I prefer Start8 and it won't be broken as updates to Windows are released. Those relying on old code within Windows, will.

I would just like someone to stick a foot up Stardock's arse, inexcusable not to have a native 64-bit version.

and that would be fine if all the metro crap would not be spilling over to desktop.

[nekrosoft13]

That's why there are developers around the world to make Windows better instead of the default version of Windows.

Problem is that if you ask people in store, most will tell you they don't like the new metro interface. it generally not well accepted UI.

at this point if MS was smart they would correct this, and return the start menu, separate metro from desktop, prevent metro from being intrusive and replacing basic desktop functions.

reason why MS keeps pushing this metro crap because they are having their asses kicked left and right in mobile world, so they decided to screw over millions of PC users hopping that some of them will like metro and buy their pathetic phones.

[TAZMINATOR]

Problem is that if you ask people in store, most will tell you they don't like the new metro interface. it generally not well accepted UI.

at this point if MS was smart they would correct this, and return the start menu, separate metro from desktop, prevent metro from being intrusive and replacing basic desktop functions.

reason why MS keeps pushing this metro crap because they are having their asses kicked left and right in mobile world, so they decided to screw over millions of PC users hopping that some of them will like metro and buy their pathetic phones.

There is a desktop in Windows 8. If you don't want Metro, then use the desktop apps on the desktop. There is a tweak to disable the Metro features/functions, simple.

If the desktop is removed at later date, people will be upset, and might go to Mac or Linux. But I am sure they use Metro on their tablets.

Feel free to use Windows 7 for daily work such as photoshop, whatever they use for.

I have 2 laptops, one of them has Windows 8 while other laptop has Windows 7. Windows 7 is my primary workstation. Windows 8 on my laptop is tweaked already.

The phones are useful when on the go, such as check email, text, video conferencing, etc. That way, you don't have to stop by your house to make a call or send email, then head back out to meet some friends for fun.

I don't think the desktop will be removed from OS. They will stay for ahwile since they use it for heavy work such as video editing, photoshop, etc. If desktop removal is planned, then there is iMac/Linux for that. My brother has iMac .. he use it for his photos.

I understand that Microsoft will lose customers over the start menu and desktop removal. It is Microsoft's problem... Just wait until Micrsosoft will realize that their sales/stock go down. Then they might do something about it and get their customers back.

If they want to keep their customers, then Microsoft can do something about it for their next windows release such as Windows 9. They plan to keep the desktop in it. If they don't listen to us, then we can not do something about it unless you sign up to join a petition for desktop/start menu request.

That's why Microsoft keep the desktop in Windows 8 so the users can use the desktop instead of Metro... it will last for awhile... Not sure when their support ends for 8... I know the support for 7 that ends in 2020.

[ATLien_0]

Have people considered a petition or some kind of contact to Microsoft at this about the start menu. I personally don't mind it being gone, mainly because of the redundancy between having apps there, on the start menu side bar, and the task bar. I do think however, Microsoft has the potential to really improve the OS by listening to the users and making changes. Now I am not saying that people should contact them saying their hatred towards the changes, but merely suggestions on what could be improved to make the desktop work better. Maybe reducing the functionality or making the menu more minimal, like the Apple Menu in OS X. Just the simple options of Settings, Shutdown/Restart/Log off, Applications link, Start Screen

[paul0544]

Hopefully by the next major version this discussion has finished. It gets old so fast.

[Innuendo]

<p>

OEM Service Release 2 was *the version everyone wanted* because it included features that Service Pack 1 lacked - at no additional cost in terms of hardware.??(Despite attempts at FUD to the contrary, OEMSR2 had the same hardware??requirements as the original Windows 95 upgrade and OEM versions - 386DX-25 with 4 MB of RAM and VGA graphics support.)??The *big feature* everyone wanted from SR2 was *font smoothing*; surprisingly; it was something that would, in fact, later be released as a standalone patch for all versions of Windows, and would become part of Windows with Windows 98

Yes, 'font smoothing' was included, but it wasn't the reason OSR2 was so desirable. Like you said, 'font smoothing' was a feature that could be gained through the Plus! Pack. However, what OSR2 included that couldn't be added onto vanilla Windows 95 through any add-on was support for USB devices. If you couldn't find a copy of OSR2 you had to wait for Windows 98 in order to use USB devices.

[MorganX]

Hopefully by the next major version this discussion has finished. It gets old so fast.

It doesn't get old to the people that have a problem with it. It's not old enough for you to avoid the thread. The fact that it's still an issue and MS is already working on the next major update and version release means it won't go away for a whole lot of folks.

MS isn't bringing the Start Menu back, but they can address some of the efficiencies it provided many users that were quite happy with it, and try to build those efficiencies into the Modern UI. People who are unhappy will simply express themselves by keeping their wallets closed or buying alternatives. MS can do better, within the Modern UI.

[MorganX]

What would the 64bit version give you over the 32bit version?

Do you believe the only advantage to compiling 64-bit code is access to a larger memory address space?

[+Warwagon MVC]

Do you believe the only advantage to compiling 64-bit code is access to a larger memory address space?

Well there is that, what else does it give you?

[MorganX]

Well there is that, what else does it give you?

I'm going to let you research that on your own, then get back to me. If you think arguing the merits of the Start Menu is an exercise in futility, try the benefits of 64-bit code with someone who thinks all it does it give you a larger memory address space.

FWIW, 64-bit refers to the size of the instructions, not the address space.

[+Warwagon MVC]

I'm going to let you research that on your own, then get back to me. If you think arguing the merits of the Start Menu is an exercise in futility, try the benefits of 64-bit code with someone who things all it does it give you a larger memory address space.

FWIW, 64-bit refers to the size of the instructions, not the address space.

Well i'm searching and finding the benefits of 64bit Windows which I already knew. As far as benefits of 64bit software. Not finding a lot other than memory allocation.,

[MorganX]

Well i'm searching and finding the benefits of 64bit Windows which I already knew. As far as benefits of 64bit software. Not finding a lot other than memory allocation.,

I'm debating if I want to engage in this or not ;>. I'm definitely interested in watching it, particularly with LogicalApex as a participant, though I have no idea his thoughts on the subject. I just don't know if I want to participate in it. I don't think it will be enjoyable. :/

[threetonesun]

Well i'm searching and finding the benefits of 64bit Windows which I already knew. As far as benefits of 64bit software. Not finding a lot other than memory allocation.,

Uh, well... yeah. What you can do with that extra memory is a fairly vast topic, however.

[nub]

Why restrict such a basic feature to a professional edition?

You can charge more money for it!

There are some horrible arguments for the start menu.

A: In this situation something new came and it was better. Some people didn't like it, but now its used everywhere, thus because that one thing was good, the start screen MUST be good.

B: The start menu is old, but the start screen is new and of course, newer is ALWAYS better. If you disagree you're a ludite!

C: People are now using touch based devices, thus the start screen is better for ALL users.

D: Remember when people were upset at a different OS? That OS was good, so Windows 8 must also be good!

E: You're old (which I really don't know. I'm just going to assume so) so you're dumb and hate technology! Therefore **** your argument!

... but what should I expect really?

And instead of scrolling through them in a tiny menu on the side of the screen

Wait, you actually scrolled through the start menu instead of just searching?

Quit acting like you're two. You have other options. You're wasting more energy complaining, than downloading and installing a third party app.

Having an opinion is being two now? If a two year old could form that kind of thought, I'd be damn impressed.

Microsoft has other plans, and if that doesn't suit you, then too bad so sad. You are not Microsoft, they don't need to check in with you before they go and develop Windows.

Correct, but he doesn't have to like it. Are you arguing that customers of products can't have opinions of them? Can't say anything negative about it? (Also if a company wants to stay in business it should listen to its customer base)

Kinect for PC? It won't be long before FPS games start utilizing that.

Lol. Now thats just funny.

Why is it so horrible to get more input choices?

Because its not more input choices. Its replacing input choices.

[Stoffel]

Maybe because what I say is an objective and useful conversation? Not simply "MS is so awesome it is you that is the problem" or "just deal with it" as others have put it.

I mean what I say is the truth. You cannot deny that MANY MANY people would be happy if MS would have provided such options. Most of the bad press would go away as well. If it is only the techies that want it back, fine but MS should have provided options.

If nobody says anything, what kind of world is that? We have the right as consumers to voice our opinions.

Why do people protest? Would you tell them the same thing? "Just deal with it"? Why do we have any sort of product reviews? Companies do make bad decisions you know - and if we just sit here with our mouths shut MS would not do anything. My whole point is companies are not immune to mistakes.

Oh and BTW, I did not make this topic, so why don't you complain about that instead of me for participating in a start menu discussion.

What you are saying is anything but objective, it's only your opinion! Just like what Dot says is his opinion.

It doesn't make what you say truth or right, it's only YOUR opinion.

I also did not complain about anything you said, I commented on what Warwagon replied to you.