Solution to get rid Windows 8 haters

[HawkMan]

Never used? Well, what the hell am I using then?

Do not say something "Does the same thing" when it clearly doesn't. Many people have said this and is irritating because it is just simply not true. The fact that the Start Screen does not have collapse-able / expandable features and jump list already means it does not do the same thing.

And saying it is better is a matter of opinion.

so that either makes you the second of potentially two people on neowin who uses start menu jump lists.... yeah, makes sense for MS to cater to you guys doesn't it.

or it means you're one of those who simply uses the lack of start menu jump lists for an agenda.

whatever it is doesn't really matter. yes there's a VERY small minority that used them. put MS can't put resources into catering to what can barely be counted as a fraction of a percentage of the users.

Are you honestly telling me more people pinned **** to their Start Menus than used Start Jumplists? Where is that fraking metric?

'People' use desktop shortcuts and rarely the Start Menu. SS doesn't change any of that. So if 'most' don't, why not just annihilate it completely instead of half-assed excuses? Thats really the simple truth. StartScreen is a Desktop replacement much more than a Start Menu - so in fact that is what they have done. Yet you keep lying by saying 'its the same' when you aren't even comparing it honestly.

Those poor Mac yoyos seem to persevere ok without one.

Actually most of them pinned to the superbar and used the auto pinned items on the start menu and the most used/recent apps. the start screen replaces all of this.

[xWhiplash]

Are you honestly telling me more people pinned **** to their Start Menus than used Start Jumplists? Where is that fraking metric?

'People' use desktop shortcuts and rarely the Start Menu. SS doesn't change any of that. So if 'most' don't, why not just annihilate it completely instead of half-assed excuses?

Those poor Mac yoyos seem to persevere ok without one.

I am not saying that at all. I am saying do not say something "DOES THE SAME THING" when it CLEARLY does not. You tell me the Start Screen is SOOOOOOOOOO much better and does the same thing. I told you reasons why it is not. It does NOT do the same thing. I....ME...MYSELF....use jump lists and prefer the collapseable nature of the start menu.

So my entire point is.....the Start Screen does NOT.....does NOT do the same thing as the start menu. Saying it does is not a fact. To most it might SEEM like it does the same thing, but it does not.

[adrynalyne]

the start screen replaces the pinned items on the start menu and mostused apps area, which is the part of the start menu peple actually used. Same thing with jump lists, neat idea, NEVER used.

MS has metrics from millions of users. they didn't drop these things because they where heavily used, they dropped them because they where virtually unused. heck I've only heard of one person who actually used start menu jump lists even on this site. sure after windows 8 launched, there's a few who claims to have used it to prove their point, but when asked, they don't even know how the jump lists worked.

the start screen was created based on how people actually used windows, not on all the neat cool features they could cram into it, that ended up unused.

in a majorly growing PC market that was ready to upgrade.

as opposed to Windows 8 that launched in an economic recession, an any computers sold in the last 3-4 years unless it was rock bottom (and for the last year even the rock bottom cheapest computers come with celerons that are in fact first gen i3's) performs just fine for anything but gaming. people just don't need to buy new computers, and they can't afford to splurge on it.

When consumers see something they want or need, they find a way. Windows 8 is providing neither, apparently. The economy wasn't too hot when Windows 7 came out either.

so that either makes you the second of potentially two people on neowin who uses start menu jump lists.... yeah, makes sense for MS to cater to you guys doesn't it.

or it means you're one of those who simply uses the lack of start menu jump lists for an agenda.

whatever it is doesn't really matter. yes there's a VERY small minority that used them. put MS can't put resources into catering to what can barely be counted as a fraction of a percentage of the users.

Actually most of them pinned to the superbar and used the auto pinned items on the start menu and the most used/recent apps. the start screen replaces all of this.

I used start jump lists all the time.

[Dashel]

Actually most of them pinned to the superbar and used the auto pinned items on the start menu and the most used/recent apps. the start screen replaces all of this.

Still bull****. You've flipped on your use of metrics and secondly, you still peddle the lie that SS replaces 'all of this'. Really? SS can show, dynamically, most/recent apps? It applies any intelligence, whatsoever, to what it auto-pins up on SS? No, it certainly does not, nor do I remember seeing a 'Recent Apps' default container or the ability to add one.

Sorry Whiplash, forgot to quote. I was replying to Hawk, not you. You are clearly quite right in your assessment.

[Dot Matrix]

Still bull****. You've flipped on your use of metrics and secondly, you still peddle the lie that SS replaces 'all of this'. Really? SS only shows, dynamically, most/recent apps? It applies any intelligence, whatsoever, to what it auto-pins up on SS? No, it certainly does not.

Yes. It does. And will.

http://winsupersite....ker-apps-access

These changes are the official final nail in the Start Menu's coffin.

[Dashel]

Well **** Dot, which is it then? Does or will?

Face it, you've been wrong since day one. The only thing close to a Start Menu in Metro is the All Apps panel. What we do have is a feature-limited, full screen taskbar.

That is an interesting development though. I wonder what that means for touch 'right-clicks' now on Taskbar Screen.

[Dot Matrix]

Well **** Dot, which is it then? Does or will?

It does now in the fact that users can use start the most common way they used the Menu. The coming functionality will tie up loose ends.

[Noir Angel]

Yes. It does. And will.

http://winsupersite....ker-apps-access

These changes are the official final nail in the Start Menu's coffin.

Apparently it seems most consumers don't agree with you.

[MorganX]

Apparently it seems most consumers don't agree with you.

Bad telemetry. The changes improve on Windows 8 RTM, which is welcome. It's not going to replace functionality of the Start Menu, it's incapable by its physical design. But it can improve itself to the point that the losses in functionality/capability/efficiency, whatever suits you best, becomes negligible.

[Order_66]

First of all, yelling does not help your cause

Neither does telling someone they are "crying like a 2 year old" Dot.

[JayPhi]

So let's talk about Start Menu and Start Screen.

Yes they are not the same. They're just giving us different ways of accomplishing the same goal, which is launching, finding, organizing apps in a central place. Now that we got that out of the way, let's talk about the differences.

Start Menu (Windows 7)

- activated by clicking start button (left lower corner), windows key, etc.

- slim panel on the left lower corner

- start jump list

- recent/most used programs

- cascading program folders on the left (All Programs)

- various default folders on the right (control panel, computer, liberary folders)

- shutdown/standby/restart button (dropdown)

- search (visible, can type right away)

Start Screen (Windows 8)

- activated by moving mouse pointer to right lower corner and left-click, windows key, etc.

- full screen

- live tiles (status, updates, interactive)

- groups (can be named, ordering is possible)

- sideslide (mouse-wheel, move mouse pointer to the right, scrollbar)

- all apps (right-click, all apps)

- overview (little " - " in the right lower corner)

- search (not visible, can type right away)

The biggest visual difference is of course the "full screen" vs. "slim menu panel". This is the part where people think that it's two OS in one. People argue about why they have to "leave" the desktop just to start or search for some apps or programs. The other party say it's easier to reach, easier to find and easier to navigate to. And I would say it doesn't matter with a "Windows-Key-And-Type"-style of navigating.

Then there is the difference between "cascading folders" vs. "live tiles in groups". The one camp says it's more organized and not as cluttered, the other camp argues with interactivity and visibility and it still can be organized with groups.

The other thing is the navigating. People argues it's not natural to navigate in the Start Screen with the mouse because it's more touch centric. You have to scroll sideways and it takes too long to find a tile. But in the Start Menu you also have to scroll to find the right folder. Then there is one more additional step of clicking on the folder so it cascade to find the right program. My advice: Use the mousewheel (for those who has one), for touchpad users, you can just slide from left to right to scroll (depends on the gesture mode of the touchpads). But ultimatively my advice would be again: "Windows-Key and type" for both Windows 7 and Windows 8 users.

Alot of people also complains about that the shutdown button is hard to find and it takes too long to get there. First of all, withouth any shortcuts, hotkeys or whatsoever, it takes exactly 4 steps in both Windows 7 and Windows 8 to execute a shutdown. So that's not an argument. The argument here is elsewhere, it's that with the always visible Start Button and Menu you have a visual cue you can navigate to. But with the hot corners and Charms Bar you have to make it visible in order to get a visual cue. People have problems with that. My way would be the "ALT+F4 and ENTER" way. So simple and both camps can use that. And if the argument comes up that you have to remember this hotkey, I would say this is one of the few universal hotkeys that everybody should know, right next to crtl+alt+del, crtl+c and crtl+v.

Start Screen has no start jump list. Start Menu has one. Some people might use it. I don't. It's convenient for those who use it. It doesn't matter for those who has never used it before.

Search. Hit Windows Key and start typing. The difference here is the way the results are displayed. Either windowed or full screen (and in different categories). Can't really say much here. Except that I just found out that you can't search for folders in Windows 8. Only files in said folder. This should be adressed in Blue.

All in all it's really a matter of preferences here. But since the Start Menu has been there for so long, of course people will be biased towards it. If the Start Screen would have been there before the Start Menu, I think the same people would be bitching about the Start Menu instead of the Start Screen.

Summary:

Two different ways of achieving the same goal. Both has pros and cons. It's about users preferences. But don't be biased. Give the new Start Screen a fair chance. Once you've wrapped your head around it, it will stick.

[fusi0n]

I don't really think this thread is going anywhere.. it is pretty much the same things re-hashed. Neowin should just make "Like Windows 8" badges and "Hates Windows 8". We all know why some like it and some do not. I think it is just time to move on to bigger and better things. You are never going to persuade anyone over this issue..

[PGHammer]

The biggest laugh is that Microsoft put the modern UI on server 2012

make of that what you will

And that is a problem *how*?

I dual-boot Windows 8 and Server 2012 Standard today - typically servers are managed from Server Manager (which remains in place) - not Control Panel. Even those Control Panel applets that ARE used in server management (such as Administrative Tools and Group Policies) are accessible via Server Manager. The only reason you'd spend more time in Control Panel than Server Manager is if you are used to Server 2003 or earlier.

If anything, the Start menu is even MORE superfluous on a server than on a workstation or desktop; a not-insignificant number of businesses use Windows Server AS a workstation/desktop OS - and have done so since Windows Server 2003. Unlike Server 2008R2, Server 2012 doesn't require that you remove ANYTHING to use it as a workstation OS - simply because there is little in the way of superfluous services to start with, and less than even Server 2008R2. On the Server 2012 side of my dual-boot, I added two features - Desktop Experience and Hyper-V. That's all. (Hyper-V in Server 2012, unlike Windows 8, doesn't require Extended Page Table support in the CPU, which all Intel LGA775 CPUs utterly lack. That is, in fact, why I added Server 2012 - support for Hyper-V.) So what do I use to manage this workstation OS? Server Manager - not Control Panel. In fact, Server 2012 Standard is easier to use as a workstation OS than Server 2008R2 - which was no slouch in that area.

[Growled Member]

Apparently it seems most consumers don't agree with you.

So far. Microsoft has shown the ability time and again to pull a rabbit out of the hat. I wouldn't count them out.

[Corelogik]

In my opinion it's very very simple. Metro == Tablet/Phone UI != Desktop.

Windows 8 as it exists is like having to close the cover of a book to turn the page. The full screen crap covering the whole screen is what people dislike about it. Among other things.

There is no practical reason to not split the UI's into separate OS's. Cell Phone/Tablet and Desktop/Laptop. Every other major OS vendor does it. Of course that doesn't fit Microsoft's future marketing plan. Push everything and everyone to Metro, then make software loadable only, or at least primarily, from the app store and then take a cut of every app sold. This is in addition to the forced subscriptions if you want Office of any kind and similar things to be determined later as they think of them.

This is the paradigm that everyone is rebelling against. Being forced to use a Phone UI on a desktop production/gaming machine, being forced into subscription models, having to change our entire context by covering our entire screen with the start screen to find or launch anything,...

The longer Microsoft insists on riding this train, the more it will hurt when hits the wall at the end of the track.

[LimeMaster]

I will admit this thread has gone way off-topic and has lost its original purpose. :( It should probably be locked now.

[PGHammer]

so that either makes you the second of potentially two people on neowin who uses start menu jump lists.... yeah, makes sense for MS to cater to you guys doesn't it.

or it means you're one of those who simply uses the lack of start menu jump lists for an agenda.

whatever it is doesn't really matter. yes there's a VERY small minority that used them. put MS can't put resources into catering to what can barely be counted as a fraction of a percentage of the users.

Actually most of them pinned to the superbar and used the auto pinned items on the start menu and the most used/recent apps. the start screen replaces all of this.

What's more, pinning has gone exactly nowhere - I have Google Chrome and Firefox pinned to my Taskbar. (in fact, it's now the on-install default for both - it wasn't pre-8, despite Windows 7 also supporting the feature.)

Why do you think I called this entire issue a massive case of "I-don't-wanna-move" syndrome, ala XP of 2004?

They can't use increased hardware requirements as an excuse, as Windows 8's requirements hardware-wise are no higher than those of 7.

All too many of them first readily ADMIT that it's a user issue - they got used to the Start menu being there, whether they used it or not.

I get inertia - it took root in applications far earlier; even Microsoft Office 2013 is largely only evolutionarily different than Office 2010 overall. Outside of Office, most applications have changed far less in that three year span. Gaming? Please - problems with some reboots (such as SimCity) aside, what users are demanding is NOT new ANYTHING - instead, it's slightly-improved of what is already out there.

Windows 7 is that pair of comfortable shoes - they can't retreat back to XP; otherwise, I'd seriously expect as stampede of the disgruntled back to that. Linux? OS X? Android? All are far different from even WindowsRT, let alone Windows 8. Since moving forward is too scary, they choose to regress - AND plant IEDs (improvised expletives-deleted) in their footsteps, so as few others can go forward as possible.

[PGHammer]

In my opinion it's very very simple. Metro == Tablet/Phone UI != Desktop.

Windows 8 as it exists is like having to close the cover of a book to turn the page. The full screen crap covering the whole screen is what people dislike about it. Among other things.

There is no practical reason to not split the UI's into separate OS's. Cell Phone/Tablet and Desktop/Laptop. Every other major OS vendor does it. Of course that doesn't fit Microsoft's future marketing plan. Push everything and everyone to Metro, then make software loadable only, or at least primarily, from the app store and then take a cut of every app sold. This is in addition to the forced subscriptions if you want Office of any kind and similar things to be determined later as they think of them.

This is the paradigm that everyone is rebelling against. Being forced to use a Phone UI on a desktop production/gaming machine, being forced into subscription models, having to change our entire context by covering our entire screen with the start screen to find or launch anything,...

The longer Microsoft insists on riding this train, the more it will hurt when hits the wall at the end of the track.

The ONLY folks that think it's a "phone UI" are those that are against ModernUI for whatever reason. What I find utterly ridiculous is how many of you ALSO run tablets and even smartphones based on either Android or iOS - which actually started as device (phone literally in Android's case) operating systems/environments. You're making an argument for, in fact, *purity* in operating environments, if not operating systems - something that Windows has NEVER - as in ever - been. Not even - in fact, especially NOT - Windows NT. The last time Microsoft can be said to have sold a single-purpose operating system is MS-DOS 4.01 - no version of MS-DOS since was single-purpose. No version of Windows was single-purpose - not even Windows 1.0. When was, in fact, the last successful single-purpose OS - from anybody? Even Linux distributions - as traditionally niche-driven as they are - are still multi-purpose by default, if not by design. Lastly, there are the tablet twosome of iOS and Android. While both are famous (if not infamous) for supporting touch, they ALSO support keyboards, mice, and even voices - features all that (except for touch) have been supported by Windows since (don't laugh) XP. And touch didn't even start with 8 - it started with Windows 7. While it's more obvious with 8, that's ALL it is. And while you are so busy trying to push ModernUI into a single-purpose niche, look along the roadside - you will find the corpses of OTHER attempts at single-purpose operating systems - some of which were even by Microsoft. The market spoke on single-purpose long ago - single-purpose is a fail. Why you want to keep the two separate - totally against every trend - utterly mystifies me. I hope you have life jackets - you have as much chance of avoiding touch as Canute and his broom did of sweeping back the sea.

[Noir Angel]

The ONLY folks that think it's a "phone UI" are those that are against ModernUI for whatever reason. What I find utterly ridiculous is how many of you ALSO run tablets and even smartphones based on either Android or iOS

A pretty stupid analogy given that Android and the iPhone have fundamentally different interfaces to WP for starters, and and equally stupid for another reason: Both Apple and Google develop their desktop/laptop OSes seperately rather than bastardising

[MorganX]

A pretty stupid analogy given that Android and the iPhone have fundamentally different interfaces to WP for starters, and and equally stupid for another reason: Both Apple and Google develop their desktop/laptop OSes seperately rather than bastardising

MS themselves have stated that Metro was created for Phones and Touch. It is being retrofitted onto the Desktop. That's OK as long as it's fined tuned to work well there which they appear to be doing based on Blue.

[neo158]

My guess is that you Windows 8 "haters" probably use an iOS or Android device and so don't understand the concepts behind the Metro/Modern UI.

If you don't like Windows 8 then don't use it, there are plenty of alternatives out there so use one of those instead!!!

[adrynalyne]

My guess is that you Windows 8 "haters" probably use an iOS or Android device and so don't understand the concepts behind the Metro/Modern UI.

If you don't like Windows 8 then don't use it, there are plenty of alternatives out there so use one of those instead!!!

Yep, that was a guess.

[MorganX]

My guess is that you Windows 8 "haters" probably use an iOS or Android device and so don't understand the concepts behind the Metro/Modern UI.

WUT?

[adrynalyne]

WUT?

I talked to someone recently who loves Windows Phone (it is what she uses as well), and completely disliked Windows 8.

[neo158]

A pretty stupid analogy given that Android and the iPhone have fundamentally different interfaces to WP for starters, and and equally stupid for another reason: Both Apple and Google develop their desktop/laptop OSes seperately rather than bastardising

Remind me what happened to Android 3.0 again, that's right it died a quick death because it was single purpose i.e. only for tablets. Just look at the Nexus 7 next to a Nexus 4 and you'll see that the Nexus 7 UI is just a scaled up Nexus 4 UI. It's not developed separately, it's just the same OS scaled up for a larger screen.