Back to the Start: imagining a better Windows

[Jim K Global Moderator]

The menu is referred to as "Mini-Start" internally - https://www.neowin.net/news/start-menu-rumors-are-heating-up-currently-referred-to-as-mini-start-internally

 

 

From the article you posted:  "The same report claims that Microsoft has not decided what kind of a design the Start menu should have."  So, it is still up in the air and Microsoft...as they've shown over this past year...has back peddled substantially.

 

 

Do you really think that just adding the 7 start menu will result in a gigantic turn around?

I mean I get it that adding that is the only thing that is acceptable, but will it really change sales of new pcs that much?

 

OK, maybe I over embellished a bit when saying that sales would improve "drastically".  Adding the start menu would increase the sales though...especially those coming off of XP.  There would be four new licenses in my house alone if they added the native start menu and had a way to disable metro.

 

 

Where is this golden rule of which you speak that states that the menu has to be exactly the same as the windows 7start menu? In what world is it criminal to make improvements to a product? I am perfectly ok with the fact that some people don't like windows 8, but it isn't allowed to improve? Really? That is just confusing. I am not trying to troll or anything. I am just seriously confused by that thought process. You don't want the choices of others forced on you. Why can't we all have the right to have the improved menu exist and choose for ourselves? :)

 

Once again, apologies.  Should have said a Windows 7 "style" ... not necessarily the exact same menu (though it wouldn't bother me if they did).  However, making it all flashy and tiley probably wouldn't be a good thing.

 

Where do the vast majority despise Metro? The concept is still in its infancy, and has plenty of room to grow and evolve. Dynamic computing environments aren't going to go away anytime soon, and to leave them off the desktop would be a mistake. 

 

 

I'm not making things up. The Start Menu in Windows 7 was broken. It was limited in functionality, and was a leftover feature from a bygone era. The majority of it dates back to 2001, after making the debut in XP. 

 

Problems include: 

Small icons - 16x16 and 32x32 are relics. On high resolution and high DPI screens, those sizes don't work, they're too small.

Limited space - The amount of apps you can pin was limited by the height of your screen. Working on a small screen? You're out of luck in pinning apps to the menu. It didn't scroll either, so if you pinned more apps than could be shown, you had no way of accessing them.

Folders and subfolders - In this day and age, this behavior is undesirable. No one wants to spend time digging for apps. Apps shouldn't be hidden, especially behind nondescript manila folders.

No grouping options - It takes too much work to organize the menu to user needs. And outside of a select few, no one bothers with it.

No scalability - Speaks for itself.

No expandability -  The Start Menu can't be used with any other forms of input. In this day and age where multiple forms of input are the norm, you need something that can expand to accept different forms of user input. You need a UI that can adapt to user needs. The static desktop/Start Menu can't do that. The Start Screen can scale, and can expand to encompass different forms of input, which is what makes it a valuable addition to the Windows OS.  

 

I think the issue with Windows 8 adoption answers that first part.  The rest of your comments are applicable to tablets...but not to my desktops/notebooks.

And your issues with the Start Menu...I've yet encountered.  Funny you mention scalability/expandability...yea...Windows 8 has great scalability/expandability...by taking up the entire screen.

[Dot Matrix]

So then, the answer is no, you won't provide a straight answer.

The five or so people who constantly complain here are not a "vast majority." 

 

All completely and totally irrelevant to anything but tablets. Apart from the thing about sub folders, which is simply your subjective opinion. I for one find it much more usable than simply flinging a cluster of icons at you on one screen. The problem is, the majority of Windows users are not using Windows on a tablet. It's simply nothing more than lazy and near sighted development.

It's not irrelevant to everything but tablets. Computing is evolving, and if the desktop is to survive, it has to evolve too. There is no rule book saying it has to retain the same dull 1995 UI it's had for the past 20 years. 10-20 years from now, desktop PCs will be completely different from what we know today. Do you honestly think it'll have the same Windows 7 desktop and start menu to go with it? 

 

 

Funny you mention scalability/expandability...yea...Windows 8 has great scalability/expandability...by taking up the entire screen.

 

Ok, and? Is there a rule saying application launchers can't do that? 

 

It still scales down, and up depending on the users resolution. It doesn't prevent you from pinning more items to it, and group them, than what can appear on screen at a given time. And it encompasses multiple forms of input. 

[Noir Angel]

It's not irrelevant to everything but tablets. Computing is evolving, and if the desktop is to survive, it has to evolve too. There is no rule book saying it has to retain the same dull 1995 UI it's had for the past 20 years. 10-20 years from now, desktop PCs will be completely different from what we know today. Do you honestly think it'll have the same Windows 7 desktop and start menu to go with it? 

 

Why? because you say so. Sorry if I'm not convinced. Desktop computers are there to fulfil certain needs, and those needs haven't changed drastically since they were introduced. You can scale the old style UI to modern hardware without also making it completely crap, foisting a tablet interface onto a desktop product is not an evolution, it's a devolution. Which is why everyone else in the industry that still actually has some design sense developed their tablet and desktop operating systems separately.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

The five or so people who constantly complain here are not a "vast majority." 

 

It's not irrelevant to everything but tablets. Computing is evolving, and if the desktop is to survive, it has to evolve too. There is no rule book saying it has to retain the same dull 1995 UI it's had for the past 20 years. 10-20 years from now, desktop PCs will be completely different from what we know today. Do you honestly think it'll have the same Windows 7 desktop and start menu to go with it? 

 

 

 

Ok, and? Is there a rule saying application launchers can't do that? 

 

It still scales down, and up depending on the users resolution. It doesn't prevent you from pinning more items to it, and group them, than what can appear on screen at a given time. And it encompasses multiple forms of input. 

 

Correct about the "five or so people"...the vast majority has decided not to purchase Windows 8 as indicated by pitiful sales.

 

Obviously they can, as Windows 8 does.  However, some of us prefer that there not be a bunch of flashy tiles taking up the entire screen every time we launch a program.  Also everything AJ said below.

[AJerman]

Where do the vast majority despise Metro? The concept is still in its infancy, and has plenty of room to grow and evolve. Dynamic computing environments aren't going to go away anytime soon, and to leave them off the desktop would be a mistake. 

 

 

I'm not making things up. The Start Menu in Windows 7 was broken. It was limited in functionality, and was a leftover feature from a bygone era. The majority of it dates back to 2001, after making the debut in XP (which in itself is also a remnant of a bygone era). 

 

Problems include: 

Small icons - 16x16 and 32x32 are relics. On high resolution and high DPI screens, those sizes don't work, they're too small.

Limited space - The amount of apps you can pin was limited by the height of your screen. Working on a small screen? You're out of luck in pinning apps to the menu. It didn't scroll either, so if you pinned more apps than could be shown, you had no way of accessing them.

Folders and subfolders - In this day and age, this behavior is undesirable. No one wants to spend time digging for apps. Apps shouldn't be hidden, especially behind nondescript manila folders.

No grouping options - It takes too much work to organize the menu to user needs. And outside of a select few, no one bothers with it.

No scalability - Speaks for itself.

No expandability -  The Start Menu can't be used with any other forms of input. In this day and age where multiple forms of input are the norm, you need something that can expand to accept different forms of user input. You need a UI that can adapt to user needs. The static desktop/Start Menu can't do that. The Start Screen can scale, and can expand to encompass different forms of input, which is what makes it a valuable addition to the Windows OS.  

Problems with start screen:

-Massive space wasting 200x200 icons (or whatever they are, I didn't measure, and I know you can resize, but if you had a start screen full of "small" icons it would look like a chaotic mess of icons)

-Limited space - The icons and tiles are massive and padding is insane meaning you're limited by the UI, not the res of your screen, without having to scroll. One feature I'd LOVE is the ability to change the size of the modern UI so I could shrink it down and get more on one screen. As soon as you start grouping thinks, you end up scrolling for miles to get to stuff.

-Folders and subfolders are a personal issue for you I guess. In this day and age we still use folders... everywhere. They work fine. Also, they solve your next issue, grouping.

-Very few decent grouping options. You can group by entire columns, but not two groups in one column, you can't put certain icons next to others depending on size, no free layout. And grouping the start menu takes too long? I spent about an hour last night organizing and grouping my start screen. I don't see how it took any more or less time.

-Scalability? What scalability? I think you're just throwing out a buzz word there, which is why you didn't go in detail.

-No expandibility is a touch issue, I'm find with the start screen on a tablet, it makes sense there. Even a modified modern start menu like the one in this post would allow that though, the start screen isn't needed for that.

 

On top of that, a legitimate issue with the start screen is the awful layout of the "All Programs" section. As with everything in the Modern UI, it's all massive and spread out way too much to easily scan through and read. Sure, you can pin your common apps, but if you need a different app, especially if it's a desktop app that doesn't get put in the first section of shortcuts but in the second chaotic folder section, it's far more difficult to quickly find and pick your app than in the start menu.

 

Many of your issues are just that, YOUR issues, as we all know. Most of them hardly have any validity, and nearly all of them have no validity in a desktop. On top of that, isn't one of the favorite answers to people who complain about the start screen just to tell them to press the windows key and type what they want then they don't have to worry about navigating the start screen? That works on the start menu just as well. While I'm getting more used to the Start Screen, I'm without a doubt slower at launching apps now than I was with the start menu (unless I just type the name, which I usually do), and it's not due to not being used to it, yet, it's because of the fact that I have to scroll all over my 47" screen to launch apps in the start screen that would have taken a few very small flicks of the wrist on the start menu.

 

The start menu wasn't broken in the slightest. It just isn't your preference over the start screen, which is fine. No one has an issue with you or anyone else having an opinion and liking the start screen more, but then you start acting like your opinion is fact and it's simply not. I can make just as many arguments against as you can for, and they will be just as valid (or invalid, either way). I'm fine discussing and debating this stuff, and I'm even warming up to 8.1 quite a bit more than I did to 8, but your arguments are as ridiculous as those who hate Windows 8/8.1 just to hate it.

[Rickkins]

The five or so people who constantly complain here are not a "vast majority."

Ok fine. I'll play.

For the sake of this exercise, we'll assume that the vast majority have rejected it.

 

In THAT scenario, would you consider THAT a serious problem....??

[Brandon H Supervisor]

Correct about the "five or so people"...the vast majority has decided not to purchase Windows 8 as indicated by pitiful sales.

 

Obviously they can, as Windows 8 does.  However, some of us prefer that there not be a bunch of flashy tiles taking up the entire screen every time we launch a program.  Also everything AJ said below.

 

the biggest problem with the "windows 8 is selling worse than windows 7" logic is that those that already have a windows 7 machine don't see a reason to upgrade (this is from a standard consumer perspective mind you. those that don't even know it's called windows type of people). the ones that are buying windows 8 are mostly those that are upgrading from old computers because they need to & those that are buying their first. with computers pretty much saturated everywhere now both those values are bound to be pretty low.

 

tl:dl basically what i'm saying is pc sales in genaral are low right now, not just windows 8

 

[DConnell Member]

That's not exactly how I remember it.

 

I distinctly remember hating the Start Menu. Mainly because I hate it to this day.

 

I even started a thread asking if there's a Program Manager-like launcher available for the desktop side of 8, just in case the "classic" version of the Start Menu were forced on us again.

 

[trooper11]

But... would you not concede that the fact that the vast majority despise metro, is a pretty serious problem....??? Straight answer please.

 

 

If the vast majority despise metro, then it needs to go, simple as that. 

 

 

OK, maybe I over embellished a bit when saying that sales would improve "drastically".  Adding the start menu would increase the sales though...especially those coming off of XP.  There would be four new licenses in my house alone if they added the native start menu and had a way to disable metro.

 

 

You bring up a good point though.  Everyone likes to throw around generalizations like 'everyone hates ____'  or 'everyone wants _____'

 

It comes up in a lot of discussions about Win 8.  My question is where do you guys get the info that makes you think these generalizations really do apply to everyone?  Is it based on the people you talk to locally/online?  Is it based on the sales numbers?  What is it?

 

I don't doubt that these people exist, but the hard part is trying to figure out how many it applies to and how many you can count on to come around if you make a change.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

 

You bring up a good point though.  Everyone likes to throw around generalizations like 'everyone hates ____'  or 'everyone wants _____'

 

It comes up in a lot of discussions about Win 8.  My question is where do you guys get the info that makes you think these generalizations really do apply to everyone?  Is it based on the people you talk to locally/online?  Is it based on the sales numbers?  What is it?

 

I don't doubt that these people exist, but the hard part is trying to figure out how many it applies to and how many you can count on to come around if you make a change.

 

Not really sure I generalized the dissatisfaction of Metro to everyone.  Really it has been split across the board from a few I talked to...a few are like me and rather have the start menu....few like metro and others don't care as long as they can check facebook.  I haven't taken a poll though.

 

I think we can all agree that the most controversial part of Windows 8 is metro.  Sales hurt because of people like me who extremely dislike metro and metro apps.  Sales are good because of people like Dot Matrix who really like metro and thinks it is the future....and others who could care less.

 

Anyway, allowing the end user a choice to run metro or the start menu would create sales for people (like me) who are resistant to the style/interface/everything-about-it metro but appreciate the features under the hood.  I run it on a notebook I bought this year, with classic shell...but it just seems unfinished to me. I mostly use my older Win7 notebook at home and use the Win 8 notebook when traveling (because it's lighter)

 

I'm looking forward to seeing what Microsoft brings to the table next year...regarding the start menu.

[vcfan]

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/microsoft.public.win95.shellui/MEBAy63Qlbc

hahaha that's gold. a carbon copy of the arguments from both sides today, 15 years ago. 15 years from now, people will be bitching about Microsoft removing the metro start screen.

[Lord Method Man]

 

 

It comes up in a lot of discussions about Win 8.  My question is where do you guys get the info that makes you think these generalizations really do apply to everyone?  Is it based on the people you talk to locally/online?  Is it based on the sales numbers?  What is it?

 

 

 

 

All of the above. This site is the only place I know of, online, in person, or otherwise where there's so much as a modicum of positivity about Windows 8.

[techbeck]

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/microsoft.public.win95.shellui/MEBAy63Qlbc

That takes me back

[George P Global Moderator]

Thinking the start screen or metro is going to go because they bring back a menu option is wrong.  There are start screen changes in the works as well, those who want it can use it on the desktop still or use the new menu, it's that easy.  I'm not going to use a menu on my tablet though, no one will. So for now they'll keep bringing the desktop closer as needed but mobile devices are taking over and that's a fact. Metro, the start screen, live tiles and all the other touch friendly UI parts aren't going away.   In fact I bet this will be the start of the desktop changing, this new menu will be the first step.

[trooper11]

All of the above. This site is the only place I know of, online, in person, or otherwise where there's so much as a modicum of positivity about Windows 8.

 

 

Well that's interesting since jjkusaf above you stated that for him, its pretty split among people he knows, etc.

So clearly there is a disconnect among various groups of users. You can't find a single person online or offline, outside of this single site, that has is not negative about Win 8, and yet other people claim to the opposite or at least not as bad.

Regardless, none of this really matters, I was just curious as to where most people get their info regarding what people think about a product.

Regardless of how many users are really upset or not, there are enough that its means MS must reac tot them and do something to make the experience better for them. For some that means a return to 7 in almost everyway possible. For others, that means just removing all signs of metro or at least bringing back the old start menu. Others are more in the middle and actually want to see metro be more seamlessly integrated into the 8 desktop with a start screen-lite for a new start menu and being able to treat metro apps like any other desktop app (pin them to the task bar or desktop, use them in windows, etc).

Now we wait and see what MS comes up with.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

hahaha that's gold. a carbon copy of the arguments from both sides today, 15 years ago. 15 years from now, people will be bitching about Microsoft removing the metro start screen.

 

However, that is not really a good comparison to todays argument.  Microsoft still included Program Manager .. which could be used all the up to XP SP2.  For almost 9 years you had the ability to use Windows 3.1 program manager as a native shell. 

 

Error with Windows 8 ... 18 years was stripped out w/o an option (aside from 3rd party solutions)

[zhangm Supervisor]

I remember quite a substantial bit of vitriol being spewed when the Search bar and UAC were introduced with Vista. This is the sort of thing that we may expect to come about every four to five years as the OS inevitably changes. Thing is, XP hasn't stopped working, so folks who consider Search and UAC to be deal-breakers are still able to use it. Seven isn't broken either, and obviously many people to whom aspects of 8 are deal-breakers continue to use 7. That's perfectly fine.

[winlonghorn]

Apology accepted. I see what you mean now. I apologize for being a bit jumpy about the subject. I agree that it doesn't necessarily have to be metro style. Although the concept of adding web enabled functionality to the start menu may not be a bad idea considering that the os is now fully web enabled. It doesn't necessarily have to be flashy to provide some useful information. Maybe weather and the ability to show news from a single source through an RSS feed?

 

 

From the article you posted:  "The same report claims that Microsoft has not decided what kind of a design the Start menu should have."  So, it is still up in the air and Microsoft...as they've shown over this past year...has back peddled substantially.

 

 

 

OK, maybe I over embellished a bit when saying that sales would improve "drastically".  Adding the start menu would increase the sales though...especially those coming off of XP.  There would be four new licenses in my house alone if they added the native start menu and had a way to disable metro.

 

 

 

Once again, apologies.  Should have said a Windows 7 "style" ... not necessarily the exact same menu (though it wouldn't bother me if they did).  However, making it all flashy and tiley probably wouldn't be a good thing.

 

 

I think the issue with Windows 8 adoption answers that first part.  The rest of your comments are applicable to tablets...but not to my desktops/notebooks.

And your issues with the Start Menu...I've yet encountered.  Funny you mention scalability/expandability...yea...Windows 8 has great scalability/expandability...by taking up the entire screen.

[George P Global Moderator]

I remember quite a substantial bit of vitriol being spewed when the Search bar and UAC were introduced with Vista. This is the sort of thing that we may expect to come about every four to five years as the OS inevitably changes. Thing is, XP hasn't stopped working, so folks who consider Search and UAC to be deal-breakers are still able to use it. Seven isn't broken either, and obviously many people to whom aspects of 8 are deal-breakers continue to use 7. That's perfectly fine.

It's not so much the OS changes alone, majority don't upgrade Windows, they get a new version with a new PC.  The traditional PC market has been on the way down since before we knew anything about Windows 8.  People don't have the need to upgrade and get a new PC often, they don't think of them like they do phones which they changes every 2 years.  My desktop is still going strong and it's from 2009, i7 920.  I've upgraded a few things since then but I'm the minority.  More and more people are not buying a new desktop and are opting for something more mobile.  For some that's a smartphone, a tablet or a new hybrid.  Traditional PCs are on the way out from the home and are more and more being seen as a workplace tool.  That automatically shrinks the market for them regardless of if windows has a menu or something else.

 

People will compare things to the quick success of windows 7 but need to remember that most of it was on the back of business finally upgrading to it.  We all know business does not upgrade often either, lots just went to 7 this year because they planned to before 8 hit the market.   They're not going to upgrade again anytime soon, today's hardware will run the software just fine for years.  Only gaming will push things and that's a even smaller market.  The menu coming back is to keep the traditional desktop market/users and mostly business happy while consumers move more and more to phones and other mobile devices where MS will keep advancing metro and winrt.

[PGHammer]

Yep the matter of the fact is consumers are the market. If consumers dont want your product then you failed and you have only you to blame and nobody else. It's true for all companies.

Yet the consumers are buying smartphones, tablets, slates, etc. - with or without Windows/RT/Phone - so what is the consumer really rejecting?  Are they rejecting Windows 8 - or are they rejecting the traditional desktop form-factor?

 

Tablets and slates alone - regardless of what is on them in terms of an OS - are selling.  It's not JUST Android and iOS tablets and slates (though they are the majority of tablets and slates); slates with WindowsRT and even Windows 8.x are selling.  Some of those tablets and slates are augmenting a traditional desktop-formfactor, while others are outright replacing it - how can you tell, unless the consumer tells you via a poll or survey, which is the case?

 

You are seeing lower new hardware sales - however, what is the breakdown on what is actually selling in terms of new hardware?  Do we have numbers from any OEM on that breakdown?

 

Also, only the bashers are insisting that Windows 8 is entirely for new hardware.  The majority of us that claim the opposite are proving, day in and day out - that Windows 8 can run any - or all - the same software that Windows 7 does - and on the same hardware.  The continued insistence that a pointing-device-centric UX is the only method that works is not merely subjective, but arrogant and the height of hubris.  The bashers dismiss the data because it goes against their viewpoint and - far worse - conflicts with their assumption.

 

Nobody is claiming that Windows 8 isn't a better fit for those new form-factors - not anyone that has USED Windows 8 or 8.1 on them, that is.  However, to make any claim that Windows 8 or 8.1 is exclusively for those same new form-factors is ignoring the hard data that is in your face every day - not even Paul Thurott is THAT arrogant.

 

Every day, I run Windows 8.1 (or Windows Server 2012R2, or both, depending on what I am doing during the day), on a traditional desktop-form-factor PC.  If ModernUI were such a mess, I could not run one, let alone both.  In short, that claim is entirely subjective and almost certainly user-specific.  (If a user has locked themselves into that sort of usability trap, almost no amount of training will get them out of it; I'd know, as I have actually DONE such training.)  I won't dare make such a general statement because it's all too likely some data will come along and blow that generalization into dust-bunnies.

[PGHammer]

I remember quite a substantial bit of vitriol being spewed when the Search bar and UAC were introduced with Vista. This is the sort of thing that we may expect to come about every four to five years as the OS inevitably changes. Thing is, XP hasn't stopped working, so folks who consider Search and UAC to be deal-breakers are still able to use it. Seven isn't broken either, and obviously many people to whom aspects of 8 are deal-breakers continue to use 7. That's perfectly fine.

True - in fact, I have pointed that out, time and time again.

All I have been trying to do is point out that the generalizations I've been hearing from the anti-ModernUI side are not general at all - I couldn't do what I do every day if they were.  If you can't, fine - say so; I'm not going to hate you for that.  However, don't project subjective experiences as objective, especially when the data set is one user.  While there are quite a few users - maybe a LOT of users - that have trouble with, or simply can't, use ModernUI on traditional hardware - have you even considered it may NOT be the fault of the UI?  There ARE folks that are not merely change-resistant, but actually change-averse, if not outright change-hostile. (We've ALL seen them - and in every aspect of life.)  ModernUI is a massive sea-change - and it doesn't make it any easier that it's throughout Windows.  However, given those same new form-factors (which are necessary, as even the anti-Modern crowd admits), and previous failures at niche-specific Windows, therein lies the problem - supporting new hardware where the traditional UX doesn't fit while maintaining consistency.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Since setting up a customers new Windows 8 machine, he has called me TEN TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FML!!!!!!

[PGHammer]

Since setting up a customers new Windows 8 machine, he has called me TEN TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FML!!!!!!

Again, warwagon , I never said that the change is for everyone - not ever.  All I have said is that insisting that the change is for nobody is arrogant and the height of hubris.

 

It would, in fact, be just as absolutist as insisting that the change is for everybody to insist that the change is for nobody.

[Growled Member]

Since setting up a customers new Windows 8 machine, he has called me TEN TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FML!!!!!!

 

Apparently he should have waited until 8.2 when we get our start menu back and a Window 7 like experience.

[PGHammer]

Apparently he should have waited until 8.2 when we get our start menu back and a Window 7 like experience.

Apparently, Growled.

 

With that line of thinking, I have no problem with - in fact, I never have had a problem with that.  In fact, even Microsoft has no problem with that - won't Windows 7 be supported for several more years yet?