The return of the Start menu in future Windows 8.1 update: Thoughts?


Recommended Posts

What's the problem with teaching someone a new UI? I've had to teach people how to transition from XP->Vista->7, and those interfaces were pretty similar. Same with OSX, iOS, Android and virtually every other tech-related item in general.

I know this wasnt directed at me, but let me answer it.  I dont think he was saying there is something wrong with teaching people a new GUI, new software version, new OS, new anything.  I think it has to do more with assuming people always want/care/need the latest and greatest.  A good analogy is lets say you walk into BestBuy, some 16 year old comes up to you & you say Im looking for a new computer.  Immediately that person goes straight over to a product and tells this person (who barely knows how to turn one on) about Ghz, terabytes, Metro, etc  without even asking what the person's needs are.  We, as humans, are genetically wired to be curious about new stuff, its what brought us out of the caves, and put us in space.  But to automatically assume that person needs the latest and greatest with 16GB RAM, and a 2 terabyte HDD isn't always a good idea.

Dont get me started on new computers with 16GB of RAM either... we'll save that for another thread... ridiculous though consider 90% will never use more than 3GB... OK there I said it.

Double digits, impressive. That wouldn't have anything to do with some attractively priced WP devices, would it?

 

You keep saying I am making an assumption, but can you name one device that has Metro on it that has taken off like wildfire?  A few percentage points a year isn't what I would call a win.  Maybe we can revisit this next decade when its amounted to something?

 

At the end of the day, consumers are buying Windows 8 devices because computers are getting harder to find without it.

 

If this is about something other than Windows 8, then how come Apple's PC sales aren't drying up?

 

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/09/apples-domestic-mac-sales-surge-285-as-overall-pc-market-shrinks-75

 

Why do you think Microsoft is making so many changes to Windows 8?  Their customers aren't happy with it.

 

And Android rapid growth wouldn't have anything to do with all the cheap devices you can buy as well would it?   In a rapidly growing market a few percentages equates to millions of devices sold.   No one is forcing consumers to buy new hardware, specially not new PCs, and specially not when we're talking tablets and smartphones, yet, again, both those segments are growing.  You can try to downplay it all you want, that's a different discussion.  The assumption you've stuck to is that no one is buying any devices with metro, which is still false regardless of how hard you want to deny it.

 

And that domestic Mac number is nice, except it's just the US, if the US was the whole computing market iOS and the iPhone would still be #1 in mobile yet they're not as we're all aware of.  Why not look at their global mac numbers that have been frozen at around 5% or less for years.

 

I'm not debating why they're making changes, they were going to make changes to Windows regardless, 8.0 was just the first step, they've always said as much.   My point is that you're wrong about metro and that people aren't buying devices with it.   

I guess that scares me the most - you don't see anything wrong with needing to hire a "trainer" or to "find someone capable of teaching them" in order to use the new UI. That screams failure to me, and then you add that they didn't even include a real tutorial for the new users to follow, it makes me want to scream louder... but then the neighboors go on about it being 3 a.m.

If a UI changes (whether it be for an OS or an application), why WOULDN'T someone need training or retraining in those changes?

 

If you are standing still because you don't want to spend money on training, in what way does that NOT make you change-hostile?

 

Even though I get the desire to spend as little money on IT training as possible (this is especially true for public companies - however, it's just as true for private companies and governments), it is STILL hostility to change - dressed up and covered up, but still aversion to change.

 

Training/tutoring folks on OS and application changes is something I've done since before Windows - just because Windows has taken off does NOT mean that change has come to a halt - even simply in terms of the OS itself.

 

However, the trend is VERY much toward cowardice in terms of getting out of the OS comfort zone in terms of Windows, and the recession has done nothing but driven it home with a piledriver.  Largely because things are so UNcertian everywhere else, the management folks want security in SOMETHING - hence the drive to push change as far into the future as can be gotten away with.

I know this wasnt directed at me, but let me answer it.  I dont think he was saying there is something wrong with teaching people a new GUI, new software version, new OS, new anything.  I think it has to do more with assuming people always want/care/need the latest and greatest.  A good analogy is lets say you walk into BestBuy, some 16 year old comes up to you & you say Im looking for a new computer.  Immediately that person goes straight over to a product and tells this person (who barely knows how to turn one on) about Ghz, terabytes, Metro, etc  without even asking what the person's needs are.  We, as humans, are genetically wired to be curious about new stuff, its what brought us out of the caves, and put us in space.  But to automatically assume that person needs the latest and greatest with 16GB RAM, and a 2 terabyte HDD isn't always a good idea.

Dont get me started on new computers with 16GB of RAM either... we'll save that for another thread... ridiculous though consider 90% will never use more than 3GB... OK there I said it.

And I haven't said the same thing - though I am on the opposing side of this particular subject?

 

Why the heck have I been pointing out - rather consistently - that the hardware requirement for the current Windows OS - merely since Vista - have been absolutely flat?

 

I did NOT say merely comparatively flat, either - but flat in absolute terms.

 

Unless you are running XP, unless your hardware breaks, the reason to replace existing hardware is not being driven by either the OS or productivity applications - I've stated that much quite plainly.

There are two - and ONLY two - reasons to upgrade hardware today - gaming, or an outlier application.

While I myself AM looking to upgrade my hardware, Windows itself - even 8.1 or Server 2012R2 (the second of the three OSes I run bare-metal on my traditional desktop) - is NOT driving the upgrade interest.  (The hardware-upgrade driver is something I freely admit IS an outlier use - Hyper-V.  While everything else does benefit, none of that "rest" is driving the upgrade, either.)

 

Still, I am clued-in enough  - and have been in IT long enough - to realize that if you don't keep up with hardware/software/OS trends, you will find yourself overtaken by events and rendered obsolete - basically, run over by a steamroller and smashed flat as a pancake.  I don't know about you, but I am quite aware that I don't taste good covered in butter and syrup and served up for breakfast - that means keeping up is mandatory.

 

Don't blow smoke up my posterior - if cost is a factor, say so.  If UI change is a factor, say so - I won't hate either reason.  But if you try to blowe smoke up my posterior - and i detect it - I'm not going to let it be gotten away with.

^  Uhhh not sure where you are going with some of that -- sorry I think you kinda jumped around a bit.  If you are agreeing with the post, its not clear.  If you are disagreeing with the quoted post, well it still isnt clear.  I think you are arguing a reason for lack of change on a subject nobody mentioned... or maybe I need to go to sleep.

Regardless, I realize the only constant is change, and it is inevitable.  Eventually, even the most dated, reserved company has to make an upgrade.  But as a SysAdmin working with a large company I will say "If it isnt broke, dont fix it"

Im not sure what you were talking about on the blowing smoke thing though - care to elaborate - or maybe I'll try reading it again after some sleep.

Oh, there are more than 2 reasons to upgrade.

^  Uhhh not sure where you are going with some of that -- sorry I think you kinda jumped around a bit.  If you are agreeing with the post, its not clear.  If you are disagreeing with the quoted post, well it still isnt clear.  I think you are arguing a reason for lack of change on a subject nobody mentioned... or maybe I need to go to sleep.

Regardless, I realize the only constant is change, and it is inevitable.  Eventually, even the most dated, reserved company has to make an upgrade.  But as a SysAdmin working with a large company I will say "If it isnt broke, dont fix it"

Im not sure what you were talking about on the blowing smoke thing though - care to elaborate - or maybe I'll try reading it again after some sleep.

Oh, there are more than 2 reasons to upgrade.

I am saying that same attitude STILL amounts to cowardice.

 

Staying put - for any reason - leaves you vulnerable to being overtaken by events and rendered obsolete; this is, in fact, especially true in IT.

 

Yes - uncertainty DOES breed fear - this is true in everything.  However, surrendering to that fear is the very definition of cowardice.

 

If something has you uncertain, study it, research it, and background-check it.  Replace the uncertainty with certainty.

 

Don't let the fear master you.

 

And the third reason is one I deliberately left out - hardware breakage or obsolescence (these days, it's breakage more often than not).

 

"Blowing smoke" is saying that it's one thing when it's really something else.  I won't put up with that, when the truth makes far more sense.

What's the problem with teaching someone a new UI? I've had to teach people how to transition from XP->Vista->7, and those interfaces were pretty similar. Same with OSX, iOS, Android and virtually every other tech-related item in general.

 

I never said there wasn't a problem teaching someone a new UI, I said it was bad desing if you need to hire/seek training from a 3rd party for a UI change. Microsoft just chucked Win 8 out in the field without a care if people could use it or not. People could still hit the "Start" button and figure out the basics... not so in Win 8.

 

If a UI changes (whether it be for an OS or an application), why WOULDN'T someone need training or retraining in those changes?

 

If you are standing still because you don't want to spend money on training, in what way does that NOT make you change-hostile?

 

Even though I get the desire to spend as little money on IT training as possible (this is especially true for public companies - however, it's just as true for private companies and governments), it is STILL hostility to change - dressed up and covered up, but still aversion to change.

 

Training/tutoring folks on OS and application changes is something I've done since before Windows - just because Windows has taken off does NOT mean that change has come to a halt - even simply in terms of the OS itself.

 

However, the trend is VERY much toward cowardice in terms of getting out of the OS comfort zone in terms of Windows, and the recession has done nothing but driven it home with a piledriver.  Largely because things are so UNcertian everywhere else, the management folks want security in SOMETHING - hence the drive to push change as far into the future as can be gotten away with.

 

If, we the masses NEED training shouldn't the company that FORCED the change be leading the way in training? Hell, when you have to search the internet on how to turn the damn thing off, makes it seem like MS didn't do a very good job in handling the basics.

 

I understand training for the more complex operations, but as you well know people are resistant to change and yet Metro made getting to the control panel a challenge, the stupid lock screen annoyed the hell out of people and don't get me started on changing the font or trying to use a dark theme, the point is how long to you think anyone NOT tech savy is going to bang their heads trying to use Win 8 that seems so different, to do something they could do so easily in Win 7?

 

Is it easier to seek a "trainer" or to get Win 7 re-installed? Re-installation takes ONE session, training takes many... all to do the same task, are you still confused as to why there is hate for Win 8?

 

I hate that saying. "If it's broke..." You know the abacus wasn't broken, but we don't use it anymore...

 

I don't understand, are you saying that Win 7 wasn't broken but we fixed it anyway? or that Win 8 isn't broken but we're fixing it now?

 

You know we still use the wheel... right?

  • Like 2

You know we still use the wheel... right?

 

And you know the wheel is often no longer made of wood or stone, but of rubber or plastic or metal? Just because older models are still possible, that doesn't make them perpetually the best solution for every situation.

 

So why should the 1995-era desktop be kept as the primary/only interface for Windows-based PCs? Why shouldn't other possibilities be explored and offered?

 

 

I don't understand, are you saying that Win 7 wasn't broken but we fixed it anyway? or that Win 8 isn't broken but we're fixing it now?

 

You know we still use the wheel... right?

It was directed at my comment.  When it comes to my network, I dont install countless updates, roll out new features on a whim.  If everything is working well, I wont install a major update just for the sake of staying current - if it is working fine, dont mess with it -

As far as the abacus, a universally accepted improvement was invented - not the case of this topic.

As far as my personal computer(s) - then I'll update/upgrade like crazy - it doesnt matter if something goes crazy and flakes out - if something gets screwed up, I can easily unscrew it.

  • Like 2

I don't understand, are you saying that Win 7 wasn't broken but we fixed it anyway? or that Win 8 isn't broken but we're fixing it now?

 

You know we still use the wheel... right?

 

What I'm saying is, that change happens. Whether something is broken or not, it doesn't matter. People will always be looking to advance and innovate new things, and that means change one way or another. Change is constant, and non stop.

 

We still use the wheel, but the wheel has changed countless times over the years, and is still changing. Looks like we'll be seeing airless wheels before long. Cool, right?

And you know the wheel is often no longer made of wood or stone, but of rubber or plastic or metal? Just because older models are still possible, that doesn't make them perpetually the best solution for every situation.

 

So why should the 1995-era desktop be kept as the primary/only interface for Windows-based PCs? Why shouldn't other possibilities be explored and offered?

 

In the modern world? No, but there are still places where the wooden/stone wheel are still the best or most viable solution and are used to this day.

 

Why shouldn't the 2011 (W7 SP1) tweaked version of the 1995-era desktop be used? Age has no bearing on usability, does it?

 

Explored? YES! Offered? YES! Forced? NO!

 

 

It was directed at my comment.  When it comes to my network, I dont install countless updates, roll out new features on a whim.  If everything is working well, I wont install a major update just for the sake of staying current - if it is working fine, dont mess with it -

As far as the abacus, a universally accepted improvement was invented - not the case of this topic.

As far as my personal computer(s) - then I'll update/upgrade like crazy - it doesnt matter if something goes crazy and flakes out - if something gets screwed up, I can easily unscrew it.

 

I know, and I'm the same, I've installed Win 8 - removed back to Win 7, installed 8.1 - removed back to Win 7, I will install Win 8.1 U1 and try it out. I would not install it on my wifes desktop that she uses for school or work, because she is comfortable with Win 7, to intall it on a "mission critical" machine such as hers (well, in her eyes) is a no go.

 

Sometimes, it seems the big proponents of Win 8, gloss over the fact that some of us have tried to use Win 8 and just do not like Metro.

 

I know Microsoft had reasons for forcing Metro on desktops 1) to leverage desktop users to bolster numbers to attract app developers and 2) to try and get desktop users to buy from the store. Could you imagine if they just added the store icon to the desktop? Deleted. People can claim it was for the - same experience across all devices - all they want, I don't buy it. How can you really get the same expierence across a 4" inch, 9" inch and a 27" inch screen, while simply surfing the web?

What I'm saying is, that change happens. Whether something is broken or not, it doesn't matter. People will always be looking to advance and innovate new things, and that means change one way or another. Change is constant, and non stop.

 

We still use the wheel, but the wheel has changed countless times over the years, and is still changing. Looks like we'll be seeing airless wheels before long. Cool, right?

 

I agree, but change has to have a purpose, a goal and has to take small enough steps that the users/customers can follow along with the changes being made. Win 7 to Win 8 was too big of a change for many users, and that created a backlash, MS is doing Win 8 backwards because of this, Win 8 should have been the goal, not the first step. Now they are backtracking and looking for ways to bridge a gap they created by taking a huge leap, instead of a small step.

In the modern world? No, but there are still places where the wooden/stone wheel are still the best or most viable solution and are used to this day.

 

Why shouldn't the 2011 (W7 SP1) tweaked version of the 1995-era desktop be used? Age has no bearing on usability, does it?

 

Explored? YES! Offered? YES! Forced? NO!

 

 

How is Modern forced on you? The desktop isn't blocked or limited, nor is it being offered as a "Professional only" feature so you have to buy Win 8 Pro to get it. It's just one click away, and fully functional. You can hide Modern easily and restore the menu easily with add-ons (until MS itself provides the option later on).

 

Modern is front & center, but it's not forced on anyone. The iPad display might be biggest one and front & center at my local Best Buy, but I'm not forced to buy one. Same concept applies here. Microsoft may be putting the focus on their new interface, but they're not forcing it on you.

Sometimes, it seems the big proponents of Win 8, gloss over the fact that some of us have tried to use Win 8 and just do not like Metro.

 

 

Just like the anti-Modern side like to gloss over the fact that there are people who use and even like Modern on traditional form factors, and say limiting Modern to tablets is some kind of fix or compromise.

I agree, but change has to have a purpose, a goal and has to take small enough steps that the users/customers can follow along with the changes being made. Win 7 to Win 8 was too big of a change for many users, and that created a backlash, MS is doing Win 8 backwards because of this, Win 8 should have been the goal, not the first step. Now they are backtracking and looking for ways to bridge a gap they created by taking a huge leap, instead of a small step.

 

I agree that it was too big a change at once. Microsoft should have started this process years ago. Remove or at least alter the Start Menu, then de-focus the desktop, etc.

I agree that it was too big a change at once. Microsoft should have started this process years ago. Remove or at least alter the Start Menu, then de-focus the desktop, etc.

There was no reason to do that because the tablet and touch market hadn't sprung up years ago. MS didn't decide to make a touch-friendly interface just to change things up or because they felt/feel the desktop is antiquated or inadequate in general, they did it to capture the expanding tablet market and touch market.

There was no reason to do that because the tablet and touch market hadn't sprung up years ago. MS didn't decide to make a touch-friendly interface just to change things up or because they felt/feel the desktop is antiquated or inadequate in general, they did it to capture the expanding tablet market and touch market.

Sure there was - Windows XP tablet edition. Had Microsoft did this process with XP, they wouldn't have been in this mess.

Sure there was - Windows XP tablet edition. Had Microsoft did this process with XP, they wouldn't have been in this mess.

There were tablet style interfaces even in the 90s, but there's a large difference between having a niche market and the what has happened since the rise of smart phones (multi-touch becoming mainstream marketable technology). For one, prior to mid 2005s, multi-touch technology didn't even really exist and it certainly wasn't found in the actual market. At best you largely had resistive touch interfaces that could do single point detection (as per a mouse) without pressure. Also, gesture recognition hadn't even begun to be applied to market in those days. We only began to see a rise in the touch market following Apples acquisition of a company that specialized in the technology (and the subsequent the advent of the iphone a few years later). The tablet market only really began to boom after the iPad saw success in early 2010. 

 

Had MS truly tried to design an interface for early touch technology, it would have been far different from what we have here today simply due to the differences in the technologies of the time. There would have been no gestures, swiping, or hot corners or anything like that because when you lack sensitivity information and can only detect single points, the most you can do it treat the input just as you would a mouse. It's also a lot to ask for a company to push R&D money into a market that was at best niche and at worse dead at times over the years. 

How is Modern forced on you? The desktop isn't blocked or limited, nor is it being offered as a "Professional only" feature so you have to buy Win 8 Pro to get it. It's just one click away, and fully functional. You can hide Modern easily and restore the menu easily with add-ons (until MS itself provides the option later on).

 

Modern is front & center, but it's not forced on anyone. The iPad display might be biggest one and front & center at my local Best Buy, but I'm not forced to buy one. Same concept applies here. Microsoft may be putting the focus on their new interface, but they're not forcing it on you.

 

Just like the anti-Modern side like to gloss over the fact that there are people who use and even like Modern on traditional form factors, and say limiting Modern to tablets is some kind of fix or compromise.

 

I agree that it was too big a change at once. Microsoft should have started this process years ago. Remove or at least alter the Start Menu, then de-focus the desktop, etc.

 

When 8 came out you couldn't even boot to the desktop, and it had that stupid flip animation, and the desktop was limited - the start menu was removed. Hide it easily, not when 8 first came out you couldn't, nothing was available at launch that provided a good solution.

 

Now that's just a silly comparrison, ipad display... but were going to disagree about that, they did force it on users without the ability or know how to install a 3rd party app to restore lost functionality.

 

Not me, I learned a long time ago the different thing work for different people, I'm glad you and others enjoy and like Metro, I happy you can be productive using it. Why can you even acknowledge the some of us don't like it for reasons that don't have to make sense to you? You (and others) seem to think there is only one right way to use Windows and everybody that says otherwise is - resistant to change, or stopping progress.

 

Still wrong, first you have to de-focus the desktop, then you remove the start menu, and you are able to remove it when people find it lacking. For me, Metro is lacking, the lack of ability to even change the background or font just boggles my mind. Launch was a disaster and Win 8 may never recover in the eyes of some users, because they will never give it another chance. You can already hear them cheering as Microsoft backtracks and now - the desktop is the next step.

When 8 came out you couldn't even boot to the desktop, and it had that stupid flip animation, and the desktop was limited - the start menu was removed. Hide it easily, not when 8 first came out you couldn't, nothing was available at launch that provided a good solution.

 

Now that's just a silly comparrison, ipad display... but were going to disagree about that, they did force it on users without the ability or know how to install a 3rd party app to restore lost functionality.

 

Not me, I learned a long time ago the different thing work for different people, I'm glad you and others enjoy and like Metro, I happy you can be productive using it. Why can you even acknowledge the some of us don't like it for reasons that don't have to make sense to you? You (and others) seem to think there is only one right way to use Windows and everybody that says otherwise is - resistant to change, or stopping progress.

 

Still wrong, first you have to de-focus the desktop, then you remove the start menu, and you are able to remove it when people find it lacking. For me, Metro is lacking, the lack of ability to even change the background or font just boggles my mind. Launch was a disaster and Win 8 may never recover in the eyes of some users, because they will never give it another chance. You can already hear them cheering as Microsoft backtracks and now - the desktop is the next step.

 

Why are you complaining about 8 as it was at launch. I'm talking about now. Although I recall the menu tools were available while the Consumer Preview was still out, so actually the menu options were available from the beginning. Can't comment on Boot to Desktop as I have no need for it and I don't like that it's apparently becoming the default. BUt as long as I can turn it off, it's ok.

 

I'm not downloading the update tomorrow until I know that the ways Microsoft is messing up Modern can be disabled. I don't want a taskbar or title bar in Modern, and I don't want a close box.

 

I do acknowledge that others don't like Modern. I have no problem with you guys having the ability to customize Windows to do what you want. But should I have to lose what I like because others don't like Modern?

 

I'm one of the ones who has no problem with options for the menu and hiding the desktop being offered, so long as they remain options. Don't accuse me of trying to make everyone work the way I want - as long as I can keep what I like, I have no problem with others getting the same.

 

It's the majority (though by no means all) of the anti-8 crowd who seem to think that the desktop/menu combo is the only proper way to use a computer. Who want a total reversion to a 20 year old design suited only to one form factor. I want Windows to be more flexible, not limited to one choice or the other. It isn't an either-or situation.

 

I wasn't giving a roadmap of how the changes should take place, I was stating that they should have started much sooner. I was tired of the menu and ready for a change when XP came out.

And you know the wheel is often no longer made of wood or stone, but of rubber or plastic or metal? Just because older models are still possible, that doesn't make them perpetually the best solution for every situation.

 

So why should the 1995-era desktop be kept as the primary/only interface for Windows-based PCs? Why shouldn't other possibilities be explored and offered?

 

Because like the wheel, whose fundamental functionality hasn't changed, only the material, lettering, and rims have, the fundamental functionality of Windowing and File management hasn't changed on the desktop, only the themes. Aero Glass is gone, the mice have higher DPI, and keyboards are going back to mechanical, etc., etc. People would not have resisted Modern UI on the desktop if it did Desktop computing better.

 

What I will say is, I prefer multitasking with Snap Views alongside the desktop. Still not a fan of the thought of Windowed Modern Apps and I hope well made snap views don't disappear.

  • Like 1

It's the majority (though by no means all) of the anti-8 crowd who seem to think that the desktop/menu combo is the only proper way to use a computer. Who want a total reversion to a 20 year old design suited only to one form factor. I want Windows to be more flexible, not limited to one choice or the other. It isn't an either-or situation.

MS isn't going to abandon their touch interface altogether regardless. Distilled to its core, people who are anti-metro aren't necessarily vehemently  pro-desktop when it comes down to it. They are just voicing what they see in terms of the two alternatives. If given something that works well on all form-factors, they wouldn't necessarily be complaining. One direction is trying to marry touch with the desktop though and that's what MS appears to be doing now in some ways.

Why are you complaining about 8 as it was at launch. I'm talking about now. Although I recall the menu tools were available while the Consumer Preview was still out, so actually the menu options were available from the beginning. Can't comment on Boot to Desktop as I have no need for it and I don't like that it's apparently becoming the default. BUt as long as I can turn it off, it's ok.

 

I'm not downloading the update tomorrow until I know that the ways Microsoft is messing up Modern can be disabled. I don't want a taskbar or title bar in Modern, and I don't want a close box.

 

I do acknowledge that others don't like Modern. I have no problem with you guys having the ability to customize Windows to do what you want. But should I have to lose what I like because others don't like Modern?

 

I'm one of the ones who has no problem with options for the menu and hiding the desktop being offered, so long as they remain options. Don't accuse me of trying to make everyone work the way I want - as long as I can keep what I like, I have no problem with others getting the same.

 

It's the majority (though by no means all) of the anti-8 crowd who seem to think that the desktop/menu combo is the only proper way to use a computer. Who want a total reversion to a 20 year old design suited only to one form factor. I want Windows to be more flexible, not limited to one choice or the other. It isn't an either-or situation.

 

I wasn't giving a roadmap of how the changes should take place, I was stating that they should have started much sooner. I was tired of the menu and ready for a change when XP came out.

 

Because that's when the Win 8 hate started, to discount that overlooks the problem many have with it. It also shows how long people have been asking for the things that MS removed.

 

Funny, most of the people wanted just that - options, that's all I ask for, the option to continue using my desktop pretty much the same way I did in Win 7. I don't care if Windows is on any other platform, I use an Android tablet and IOS phone, because I liked their experiences on the platform I chose them on. Windows can be on as many form factors as Microsoft wants, but why does the UI have to be changed for the platform it's already on? They already had a great system - Aero, looked good, worked well and people LIKED it, why crap all over that with Win 8?

 

Don't worry I'm sure Stardock will make a replacement app if Microsoft removes Metro (or parts that you want)...

yeah, just like the start menu is never coming back either.

 

Don't you ever get tired of posting the same BS over and over again? People hate metro, people hate the start menu. Whatever... It's going around in infinite circles.

  • Like 4
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Hello, Hope all is well. I am in UK.  
    • I'm not happy with myself for it, but I've gone and got hold of it. Just another 45 minutes and I'll be Bond, James Bond. In my defence, IO's Hitman series is awesome, and I'm a sucker for 007. So while it might seem a bit simplified compared to Hitman, I'm sure I'll be right at home.
    • Or just check the script yourself ^^. I hate having a Microsoft account tied to my windows install.
    • 007 First Light review: Satisfying spy adventure that James Bond needed by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe I have fond memories of classic James Bond games from the Electronic Arts era. Using high-tech gadgets, sneaking into parties, and dispatching bad guys were wildly exciting activities for my younger self. In recent years, Bond games have entirely disappeared, alongside the super spy genre. Fast forward to 2020, imagine my surprise when IO Interactive announced it had secured the Bond IP to make a game. Considering the studio’s Hitman history, this project is one I keenly kept an eye on. Six years later, 007 First Light is finally here, and after spending time inside this globe-trotting adventure, I can safely say that my excitement for this developer’s take on this universe was not unfounded. IO has taken lessons it has learned from Hitman and combined them with what I would expect from a directed cinematic experience like James Bond. I have refrained from mentioning major plot points to save you from story spoilers in this review. This is an original story that doesn’t tie into any movies, so there isn’t an expectation of knowing the backstory or the decades of movies either. Bond, James Bond When 007 First Light begins, Bond is just Bond. There isn’t a spy angle, fancy gadgets, or even a secret mission. The introductory mission is framed to show how James Bond handled himself and how he does not care about the odds when it comes to saving lives. It’s a gorgeous level as well, showing off an island scattered with cliffs in the middle of a storm. Looking back, this is probably the best-looking level in the game, with IO showing off all its abilities with its custom engine, Glacier. But my favorite ended up being the follow-up to this level. Once the United Kingdom's foreign intelligence agency, MI6, recruits our daring youngster into its super-spy “00” program, training begins. However, instead of treading through the same tutorial missions where the game teaches you to run and jump and drive, IO opted for a montage, and it’s amazing. The scenes cut between Bond practicing and improving his marksmanship, parkour, hand-to-hand combat, and driving as weeks go by in his training. What impressed me here was the lack of any loading screens or stutters as scenes instantly switched to different locations entirely, as if I was watching a movie. This creativity is a trend I noticed in most levels, where there is some sort of gameplay or choreography mechanic being introduced to keep things interesting. Soon, the rest of the cast is introduced, bringing other agents that our favorite secret agent will be working with, the scientists and engineers that build MI6’s spy gadgets, as well as higher-ranking officers that either appreciate or (at best) tolerate Bond’s rebellious attitude. It’s a tight cast, all with incredibly good voice acting and personalities that quickly grew on me. The casting for Bond himself is also an excellent one. From showing his iconic soft spot for women to the condescending smiles that get a rise out of enemies, I had no issues getting immersed into this universe as this new face of James Bond. The missions take place in a wide range of locations as MI6 sends Bond to tackle dangers that are growing everywhere from the UK to Africa. These aren’t unrelated adventures where MI6 is sending secret agents, which is an angle I would love to see in another game, but a part of a bigger conspiracy affecting the entire world. Some of the twists and turns were all too predictable, and the character that Lenny Kravitz played made me cringe a little too much. But all in all, I enjoyed the campaign’s storyline that sets the stage for this new agent joining the illustrious “00” program. Plenty of Possibilities The third-person style of IO Interactive fits this role quite well. Bond is presented as a master at hand-to-hand combat as well as firearms, while also having a knack for being stealthy when required. Most sections of missions have a lot of freedom. This means I could beat up every goon and security guard on the way to an objective, slip past them without sounding a single alarm, or do a mix of both. My sessions usually end up with the third option because I tend to be impatient about waiting for a patrol to move. Drawing from its Hitman genes, the developer almost always gives multiple routes for going through missions. Levels can be massive, sometimes sporting hundreds of NPCs going their own ways and having conversations. If my objective is to break into a security room on the third floor, I could look around for roof access, eavesdrop on conversations to find out where someone lost a key, create a distraction and pickpocket a guard for a keycard, sneak in through the vents, or simply kick down the offending door. I enjoyed the variety on offer, especially because the same solutions didn’t usually show up in different missions. Before heading out into a secret MI6 escapade, the gadget specialist of the branch walks Bond through the organization's latest and greatest achievements. This can be cool little devices like a laser built into the watch, a phone that fires poison darts, or a camera that emits a powerful shockwave. The choice of what can be taken into the mission is up to the player. I could usually find fresh routes or get out of tough situations with a punch or two, so I never had the feeling of missing out by not choosing the right equipment. It’s still a fun practice. Choosing the armaments before a mission enhanced the super spy feeling quite a bit. As I mentioned, stealth comes in as a very viable option for most of the missions, letting Bond sneak past foes or knock them out silently. While it is satisfying to clear entire areas of goons and walk away without any alarms, the way of accomplishing this could have been done better. Bond can lure enemies, sneak up and knock them out, or use a gadget to disorient them before dealing a nasty blow. Bodies cannot be moved or hidden afterward either. It’s a very simple system, which I wish were more exciting to pull off. Perhaps more stealth-orientated gadgets, distraction options, or multi-takedowns could have helped here, I think. Getting caught while attempting to be in stealth does not mean a game over. Other than getting into a fist fight, an interesting twist of 007 First Light is the bluffing option. While an enemy is confused as to what you are doing in a restricted location, Bond has the option to improvise and persuade them that you are exactly where you’re supposed to be. These are fun little dynamic interactions with unique dialog depending on the mission and location, giving a few extra moments for Bond to go past suspicious guards smoothly. It’s the first time I’ve witnessed this system in a game, and I hope to see more. License to Kill Bond isn’t just dealing with security guards or civilians. From time to time, entire gangs of gun-toting mercenaries show up in levels looking to take down our protagonist. It is then that License to Kill mode is activated for Bond, letting him use firearms with no restrictions. I was surprised by just how tight gunplay is in 007 First Light. The weapons feel powerful and satisfying to fire, with single bullets capable of taking down an enemy with a headshot. Ammo is scarce, and enemies don’t drop weapons with full magazines most of the time. This forces a hectic kind of gameplay where I am always advancing towards enemies to take their weapons after they are downed. Things like shooting legs to immobilize, aiming at the hands to make their weapon go flying, blowing up nearby fire extinguishers for cover, and using gadgets to halt a goon in their tracks while I reload, make up enjoyable levels. I had to hold back my disappointment when the enemy count in these action sequences dropped to zero and I had to go non-lethal again. Speaking of action sequences, First Light isn’t just offering sandbox levels to complete at the player’s own leisure either. Each level comes with specific linear and directed scenes to move the story forward and put Bond in tight situations. These usually end up with high-octane chases or driving sections, offering the chance to witness chaining explosions, hails of gunfire, and scripted parkour scenes that remind me of Mission Impossible movies more than Bond. Elements like seeing James Bond jump out of a plane without a parachute or drive through buildings in London inside a trash truck were fantastic and always left me at a high point when finishing a mission. The classic James Bond theme is sprinkled in here too, which only happens a handful of times in the game, but at just the right moments. Visuals and Performance Compared to Unreal Engine 5 games we are seeing nowadays, 007 First Light isn’t flexing a huge amount of realism when it comes to graphics. The models, textures, and effects all feel a little dated, with the starting mission that I mentioned being the most visually striking. However, the complete lack of stutters, the hundreds of NPCs that can be on screen without a single hitch, massive sandbox levels, and smooth transitions between them all play a part in making this an immensely immersive and complex experience. The in-engine cutscenes are gorgeous as well, offering an upgraded visual style and model detail over the gameplay sections. Animations are one aspect that jumps out at me about any new game, and First Light has nailed what a third-person action game should feel like. Walking, sneaking, and running all have a heaviness to them that I appreciate. Whenever Bond moves past a wall or a ledge, his arms reach out to lightly hold those structures until he moves away. NPCs actually react to my character and move out of the way. Even during melee combat or takedown animations, the fists impacting a body or a head hitting a wall all have that same weight. Even the more frivolous animations, like catching a gun in midair or chucking an empty one at a goon (yes, you can do that), are satisfying to pull off. Of course, the in-engine cutscene animations are remarkably well done too, with facial animations and the upgraded model details improving my engagement with the characters. I have an AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT 16GB paired with an eight-core Ryzen 7 3700X and 32GB of RAM, with the game running at 1440p resolution. Deciding to completely max out all the graphics options gave me a range of frame rates between 60 and 100 depending on the scene and level. While I did try to enable AMD FSR, which bumped up the frame rates by a good 20% at Quality mode, IO Interactive’s implementation of the technology wasn’t that great. Every corner and edge in levels began shimmering, and I was also seeing smearing issues in fast-moving sections. The title seemingly uses the older generation FSR 3.1 and not the machine learning-assisted FSR 4, leading to these artifacts. Unfortunately, there isn't a way to manually upgrade this right now either. I opted to turn off the upscaling and play the game in native 1440p to avoid problems. I would say the FPS range I was getting was an acceptable one for a single-player action game for my setup. I do wish there were an FOV slider option in the settings. While the camera is far enough back for my tastes in most situations in this third-person adventure, at times the perspective is far too close. When trying to look around quickly and spot targets, I realized I was getting a slight headache at times due to the use of an almost over-the-shoulder close-up camera. Conclusion Being James Bond in 007 First Light is a treat. Traveling around the world chasing conspiracies, using high-tech gadgets disguised as everyday accessories, and improvising on the spot to fool foes all give a fantastic feeling of being a super spy. For an origin story, IO Interactive has done a great job at introducing the character and his motives for doing what he does. The satisfying combat animation and fantastic voice acting are definitely high points, with the License to Kill moments being my favorite. Not being able to move bodies and the simplistic stealth of mechanics does hurt its presentation a little. The NPC logic and intelligence is easy to manipulate and trick, repeating the same actions over and over again if I keep making distractions. The lack of an FOV slider was also a pain (quite literally) at times, and the FSR implementation is quite poor. These are things I hope the studio will improve upon with updates. Even with its faults, IO Interactive and James Bond are a match made in heaven. The studio knows how to make a main character that oozes charm and competency while also leaning heavily into its Hitman experience to make gigantic levels with what looks like hundreds of NPCs roaming around. Being an origin story, IO’s Bond has a way to go before he becomes the highly effective agent we see in the movie world. I am hoping the studio will continue this series alongside its Hitman ventures going forward, just so we get to experience the journey for longer. 007 First Light is available on PC (Steam, Epic Games Store, and Xbox PC), Xbox Series X|S, and PlayStation 5 for $69.99. This review was conducted on the PC version of the game provided by IO Interactive.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      conkir earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Rising Star
      olavinto went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • One Month Later
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      X-No-file earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      271
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      75
    4. 4
      Skyfrog
      74
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!