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

[T3X4S]

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.

[Luc2k]

Since you guys keep arguing about adoption, here's a quick good joke about it (skip the 1st minute):

 

[George P Global Moderator]

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.   

[PGHammer]

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.

[PGHammer]

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.

[T3X4S]

^  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.

[PGHammer]

^  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.

[Dot Matrix]

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

[DavidM]

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?

[DConnell Member]

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?

[T3X4S]

 

 

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.

[Dot Matrix]

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?

[DavidM]

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?

[DavidM]

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.

[DConnell Member]

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.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

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.

[Dot Matrix]

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.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

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. 

[DavidM]

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.

[DConnell Member]

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.

[MorganX]

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.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

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.

[DavidM]

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)...

[Dot Matrix]

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

 

Metro isn't going anywhere.

[trek]

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.