• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

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

Recommended Posts

Dashel    542

I don't like it, but this is what happens when you let crazy in the hen house, an overreaction in the other direction.

 

Start Menu, no surprise at all on that one.  Just disappointment.  This should have been the Win8 version, with Win8.2+ stepping us down to the 8.1 implementation, and 9 giving us something truly better.  I still think Start makes more sense for 'modern on the desktop' than the windowed silliness they are showing.  Yuck!

 

First they tainted the Desktop to win the casuals and failed, now they try to win the pseudo-technical by perverting Modern.

 

###### futuristic hipsters

###### entry Help Desk fiddlers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
George P    5,535

It's sounding like the menu they showed is just a quick concept, odds are it'll look different when it actually comes out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snaphat (Myles Landwehr)    414

It's sounding like the menu they showed is just a quick concept, odds are it'll look different when it actually comes out. 

I'm rather curious how it will turn out. I really hope they do a good job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rickkins    283

Too little, too late imho. Absolutely nothing will save win8 in the minds of most people. And frankly, the inclusion of live tiles in the start menu suggests to me that some a ms are desperately clinging to an idea rejected en mass by the masses. I submit that nobody(or hardly anybody) who is currently using a start menu replacement(think 'classic shell' et al) will choose to use this new offering from ms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,501

horsepuckey yourself

 

the start menu and mouse/keyboard are the ideal way to drive a computer that is actually used to do productive work.

 

Anyone who thinks the metro interface is good, obviously does nothing more than browse information and consume media (and use it like a toy, which is basically what metro is).

There is no way it can be used in a productive way for business purposes or by (power) users who need to get things done.

And you just put the mouse before the keyboard - which is why I said what I said.

 

I put the keyboard before the mouse - not the other way around.  There are lots of folks (and pretty necessary ones) that do the same thing - most of us work technical support (helpdesk, network administrators, etc.).  It tends to be the oldest of us (who came into compuuting before Windows - in my case, before the PC) that are still keyboard-driven.  For nearly twenty years, the keyboard has been basically treated, for the most part, as a second-class cittizen as far as desktop maneuvering - instead, the pointing device had primacy.  For a keyboard-driven user, of how much use is a pointing-device-centered UI?  Very little to none.  (In fact, Windows 95 - the original one - would complain if it couldn't detect a pointing device.)

 

ModernUI did a big reset to the Windows UI.  Yes - touch support was improved; however, the roadblock for keyboard users that was the Start menu was banished.

KIeyboard users had been gotten out from under the bus.

 

I'm not anti-pointing-device - or pro-touch, for that matter.  If anything, I'm pro-keyboard, and since we're talking a graphical UI, I want to be just as able to maneuver around the OS using a keyboard primarily - if not exclusively.  Even Apple has gotten tied into pointing devices, likely due to the arrival of not-exactly-standard keyboards into the hardware side of OS X.  If you compare a typical Apple keyboard (a good example is the Pro Keyboard, which has been standard fare on desktops since the iMac with iSight) with a keyboard for PCs/Windows users, you WILL see a few different keys that are on one but not the other.  Worse, there is no one-to-one-mapping even possible of the different keys - an example is the Windows key of the Microsoft Wireless Keyboard 6000 V.3.  While a Mac - any Mac with USB, in fact - can use it, those unique-to-Apple keys are missing, and can't be remapped to their Windows/PC equivalents without hacks.

 

No - OS X is, if anything, even more pointing-device-driven than Windows pre-8 was.  (My post in the Soapbox "Are you Married to your Mouse?" was NOT about Windows in particular.)

 

I understand why the pointing-device-centered started screaming - in fact, I predicted there WOULD be screaming.  The gravy train of kissing up had just been messily derailed after fifteen years.  (That was why I made reference - in an earlier thread - to the Civil Rights Act in the United States; the CRA was intended to stake racial discrimination through the heart of American society - nothing less.  ModernUI did the same - at least in my opinion - for Windows users.  Nobody was favored - every type of user was seated at the table.  You didn't have to be pointing-device-centric to use the OS.  Hence my comment about civil rights (as in equality) coming to Windows.)

 

Yes - I am basically comparing pointing-device-centric users to segregationalists.  However, walk a mile in our shoes (not the touch-centric, but the keyboard-centric).  And it's quite easy to do.

 

Disconnect your pointing device of choice and try to use Windows (whatever version you use) without it for two days.

 

How long will you last?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash    349

Not really - they refused to take the next logical step with any of them (at least on portable hardware, such as the MacBook Air/Pro) - why no touch-screen MacBooks, let alone iMacs?

 

Any of it - in fact, all of it - can only gain usability merely by adding touch-screen hardware (as an option, not necessarily a requirement); however, Apple has refused to budge - why?

 

In that respect, Microsoft's hardware partners - especially in terms of WINDOWS hardware partners - are far ahead of Apple (matching the hardware to the OS capabilities).

 

Um maybe because I do not want a messy screen when I am doing PHOTOGRAPHY work.  I have used touch screen for about 5 minutes.  I stick to keyboard and mouse.  Keep that touch screen out of my macs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riva    1,227

It needs to be there to allow people to transition to the idea of Modern UI. Not including it as an option in the first release of windows 8 was a big mistake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix    7,437

Too little, too late imho. Absolutely nothing will save win8 in the minds of most people. And frankly, the inclusion of live tiles in the start menu suggests to me that some a ms are desperately clinging to an idea rejected en mass by the masses. I submit that nobody(or hardly anybody) who is currently using a start menu replacement(think 'classic shell' et al) will choose to use this new offering from ms.

Not sure what you're getting at. The masses haven't rejected Metro at all, they're just slow at learning it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,501

Um maybe because I do not want a messy screen when I am doing PHOTOGRAPHY work.  I have used touch screen for about 5 minutes.  I stick to keyboard and mouse.  Keep that touch screen out of my macs.

Will you listen to yourself?

 

I never - as in ever - said that touch-screens should be a requirement.

 

I simply broached the idea of touch-screens as an option - and not even a mandatory one.

 

It's not a requirement with Windows - why would, or even should, it be a requirement on Apple hardware?

 

Just give users a choice.  Let the marketplace decide.

It needs to be there to allow people to transition to the idea of Modern UI. Not including it as an option in the first release of windows 8 was a big mistake.

Lots of users (including some that have no touch support whatever - including me) transitioned just fine.  The resistance is coming form the pointing-device-centric - the same folks that have been catered to since the Start menu's introduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash    349

This. The old Windows XP era Start Menu wasn't scalable at all. It was never updated to take advantage of bigger monitors and resolutions. Just one of the many issues with it.

 

You do not get bigger monitors to scale things.  You get bigger monitors to fit more items on the screen.  Why would you get a 27" monitor at 2560x1440 if everything is still full screen?  I got a 27" monitor so I can have more items on the screen at once.

 

 

Will you listen to yourself?

 

I never - as in ever - said that touch-screens should be a requirement.

 

I simply broached the idea of touch-screens as an option - and not even a mandatory one.

 

It's not a requirement with Windows - why would, or even should, it be a requirement on Apple hardware?

 

Just give users a choice.  Let the marketplace decide.

Lots of users (including some that have no touch support whatever - including me) transitioned just fine.  The resistance is coming form the pointing-device-centric - the same folks that have been catered to since the Start menu's introduction.

 
Have you known Apple to give choices?  They would not release a Macbook Pro and have a minor option to have a touch screen.  It would require a new display panel and probably new case design.
 
Apple's options are internal components.  What if Apple releases a 17" laptop but it only has touch screen?  I do not want a touch screen, but I would like a 17" display.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rickkins    283

Not sure what you're getting at. The masses haven't rejected Metro at all, they're just slow at learning it.  

If you say so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix    7,437

You do not get bigger monitors to scale things.  You get bigger monitors to fit more items on the screen.  Why would you get a 27" monitor at 2560x1440 if everything is still full screen?  I got a 27" monitor so I can have more items on the screen at once.

Good news then, the Start Screen on a 27 inch screen can fit more items than the start screen on my tablet, so your point is...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash    349

Good news then, the Start Screen on a 27 inch screen can fit more items than the start screen on my tablet, so your point is...?

 

Um.  The photo app is still full screen when viewing pictures....  Music app is still full screen.... App store is still full screen....

 

I did not get a bigger monitor to run one thing at full screen.  I do not care if I get to see more of my songs, or more apps on the screen.  I do NOT want the application itself to occupy the full screen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rickkins    283

Um.  The photo app is still full screen when viewing pictures....  Music app is still full screen.... App store is still full screen....

 

I did not get a bigger monitor to run one thing at full screen.  I do not care if I get to see more of my songs, or more apps on the screen.  I do NOT want the application itself to occupy the full screen.  

Nobody did. Most of these annoyances will be gone and forgotten with the release of 9.... 8 will become a distant memory quickly assigned to the dustbin of history, regardless of any face-saving measures ms pulls out at this time.

 

And keep in mind, that all this could have been avoided had the poindexters at ms central simply given users a choice. Seriously, if a tiny little free app like Classic Shell could so very easily fix 8, you simply cannot say the ms couldn't have done it themselves.... thus saving us a couple years of nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix    7,437

Um.  The photo app is still full screen when viewing pictures....  Music app is still full screen.... App store is still full screen....

 

I did not get a bigger monitor to run one thing at full screen.  I do not care if I get to see more of my songs, or more apps on the screen.  I do NOT want the application itself to occupy the full screen.  

... So? Snap them to the side. They make great side apps. What's wrong with viewing photos fullscreen? Windows has had fullscreen for years. Why is it suddenly a bad thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash    349

... So? Snap them to the side. They make great side apps. What's wrong with viewing photos fullscreen? Windows has had fullscreen for years. Why is it suddenly a bad thing?

 

Maybe because I do not have 2560x1440 sized photos and they are either blown up and horrible looking, or just way way too much wasted space around the photo.

 

Back on topic, I hope the start menu is customizable to remove the modern stuff on the right side.  Similarly, I do not want the start menu taking up useless space on my screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+warwagon    13,202

Not sure what you're getting at. The masses haven't rejected Metro at all, they're just slow at learning it.  

 

I got a call to help setup a guys new Windows 8 PC. He got the computer from a store in Sioux City called Dakota PC warehouse. They were telling him that Everyone doesn't like Windows 8. When ever they would sell a machine with windows 8 a few days later they would bring the computer back.  Telling them how much they hate windows 8. The guy was even annoyed that some how his new computer got Windows 8. He said I went there and told them "I do NOT want Windows 8 ... I want windows 7"

 

That's what he was getting at. Then again maybe your right. Maybe the masses haven't rejected windows 8, maybe it's just Iowa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix    7,437

J

I got a call to help setup a guys new Windows 8 PC. He got the computer from a store in Sioux City called Dakota PC warehouse. They were telling him that Everyone doesn't like Windows 8. When ever they would sell a machine with windows 8 a few days later they would bring the computer back. Telling them how much they hate windows 8. The guy was even annoyed that some how his new computer got Windows 8. He said I went there and told them "I do NOT want Windows 8 ... I want windows 7"

That's what he was getting at. Then again maybe your right. Maybe the masses haven't rejected windows 8, maybe it's just Iowa.

You tell the same stories everyday. If "everyone" hated Windows 8, then it would have 0 market share. Nobody would have upgraded to it, and Windows 7 would still be increasing ten fold. But that's not happening.

I hear daily that people hate Windows 7 too, so does that mean that Microsoft should revert to XP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash    349

J

You tell the same stories everyday.

 

He is right though.  I run into people every day that say they either hate Windows 8 or heard it is very very very horrible.  They are shocked when I say I prefer it over 7.

 

MS made a massive mistake with 8 though.  They learned nothing from Vista.  And I preferred Vista over XP too :p

 

But don't forget, nearly all the new computers these days from stores (where the general public buys their computers) come with 8.  They usually do not know about downgrade rights and go back to the store asking what they can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+warwagon    13,202

JYou tell the same stories everyday. If "everyone" hated Windows 8, then it would have 0 market share. Nobody would have upgraded to it, and Windows 7 would still be increasing ten fold. But that's not happening.

I hear daily that people hate Windows 7 too, so does that mean that Microsoft should revert to XP?

 

If there was a mass disease that was killing everyone, and there was only one cure that you could buy and it came in only one flavor, dog poop. Does that mean everyone likes the taste of dog poop? :D

 

The dog poop flavor market share would be quite large.

 

-------

 

A lot of those upgrade were probably also bought when the amount was $40. Hell even I bought 3 copies. I would spend $40. I just would never spend $80.

 

I really don't see the average user running out and upgrading their windows 7 to windows 8.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zhangm    1,335

If there was a mass disease that was killing everyone, and there was only one cure that you could buy and it came in only one flavor, dog poop. Does that mean everyone likes the taste of dog poop? :D

 

The dog poop flavor market share would be quite large.

Do you actually have this notion that people would die if they didn't upgrade to Windows 8?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DavidM    329

JYou tell the same stories everyday. If "everyone" hated Windows 8, then it would have 0 market share. Nobody would have upgraded to it, and Windows 7 would still be increasing ten fold. But that's not happening.

I hear daily that people hate Windows 7 too, so does that mean that Microsoft should revert to XP?

 

Do you honestly believe EVERYONE who grabbed the Win 8 $15 upgrade still has it installed? Do you believe no one EVER downgraded a Win 8 computer to Win 7?

 

How would you track the number of people who grabbed a cheap copy and then removed it after testing it? How do you track the number of Win 8 computers that downgraded to Win 7?

 

If there wasn't push back against Win8, do you really think Microsoft would be backtracking?

 

One more thing, a market share of any size does not reflect how liked or disliked anything is. You think everyone who bought a new computer realized they could down grade, or that they didn't install some third party software to make the product usable for them?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,501

Do you honestly believe EVERYONE who grabbed the Win 8 $15 upgrade still has it installed? Do you believe no one EVER downgraded a Win 8 computer to Win 7?

 

How would you track the number of people who grabbed a cheap copy and then removed it after testing it? How do you track the number of Win 8 computers that downgraded to Win 7?

 

If there wasn't push back against Win8, do you really think Microsoft would be backtracking?

 

One more thing, a market share of any size does not reflect how liked or disliked anything is. You think everyone who bought a new computer realized they could down grade, or that they didn't install some third party software to make the product usable for them?

And yet you insist that pushing back makes any sense.

 

Pushback comes when an idea does not fit what a user wants - even if the user is not making that decision for a sensible reason.

 

How much pushback was there against DX11-only gaming - that it took, literally, the release of Windows 8 to halt?

 

How much pushback has there been against x64-only gaming, despite x64 being the majority bitness of Windows?

 

Lazarus Long said it best in "Time Enough for Love" - "Yes - everyone has an opinion - no matter how silly."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,501

 

You do not get bigger monitors to scale things.  You get bigger monitors to fit more items on the screen.  Why would you get a 27" monitor at 2560x1440 if everything is still full screen?  I got a 27" monitor so I can have more items on the screen at once.

 

 

 
Have you known Apple to give choices?  They would not release a Macbook Pro and have a minor option to have a touch screen.  It would require a new display panel and probably new case design.
 
Apple's options are internal components.  What if Apple releases a 17" laptop but it only has touch screen?  I do not want a touch screen, but I would like a 17" display.....

 

In other words, you basically want Microsoft to stay in the land of "meh", and are perfectly willing to do the same to Apple.

 

I'm talking about a choice in display features - say 17" with OR without a touch-screen.  (Or the same in any other screen size.)

 

It's not as if they don't make touch-screens that large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DavidM    329

And yet you insist that pushing back makes any sense.

 

Pushback comes when an idea does not fit what a user wants - even if the user is not making that decision for a sensible reason.

 

How much pushback was there against DX11-only gaming - that it took, literally, the release of Windows 8 to halt?

 

How much pushback has there been against x64-only gaming, despite x64 being the majority bitness of Windows?

 

Lazarus Long said it best in "Time Enough for Love" - "Yes - everyone has an opinion - no matter how silly."

 

Didn't Microsft ask for feedback? See, I'm not PUSHING back, I'm offering my opinion and giving them feedback. What they do with it is up to them, use it, wipe their backside or ignore it, it's up to them.

 

As a desktop user metro does nothing to improve MY experience, for reasons that are my own. I don't use my tablet, phone or desktop in the same way and I do NOT want - the same experience across all devices.

 

I never knew their was a push back against x64 or DX11, so I cannot offer an opinion. However, I will point out that neither of them changed the look and or feel of Windows.

 

I think  Ellen Glasgow said it better - ?All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward.? or maybe, Winston Churchill - ?There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction.?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.