[OFFICIAL] Windows 10 Insider Program

[+Fahim S. MVC]

You're welcome. The Start Menu vertical resizing was something that I found out really early, however, yes, the second problem was just discovered randomly over the forums. I wonder how will the Start Menu function if it will act more like a resized Start Screen (Continuum) and whether it will be a separate case, where you can have either the second, or both.

It's how Start menu resizing should always have worked but never has. I think a Chrome OS style top border highlight would made this more obvious.

[Dot Matrix]

I really hate that phrase "If it's not broken". Things may not be "broken", per se, but that isn't an excuse to keep building upon ideas, and starting over every once in a while when things shift and user habits change. The desktop may not be "broken", but that doesn't mean it's an end all to computing. It was built during a different time for a different set of user habits. Habits which are now slowly being superseded by new ones, new technologies, and younger users with a fresh look on things.

[gohpep]

So, I would like Apple to have an option to turn off the iOS 7 UI. Can I do that?

[Knife Party]

I really hate that phrase "If it's not broken". Things may not be "broken", per se, but that isn't an excuse to keep building upon ideas, and starting over every once in a while when things shift and user habits change. The desktop may not be "broken", but that doesn't mean it's an end all to computing. It was built during a different time for a different set of user habits. Habits which are now slowly being superseded by new ones, new technologies, and younger users with a fresh look on things.

so these new users are hipsters riiight...?

[Dot Matrix]

so these new users are hipsters riiight...?

Why does every 20-something need to be a hipster? I'm certainly not.

[BajiRav]

I now own my first Windows 8.x touch device (HP stream 7) and I am looking forward to putting  Windows 10 Jan preview on it.

 

Metro is awesome on device this size for sure. I hope they bring in more WP features such as keyboard, settings, start screen layout, lock screen etc.

I don't know what Windows 8 team was thinking when they decided to reinvent wheel in many places instead of using WP ideas.

 

P.s. I hope neowin treats metro IE as mobile browser on screens 7" and smaller.

[gohpep]

I now own my first Windows 8.x touch device (HP stream 7) and I am looking forward to putting  Windows 10 Jan preview on it.

 

Metro is awesome on device this size for sure. I hope they bring in more WP features such as keyboard, settings, start screen layout, lock screen etc.

I don't know what Windows 8 team was thinking when they decided to reinvent wheel in many places instead of using WP ideas.

 

P.s. I hope neowin treats metro IE as mobile browser on screens 7" and smaller.

Neowin uses responsive CSS, so there is no weird user agent detection anymore. Widths and elements resize/change based on your screen size.

[LimeMaster]

Neowin uses responsive CSS, so there is no weird user agent detection anymore. Widths and elements resize/change based on your screen size.

That only applies to the main site right now.  For the forums it's a different story.

[PGHammer]

Complacency isn't the problem.  You do not need the start menu, program manager or anything...you can open programs from command prompt...but why?  Perception isn't the issue here either.  Ease of use, familiarity, etc., is what a lot (based off the adoption rate) of people need.  You said it yourself, 20 years of learning how to use an operating system and then be thrust into an alien start screen.  I never have like it for the simple fact it is distracting.  Sure, I can run programs from it but I never did like the jarring experience of being thrust from (let's say Word) to a full screen program launcher to open Excel (just an example).

 

I'm not sure if I answered your question (if you even had one)...still stuck on all the perceptions.  Seriously, go read Chapter 4.2 of AFPAM 36-2241 (you can good "AFPAM 36-2241" and it'll be the first link).

The Navy has a similar regulation - in fact, there are similar regulations and laws throughout government (everywhere).  One old Guinness "world record" (since disestablished due to too MUCH competition!) is "most incomprehensible law or regulation".  Such regulations exist basically as make-work for lawyers (who get paid for translation of such gibberish into plain language) and judges (for trying to enforce the gibberish).  Worse, all too many governments, agencies, etc., have an actual STANDARD FORMAT for the gibberish that is the legal and regulatory system of a nation, and seems deliberately designed to be as incomprehensible by the average citizen as possible - on purpose.  Yes - I used deliberately AND on purpose in the SAME sentence.  And you summed things up as far as 9x/NT went - it comes down to familiarity.  Microsoft wanted NT to fit in with 9x, and as long as it had a different UI, it didn't.  (However, that does not excuse the fact that neither OS actually needed the Start menu - then OR now.)  And I never said that Microsoft actually WANTED to tell the lie, either - that is our fault.  We couldn't accept the clean-sheet-of-paper-UI without it; we basically demanded a connection to those mice we had gotten used to.  And we have paid a rather significant price for it, as well - how much have we become slaves to pointing devices? (See "Are You Married To Your Mouse?" in members-only "The Soapbox".)  Complacency is ITSELF a trap - it's also why I asked folks what do they do to deal with pointing-device failure (in the same thread).  Murphy is everywhere as well - pointing devices fail.  (Even old-school hard-connected WIRED pointing devices still fail - they just have fewer points of failure than wireless ones.)  Pointing-device failure is the second-largest reason I hate (and almost always have hated) over-reliance on Start menus (in any OS).  In short, my hatred for the Start menu (as originally conceived) has nothing to do with touch - but it has everything to do with Murphy.  (Depending on the size of your office, there is likely a box somewhere with failed pointing devices of every sort.  That same box is why I have despised Start menus and their clones - all of them - and regardless of OS.  Have you heard the term "fatal funnel"?  It's originally a military terms that has also found its way into IT, and it represents a choke-point or single-point-of-failure.  Start menus have two inherent points of failure - the menu itself, and the pointing device used primarily to operate it.  If either fails, the user is (if they rely on that menu) basically screwed.  (How many users have lost productivity due to pointing-device failure - regardless of the reason for said failure?)  I don't do complacency due to Murphy - and that is, in fact, the biggest reason why I had hoped that folks would be able to deal with the lack of a Start menu - especially once they realized that it wasn't even necessary.

[PGHammer]

So, I would like Apple to have an option to turn off the iOS 7 UI. Can I do that?

Some devices don't use that UI (the iPod nano doesn't, for example).  Apple uses the UI basically as a "fence" - despite all the iDevices running the same OS, because of UI differences - not necessarily device differences in terms of capability - the UI differences throw up roadblocks.  Developers outside of iOS do the same thing - which horks me off, especially in terms of Android, which was not supposed to permit such shenanigans.  How many developers have checks in their code for specific device features - even though the application (or game) itself does not use (hence need) them?  It's a roadblock - an artificial one.

 

Users, unfortunately, are just as bad, if not worse.  We use categories (of software, and also of hardware) to fence things off.  The question I keep coming back to (and I'm not the only one asking it) is "why".

[PGHammer]

Perception is an assumption or an excuse (if you're referring to 8's poor adoption rate).  Many factors can be assumed with some facts strewn in.  Anyway, I find it incredibly hard to believe that the perception of Windows 8x (start screen) was such an overwhelming factor for people to sway them into a) not buying a new PC or b) upgrading their existing PC.  

 

Though I will say that if perception was the reason, Microsoft has listened hence the reason they backtracked and included *a* start menu instead of pressing with just the start screen.

If it's an excuse, then it is one that both sides are using.  However, perception can't be discounted as a factor - the lack of a Start menu, despite how little applications depend on it, is certainly a factor (which I haven't discounted).

 

The problem I have with the perception is that it is based on one of two things - a FALSE premise (that applications need it) or complacency (that users need it).  The first is a lie, while the second is a crutch.  Which is worse - the lie or the crutch?

[Jim K Global Moderator]

If it's an excuse, then it is one that both sides are using.  However, perception can't be discounted as a factor - the lack of a Start menu, despite how little applications depend on it, is certainly a factor (which I haven't discounted).

 

The problem I have with the perception is that it is based on one of two things - a FALSE premise (that applications need it) or complacency (that users need it).  The first is a lie, while the second is a crutch.  Which is worse - the lie or the crutch?

 

Yep...you are thinking way too much into it.  OK...let us say that Microsoft never had released the start menu...would the alternate be the de facto lie?  

 

Programs do not care what launcher is used...the end user, however, does.  For example, I am very well aware that the start screen can do everything I need...however...I extremely dislike being forced to an all screen program launcher.  To me, it is very distracting.   

 

Simply put, the start menu (or whatever program launcher you use) is just that...an program launcher.  It is not a lie nor a crutch...just a means to which you can run programs.

[chrisj1968]

Ok, I want to play the part of a pacifist here. This is truly a touchy subject by scanning the plethora of responses on here and I don't want a MOD chastising us for this.

 

The ONLY aspect of the desktop that had ANYTHING to do with the Modern UI was the modernUI tile which, was simply a gateway like way to the desktop. desktop had a tile to get to the desktop this is true but had nothing to do with the modern UI.

 

there is no desktop UI in the modern UI however, the tile was how I got to the desktop. after that, no more modern UI. the desktop was for all tense and purposes a dumbed down version of the old desktop. the start menu on the desktop by default had you leave the desktop and go back to the modern UI. So yes, Windows 8/8.1 do have two distinct user interfaces. From a laymens perspective, being my perspective, the push was for leaning heavily on the modern UI.

proof of this is the way apps are installed. modern UI apps are installed by the apps store on the one hand and on the desktop the typical install shield wizards like days of yore. I understand a huge swath of users enjoy and like modern UI.

 

modern UI does have it's purposes and place. but there is a distinct difference between the desktop UI and modern UI. I found an article dating back to early 2014 about these differences, the computing aspect is even different between the two

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/windows/3456551/windows-81-review/ All I ask for is my desktop. keep the modern UI for those who enjoy and work in that workflow. so with the way Windows 8.1 is NOW, proves that, we can and have our choice of user interfaces. actually I see computing becoming obscured to some degree. But when the modern UI went windowised, MS listened as saw an issue and they steered the modern UI to the desktop.

[PGHammer]

Yep...you are thinking way too much into it.  OK...let us say that Microsoft never had released the start menu...would the alternate be the de facto lie?  

 

Programs do not care what launcher is used...the end user, however, does.  For example, I am very well aware that the start screen can do everything I need...however...I extremely dislike being forced to an all screen program launcher.  To me, it is very distracting.   

 

Simply put, the start menu (or whatever program launcher you use) is just that...an program launcher.  It is not a lie nor a crutch...just a means to which you can run programs.

 

Yep...you are thinking way too much into it.  OK...let us say that Microsoft never had released the start menu...would the alternate be the de facto lie?  

 

Programs do not care what launcher is used...the end user, however, does.  For example, I am very well aware that the start screen can do everything I need...however...I extremely dislike being forced to an all screen program launcher.  To me, it is very distracting.   

 

Simply put, the start menu (or whatever program launcher you use) is just that...an program launcher.  It is not a lie nor a crutch...just a means to which you can run programs.

If you can launch programs without it, then you can launch programs without it.  That only matters if you DEPEND on that method - and the only ones that do are pointing-device users.  Keyboard users (and keyboard-driven users) certainly don't need it - and never have.  Touch users (the one new class of users supported directly by Windows 8 and later) don't need it, either.  Therefore, it specifically IS a crutch for pointing-device-driven users - as it has always been.  And if you have been kissed up to by Microsoft providing that crutch for nearly two decades, you are going to bawl like a baby when your crutch gets taken away - ask any heroin addict on methadone maintenance what happens when their methadone is taken away.

 

And that is the REAL reason that Windows 8 got beat up - the biggest beneficiaries of the Start menu -  pointing-device users - lost their crutch.  Without it, they were at sea.  (Hence al the bring-backs that came along - both with 8 and 8.1.  The bring-backs made sense - that is the reason FOR that long-extant third-party developer community, after all.)  What HAS NOT made sense is Microsoft itself bringing it back - therefore throwing those same third parties under the bus.  Of course the beneficiaries won't care - they don't lose.  The reason why I'm upset is that Microsoft had no reason whatever to throw the third-parties under the bus;  all it does is make Microsoft look like a bully - and worse, a bully that will go back on its word.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

If you can launch programs without it, then you can launch programs without it.  That only matters if you DEPEND on that method - and the only ones that do are pointing-device users.  Keyboard users (and keyboard-driven users) certainly don't need it - and never have.  Touch users (the one new class of users supported directly by Windows 8 and later) don't need it, either.  Therefore, it specifically IS a crutch for pointing-device-driven users - as it has always been.  And if you have been kissed up to by Microsoft providing that crutch for nearly two decades, you are going to bawl like a baby when your crutch gets taken away - ask any heroin addict on methadone maintenance what happens when their methadone is taken away.

 

And that is the REAL reason that Windows 8 got beat up - the biggest beneficiaries of the Start menu -  pointing-device users - lost their crutch.  Without it, they were at sea.  (Hence al the bring-backs that came along - both with 8 and 8.1.  The bring-backs made sense - that is the reason FOR that long-extant third-party developer community, after all.)  What HAS NOT made sense is Microsoft itself bringing it back - therefore throwing those same third parties under the bus.  Of course the beneficiaries won't care - they don't lose.  The reason why I'm upset is that Microsoft had no reason whatever to throw the third-parties under the bus;  all it does is make Microsoft look like a bully - and worse, a bully that will go back on its word.

 

Wait...did you just compare a start menu user to a heroin addict?  

 

It does makes sense that Microsoft brought back the start menu.  Not everyone uses touch screen...and would rather have a start menu for their pointing devices.  It is not a crutch..but instead a "whoops" acknowledgement from Microsoft.  They realized their mistake of removing the start menu and that some users didn't care for the new method of launching programs.  Now they've wised up and are bringing both in 10.

 

Regarding 3rd party vendors, who is to say that they will not be able to continue to sell?  Their start menu replacements may still offer experiences similar to that of Windows 7 which some may prefer.  I wouldn't (I do on Windows 8) just because I'd prefer a native start menu.

[DJGM]

I can't understand why someone who's such a fan of the Modern UI since Windows 8, continues to refer to it as Metro. Yes, Mr Dot Matrix, I'm looking at you!

 

Also, as I have pointed out in a previous thread (that went off topic and got locked) while Classic Shell is currently blocked in the TP builds for the purposes

of getting user feedback about the new hybrid Start menu, the fact is, Classic Shell doesn't actually affect the Modern UI version of Start at all. It never has.

It actually gives you the best of both worlds, so you can use Classic Shell if you wish, and also provide feedback about the new hybrid Start menu.

[Dot Matrix]

I can't understand why someone is such a fan of the Modern UI since Windows 8, continues to refer to it as "Metro". Yes, Mr Dot Matrix, I'm looking at you!

There hasn't been a reason not to. In fact, Wikipedia still refers to it as much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(design_language)

[Max Norris]

There hasn't been a reason not to. In fact, Wikipedia still refers to it as much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(design_language)

I honestly don't care either way, but to be fair the article does point out that it's no longer called that.  But *shrug* it's a hell of a lot easier to type than "Microsoft Design Language."  I don't type GNU/Linux either.  We get what you're referring to.

[PGHammer]

Ok, I want to play the part of a pacifist here. This is truly a touchy subject by scanning the plethora of responses on here and I don't want a MOD chastising us for this.

 

The ONLY aspect of the desktop that had ANYTHING to do with the Modern UI was the modernUI tile which, was simply a gateway like way to the desktop. desktop had a tile to get to the desktop this is true but had nothing to do with the modern UI.

 

there is no desktop UI in the modern UI however, the tile was how I got to the desktop. after that, no more modern UI. the desktop was for all tense and purposes a dumbed down version of the old desktop. the start menu on the desktop by default had you leave the desktop and go back to the modern UI. So yes, Windows 8/8.1 do have two distinct user interfaces. From a laymens perspective, being my perspective, the push was for leaning heavily on the modern UI.

proof of this is the way apps are installed. modern UI apps are installed by the apps store on the one hand and on the desktop the typical install shield wizards like days of yore. I understand a huge swath of users enjoy and like modern UI.

 

modern UI does have it's purposes and place. but there is a distinct difference between the desktop UI and modern UI. I found an article dating back to early 2014 about these differences, the computing aspect is even different between the two

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/windows/3456551/windows-81-review/ All I ask for is my desktop. keep the modern UI for those who enjoy and work in that workflow. so with the way Windows 8.1 is NOW, proves that, we can and have our choice of user interfaces. actually I see computing becoming obscured to some degree. But when the modern UI went windowised, MS listened as saw an issue and they steered the modern UI to the desktop.

However, isn't that because you are, in point of fact, used to the older method?  (After all, it has been there for eighteen years - I get that much.)  Admitting that is not so hard - and I have no problem with those that do - or the bring-backs, for those that need them.

 

However, as much as I like mini-Start, if it weren't for the tiles (yes - the tiles), I would be voting it down.  (And that is despite my running 8.1 and the Technical Preview on very traditional - no touch at all - hardware.)

 

The StartScreen (like the Start menu), got mostly obviated by (at least in my case) Search - which is entirely keyboard-driven - along with pinning (which went nowhere from Windows 7).

 

Search lets me find anything I'm chasing, anywhere.  Locally, network-based, the Internet - if it's reachable, Search can dig it out.  (Add in Cortana, and I can use my voice to Search - therefore, no hands at all.)  And this is without having to spend ANY time organizing my application shortcuts, or my data - the Index service handles that.  (The Index service - originally, Index Server - was added to the desktop side of Windows with 2000 Professional, and gained noticeable performance improvements by moving to a SQL-based (specifically SQL Server-based) backend with Windows 7/Server 2008.)  However, how well did those eighteen years of patches and cruft get along?  Realistically, they didn't.  THAT is why the Start menu had to go - or at least get a complete reset.

 

The tiles are smaller versions of the same tiles found on the StartScreen - and actually mirror them.  (That makes sense - the StartScreen team are the ones that wrote mini-Start.)  It has the same anti-clutter tech that the StartScreen has - therefore, it auto-organizes shortcuts during the installation of new software - one less thing for the user to do.  Oh, you CAN go back and organize it (your way) if you absolutely want to - the question is, WOULD you want to?  (Rather amazingly, the groups that the beefed up Index service creates in Windows 8 and later are actually sensible - in fact, if an OEM (Creative, or Microsoft itself, for example), includes a header file for an application or application suite, it will use it.  I hate clutter - but having to take the extra time and do the organization myself - especially when that is something that an indexing service is supposed to be capable of doing - which is why the Index service exists - is makework and actually pointless.  Leverage what's there.  (For whatever reason, the original Start menu failed, and failed rather badly there - mini-Start succeeds.)

 

Notification Center and the tiles are, in fact, related - the purpose for either is so you don't open up the application they are connected to needlessly.  Both can be fed by any application - Win32 or RT - it merely needs to have the capability of feeding a tile or tiles. (The Mail tile, for example, can be fed by either the included Mail app or Outlook 2010 or later - Notification Center itself can be fed by any Win32-native bittorrent client that has been built in the past year, for example (I am using it with Tribler, which I am evaluating as a replacement for uTorrent) or any software that can send notification to the TaskTray - that means that even Windows 7-age applications can leverage Notification Center.)  That ALSO means there's even LESS reason for me to go to the StartScreen - but I don't need the whole Start menu, either.  That is the ONE thing that has me happy with mini-Start - and something that all the third-party bringbacks lack.

[Sszecret Veteran]

 (I am using it with Tribler, which I am evaluating as a replacement for uTorrent) 

 

I would suggest Tixati as a uTorrent replacement. Very customizable.  Tried Tribler and found it unstable at times. 

 

On topic: Liked the changes they made to the UI in build 9901, but didn't install it. Patiently waiting for the 21st or whenver they decide to push out the Consumer Preview. 

[PGHammer]

Wait...did you just compare a start menu user to a heroin addict?  

 

It does makes sense that Microsoft brought back the start menu.  Not everyone uses touch screen...and would rather have a start menu for their pointing devices.  It is not a crutch..but instead a "whoops" acknowledgement from Microsoft.  They realized their mistake of removing the start menu and that some users didn't care for the new method of launching programs.  Now they've wised up and are bringing both in 10.

 

Regarding 3rd party vendors, who is to say that they will not be able to continue to sell?  Their start menu replacements may still offer experiences similar to that of Windows 7 which some may prefer.  I wouldn't (I do on Windows 8) just because I'd prefer a native start menu.

I compared Start menu users - in fact any change-hostile user - to addicts period; yes, I certainly did.  Heroin addicts are low-hanging fruit in that the use of methadone (another opiate) is used to substitute FOR heroin in traditional treatment OF that addiction.  (While it IS traditional, it does fail - and often spectacularly - addicts STILL die during the treatment process.)  The same is true of ANY addiction - again, heroin addiction is simply the most obvious.  (Addiction-recovery is a process - and it lasts the rest of the addict's life - that is regardless of WHAT the addiction is to.  If you have an addiction - to anything - and you are in treatment for it, you will be keeping up that treatment for the rest of your life - lying to yourself and saying that you are cured is exactly that - lying to yourself.  It does you no good - and does nobody close to you any good.)

 

I don't use a touch-screen, either - did you not hear me say that none of my test hardware supports touch at all?  Further, did you NOT hear me state in this very thread that not even traditional Win32 applications have to use the Start menu (or StartScreen)?  That puts the entire dependence issue into relative perception - in what way is that any different from the addiction process?  (I put the Windows 8 Developer Preview on the hardware I chose for testing for that precise reason - I had a TON of doubt that a pointing-device user - specifically, me - could adjust to not having a Start menu.  The reality is that I adjusted just fine.  (I never said that everyone could do so - in fact, I argued that a lot of folks couldn't do it.)  However, I can't argue against the reality - that even in the absolute worst case, the Start menu is absolutely irrelevant.)

 

That is, in fact, the acid-test difference between absolute perception and relative perception/complacency - relative perception/complacency means that the person is USED to doing things a certain way (and is unwilling to change) - absolute perception means that it can ONLY be done a certain way.

[PGHammer]

I would suggest Tixati as a uTorrent replacement. Very customizable.  Tried Tribler and found it unstable at times. 

 

On topic: Liked the changes they made to the UI in build 9901, but didn't install it. Patiently waiting for the 21st or whenver they decide to push out the Consumer Preview. 

I am using Tribler in baseline 8.1 and 9879 (the last legit build, which replaced 9901) - I'm evaluating it because of stability issues involving uTorrent baseline and the current beta.

 

The issue is NOT customization - as I don't use ANY customization features; I'm looking for magnet support and straightforward stability (which is why I had been using basic uTorrent until recently).

[Jim K Global Moderator]

I compared Start menu users - in fact any change-hostile user - to addicts period; yes, I certainly did.  Heroin addicts are low-hanging fruit in that the use of methadone (another opiate) is used to substitute FOR heroin in traditional treatment OF that addiction.  (While it IS traditional, it does fail - and often spectacularly - addicts STILL die during the treatment process.)  The same is true of ANY addiction - again, heroin addiction is simply the most obvious.  (Addiction-recovery is a process - and it lasts the rest of the addict's life - that is regardless of WHAT the addiction is to.  If you have an addiction - to anything - and you are in treatment for it, you will be keeping up that treatment for the rest of your life - lying to yourself and saying that you are cured is exactly that - lying to yourself.  It does you no good - and does nobody close to you any good.)

 

I don't use a touch-screen, either - did you not hear me say that none of my test hardware supports touch at all?  Further, did you NOT hear me state in this very thread that not even traditional Win32 applications have to use the Start menu (or StartScreen)?  That puts the entire dependence issue into relative perception - in what way is that any different from the addiction process?  (I put the Windows 8 Developer Preview on the hardware I chose for testing for that precise reason - I had a TON of doubt that a pointing-device user - specifically, me - could adjust to not having a Start menu.  The reality is that I adjusted just fine.  (I never said that everyone could do so - in fact, I argued that a lot of folks couldn't do it.)  However, I can't argue against the reality - that even in the absolute worst case, the Start menu is absolutely irrelevant.)

 

That is, in fact, the acid-test difference between absolute perception and relative perception/complacency - relative perception/complacency means that the person is USED to doing things a certain way (and is unwilling to change) - absolute perception means that it can ONLY be done a certain way.

 

No offense...but what are you smoking?  Using a start menu and/or using a start screen is just methods of interacting with the computer.  Anyone can use the start screen...but why?  If it doesn't help the end user achieve the efficiency they desire...they are labeled an addict?  Are you an addict for wanting to use a full screen program launcher?

 

Your drug comparison is just way out there...in that YOUR perception is that users are start menu addicts.  It could be simply that there isn't a suitable substitute for the start menu for users (and that the start screen doesn't meet their needs).

 

Anyway, I particular do not care.  It (the start menu) is coming back so I will not have to resort to the start screen...a much harsher and less pleasant drug.

[NeoWind]

Windows 10 is pretty darn good in some ways and the windows 8 start menu is great as an extension for quickly peak at certain stuff. The charm bar is no longer visible for non-touch device and wish there is an option to enable it back in the final version. 

 

The new windows 10 start menu is a plus for desktop UI and new task bar provide a better visual with an underline for all the opening app and completely highlighted app that's using. Nice enhancement to the task bar compared to windows 7/8.1 

[NeoWind]

Actually MS is replacing the modern control panel with a metro version, that is forcing people into metro.

Not entirely true. You still can access to the old control panel and pin it to the task bar which isn't possible in previous version of windows.