[OFFICIAL] Windows 10 Insider Program

[Tsuchida]

Has anybody figured out how to use Snap Assist to snap more then 2 windows side by side?

What if I want 2 apps on top of each other on the left and one taking up the right side of the screen

 

Or am I expecting to much right now?

 

 

If you have 2 windows snapped, and want to snap the 3rd for example, you have to drag it really close to the lower left corner (a little above the start button). Only way I got it to work. :)

 

If you use Win + Arrows to change between the snap positions, that way you can even snap up/down! :laugh:

Sadly, the windows don't resize back.

[_leech_]

Think Microsoft will do anything to fix the hideous font rendering?

 

 

This is just painful to look at.  I use MacType but it doesn't work with WPF apps.

[PotatoAlchemist]

It doesn't fully parse the icons for the Win32 application, but they definitely do get integrated into the notification settings with the Universal Apps one, and can be individually toggled on and off just the same!

[Ian W]

I really wish it was possible to remove the archaic list on the left side of the menu, and replace it with more live tiles. All Apps on the Start Menu is a ridiculous joke, the more apps you have installed.

 

It's like Microsoft brought back all the worst elements of the Start Menu that made it a PITA to begin with.

This is why I love that the Start screen is available as an option.

Possibly early notification center workings. (Y) Thankfully no more annoying balloons.

It certainly has a lot of potential! Hopefully Microsoft will listen to feedback.

 

If you use Win + Arrows to change between the snap positions, that way you can even snap up/down! :laugh:

 

Sadly, the windows don't resize back.

It is wonderful that Microsoft has improved the snapping ability from Windows 7. Perhaps Microsoft could get some ideas from this. http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090627/windows-longhorns-aero-snap-circa-2005/

[George P Global Moderator]

If you use Win + Arrows to change between the snap positions, that way you can even snap up/down! :laugh:

Sadly, the windows don't resize back.

 

 

THey do but you have to hit Winkey+up arrow till they go back to where it was before you snapped it.  It might first go to full screen and then if you winkey+down it'll go to it's windowed mode.  At least that's how I've seen it work so far.

[Tsuchida]

THey do but you have to hit Winkey+up arrow till they go back to where it was before you snapped it.  It might first go to full screen and then if you winkey+down it'll go to it's windowed mode.  At least that's how I've seen it work so far.

But, after you select a position (release the buttons) you cant go back without manual resizing.

[Tsuchida]

Uh... Beware of using too much Win + Arrows by releasing and presseing again. You can get someting like this:

I even got only the titlebar on the top with vlc, altough I think it's some problem with the player (I use detached video output).

[FiB3R]

I really wish it was possible to remove the archaic list on the left side of the menu, and replace it with more live tiles. All Apps on the Start Menu is a ridiculous joke, the more apps you have installed.

It's like Microsoft brought back all the worst elements of the Start Menu that made it a PITA to begin with.

I disagree. The more apps I have installed, the more it makes sense to start categorising them.

Utilities

Hardware

Games

Multimedia

>Audio

>Video

>Graphics

Office

Network

Modding

Warez

You can keep it very compact, while making it really easy to find that app you haven't uses in ages, and can't remember the name of.

[Max Norris]

Ditto that, with a lot of programs installed that "wall of icons" look gets old reeeealy fast. My current desktop for example (7 via ClassicShell), the root of the start menu, only a few items, drill down from there, stupidly easy to organize (and it's hiding a few hundred shortcuts):

 

The right side of the new menu is fine as is, I'm digging that part for the live tiles, jumplists and such.  Tossing functionality is just silly, especially when this menu is designed for the desktop.  Easy organization is why I absolutely hated the "back side" of the start screen.. a jumbled cluttered mess.. full screen I can live with but that was just too much.  Want a touch only setup, it's a couple clicks away to toggle it.

[HawkMan]

I disagree. The more apps I have installed, the more it makes sense to start categorising them.

Utilities

Hardware

Games

Multimedia

>Audio

>Video

>Graphics

Office

Network

Modding

Warez

You can keep it very compact, while making it really easy to find that app you haven't uses in ages, and can't remember the name of.

 

The thing is, the start screen allows you to categorize as well, and the bigger the list is, the better and faster it is to use the start screen.

[HawkMan]

Ditto that, with a lot of programs installed that "wall of icons" look gets old reeeealy fast. My current desktop for example (7 via ClassicShell), the root of the start menu, only a few items, drill down from there, stupidly easy to organize (and it's hiding a few hundred shortcuts):

 

The right side of the new menu is fine as is, I'm digging that part for the live tiles, jumplists and such.  Tossing functionality is just silly, especially when this menu is designed for the desktop.  Easy organization is why I absolutely hated the "back side" of the start screen.. a jumbled cluttered mess.. full screen I can live with but that was just too much.  Want a touch only setup, it's a couple clicks away to toggle it.

 

Even for a hundred apps categorized and organized start screen is more efficient. The color differentiation and icons there make it a lot quiet to find them compared to the old tree structure.  on a large high rest screen you can easily bump that number to 200-300. Whenever you get over a 100 apps, search is way more efficient than trees anyway. So I'm not seeing anywhere the old tree must me any sense for usability.

[Max Norris]

Even for a hundred apps categorized and organized start screen is more efficient. The color differentiation and icons there make it a lot quiet to find them compared to the old tree structure.  on a large high rest screen you can easily bump that number to 200-300. Whenever you get over a 100 apps, search is way more efficient than trees anyway. So I'm not seeing anywhere the old tree must me any sense for usability.

I already have tried it -- I literally have over 500 shortcuts, and Windows (currently) doesn't let you collapse by default, so you wind up scrolling all over the place to find things (the amount of scrolling alone is absurd), never mind nothing is grouped by type unless I go thru and manually rename every single subdirectory, which is a huge hassle.  Throw on the fact you can't even easily do that from the start screen.. it's a complete mess.  The way the drilldowns go now, I can find anything and everything very easily and hassle free, rename, move, etc, no BS. (And this is reason #13843 why I still hate Linux on the desktop, got to fart around just to edit your damn menu, pass, thanks.)  Click click done versus playing find the icon.. I'll pass thanks.

 

For the tablets and such (and desktop users that prefer it), you already have the start screen.  Love it?  Great, use it.  They do away with the left side and any usability that new menu would have had is lost.  Don't care if it's full screen or windowed.. it's the menus themselves along with the functionality that some people want. 

[TDT]

Unfortunately, this preview runs like crap for me. I installed it on a separate hard drive, so no virtual thing, but for some reason every time I boot into it the performance is horrible. Task manager says the hard drive is at 100% all the time, God knows why. And this is right after installation, no apps or drivers added. Oh well, I guess I'll wait for a better build.

[FiB3R]

The thing is, the start screen allows you to categorize as well, and the bigger the list is, the better and faster it is to use the start screen.

It looks horrible to me, with categories containing varying amounts of tiles, the rainbow of colours, the crap looking icons on tiles. I prefer the compactness and uniformity of the start menu for storing tons of short cuts. For my most used apps, the start screen is ok, especially when using my htpcs with a trackpad.

I'd still like to have it there via middle click on my desktop, but the new start menu looks like it will have all I need of the start screen, so...

I'd be happy to use a combination of all three, but if I had to loose one... it would probably be the start screen.

I'm still waiting for the parts to arrive for my new box, so I'll be able to try it out for myself in a couple of days.

[HawkMan]

It looks horrible to me, with categories containing varying amounts of tiles, the rainbow of colours, the crap looking icons on tiles. I prefer the compactness and uniformity of the start menu for storing tons of short cuts. For my most used apps, the start screen is ok, especially when using my htpcs with a trackpad.

I'd still like to have it there via middle click on my desktop, but the new start menu looks like it will have all I need of the start screen, so...

I'd be happy to use a combination of all three, but if I had to loose one... it would probably be the start screen.

I'm still waiting for the parts to arrive for my new box, so I'll be able to try it out for myself in a couple of days.

 

 

You can change the colours and icons if you want. the colours is of course what makes it easy to navigate compared to clicking into endless tree menus and trying to remember where that one thing was, of course, then you just search anyway since clicking the trees take at best twice as long as just searching. 

[FiB3R]

You can change the colours and icons if you want. the colours is of course what makes it easy to navigate compared to clicking into endless tree menus and trying to remember where that one thing was, of course, then you just search anyway since clicking the trees take at best twice as long as just searching. 

I can change the colour of individual or groups of tiles?

 

You are suggesting that I change the icon for tons of individual apps so that they don't look so crap against this huge tile? Or to shrink the tile, and loose the label?

 

None of that is really appealing to me.

 

Clicking through endless trees is an exaggeration.

 

Start > All Programs > Modding > ObscureAppICantRememberTheNameOF

 

or

 

Start Screen > Scroll for a week (try not to vomit rainbows) > Reach catagory, start hunting for icon because they are a bastard to try and put in order > ObscureAppICantRememberTheNameOF

 

Each to their own man, I've used it enough to know what I prefer. I don't think you are going to be able to convince me otherwise at this stage.

[G0ldenheaven]

The OneDrive Sync Engine only download metadata of the files to make the structure used in the cloud, you can select if you want to download the file for real by selecting "Make available offline" on the context menu.

For some reason reason you can only stop for settings, you can't stop syncing your files.

Found this today but so much to talk about on WinX :P so open This PC on the OneDrive icon below favorites section if you right click it there is an option to do so.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, this preview runs like crap for me. I installed it on a separate hard drive, so no virtual thing, but for some reason every time I boot into it the performance is horrible. Task manager says the hard drive is at 100% all the time, God knows why. And this is right after installation, no apps or drivers added. Oh well, I guess I'll wait for a better build.

 

Allow it to run for a bit. It might be rebuilding search indexes and optimising some things.

[TDT]

Allow it to run for a bit. It might be rebuilding search indexes and optimising some things.

I did, I let it run for almost 1 hour at first boot, then again at the next boot, and so on. It's the same...

[Dashel]

Its ridiculous to say that Start Screen was ever meant to hold 'hundreds' of pins. (or a pin for every app).  Its for quick access items, not a full listing.  That's the job of All Programs, on the Desktop and in Metro.  It doesn't make any sense to do it otherwise.  The only reason it auto-pinned new apps in 8 was because All Programs was so completely borked, which they have made strides in correcting. (and hence removed the auto-pinning nature)

 

Removing it from the desktop is just more derp.  Plus, you gotta love that you can now have the Classic (pre 7) start menu or Post-Modern - woes to the Vista and 7 menu.  They do really need to allow just 'one' column of tiles though.  This need to double square everything is stupid.

 

Words are still faster than pictures at a 'desktop' scale.  To your point though, if you aren't searching for the outliers, then you might as well just use Explorer.  The effort replicate a file system hierarchy just isnt' worth it anymore.

[iron2000]

Can anyone try this:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1120376-start-screen-doesnt-search-shortcuts-lnk-files/

 

Want to see if they fixed it in Windows 10.

[Tsuchida]

If you don't like the icons and colors in the tiles you can prep an xml to customize desktop apps.

<Application xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
    <VisualElements
        BackgroundColor="#RRGGBB"
        ShowNameOnSquare150x150Logo="{on/off}" 
        ForegroundText="{light/dark}"
        Square150x150Logo="[logo image path]"
        Square70x70Logo="[logo image path]"/>
</Application>

and name "[app .exe name].VisualElementsManifest.xml". The logo images are optional.

Source

[Ian S.]

If you don't like the icons and colors in the tiles you can prep an xml to customize desktop apps.

For me, it's not like I don't like them, I just think they are fragmented and out of date as well as bloated. Take in account, for example, shell32.dll. Use Resource Hacker to open it and you will see that there are tons of old bitmap icons and Lonhorn BETA icons in there, ones that never made it to the final release. There are about 7 types of icons for just a plain folder alone. One from vista,xp,95,others I have never even seen. This shell32.dll I was looking at is from Windows 10.

[HawkMan]

Its ridiculous to say that Start Screen was ever meant to hold 'hundreds' of pins. (or a pin for every app).  Its for quick access items, not a full listing.  That's the job of All Programs, on the Desktop and in Metro.  It doesn't make any sense to do it otherwise.  The only reason it auto-pinned new apps in 8 was because All Programs was so completely borked, which they have made strides in correcting. (and hence removed the auto-pinning nature)

 

Removing it from the desktop is just more derp.  Plus, you gotta love that you can now have the Classic (pre 7) start menu or Post-Modern - woes to the Vista and 7 menu.  They do really need to allow just 'one' column of tiles though.  This need to double square everything is stupid.

 

Words are still faster than pictures at a 'desktop' scale.  To your point though, if you aren't searching for the outliers, then you might as well just use Explorer.  The effort replicate a file system hierarchy just isnt' worth it anymore.

 

On a mid size screen, before you could use small icons, you could have 30-40 tiles visible on screen in 3-4 categories. Small tiles not only drastically improves this number, but also allows further grouping and organization using tile sizes.  and with my 1440 screen the amount of tiles  can have direct access to in an organized manner is ridiculous.

[PGHammer]

Its ridiculous to say that Start Screen was ever meant to hold 'hundreds' of pins. (or a pin for every app).  Its for quick access items, not a full listing.  That's the job of All Programs, on the Desktop and in Metro.  It doesn't make any sense to do it otherwise.  The only reason it auto-pinned new apps in 8 was because All Programs was so completely borked, which they have made strides in correcting. (and hence removed the auto-pinning nature)

 

Removing it from the desktop is just more derp.  Plus, you gotta love that you can now have the Classic (pre 7) start menu or Post-Modern - woes to the Vista and 7 menu.  They do really need to allow just 'one' column of tiles though.  This need to double square everything is stupid.

 

Words are still faster than pictures at a 'desktop' scale.  To your point though, if you aren't searching for the outliers, then you might as well just use Explorer.  The effort replicate a file system hierarchy just isnt' worth it anymore.

Precisely!

 

It's why I hated the original Start menu - it borrowed TOO much from File Manager (and the trunk/branch/twig structure that started with MS-DOS).

 

Worse, a nested structure (the common one used by File Manger/Explorer and the Start menu) is FAR from visually searchable - why have object-oriented filesystems been talked about (and talked about- and talked about) prior to Windows 9x, if not Windows itself?  If you have to use really descriptive file names, you wind up with font DPIs so small, they might as well be Braille - because they will hardly be legible at common screen resolutions (like 1680x1050, let alone 1920x1080 or taller).  And Ghu help if you wind up with subgroupings in your Start menu - which was quite commonplace in enterprises merely with Windows NT 3.x, let alone NT 4/2000/XP/7.  At merely 1280x1024, dealing with the Start menu gets unwieldy - now compound that with a "god-eye" view at 1680x1050, let alone 1920x1080 or anything taller than that.  (I didn't settle on 1920x1080 as a desktop resolution JUST because it was my display ceiling - I settled on 1920x1080 because anything taller and the default font DPI got to be too small as to be illegible.  1920x1080 may be great for gaming - but anything taller blows as a DESKTOP resolution - and especially one with a text-oriented search metric (which is exactly what you have with the Start menu).