[OFFICIAL] Windows 10 Insider Program

[Jim K Global Moderator]

For those saying that you can "avoid" Metro, I hate to break it to you, but Windows *is* Metro. Metro is more than just the live tiles, it's an entire design principle. Perhaps you should read up on it.

 

Your sarcastic "apologies" are old and nothing short of being flame bait.  That article you linked to is around 1.5 years old....and we know a lot has changed since.

 

Anyway, cheers to the start screen going away (or now just being an option).     If the metro apps can be re-sized appropriately as to not hog up desktop real-estate then...whatever...I just don't need calculator taking up a quarter of the desktop.

 

...and I'm looking forward to the start menu (which you repeatedly said wouldn't come back) continue to be refined.

[Dot Matrix]

...and I'm looking forward to the start menu (which you repeatedly said wouldn't come back) continue to be refined.

It didn't. The Windows 10 Start Experience is a brand new experience based off the Windows 8 Start Screen. The old code was removed from the Windows codebase, and not used at all to shape the Windows 10 UX. The "classic" menu is still dead.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

It didn't. The Windows 10 Start Experience is a brand new experience based off the Windows 8 Start Screen. The old code was removed from the Windows codebase, and not used at all to shape the Windows 10 UX. The "classic" menu is still dead.

 

The Start Menu...is back.  From the end user standpoint...users do not care what "codebase" it is.  Familiarity with functionality/features is what the end user cares about (be it either the start screen or start menu).  

[Studio384]

Your sarcastic "apologies" are old and nothing short of being flame bait.  That article you linked to is around 1.5 years old....and we know a lot has changed since.

Because it's an old article, doesn't make it less true that Metro isn't an environment but a design language. The Windows 8 desktop already is Metro based too. Windows Live Messenger was based upon Metro. Windows Media Center is based upon this design language. Office is based upon it. Heck, every version of Windows since Winodws 98 has made somehow a reference to Modern UI in it's design. Apart from Windows 8, Windows 7 has the most Modern UI elements in it.

[PGHammer]

Made my day.

 

Anyway, that's simply how some of these apps where designed. Sure, the Modern UI interface is much simpeler then the interface we've gotten used to. But that doesn't make an app a dumbed down version feature wise. Like I've said earlier. The apps that are fully replacing old screens in 9901 have a much simpeler interface, yet are so much more powerful (I'm looking at you Windows Update and Calculator). Sure, only 2 have been truely replaced - and that's not forcing something upon a user, that's simply replacing a thing that is better than its precessor - but more are coming. Like it or not, WinRT is the future.

 

The fact is that you have no reason to not like it. Like I said: it's perfectly possible that you can make a very complex application in WinRT. A replacement for Photoshop CC 2014.1 is perfectly possible (it just takes some time to build an application people have been working on for years upon a new framework). In fact, Microsoft is about to prove it with rebuilding Office in WinRT. WinRT is just much better then Win32, as it is based on modern development principles. If you're a developer, you would know that. Beside, Metro apps don't have to be touch-friendly. Continuum will probably also provide developers an option to switch between touch optimized interfaces and mouse-optimized interfaces for  their apps, instead of just the Windows interface.

That is why I brought up what Settings has in Category View - some of the CATEGORIES found there are flat-out missing from previous versions of Windows.  (I'm strictly comparing Category View vs. Category View.)  It is already not news (at least it should be) that whole categories of hardware are either under-represented or outright unrepresented in Control Panel, and that is despite the hardware being present at the time of Windows 7 - if not earlier.

 

One feature I've been pointing to (in the under-represented category) has been trackpads.  Trackpads are a standard feature in laptops and notebooks - so much so that not even 2-in-1 devices have completely ditched them.  In this same rather long-existing subset of Windows hardware, there are many ways that trackpads are connected - more than is true of mice, for example.  Yet it has taken until the Technical Previews for trackpads to be gotten right - how (and more importantly why) is that possible, for hardware that predates XP (and goes back to NT4)?  (Trackpads have diddly to do with touch - yet they have been constantly ignored; why?  I'm speaking as a notebook user, and a WINDOWS notebook user in particular.)

Yet you can now sub-adjust trackpads - and this is in 9879 and later.  THAT is what I mean by "adjustability up the wazoo" - and it's something that Windows altogether has been missing - and with zero explanation whatever.  (No other OS has that sort of sub-adjustment, either - not OS X (for understandable reasons), not Linux distributions, not UNIX - none.)

 

What ELSE has been thrown under the bus?

[chrisj1968]

I hate to break the truth to the modern UI (can we call it modern UI since the legal issues before Windows 8?) people. It wasn't accepted as much as you had probably hoped. Modern UI DOES have its place, touchscreen phones, tablets and the like.

 

however, the PC and full scale laptop market is a harder sell for the modern UI. Why do I say this? Because this Qosmio laptop which I forked over $1,400 for is, a gaming PC and it wasn't designed or built with touchscreen functionality. there is a reason Toshiba did this. OEM's are a LOT smarter or more understanding of Pc making and design.

 

in closing, Modern UI does have its place and application, just NOT on the desktop of Desktop or laptops to a larger degree. I've been saying this for a long time and has fallen on deaf ears but I'm not angry.

 

It seems Win10 is an effort to streamline the CONVERGENCE of both interfaces. If MS wants 10 to be a success, they need to creat 10 with this in mind. does a user want modern UI features on their desktop or do they want to subdue them and not see it? either way, the user(s) would win because everyone could have 10 they way they want it.

[Dot Matrix]

I hate to break the truth to the modern UI (can we call it modern UI since the legal issues before Windows 8?) people. It wasn't accepted as much as you had probably hoped. Modern UI DOES have its place, touchscreen phones, tablets and the like.

 

however, the PC and full scale laptop market is a harder sell for the modern UI. Why do I say this? Because this Qosmio laptop which I forked over $1,400 for is, a gaming PC and it wasn't designed or built with touchscreen functionality. there is a reason Toshiba did this. OEM's are a LOT smarter or more understanding of Pc making and design.

 

in closing, Modern UI does have its place and application, just NOT on the desktop of Desktop or laptops to a larger degree. I've been saying this for a long time and has fallen on deaf ears but I'm not angry.

 

It seems Win10 is an effort to streamline the CONVERGENCE of both interfaces. If MS wants 10 to be a success, they need to creat 10 with this in mind. does a user want modern UI features on their desktop or do they want to subdue them and not see it? either way, the user(s) would win because everyone could have 10 they way they want it.

If you're saying the Modern UI can't be used on the PC, then you don't really know what the Modern UI really is.

[PGHammer]

The Start Menu...is back.  From the end user standpoint...users do not care what "codebase" it is.  Familiarity with functionality/features is what the end user cares about (be it either the start screen or start menu).  

jjkusaf - perception does NOT equal reality, because perception is all too often wrong.

 

It's also why I test for how applications REALLY work vs. how I THINK they are supposed to work.

 

If the Start menu was supposed to be so important to Win32 applications (or even to their installers), then not a single Win32 application would work in Windows 8 for anybody.  Yet all the Win32 applications I used in 7 I could use in 8 - not a single application broke because the Start menu was missing.  (I referred to Windows NT 3.51 and Office 95 for that same reason - NT 3.51 Workstation lacks the Start menu, yet Office 95 will install and run quite happily in it.  Therefore, the Start menu is absolutely irrelevant to Win32 applications, or even the API, which predates the Start menu.)

 

The three MMOs from Sony that won't run in any version of the Technical Preview all fair for a yet-unknown reason (since they all are usable in Windows 8 or 8.1, the lack of a Start menu is not the issue).

 

Perception IS important to users - however, it can be rather easily provable whether the perception is accurate on an absolute basis.  Whether it matters to the USER is what is relevant - it is RELATIVE perception, not absolute perception, that is of importance when it comes to users.  (Of those that have been using the various third-party Start menu bringbacks, how many are of the opinion that the Start menu is a requirement to ALL Win32 applications, compared to those that admit that it is entirely about relative perception, that they in particular need the Start menu.  If more users admit that it is the user, then it's relative perception, not absolute perception, that matters to individual users.  Quite honestly, it is rather EASILY provable that it isn't absolute perception - however, how many users will believe it?     (How many users - of anything - absolutely refuse to believe that something is possible, even AFTER seeing it with their own two eyes?)

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Because it's an old article, doesn't make it less true that Metro isn't an environment but a design language. The Windows 8 desktop already is Metro based too. Windows Live Messenger was based upon Metro. Windows Media Center is based upon this design language. Office is based upon it. Heck, every version of Windows since Winodws 98 has made somehow a reference to Modern UI in it's design. Apart from Windows 8, Windows 7 has the most Modern UI elements in it.

 

True, however, you also should understand that most people (end users) equate Metro (Modern UI) with Windows 8 and the start screen (which I believe most can agree is a huge failure).  Hardly anyone knew of Metro before Windows 8...much less that its principles are found back in 1995.

 

Once again, I do not think Metro is the problem...but the way it was implemented into Windows 8 by hijacking the end users interface.  Something which Windows 10 has been correcting...much to the chagrin of Dot Matrix.

 

jjkusaf - perception does NOT equal reality, because perception is all too often wrong.

 

It's also why I test for how applications REALLY work vs. how I THINK they are supposed to work.

 

If the Start menu was supposed to be so important to Win32 applications (or even to their installers), then not a single Win32 application would work in Windows 8 for anybody.  Yet all the Win32 applications I used in 7 I could use in 8 - not a single application broke because the Start menu was missing.  (I referred to Windows NT 3.51 and Office 95 for that same reason - NT 3.51 Workstation lacks the Start menu, yet Office 95 will install and run quite happily in it.  Therefore, the Start menu is absolutely irrelevant to Win32 applications, or even the API, which predates the Start menu.)

 

The three MMOs from Sony that won't run in any version of the Technical Preview all fair for a yet-unknown reason (since they all are usable in Windows 8 or 8.1, the lack of a Start menu is not the issue).

 

Perception IS important to users - however, it can be rather easily provable whether the perception is accurate on an absolute basis.  Whether it matters to the USER is what is relevant - it is RELATIVE perception, not absolute perception, that is of importance when it comes to users.  (Of those that have been using the various third-party Start menu bringbacks, how many are of the opinion that the Start menu is a requirement to ALL Win32 applications, compared to those that admit that it is entirely about relative perception, that they in particular need the Start menu.  If more users admit that it is the user, then it's relative perception, not absolute perception, that matters to individual users.  Quite honestly, it is rather EASILY provable that it isn't absolute perception - however, how many users will believe it?     (How many users - of anything - absolutely refuse to believe that something is possible, even AFTER seeing it with their own two eyes?)

 

I'm not sure...but did you agree with me or not?  Your post reminds me of Chapter 4 in my AF PDG where it talks about Air Force Doctrine ... and uses "Doctrine" constantly to the point I lose interest.  Anyway, the end user probably doesn't know the difference between Win32 and Modern UI applications.  I would say more users are concerned with a) having a start menu or b) having a start screen regardless if it is Win32 or Modern (with regards to user experience).  

[PGHammer]

I hate to break the truth to the modern UI (can we call it modern UI since the legal issues before Windows 8?) people. It wasn't accepted as much as you had probably hoped. Modern UI DOES have its place, touchscreen phones, tablets and the like.

 

however, the PC and full scale laptop market is a harder sell for the modern UI. Why do I say this? Because this Qosmio laptop which I forked over $1,400 for is, a gaming PC and it wasn't designed or built with touchscreen functionality. there is a reason Toshiba did this. OEM's are a LOT smarter or more understanding of Pc making and design.

 

in closing, Modern UI does have its place and application, just NOT on the desktop of Desktop or laptops to a larger degree. I've been saying this for a long time and has fallen on deaf ears but I'm not angry.

 

It seems Win10 is an effort to streamline the CONVERGENCE of both interfaces. If MS wants 10 to be a success, they need to creat 10 with this in mind. does a user want modern UI features on their desktop or do they want to subdue them and not see it? either way, the user(s) would win because everyone could have 10 they way they want it.

chrisj1968 - how many users (of anything) refuse to believe the evidence of their own eyes?

 

In short, I'm not saying that perception isn't important - however, there IS a difference between relative perception (what is important to an individual user) and absolute perception (what actually works on an absolute basis).  All third-party Start menu utilities - without exception, and this even includes mini-Start in the Technical Preview - are based on relative perception - which is also - like it or not - the reason for the original Start menu.  The Start menu relies on relative perception due to the importance (at that period) of pointing devices (especially mice)  The Start menu was - to be quite honest and candid - very pointing-device-biased, and on purpose.  (Microsoft has been, in fact, rather blunt about saying so in every interview and quote regarding the Start menu in every OS that included it - including, if not especially, Windows NT 4 and later.)  Remember, the first Win32 operating systems - Windows NT 3.x - lacked a Start menu - why was it added with NT 4?

 

Believe it or not, Microsoft actually explained the appearance of the Start menu in "The Windows NT 4.0 Workstation User Guide" - and it had to do with "relative perception".  You could run any Win32 application in either Windows 95 or Windows NT - Fury3, for example, was the first GAME, from anyone, that would run in NT 3.51.  (That's right - it doesn't require the Start menu, either.)  The bigger issue was that NT 3.51 was based on Program Manager and File Manager - and thus stood out amidst a cube otherwise full of 9x hardware.  (The same is true of comparing any two versions of NT to each other - it was just as true, though not to as great an extent, comparing NT 4 Workstation to 2000 Professional, and it was MORE true comparing 2000 and XP Professional - relative perceived differences were markedly higher than the absolute differences.)

 

What Windows 8 was, in fact, was the first Win32 operating system (as opposed to operating environment) to lack a Start menu since NT 3.51 - a nearly-complete generational turnover.  Who was going to be around - except for the oldest of computing old-heads that would remember the original irrelevance of the Start menu with Windows NT in general, and of NT 3.51 in particular?  Me - and a few other "young old-heads", that's who.  If anything, it's the biggest computing lie since "640K ashould be enough for anyone." (which was absolutely incorrectly attributed to Bill Gates) and, despite it being provable to anyone that has eyeballs, nobody wants to believe it because it means we have been basically lied to for all that long a stretch.

 

The Start menu is a lie.  It's a lie that has been perpretrated on computing at large for nearly two decades.  And, even worse, it was a lie forced upon Microsoft by its own customers - out of sheer complacency.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

chrisj1968 - how many users (of anything) refuse to believe the evidence of their own eyes?

 

In short, I'm not saying that perception isn't important - however, there IS a difference between relative perception (what is important to an individual user) and absolute perception (what actually works on an absolute basis).  All third-party Start menu utilities - without exception, and this even includes mini-Start in the Technical Preview - are based on relative perception - which is also - like it or not - the reason for the original Start menu.  The Start menu relies on relative perception due to the importance (at that period) of pointing devices (especially mice)  The Start menu was - to be quite honest and candid - very pointing-device-biased, and on purpose.  (Microsoft has been, in fact, rather blunt about saying so in every interview and quote regarding the Start menu in every OS that included it - including, if not especially, Windows NT 4 and later.)  Remember, the first Win32 operating systems - Windows NT 3.x - lacked a Start menu - why was it added with NT 4?

 

Believe it or not, Microsoft actually explained the appearance of the Start menu in "The Windows NT 4.0 Workstation User Guide" - and it had to do with "relative perception".  You could run any Win32 application in either Windows 95 or Windows NT - Fury3, for example, was the first GAME, from anyone, that would run in NT 3.51.  (That's right - it doesn't require the Start menu, either.)  The bigger issue was that NT 3.51 was based on Program Manager and File Manager - and thus stood out amidst a cube otherwise full of 9x hardware.  (The same is true of comparing any two versions of NT to each other - it was just as true, though not to as great an extent, comparing NT 4 Workstation to 2000 Professional, and it was MORE true comparing 2000 and XP Professional - relative perceived differences were markedly higher than the absolute differences.)

 

What Windows 8 was, in fact, was the first Win32 operating system (as opposed to operating environment) to lack a Start menu since NT 3.51 - a nearly-complete generational turnover.  Who was going to be around - except for the oldest of computing old-heads that would remember the original irrelevance of the Start menu with Windows NT in general, and of NT 3.51 in particular?  Me - and a few other "young old-heads", that's who.  If anything, it's the biggest computing lie since "640K ashould be enough for anyone." (which was absolutely incorrectly attributed to Bill Gates) and, despite it being provable to anyone that has eyeballs, nobody wants to believe it because it means we have been basically lied to for all that long a stretch.

 

The Start menu is a lie.  It's a lie that has been perpretrated on computing at large for nearly two decades.  And, even worse, it was a lie forced upon Microsoft by its own customers - out of sheer complacency.

 

I think you are thinking too much into it.  The start menu isn't a lie; neither was program manager, DOS prompt, the cake (maybe), etc.  In the end (talking about end users) ... it is a method to which the end user launches programs or interacts with the operating system.  Modern UI, brought forth the start screen (many people equal the two) and it has been widely criticized for desktop usage.  With Windows 10 allowing the user to have either program launcher (for lack of a better phrase) ... most end user will not be able to tell that Modern UI is the bases for the start menu (or care) ... but instead be grateful to have the familiar menu back.

[Dot Matrix]

but the way it was implemented into Windows 8 by hijacking the end users interface.  Something which Windows 10 has been correcting...much to the chagrin of Dot Matrix.  

I have no issues with Metro in Windows 10. TBH, it needed integrated with the desktop, the only thing I would have kept unchanged is the Charms Bar. Having the list on the left hand side, followed by the options appearing on the right hand side of the app requires greater mouse movement than it does in Windows 8. Plus, it's lost some of it's "universability".

[PGHammer]

I think you are thinking too much into it.  The start menu isn't a lie; neither was program manager, DOS prompt, the cake (maybe), etc.  In the end (talking about end users) ... it is a method to which the end user launches programs or interacts with the operating system.  Modern UI, brought forth the start screen (many people equal the two) and it has been widely criticized for desktop usage.  With Windows 10 allowing the user to have either program launcher (for lack of a better phrase) ... most end user will not be able to tell that Modern UI is the bases for the start menu (or care) ... but instead be grateful to have the familiar menu back.

That is the very reason for the "cake" (the Start menu) in the first place - more relative perception playing into user heads.  It is no more necessary now than it was then (on an absolute basis).  However relatively important the Start menu may be to users, it is STILL not a requirement on an absolute basis.  Not a single application needs it.  And you now actually agree that, despite the perception (remember, even I agree with that eighteen years that the two have shared desktops) that simply means that it has taken that long for the original lie to be uncovered - and that is despite it being rather easily uncoverable.

 

I didn't say - in fact, I have NEVER said - that perception is not important to users.  The difference between those that need the Start menu and those that don't is based on it, after all.  The difference between the two groups of users is WHY that is the case.  I just get angry when relative perception and absolute perception are confused - and I get even angrier when it is done on purpose (usually out of covering up complacency - for any reason); it smacks of perfidy.

 

Complacency is not the problem - covering it up, however, just makes me even angry.  If you don't want to change, be straight with me as to why - including if it's about complacency - blowing smoke up my posterior is demeaning - to both of us.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

That is the very reason for the "cake" (the Start menu) in the first place - more relative perception playing into user heads.  It is no more necessary now than it was then (on an absolute basis).  However relatively important the Start menu may be to users, it is STILL not a requirement on an absolute basis.  Not a single application needs it.  And you now actually agree that, despite the perception (remember, even I agree with that eighteen years that the two have shared desktops) that simply means that it has taken that long for the original lie to be uncovered - and that is despite it being rather easily uncoverable.

 

I didn't say - in fact, I have NEVER said - that perception is not important to users.  The difference between those that need the Start menu and those that don't is based on it, after all.  The difference between the two groups of users is WHY that is the case.  I just get angry when relative perception and absolute perception are confused - and I get even angrier when it is done on purpose (usually out of covering up complacency - for any reason); it smacks of perfidy.

 

Complacency is not the problem - covering it up, however, just makes me even angry.  If you don't want to change, be straight with me as to why - including if it's about complacency - blowing smoke up my posterior is demeaning - to both of us.

 

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).

[HawkMan]

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).

 

 

Actually perception is THE issue. 100% of users who came to me when they wanted to buy a new computer and said they didn't want windows 8 because it was horrible and unusuable with the new start menu was converted when I showed them and used a few seconds to explain what the start screen was and realized it was easier and better for them than the start menu,. 

[chrisj1968]

I'm not saying anything was a lie. I simply stated the modern UI has its place. I'm a gamer who games exclusively and mods exclusively on the desktop. But the end of my post I also stated MS is using "convergence" when creating Win10. My last post was simply stating that I have no use for the modern UI. It has nothing to do with the way I work.

 

I never said anything was a lie. perhaps some here assumed I was conveying this idea. But to get on track with the threads topic, MS is heading in the right direction.

 

I guess a great example of what I'm looking for in 10 is, do i want to use modern UI or not? if not, place a feature in the settings area to allow for me to turn it on or off. it shouldn't be that hard because, we have alot, or I do, alot of files within the windows OS that I don't even use. so having the modern UI stuff under the hood, and turn it off for my use, doesn't disturb me one iota. I really think MS seems to be heading in the right direction and if someone has brought this idea up when you do the feedback, awesome. I don't want to force anyone to work the way I do and vice versa. 

 

We can get what we want,, we just have to be able to disagree, agreeably.

[Dot Matrix]

I guess a great example of what I'm looking for in 10 is, do i want to use modern UI or not? if not, place a feature in the settings area to allow for me to turn it on or off.

Asking to turn Metro off is like asking to turn Explorer or the old 9x shell off. It's just not going to happen. Metro is Windows, and without it, you have nothing.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Actually perception is THE issue. 100% of users who came to me when they wanted to buy a new computer and said they didn't want windows 8 because it was horrible and unusuable with the new start menu was converted when I showed them and used a few seconds to explain what the start screen was and realized it was easier and better for them than the start menu,. 

 

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.

[chrisj1968]

Asking to turn Metro off is like asking to turn Explorer or the old 9x shell off. It's just not going to happen. Metro is Windows, and without it, you have nothing.

 

No it's not. Modern UI is a completely different UI altogether. Why do you think they seperated the tile desktop from the modern UI. I think what you are looking for is kill the desktop because you probably don't like it. I'm saying it's possible. they put the modern UI into windows right with 8.1? its a matter of they WILL. it seems obvious to me that, modern UI and desktop are two seperate UI's that run off the main kernel or core of windows. besides this isn't talking about the explorer or the 98 shell. We are in NTFS which is totally different. anyway.. not everyones workflow uses or has a need for the modern UI. as the old saying goes, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. sure to you, it might be dated however, it still works and I have yet to see software that I purchase (not referring to the app store) require the modern UI. Because MS knew people still need and strongly use the desktop for work or leisure.

 

By the way, I'm not angry or flaming you. I'm simply making a statement that people still like the old way of doing things. I just hope that MS will continue to offer the desktop. if they were to get rid of it, they'd probably lose a HUGE customer base.

 

added for clarity: I use classic shell on 8.1. If by passing or shutting down the modern UI were to crash windows, classic shells design would crash 8.1. it doesn't. it simply by passes the start screen modern UI and takes said user to the desktop directly with no adverse affects to the OS. (atleast none that I've ever heard of). desktop and modern UI are two seperate entities.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

No it's not. Modern UI is a completely different UI altogether. Why do you think they seperated the tile desktop from the modern UI. I think what you are looking for is kill the desktop because you probably don't like it. I'm saying it's possible. they put the modern UI into windows right with 8.1? its a matter of they WILL. it seems obvious to me that, modern UI and desktop are two seperate UI's that run off the main kernel or core of windows. besides this isn't talking about the explorer or the 98 shell. We are in NTFS which is totally different. anyway.. not everyones workflow uses or has a need for the modern UI. as the old saying goes, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. sure to you, it might be dated however, it still works and I have yet to see software that I purchase (not referring to the app store) require the modern UI. Because MS knew people still need and strongly use the desktop for work or leisure.

 

By the way, I'm not angry or flaming you. I'm simply making a statement that people still like the old way of doing things. I just hope that MS will continue to offer the desktop. if they were to get rid of it, they'd probably lose a HUGE customer base.

 

added for clarity: I use classic shell on 8.1. If by passing or shutting down the modern UI were to crash windows, classic shells design would crash 8.1. it doesn't. it simply by passes the start screen modern UI and takes said user to the desktop directly with no adverse affects to the OS. (atleast none that I've ever heard of). desktop and modern UI are two seperate entities.

 

The desktop isn't going anywhere, because it is by far and away the best metaphor for interacting with a computer in a close range, big screen, content creation environment (and by big screen I really mean about 22" upwards, by close range I mean sitting about 1 metre away).  However, less and less computing is happening in that environment, something that will continue to decline.

 

I am the only person I know, IT nerds at work excluded (of which I am proud to be one), that even owns a desktop.  Everyone I know now uses a combination of laptops, tablets, phablets and smartphones - 3 years ago this wasn't the case.  Most people when operating on a laptop, work with full-screen apps.  Most people don't care about seeing multiple apps on screen at once - for these a single app interface would work well as long as there was app switching.

 

I think Microsoft was on the right track with Windows 8, except they didn't cater particularly well with users working in a "close range, big screen, content creation environment" - and I am not talking about the start screen here (which is a launcher just like the start menu was/is, and something I really don't understand the drama about, it would bother me if I spent much time looking at either, but personally I think getting a full screen launcher is way better than something tiny in the corner), I mean modern apps, which should always have been available windowed for large monitors.  I just didn't use the in WIndows 8, now my workflow needs to be adapted to use them Windowed, which will happen in due course.

 

As for the whole Win32 vs WinRT debate, it's an API framework and that is it.  Metro/Modern UI is a design language and that is it.  Both can be used however the developers want to use it.  I personally believe that Microsoft desperately needed a design language that can work on all computing form factors (from phone, arguably wearable, all the way through to Television/Set Top Box) and Metro is a brave one, but in my opinion, an awesome one.  I disagree with this viewpoint that UIs should be different across these form factors.  Look what Google is doing with Material Design across their devices - say what you want about Microsoft, but Google wouldn't be doing it unless they thought there was significant value.  Apple is also unifying the design language between their devices, albeit more slowly.  Microsoft spotted this need first.

 

WinRT also adds some things that were really needed from an API point of view.  Frankly Win32 is an old API, designed and built in a completely different era - there is only so much you can polish a turd before you have to just replace it.

 

However, starting from scratch building new apps on a new API framework using a new design language will mean they aren't as feature rich and that is just reality.  Again, applying the 80-20 rule, 80% of users are quite happy with the highly reduced feature set.  The hate on the feature richness of Modern Apps, is that Microsoft didn't set an appropriate tone to really show the art of the possible with the Modern Apps that came with Windows 8 - meaning that users with no real sense of imagination saw the gimped apps that came with the OS and thought that was all they were capable of.  They didn't do themselves any favours in this respect.

 

Sorry about the stream of consciousness post.  I read this thread last night before I went to bed and just wanted to share my thoughts on the subject :-)

 

Now onto some real Windows 10 stuff.  I have some questions:

1) How do I make the start menu taller (so it covers most/all of the screen)?

2) How do I pin an app to the top of the MRU list if it is buried somewhere else in the list of applications? I can only seem to do it if the app is shown on the start menu at the same time of the top of the MRU list.

 

I

[PotatoAlchemist]

Fahim S., on 28 Dec 2014 - 13:16, said:Fahim S., on 28 Dec 2014 - 13:16, said:

 

Now onto some real Windows 10 stuff.  I have some questions:

1) How do I make the start menu taller (so it covers most/all of the screen)?

2) How do I pin an app to the top of the MRU list if it is buried somewhere else in the list of applications? I can only seem to do it if the app is shown on the start menu at the same time of the top of the MRU list.

 1) Grab it from the top as if it were a window then drag it upwards. Be warned, this only seems to be working if the taskbar is placed on the bottom.

 2) If you wish to place an application pinned on the left side of the Start Menu that's not visible on the MRU section, you can drag the said application from All Apps section or even from Explorer and drag it into the Start Button. That will pin it on the left side, rather than on the right, Live Tile side.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

 1) Grab it from the top as if it were a window then drag it upwards. Be warned, this only seems to be working if the taskbar is placed on the bottom.

 2) If you wish to place an application pinned on the left side of the Start Menu that's not visible on the MRU section, you can drag the said application from All Apps section or even from Explorer and drag it into the Start Button. That will pin it on the left side, rather than on the right, Live Tile side.

 

Thank you.  Neither of which were particularly obvious to me.

[PotatoAlchemist]

Fahim S., on 28 Dec 2014 - 13:30, said:

Thank you.  Neither of which were particularly obvious to me.

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.

[HawkMan]

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.

 

That is the power of the media, the media say it's bad, people think it's bad. notice how sales have skyrocketed since 8.1 and since the media started saying windows 8 is now great. The people themselves don't have a clue, they don't even understand what all these things are, the only words they understand are good and bad. 

 

also as far as upgrading goes, only techies ever upgraded their computers. regular people never did, in the past a higher percentage of users upgraded because most computer uses where techies. in the last few years several things have happened, first and foremost, in the last 10 years, computers have become and every person item, not only does everyone have one, you pretty much have to have one nowadays, and in the last 5 years, computers have gotten so fast that for regular people there's not need to upgrade their computers, their 5 year old C2D or first gen i3 is still fast enough and will be for the next few years to do all their online activities without noticeable slowdowns. This together means few users will be upgrading their OS or buying new hardware. so sales of both are down.

 

still I wish I could fail and sell as "few" OS licenses as MS. 

 

Either way, I have not met a single non techie hater who doesn't think the start sreen is great when shown it and explained it's just a better menu. 

No it's not. Modern UI is a completely different UI altogether. 

 

No, Modern is a design language, it's part of every part of windows 10, and most of windows 8 as well. the windows decorations on the desktop in windows 8, Modern, the new taskbar, it's actually part modern. Modern it's just apps and start screen. 

[Studio384]

No it's not. Modern UI is a completely different UI altogether. Why do you think they seperated the tile desktop from the modern UI. I think what you are looking for is kill the desktop because you probably don't like it. I'm saying it's possible. they put the modern UI into windows right with 8.1? its a matter of they WILL. it seems obvious to me that, modern UI and desktop are two seperate UI's that run off the main kernel or core of windows. besides this isn't talking about the explorer or the 98 shell. We are in NTFS which is totally different. anyway.. not everyones workflow uses or has a need for the modern UI. as the old saying goes, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. sure to you, it might be dated however, it still works and I have yet to see software that I purchase (not referring to the app store) require the modern UI. Because MS knew people still need and strongly use the desktop for work or leisure.

 

By the way, I'm not angry or flaming you. I'm simply making a statement that people still like the old way of doing things. I just hope that MS will continue to offer the desktop. if they were to get rid of it, they'd probably lose a HUGE customer base.

 

added for clarity: I use classic shell on 8.1. If by passing or shutting down the modern UI were to crash windows, classic shells design would crash 8.1. it doesn't. it simply by passes the start screen modern UI and takes said user to the desktop directly with no adverse affects to the OS. (atleast none that I've ever heard of). desktop and modern UI are two seperate entities.

The Modern UI isn't a different UI altogether. The desktop is also based upon the Modern UI. "If it's not broken, don't fix it", if you think like that, go back to Windows 1.0. That wasn't broken either. But the reason you shouldn't be using it anymore is the same as why you shouldn't be using Win32: it's dated, old, based on old coding conventions and limited to technology of its time. WinRT is a far better platform, sure, some features from Win32 might be missing, but these can be added (and Windows 10 will do so). A lot of features of WinRT are far superior to those from WinRT. And for the end user experience it's also a major upgrade: 1 single place to update all your apps. A much better secured platform to begin with. And the difference for end users shouldn't be noticeable when an app is designed properly.