Windows 8.1 Update Will Hide Tile Interface By Default?

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Who knows whether or not this will actually be part of the Windows 8.1 update but, I think we can all agree, giving users the option is the way to go.

While the software giant originally released Windows 8.1 last year with an option to bypass the "Metro" interface at boot, sources familiar with Microsoft’s plans have revealed to The Verge that the upcoming update for Windows 8.1 will enable this by default. Like many other changes in Update 1, we’re told the reason for the reversal is to improve the OS for keyboard and mouse users.
 
Right now there IS an option, but it's not as easy to find as it should be.

I'm a KB/M user and I don't mind booting into metro. It shows my e-mail, the weather, news headlines, etc. right away...which is what I'd end up looking online for on my desktop anyway.
 
It would be nice... it's such a silly UI for that type of usage.

I'd love to know the percentage of people running Windows 8 on non-touch devices, that are using some sort of startscreen replacement that brings back the classic start menu (Startisback, classic shell, etc).

Both my mother and aunt have new laptops running windows 8 and both have StartIsBack installed because they didn't care for the new UI (and I was sick of answering phone calls asking how to use it). I have an Ultrabook, VM and SFFPC with Windows 8 all running StartIsBack aswell.
 
It would be nice... it's such a silly UI for that type of usage.

I'd love to know the percentage of people running Windows 8 on non-touch devices, that are using some sort of startscreen replacement that brings back the classic start menu (Startisback, classic shell, etc).

Both my mother and aunt have new laptops running windows 8 and both have StartIsBack installed because they didn't care for the new UI (and I was sick of answering phone calls asking how to use it). I have an Ultrabook, VM and SFFPC with Windows 8 all running StartIsBack aswell.

Waves Hand (Start8)
 
Defaulting to booting to the desktop would be terrible. It's an option for the luddites, but for those of us that use all of the other MS products as well (Xbox 360 and One and Windows Phone), the start screen makes perfect sense right up front.
 
I think it should simply be an option during setup, or at least during first bootup.

It can simply ask which style you want, split screened left and right to click on, and that way tablet and HTPC users can choose the start screen, as IMO its fine for that, and for mouse users they can pick boot to desktop and classic start menu view.
 
I think the most interesting change that's been rumored and shown in these last screen shots is chrome for modern apps, they now have a title bar with program icon at the top left and minimize ad close buttons on the right. I would assume that this is an option like the boot to desktop.
 
The update to 8.1 made this option available and it takes about 3 seconds to set it up.
 
Currently I am happy with 8.1. I boot into desktop mode and basically just use metro as a fancier version of the start menu. I also do not mind the charm bar when in desktop mode. The only thing I wish is if there was an option to set all default applications to the desktop versions instead of metro. Maybe even apply that to the search bar to only search for desktop apps not metro variations.
 
The update to 8.1 made this option available and it takes about 3 seconds to set it up.

I don't it as 8 has been booting to the desktop if you have restore windows on next logon turned on, but I never managed to find this new option.
 
running Win8.1 and i boot straight to desktop

i never see metro unless i'm loading some rarely used program
 
Have to say after about a year on 8/8.1: the meltdown over Metro is simply ridiculous. It was never a big deal to me, but at first I still preferred the old Start Menu. Now I think I'm neutral even on that.

I think I've reached the point of actually feeling sorry for M$ because this has become a PR disaster wherein the hype isn't at all commensurate with the "severity" of the "problem" that is Metro in Win 8.
 
I hate the classic start menu. The metro isn't any better, but I don't have to see it if I don't want to. The only thing I use from there is the calculator.
 
I don't mind booting to or using Metro, but I often use the trick of holding down enter after login to load to skip it and go directly to desktop. I'm on version 8.0. I do not miss the "start menu" at all, I never used it much previously anyways - I'm more of a Win+Prog+Enter kinda user
 
The update to 8.1 made this option available and it takes about 3 seconds to set it up.

Duh, it says so right in the original post/news blurb.

Sounds like Microsoft has finally decided to pull the plug on the start screen. Why else bother modifying the Win 8 defaults unless it's being phased out? Good riddance.
 
So I'm a fucking luddite because I use the desktop and don't have an xbox or windows phone? lol not sure if srs
 
I'm 100% certain the answer to the thread title's question will be yes or no.
 
The UI is still a POS. Still ain't buying it, MS. Maybe Win 9 will be worth purchasing. But for now, I'm staying with Win 7 Pro.
 
Duh, it says so right in the original post/news blurb.

Sounds like Microsoft has finally decided to pull the plug on the start screen. Why else bother modifying the Win 8 defaults unless it's being phased out? Good riddance.

That doesn't make any sense. Does the Start Menu automatically display on boot up? Plus there's a LOT of modern applications out there now that depend on the Start Screen and there are plenty of people that like it and it's CRITICAL for use of Windows on tablets.

Some are going off the deep end over this. It was obvious from day one that Microsoft needed to improve integration between the desktop and modern UIs, I said this from day one. And everything they are doing here falls in line with that as well as making the new UI just more familiar to desktop users. Once you get used to the new UI it works well on the desktop with keyboards and mice. But some people simply can't or don't want to deal with that. Ok, there's no need to throw anything out, just improve the integration so that it can work like the old stuff.

If I were trying to create a hybrid OS while addressing the concerns from desktop users, these are pretty much the things I would do.
 
What's so great about it? I can launch any app I want with a single click on the desktop or from the taskbar. How is that so terrible?
 
The UI is still a POS. Still ain't buying it, MS. Maybe Win 9 will be worth purchasing. But for now, I'm staying with Win 7 Pro.

The UI is not a POS. I Use it on my gaming rig, and 1 of my laptops (out of 3) Its not Microsofts fault you dont want to learn to use a new UI and use it to its potential. Frankly that is the only reason people have issue with it, they dont want to learn it. It doesnt make it inferior. In Fact Windows 8 under the hood is vastly superior to win 7
 
Frankly that is the only reason people have issue with it, they dont want to learn it.

Um, I think it's an okay UI, but my issue is that it doesn't do all the stuff it can do at 1024x600 resolution so I can't run it on the not work computer I use the most. I think it's really unfair of you to just go assuming it's a learning thing and that there aren't actual technical barriers in the form of a totally dumb-tastic minimum resolution requirement of 1366x768.
 
The UI is not a POS. I Use it on my gaming rig, and 1 of my laptops (out of 3) Its not Microsofts fault you dont want to learn to use a new UI and use it to its potential.
Can you please explain the superiority? I can launch any app I want from a taskbar or a desktkop with a single click. I can task switch with the taskbar quickly and easily.

What am I missing out on that is so super awesome?
 
Um, I think it's an okay UI, but my issue is that it doesn't do all the stuff it can do at 1024x600 resolution so I can't run it on the not work computer I use the most. I think it's really unfair of you to just go assuming it's a learning thing and that there aren't actual technical barriers in the form of a totally dumb-tastic minimum resolution requirement of 1366x768.

The minimum resolution to run modern apps is now 1024x768 in 8.1. The majority of devices with 1024x600 were Atom netbooks. The performance level of new Atoms is so much better that it just isn't worth it to run 8.1 on these older devices. Honestly it's not worth it to run anything on these older Atoms. Unless $300 to $400 is a huge sum of money and one's time isn't worth much.
 
Can you please explain the superiority? I can launch any app I want from a taskbar or a desktkop with a single click. I can task switch with the taskbar quickly and easily.

What am I missing out on that is so super awesome?

Significantly faster boot times, better low level memory management, increased threading support, better automated threading, better automated backup, better wipe/restoration support, increased frame rates (been demonstrated in multiple comparison threads) better synchronization across multiple PC's. There is a SHIT ton of improvements in 8 vs 7
 
The minimum resolution to run modern apps is now 1024x768 in 8.1. The majority of devices with 1024x600 were Atom netbooks. The performance level of new Atoms is so much better that it just isn't worth it to run 8.1 on these older devices. Honestly it's not worth it to run anything on these older Atoms. Unless $300 to $400 is a huge sum of money and one's time isn't worth much.

orly? I might have to revisit that idea again.

As for performance, I'm completely okay with a single core Atom because they really do run anything and everything that I need to do with a computer. Once I could type stuff in a word processor, have a web browser open, and play some music without sound skipping or doing any weirdness, computers became fast enough. I think your perspective and desire for performance is very different than mine.
 
Significantly faster boot times, better low level memory management, increased threading support, better automated threading, better automated backup, better wipe/restoration support, increased frame rates (been demonstrated in multiple comparison threads) better synchronization across multiple PC's. There is a SHIT ton of improvements in 8 vs 7

What does that have to do with the UI? :confused:
 
Significantly faster boot times, better low level memory management, increased threading support, better automated threading, better automated backup, better wipe/restoration support, increased frame rates (been demonstrated in multiple comparison threads) better synchronization across multiple PC's. There is a SHIT ton of improvements in 8 vs 7
So much truth. Even if this isn't related to the UI, that list more than justifies selecting 8 over 7 in spite of the UI -- unless you're incredibly anal, or are following the herd of blind haters.

Note I didn't say "justifies upgrading," if you have to foot the bill. That's debatable. But people downgrading to 7 when their system came with 8 is just dumb, unless there's a specific incompatibility with old hardware or software they use a lot.
 
orly? I might have to revisit that idea again.

As for performance, I'm completely okay with a single core Atom because they really do run anything and everything that I need to do with a computer. Once I could type stuff in a word processor, have a web browser open, and play some music without sound skipping or doing any weirdness, computers became fast enough. I think your perspective and desire for performance is very different than mine.

You mention web browsing. I doubt anyone could tolerate web browsing on an old Atom after having used a Bay Trail Atom device for that task.
 
For the record I run 8.1 on my desktop. And I use the desktop not the tiled interface.

I agree the under the hood stuff is great. I just don't "get" why people pimp UI improvements over something that has worked well and continues to work well for 14+ years now.
 
did i not specify under the hood was better? not the UI

so you agree that the UI is trash? :p


(i kid)


Seriously though... I don't think anyone would argue against the backend changes. They are great. My Ultrabook boots cold in roughly 10 seconds with windows 8 and under a second from the hybrid hibernation/shutdown mode... The updated task manager is also great. It's the hideous start-screen and ribbon UI that most people tend to hate.
 
I just don't "get" why people pimp UI improvements over something that has worked well and continues to work well for 14+ years now.

To allow Windows to run better on tablets and touch devices which are going to become a bigger mix of the devices that Windows runs on.
 
You mention web browsing. I doubt anyone could tolerate web browsing on an old Atom after having used a Bay Trail Atom device for that task.

I'm sure it's a more betterer web experience. Just about any modern computer feels more responsive and whatnot on the Intertubes than the n270 I use right now, but I don't think its worth the trouble of upgrading when I have so much kitty noms, clothes (seriously my work wardrobe needs some major upgrades and those sorts of upgrades actually are a ton more valuable than a faster computer), and books to purchase that are a lot more important.

Besides, I'm not the only one that feels that way. I bet there are people on this forum who are thinking, "Yeah, $300 is a lot of hookers and blow!" and wouldn't trade the money for a Bay Trail Atom no matter how slow their Pentium III at 550 MHz feels.
 
To allow Windows to run better on tablets and touch devices which are going to become a bigger mix of the devices that Windows runs on.

x2

imagine having to use traditional desktop UI elements with your finger. It would suck almost as bad as using a touch UI with a mouse lol :D
 
Back
Top