Windows 8.2 Will Make Start Menu An Option?

XamediX said:
You saw windows in any thread and the same horde of whiners magically appear and bash it with the same inane arguments. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Kid. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean the arguments are "inane".

So dial back that superiority complex a couple notches.
 
Chas said:
Kid. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean the arguments are "inane".

So dial back that superiority complex a couple notches.
Click to expand...

To be fair they usually are. I started on a DOS-based OS, and I've seen the same pointless bashing with nearly every OS release, the oh so fucking holy XP very much included. Things change, but people stay the same. Seeing people cling so hard to XP gave me many a chuckle.
 
Dekarx said:
To be fair they usually are. I started on a DOS-based OS, and I've seen the same pointless bashing with nearly every OS release, the oh so fucking holy XP very much included. Things change, but people stay the same. Seeing people cling so hard to XP gave me many a chuckle.
Click to expand...

XP wasn't that great when it was first released. SP2 fixed that. But, as with most of the others, it sucks when first released, then it gets stable and becomes a great OS. Then, the new one comes in and is shit, then gets better and people like it. Wash, rinse, repeat. When OS's are first released, they aren't great. By the time they hit EOL, they are refined, patched, and stable and great OS's. Just in time for the next release with the same issues the old OS had on release.

I've had success with OS's and rarely had a problem. But, that's the overall picture I see. But, what do I know? I liked Vista and 8 on release....
 
Ur_Mom said:
Tablets are wonderful with the Modern UI. Desktops aren't. Give people the option, Microsoft. That's what they users have been screaming about for the past year and some.
Click to expand...

If they did this from the beginning, Windows 8 would have been an excellent seller.
 
pcjunkie said:
That in a nutshell. But Windows 8 fan boys don't want the majority to have a choice.
Click to expand...

Windows 8 opponents often argue against choice. They often don't tablets, or simplified modern apps on the desktop (some are actually pretty cool even on a desktop) or the integrated web search, etc. and the use of all of these things is completely optional in 8.1.

I think many Windows 8 proponents understand pretty well the weaknesses of Windows 8 and things that would make it work better and in more familiar ways to keyboard and mouse only users who for whatever reason love the old desktop. But many Windows 8 proponents see the rise of tablets and mobile and believe that simply clinging to a 20 year old desktop isn't much of a way forward for Windows and will relegate it to the world of machines that dad uses for work with little relevance in the consumer world. And consumer and business technology isn't as separate as many seem to think, not when it comes to clients.

What has made Windows popular is its general purpose nature and ability to support a wide variety of hardware and software. Much of that hardware and software is becoming more and more focused in the mobile space. If Windows has no place in this area, then so be it, but that means Windows will simply see less hardware and software and no growth.
 
Chas said:
Kid. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean the arguments are "inane". So dial back that superiority complex a couple notches.
Click to expand...
It's called an opinion. The same thing that you guys call your negative viewpoint. So nice try.

Chas said:
No. Installing a hack to retain functionality of the GUI. Not the OS.
Click to expand...

Sorry GUI. statement still stands though.
 
Dekarx said:
To be fair they usually are. I started on a DOS-based OS, and I've seen the same pointless bashing with nearly every OS release, the oh so fucking holy XP very much included. Things change, but people stay the same. Seeing people cling so hard to XP gave me many a chuckle.
Click to expand...

DOS-based?

Do you mean "DOS"? Or are you trying to tell me you were running a version of Windows on top of DOS?

Usually you refer to applications as "DOS-based". Not the OS.

And yes, I've used DOS. I remember patching it to support my first hard drive.
 
Exavior said:
I have never found the start menu to be logical or intuitive. it is a worthless feature.
Click to expand...

once numbers and the alphabet are memorized, alpha/numeric will always be the most logical method of data organization - ever used an office file cabinet, or a library card catalog?
 
XamediX said:
It's called an opinion. The same thing that you guys call your negative viewpoint. So nice try.
Click to expand...

Try again. I'm not talking about your opinion. Merely the lousy way you have of expressing it.
 
All the techies I know (myself included) have either regressed back to Windows 7 or installed a Start Menu application (I use StartIsBack). Heck, the 3 non-techies I know (that have new Win 8 boxes) have a Start Menu restore application.

The biggest complaint I have about the Start Screen is the lack of hierarchy. Being able to categorize apps in a hierarchy, like I do on the Start Menu, would be a big step to acceptance on my part.
 
hdgamer said:
Maybe they'll fix all the bugs that Windows 8.1 introduced... or maybe there'll be more bugs. Ever since upgrading to Windows 8.1, programs aren't working correctly like soundforge, I'm getting crashes sometimes that I never did. Also NONE of my computers sleep correctly and I've gone through several forums doing what they say, reloaded my computer from scratch and still nothing. Windows 8.1 is the biggest piece of junk. I had no problems with Windows 8... LOL
Click to expand...

This is one of the many reasons I've decided to ignore windows 8. The compatibility issues I've heard of would make the OS unusable for me. The UI also had issues which would make certain tasks more difficult than they already are. Not being able to resize and reposition windows being one of them. Programing only being able to full-screen is utter nonsense.
 
heatlesssun said:
Many have made the point that the Start Screen simply needs to more configurable and it could easily replace the Start Menu. Allow for a non full screen mode and vertical scrolling of the Start Menu shortcuts and that the majority of it. Having a completely Start Menu and Start Screen would be confusing and the classic Start Menu is ineffective on a growing number of new Windows tablets and hybrids. Hybrids in particular would get complicated if switched between the classic Start Menu when using a mouse and keyboard or touch, and since all Windows devices are technically hybrid capable, it just further makes it more complex.

The "desktop friendly" list I see:

1. Configuration options for the Start Screen to allow for 1/4 or user defined width
2. Hierarchical Start Menu view with vertical scrolling
3. Windowed modern apps
4. Some type of wizard or setting to make it easier to set defaults to desktop or modern apps with the ability to set a class of extensions to a certain program type. All video extensions modern, all picture extensions modern
5. Better integration of desktop apps with the Charms bar for things like Sharing

And of course there's a lot more but now that Microsoft has invested in the modern UI, it makes more sense to enhance it and make it fit better in the terms of hybrid OS realizing that they future of Windows isn't just about desktop or even just about tablets, but a mix of both and options to allow it to fit better in those spaces gives Windows more flexibility.
Click to expand...

All that is fine and dandy but.... Simply incorporate both andngive the user the option. Why force a desktop user to use a tablet ui? And vice versa.

I own a Windows 8.1 tablet and its been the first time the ui has made any sense to me... On touchscreen.

I use 8.1 on the desktop also, but with third party programs to have my start menu. Consumers like choice.
 
Chas said:
DOS-based?

Do you mean "DOS"? Or are you trying to tell me you were running a version of Windows on top of DOS?

Usually you refer to applications as "DOS-based". Not the OS.

And yes, I've used DOS. I remember patching it to support my first hard drive.
Click to expand...
My first PC was not powerful enough to run a decent Windows, which was rather new at the time. You started the OS from a disk and it was simply a glorifed tree where you added A-B-C-D entries for programs on the 70mb hard drive. For example, it looked like
A) Word perfect B) Test Drive C) Hero Quest
D) something else etc

I think it might have had sub-menus, but I am not certain. That was over 20 years ago.

I remember people praising Windows 3.1 and then 95, then it was all usual forum trolling. Same for game and program sequels.
 
Chas said:
Yeah. How many bridges are you selling?
Click to expand...

So how has using desktop apps changed? If they are pinned to the task bar, you open them just like Windows 7. If they are pinned to the Start Screen you click on the tile and they open like they would from the Start Menu. Once launched there is no difference in how a desktop application works between 8 and prior versions. Where is the functional difference?
 
Dekarx said:
It's that people don't seem to realize that Metro is a second, better desktop that doesn't force you to minimize everything to get to it.
Click to expand...

What exactly is better about it? And Metro is not a desktop. In fact, that is metro's primary problem for me. A desktop is a place where you can store links or file for quick access and organization. It's a workflow metaphor. Much like my desk at work has all relevant materials on it to accomplish my current projects, I then file the material in drawers when I am done with them. It is the same thing with the windows desktop. I have files and folders on the desktop for easy access and organization. Once they are no longer relevant to my current needs they get filed away. It's simply a better work flow.

And let's not forget, Metro is extremely limited in how it displays multiple apps at once. Only side by side, not over and under. Not good when working with something that has a lot of columns like a spread sheet. There is also the fact that you can't span the metro UI across multiple screens.

There is simply nothing superior about metro on a no touch, desktop environment.

I use 8.1 on my surface with no mod fine as that touch device lends itself to metro. On the other hand, I just can't use 8 or 8.1 on a touchless desktop without start8 or similar.
 
[L]imey;1040453954 said:
As soon as you start thinking about the start screen as a big full screen start menu, everything is fine. My mother, who initially hated her new windows 8 laptop, now loves it. All it took was 10 minutes removing the shitware that ends up on the start screen by default, creating a few categories, and putting her most used programs on there. Now she loves it ( about 7 seconds to boot, SSD swap out ftw) and all the things she'd want to do are displayed categorically in blocks. Easy peasy.
Click to expand...

You could have just put the appropriate icons on the desktop and had pretty much the same experience.
 
jmilcher said:
All that is fine and dandy but.... Simply incorporate both andngive the user the option. Why force a desktop user to use a tablet ui? And vice versa.

I own a Windows 8.1 tablet and its been the first time the ui has made any sense to me... On touchscreen.

I use 8.1 on the desktop also, but with third party programs to have my start menu. Consumers like choice.
Click to expand...

But it's not so much both as it is just configuration of the Start Screen in my view. Windows is about just running on a desktop or a tablet and touch or keyboards and mice. It's supports all these things simultaneously.
 
sadsteve said:
All the techies I know (myself included) have either regressed back to Windows 7 or installed a Start Menu application (I use StartIsBack). Heck, the 3 non-techies I know (that have new Win 8 boxes) have a Start Menu restore application.

The biggest complaint I have about the Start Screen is the lack of hierarchy. Being able to categorize apps in a hierarchy, like I do on the Start Menu, would be a big step to acceptance on my part.
Click to expand...

Of the half dozen or so people that have been windows 8 users that I know, One is now back on 7, and the rest were down right frustrated until I told them about start8. I don't think they are entirely happy, but they aren't complaining anymore.
 
griffinhart said:
There is simply nothing superior about metro on a no touch, desktop environment.
Click to expand...

Apparently the windowing of modern apps is part of what is in this rumor, so there look to be some changes there. However, the snapping is kind of cool, and actually works well on the desktop for a lot of things because it's easy to arrange things and they snap into place, something that would very nice on the desktop.

One thing that many don't realize as well is in 8.1, modern apps have desktop window like maximize and restore capability. Snap two or more modern apps side by size, double click on the top of one of the apps, it goes to full screen. Double click it again, and the original arrangement of the apps snaps back into place. Very useful on a desktop.
 
heatlesssun said:
So how has using desktop apps changed? If they are pinned to the task bar, you open them just like Windows 7. If they are pinned to the Start Screen you click on the tile and they open like they would from the Start Menu. Once launched there is no difference in how a desktop application works between 8 and prior versions. Where is the functional difference?
Click to expand...


The taskbar has limited space, unless you like obfuscating half your screen.
The Start menu has things organized nice and alphabetically. Pinning items to the Start Menu is simply an option for frequently used programs. But you don't use it for 50+ programs that I use on a semi-regular basis.
 
sadsteve said:
You could have just put the appropriate icons on the desktop and had pretty much the same experience.
Click to expand...

And there's no organization. And you get results like this then:

desktop%20full.jpg
 
I for one really hope they do include the option for the start menu, basically so people can shut the hell up about it. I don't really care about metro one way or the other, but I've always hated the classic start menu and believed it should be terminated with extreme prejudice, immediately if not sooner.

IMO, I would like to see an OS with fully customizable GUI out of the box with no third party intervention (rainmeter, skins, etc) and then safe mode can be the default appearance to assist with troubleshooting. I can't think of any real reason why they couldn't do it, and I would be perfectly willing to pay for it.
 
THRESHIN said:
dear microsoft,

for once in the entire history of your company, i believe its time to try something so insane and unorthodox that doing so may start the beginning of the apocalypse:

listen to your customers
Click to expand...

Dear concerned customer,

No

Sincerely,

Microsoft Customer Relations representative
 
LigTasm said:
I for one really hope they do include the option for the start menu, basically so people can shut the hell up about it. I don't really care about metro one way or the other, but I've always hated the classic start menu and believed it should be terminated with extreme prejudice, immediately if not sooner.

IMO, I would like to see an OS with fully customizable GUI out of the box with no third party intervention (rainmeter, skins, etc) and then safe mode can be the default appearance to assist with troubleshooting. I can't think of any real reason why they couldn't do it, and I would be perfectly willing to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Do you remember a system app called Litestep? It was big back in like 1999/2000 or so. I had so much fun customizing my desktop to such a specific level with that app. Your post reminded me of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiteStep
 
heatlesssun said:
Apparently the windowing of modern apps is part of what is in this rumor, so there look to be some changes there. However, the snapping is kind of cool, and actually works well on the desktop for a lot of things because it's easy to arrange things and they snap into place, something that would very nice on the desktop.

One thing that many don't realize as well is in 8.1, modern apps have desktop window like maximize and restore capability. Snap two or more modern apps side by size, double click on the top of one of the apps, it goes to full screen. Double click it again, and the original arrangement of the apps snaps back into place. Very useful on a desktop.
Click to expand...

I realize this, but It's still not superior to how the classic UI windows. It is, in fact, more limited. I can snap two or more applications side by side on multiple screens (vs only one screen on metro) without metro. I can also double click the top of any traditional window and toggle between full screen and a window. I can also window in an over and under configuration to make working with column based applications much easier. Things like Excel, my companies scheduling software, and several other apps. Metro is much less flexible in this respect. And Metro's split screen abilities are kind of closing the barn door after the horse has fled. Prior to 8.1 it was even more limited.

The traditional desktop is just better at handling multiple apps, windows and monitors.

As I have said since 8 was in beta, All 8 needs is the ability to see if a machine doesn't have touch and offer the traditional start menu with an easy way to get to metro for those that want it. Instead we got an interface that clearly makes non-touch machines a secondary consideration.

IMHO, If MS is going to offer the Start Menu and the ability to actually window metro apps on the desktop, they will do well to NOT call it Windows 8.2. The Windows 8 brand is damaged beyond repair the way Vista was. It's time for Windows 9. or as I will call it, Windows "What the hell were we thinking."
 
Chas said:
The taskbar has limited space, unless you like obfuscating half your screen.
The Start menu has things organized nice and alphabetically. Pinning items to the Start Menu is simply an option for frequently used programs. But you don't use it for 50+ programs that I use on a semi-regular basis.
Click to expand...

If you're always a particular application, like a web browser or File Explorer or Word, etc it's going to take up space in the task bar anyway so there's no reason not to pin things like that. The Apps Screen also provides an alphabetical listing of programs, there's no need to pin 50+ things on the Start Screen, launching lesser used things via keyboard would be the fastest way and that works the same in 7 or 8.
 
griffinhart said:
I realize this, but It's still not superior to how the classic UI windows. It is, in fact, more limited. I can snap two or more applications side by side on multiple screens (vs only one screen on metro) without metro. I can also double click the top of any traditional window and toggle between full screen and a window. I can also window in an over and under configuration to make working with column based applications much easier. Things like Excel, my companies scheduling software, and several other apps. Metro is much less flexible in this respect. And Metro's split screen abilities are kind of closing the barn door after the horse has fled. Prior to 8.1 it was even more limited.
Click to expand...

There really is no concept of snapping with desktop apps, they just float in the position that they are in and rearranging them and resizing them is somewhat tedious. Sure free floating windows are more flexible, I'm just saying that for a lot of common scenarios where one wants to deal with multiple apps, the modern UI can be simpler and more straight forward.
 
heatlesssun said:
There really is no concept of snapping with desktop apps,
Click to expand...

To be more clear, yes there's Aero snapping, but that's just resizing of a window. A modern snapped app can be moved in relative position to other snapped areas and those snapped areas automatically move their new positions.
 
XamediX said:
Do you remember a system app called Litestep? It was big back in like 1999/2000 or so. I had so much fun customizing my desktop to such a specific level with that app. Your post reminded me of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiteStep
Click to expand...

I do remember that, and I wish that kind of functionality was integrated right into the OS itself. Why not? What do they have to lose by offering options that appeal to a broader range of consumers? It shouldn't take years of complaints to get back something that has been fundamentally basic to Windows for so many years as much as I may dislike it. They should be making progress by offering more not less.
 
heatlesssun said:
If you're always a particular application, like a web browser or File Explorer or Word, etc it's going to take up space in the task bar anyway so there's no reason not to pin things like that.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not pinning 50+ apps to my taskbar.


The Apps Screen also provides an alphabetical listing of programs
Click to expand...

Yes, but I then have to take my eyes off what I'm doing and go hunting through that gigantic waste of space.
 
LigTasm said:
I do remember that, and I wish that kind of functionality was integrated right into the OS itself. Why not? What do they have to lose by offering options that appeal to a broader range of consumers? It shouldn't take years of complaints to get back something that has been fundamentally basic to Windows for so many years as much as I may dislike it. They should be making progress by offering more not less.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it'll exponentially increase the amount of required customer support. The more you give the customer the ability to change around stuff the more potential things to consider when stuff stops working. Litestep, while awesome, did cause some crashing and glitching. Imagine trying to support 100 different desktop GUI's? I wouldn't mind a 3rd party program though. Because I love customizing my stuff to exactly how I want it. Dang it, now I am feeling nostalgic. haha
 
heatlesssun said:
There really is no concept of snapping with desktop apps, they just float in the position that they are in and rearranging them and resizing them is somewhat tedious. Sure free floating windows are more flexible, I'm just saying that for a lot of common scenarios where one wants to deal with multiple apps, the modern UI can be simpler and more straight forward.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. Windows 7 introduced Aerosnap. while you have to manually configure an over and under configuration, you just need to drag any window to the left or right border of the screen to snap them, or just use the windows key and left or right arrows. I use this feature daily.
 
heatlesssun said:
To be more clear, yes there's Aero snapping, but that's just resizing of a window. A modern snapped app can be moved in relative position to other snapped areas and those snapped areas automatically move their new positions.
Click to expand...

I find this feature less useful than aerosnap. Especially with multiple screens.
 
griffinhart said:
Metro is much less flexible in this respect. And Metro's split screen abilities are kind of closing the barn door after the horse has fled. Prior to 8.1 it was even more limited.

The traditional desktop is just better at handling multiple apps, windows and monitors.
Click to expand...


Yep, I tried turning my Windows 8.1 tablet so it was in a portrait orientation, so I could watch a video on the top half and browse the web on the bottom... and guess what... metro didn't allow me to split the screen top/bottom it adamantly refused, and only allowed left/right... which is completely insane from a usability point of view. Who would want to split a 1366x768 screen horizontally in portrait mode?!?

However, I started up my trusty desktop programs and although it took a bit more manual manipulation, moved the video window to the top and browsed the web on the bottom.

Also mouse/pen support with the Metro interface is completely broken. For example, I cannot click on blank spot on the "start page" and DRAG the page over to scroll. I have to go down to the scroll bar and try to click and drag on a small thin area at the bottom of the screen. Really?!? But with a touch screen it's completely OK to drag on a blank spot of the screen. Obviously the code's there, Microsoft just decided to disable it unless you were using a finger.

The "metro" interface is a half baked interface that was pushed out before it was ready for even touch and forced on desktop users with quirky support for mouse and a terrible lack of support for multiple monitor systems (8.1 sort of tries to fix some of 8's deficiencies, but doesn't fix nearly enough of them.)

I like nested folders... metro seems to think that I want to swipe through five screens of program listings before getting to a seldomly used program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top