Start menu coming back

The only one that has any appeal is the last one, and even that is practically meaningless for most corporations out there that are already managing 7 desktops just fine.

I'm really beginning to question if you actually have much experience in the industry. This sounds exactly like something a PC tech who spends their day ghosting images onto users computers and completing service tickets would say. Just fine is never the end of it, or the computer industry wouldn't be so booming. Anything that can lower costs, make wholesalers more effective, reduce downtime and waiting, etc. is a big deal for corporations. Why are there support techs and help desks? Things break, software doesn't work right, and problems occur. If everything were perfect, there would be no need for a help desk. Most corporations have a handle on IT, yet nearly all of them are actively seeking something better. There's a reason companies like IBM and Red Hat are always improving their middleware and releasing new versions with new features. The old versions of the middleware does it's job just fine for 99% of the clients, yet clients keep buying new versions because it offers more features, more control and more manageability. Lots of companies have updated their datacenter operations. The old setup was fine, yet plenty of companies regularly buy new hardware and recruit new talent, move to virtualization or the cloud, etc. because despite their old setup working the new setup has things that contribute favorably to the bottom line. If 'existing' was good enough, at some point companies would hit equilibrium and everything would just plateau. Nobody would need anything else. We'd have gotten an OS, or an RDBMS, or a middleware, or an application framework, or a piece of hardware that does everything the company could ever need and that would be the end of it. IT would be licensing fees and an electric bill. But since for literally every company in the world, IT isn't just licensing fees and an electric bill, better is relevant.

Now, whether these features alone would be enough to warrant upgrading everything to Windows 8, I'd agree that most companies wouldn't think so. But to say better manageability is irrelevant is fundamentally out of touch with the business world. Better manageability always has an ROI, and anything with an ROI is meaningful.
 
Last edited:
If you read Thurrott's write up on this, he says the Windows 8 team was basically dismantled. Microsoft has officially accepted that the Windows 8 vision is not the right direction for the Windows brand.

I also wanted to say that I really doubt the next major release will be called 8.2. They are going to move away from that moniker ASAP.

Paul Thurrott said:
The ultimate failure of Windows 8 wasn't that Microsoft embraced mobile technologies, it was that it did so without taking into account how poor this experience would be for the 1.5 billion people who use Windows on traditional PCs.
Quote of the year?
Microsoft will take the next logical step in the next Windows version and make the Start menu available as an option. It's possible this will appear only on those product versions that support the desktop.
That's what I've been saying all along that they should do. Such a simple fix for such a big headache.
 
Last edited:
If you read Thurrott's write up on this, he says the Windows 8 team was basically dismantled. Microsoft has officially accepted that the Windows 8 vision is not the right direction for the Windows brand.

I also wanted to say that I really doubt the next major release will be called 8.2. They are going to move away from that moniker ASAP.

Quote of the year?
That's what I've been saying all along that they should do. Such a simple fix for such a big headache.

Here's the thing, what does this Start Menu look like? It does seem like Myerson is doing the logical things that were expected in unifying Microsoft's platforms. The classic Start Menu doesn't do that. I have no problem with the concept or functionality of the Start Menu, but I think it would be better done by enhancing the Start Screen.

In any case we should see the beta next year, it will be interesting.
 
Here's the thing, what does this Start Menu look like? It does seem like Myerson is doing the logical things that were expected in unifying Microsoft's platforms. The classic Start Menu doesn't do that. I have no problem with the concept or functionality of the Start Menu, but I think it would be better done by enhancing the Start Screen.

In any case we should see the beta next year, it will be interesting.
I completely expect the new Start Menu to be some type of combination, and I'm fine with that. I accept things need to change. I just want to get rid of the full screen stuff and the constantly flipping back and forth.

Infoworld's Windows Red concept art looks great.
 
Read about this in the news couple days ago, finally! Had to install Classic shell on all the Windows 8 computers I used. Ended up reinstalling 7 on my current main computer.
 
Here's the thing, what does this Start Menu look like? It does seem like Myerson is doing the logical things that were expected in unifying Microsoft's platforms. The classic Start Menu doesn't do that. I have no problem with the concept or functionality of the Start Menu, but I think it would be better done by enhancing the Start Screen.

In any case we should see the beta next year, it will be interesting.

Unification was never requested. The majority of MS customers which are businesses NEVER requested any form of Unification. Businesses wanted better interpolation between different products but there was never a drive from any business that said hey, I want a tablet, a phone and a stupid xbox to have the same interface.

Its the consumer bullshit bandwagon that was driving that, because MS missed the boat they assumed that everyone else would just gladly jump onboard the failboat of unification. What MS failed to do is give better access (and relevance)to their products on the mobile platform. MS just fucking assumed that business are all MS and nothing but MS. Sorry to burst your bubble MS but there are hundreds of thousands of other programs on the Windows platform THAT will never get ported and never work in Metro natively due to their sheer complexity.
and programing certain things for windows natively has also declined more and more programs are going to the web interface that will work on any platform not just MS. This includes MS own products like Exchange, CRM, Sharepoint, Dynamics etc, (in fact they work better in 3rd party browsers then Internet Explorer itself.)

MS should seperate the two OS's Business and Consumer, simple as that. MS strong suit has always been backwards compatibility at every layer except windows 8 through out the baby with the bathwater.

BYOD has arrived and its here to stay. I like to call it Spend your own money business just care about where the data is not what fucking device your using.
 
Unification was never requested. The majority of MS customers which are businesses NEVER requested any form of Unification. Businesses wanted better interpolation between different products but there was never a drive from any business that said hey, I want a tablet, a phone and a stupid xbox to have the same interface.

Windows tablets, hybrids and convertibles have been in existence for a long time now and one of the issues has been the UI on those devices. Clearly the idea of being able to run Windows well on both a keyboard and mouse driven machine and touch and/or pen tablet has been floating around for a while. I've never said that 8 was perfect in its execution of the hybrid concept, but it does work much better on tablets than just the classic desktop while still supporting the desktop. It needs work, I've long said that but the idea of the hybrid OS certainly is something that has been asked for by some.

Its the consumer bullshit bandwagon that was driving that, because MS missed the boat they assumed that everyone else would just gladly jump onboard the failboat of unification. What MS failed to do is give better access (and relevance)to their products on the mobile platform.

Much of this issue has been with hardware and its pricing. People may not buy a lot of $1000 Surface Pro 2s, but they can be much more easily persuaded to buy something like a $200 Venue 8 Pro. Put a lot of decent sub $300 Windows tablet and hybrid devices on the market, you're all but certain to see many millions of device sales.

MS just fucking assumed that business are all MS and nothing but MS. Sorry to burst your bubble MS but there are hundreds of thousands of other programs on the Windows platform THAT will never get ported and never work in Metro natively due to their sheer complexity. MS should seperate the two OS's Business and Consumer, simple as that. MS strong suit has always been backwards compatibility at every layer except windows 8 through out the baby with the bathwater.
and programing certain things for windows natively has also declined more and more programs are going to the web interface that will work on any platform not just MS. This includes MS own products like Exchange, CRM, Sharepoint, Dynamics etc, (in fact they work better in 3rd party browsers then Internet Explorer itself.)

BYOD has arrived and its here to stay. I like to call it Spend your own money business just care about where the data is not what fucking device your using.

And all of this helps to sell something like a full x86 Windows $200 tablet.
 
I'm really beginning to question if you actually have much experience in the industry.
Ah, there it is. The personal attack.

If you'll recall, this has happened just about everytime I've commented on this issue. And yet, here we are, seeing everything I predicted come true. That should tell you something.

To be clear; just because something offers you "more management features" doesn't mean it's better. More != better. Meaningful management options would be something else again, but then no one has offered up what might be considered a meaningful addition to the management options windows 8 brings to the table for corporate environment.

Care to try?
 
I completely expect the new Start Menu to be some type of combination, and I'm fine with that. I accept things need to change. I just want to get rid of the full screen stuff and the constantly flipping back and forth.

I understand the non-full screen complaint from a personal preference and comfort level and it does have benefits when dealing with things like virtual resolutions like Eyefinity and Surround. In practical terms I've on single or independent monitors I guess the size of the launcher doesn't make a lot of difference to me if the launcher can't be used while doing anything else.

Infoworld's Windows Red concept art looks great.

Hmmm. Some things in there that make some sense, windows modern apps, but no touch support for the pro version? No. Its these cheap $200 and $300 dollar do everything tablets and hybrids devices that are among the most appealing devices on the market running Windows. Those devices need the ability to run the desktop otherwise they loose their value proposition.
 
Sorry to burst your bubble MS but there are hundreds of thousands of other programs on the Windows platform THAT will never get ported and never work in Metro natively due to their sheer complexity.

Literally nobody in the world, especially not Microsoft, has ever planned on that being the case. For the 16,000,000th time, the Modern UI exists to expand functionality, not replace it. Windows 8.1 does everything Windows 7 does and more. Just because the ability to use WinRT apps is there doesn't mean you're suddenly stoned to death for trying to use an x86 application.

To be clear; just because something offers you "more management features" doesn't mean it's better. More != better. Meaningful management options would be something else again, but then no one has offered up what might be considered a meaningful addition to the management options windows 8 brings to the table for corporate environment.

That's not the point of interest here. The point is the completely backwards perspective that companies don't need something better when what they already have works, since as we all know 'works' and 'works flawlessly' are distinct. It's the reason we're not all still using XP, afterall.
 
Literally nobody in the world, especially not Microsoft, has ever planned on that being the case. For the 16,000,000th time, the Modern UI exists to expand functionality, not replace it. Windows 8.1 does everything Windows 7 does and more. Just because the ability to use WinRT apps is there doesn't mean you're suddenly stoned to death for trying to use an x86 application.

It would seem considering the title of this thread and nature of this rumor that if there ever was the notion to replace the desktop with the modern UI, that doesn't seem to be the case now.
 
It would seem considering the title of this thread and nature of this rumor that if there ever was the notion to replace the desktop with the modern UI, that doesn't seem to be the case now.

Hmm yeah sure it was there to enhance my ass. This is why MS went and called the Desktop and called it legacy. Bullshit on both poster counts MS tried to coral every one into their walled garden.

Metro Brings no added functionality over desktop.
 
That's not the point of interest here. The point is the completely backwards perspective that companies don't need something better when what they already have works, since as we all know 'works' and 'works flawlessly' are distinct. It's the reason we're not all still using XP, afterall.
And what are those reasons?

And why isn't that a point of interest? You and several others have raised it, let's see a real world example of new management features that admins will find useful in windows 8.

Go ahead. I'm sure we'd all love to see what you think is useful.
 
I love how Windows 8 fan boys always say your afraid of change or learn to use it.

The thing is Windows Desktop Computers in the Consumer market are tanking but shipments in the Corporate have actually increased. Businesses don't make a habit of changing things when they work.

All you H guys are home users and don't lead any major IT departments or companies (unless they can prove me otherwise)

Home/Power/Enthusiasts you MEAN NOTHING YOU ARE NOTHING TO MS. Your 135 Dollar purchase of Windows 8 Home means shit, it means less then a milisecond in MS operational costs. You are lower then a fart in the wind in the grand scheme of things.

Even I mean nothing and I have purchased and or resold over 100k of MS Licensing VLK/OEM.
I have purchased close to 70 desktops and about 15 servers this year alone. I mean nothing in the grand scheme of things but My Purchases > your purchases

Since 2/3 of MS revenue comes from people like me and our complaint was Metro is a disgusting disaster for most companies MS is starting to actually realize that Consumers and Corporate Businesses are very different beasts.

They would have been fine if MS did the NT thing and separated the consumer low grade shit from Corporate products.

Speak for yourself, I run an IT department at a major university here in the Seattle metro area. We have a site license for Microsoft WIndows with upgrade protection. We have not deployed ANY windows 8 machines with the exception of my laptop and desktop machines in the department, in addition to a few users who requested 8 because they like the product. My budget was roughly 14 million last year and some change. Is going up this year as well as the economy improves.
 
Hmm yeah sure it was there to enhance my ass. This is why MS went and called the Desktop and called it legacy. Bullshit on both poster counts MS tried to coral every one into their walled garden.

Metro Brings no added functionality over desktop.

Without the modern UI it would be difficult to sell Windows tablets. Here's the thing. You said no one ever asked for a unified UI. But here's something I bet some have asked for. If I can buy a $200 Android tablet, why can't I buy a $200 Windows tablet that runs the same software I need for work or school but also works like an Android tablet or iPad?

Cuss at me at me and hate Windows 8 all you like, put full Windows 8 on good cheap tablets, it's gonna sell. That's were the growth in Windows is going to come from.
 
Speak for yourself, I run an IT department at a major university here in the Seattle metro area. We have a site license for Microsoft WIndows with upgrade protection. We have not deployed ANY windows 8 machines with the exception of my laptop and desktop machines in the department, in addition to a few users who requested 8 because they like the product. My budget was roughly 14 million last year and some change. Is going up this year as well as the economy improves.

Whats your point?

That you proved my point.

You also don't work for an Actual business you work for Educational institution which again is a VERY different beast. Unless your a for profit Education college. You get discounted software and hardware most businesses don't have that advantage.

And yet you haven't deployed windows 8 why? Just as I said Windows 8 for major organization including EDU will not be deployed it any time soon. The only advantage is that EDU has a very different demographic then Businesses. Whats you average age at a Uni/College. Most business I would say 36+ maybe even higher and for senior decision makers they are most likely 44+

14 Million dollar budget is nice but then again I have a good friend that works for a major oil company and their budget is half a billion dollars. Just ms licensing is 5 million a year.

What I was referring to the bulk of H people not the very few that are on these forums.
 
Without the modern UI it would be difficult to sell Windows tablets. Here's the thing. You said no one ever asked for a unified UI. But here's something I bet some have asked for. If I can buy a $200 Android tablet, why can't I buy a $200 Windows tablet that runs the same software I need for work or school but also works like an Android tablet or iPad?

Cuss at me at me and hate Windows 8 all you like, put full Windows 8 on good cheap tablets, it's gonna sell. That's were the growth in Windows is going to come from.


I have failed to see any growth and the 900+ million write off sure as shit is not encouraging sign either. I have yet to come across a 200 dollar windows tablet any where in the retail sector but I have come across a 100 dollar android tablet.
Why you will never see a 200 dollar tablet that runs windows is simple MS charges for its os and google doesn't where do you think OEMs are going to go?

You also miss the point these days with SaaS you don't need a windows tablet to get benefits of Office or other MS products.


I didn't cuss either. I just think you are seriously have an overly obtuse outlook on MS strategy just as MS has.
 
Without the modern UI it would be difficult to sell Windows tablets. Here's the thing. You said no one ever asked for a unified UI. But here's something I bet some have asked for. If I can buy a $200 Android tablet, why can't I buy a $200 Windows tablet that runs the same software I need for work or school but also works like an Android tablet or iPad?

If the problem was the UI then why have Windows 8 tablets not been successful?

I would argue that the issues with Windows tablet products have always been high cost and poor performance, not really the UI. The hybrid UI stuff is just marketing. On my MSI Windpad the Classic Shell start menu (configured as I showed earlier in the thread) is perfect as a touch launcher. There's plenty of space to pin all your major apps to the taskbar and main start menu. If I needed more space for lots of apps I'd use an app called SevenStacks to create an additional touch-friendly flyout launcher on the taskbar or start menu. I never use modern UI.

There was no need to reinvent the start menu. I have no problem with including a touch interface like Modern UI, but it should be accessible from the start button and/or pinned to the taskbar, it cannot replace the start menu in a product that will be used on desktop PCs.

Microsoft should have known from the netbook craze that the market for tablets was $300-and-under toys, not $700+ business systems. Cheap Android devices ate the cheap market while hybrid ultrabooks are usually the better choice on the high end. They also should have learned from what happened to OS2. Why write native OS2 apps when it can run Windows apps and native OS2 apps are harder to write? Why write ModernUI apps when you can just write regular windows apps and nobody uses Windows RT?

They should have just made Windows Phone OS the standard touch OS and given x86 desktop Windows an emulator rather than trying to create a 'Modern' API for both Windows and Windows RT.
 
Why you will never see a 200 dollar tablet that runs windows is simple MS charges for its os and google doesn't where do you think OEMs are going to go?

Amazing how a number of people on this forum have purchased that which you said we'll never see. The Dell Venue 8 Pro has been popping a lot of places for $200 and has been selling on average well below its $299 MSRP.
 
I have failed to see any growth and the 900+ million write off sure as shit is not encouraging sign either. I have yet to come across a 200 dollar windows tablet any where in the retail sector but I have come across a 100 dollar android tablet.
Why you will never see a 200 dollar tablet that runs windows is simple MS charges for its os and google doesn't where do you think OEMs are going to go?

You also miss the point these days with SaaS you don't need a windows tablet to get benefits of Office or other MS products.


I didn't cuss either. I just think you are seriously have an overly obtuse outlook on MS strategy just as MS has.

The write-off was for the Surface tablets only. The x86 tablets are at least doing well enough where they don't need a write-off.

The Dell Venue 8 Pro, while not $200, is close at $300. It's already being offered at $270 at Office Max. TigerDirect is selling it at $230. Once it reaches maturity in the product life-cycle, it will drop down even lower. Amazon reviews on the Dell Venue 8 Pro are generally good, so writing off Microsoft's strategy as failed at this point in time is fairly premature.

What has failed as far as Microsoft tablet strategy goes is the RT brand. The 8/8.1 hasn't, at least not yet.
 
I would argue that the issues with Windows tablet products have always been high cost and poor performance, not really the UI.

I would agree that this has been a major problem but this situation has improved significantly with these new Bay Trail devices. And it looks like Intel is going to push hard with increasing Atom performance. If you check out YouTube there are a lot of videos of these Bay Trail devices running well a lot of desktop software, even games at lower settings that was never possible on the Atom before.
 
The Dell Venue 8 Pro, while not $200, is close at $300. It's already being offered at $270 at Office Max. TigerDirect is selling it at $230.

Just to be clear, The Venue 8 Pro has been on sale a number of places for $200. The average price for the 32 GB model seems to be around $270 at places like Walmart and Amazon though as you point out there are places that have it for less on a routine basis.

The bottom line is that low end Windows tablets are about half the cost and twice as fast as last year. So regardless of what one thinks think of Windows 8, common sense just says that they should sell better under these conditions. Really, if these things start coming out in numbers from OEMs and continue to improve as the Atom gets better at the $200 to $250 range, why wouldn't they sell well? It just becomes a simple matter of economics at some point.
 
MS didn't finally realize anything, they just gave up if this is the case (not saying it is because the article is not conclusive in anyway). Not sure how many times it needs to be said before people get it. The point of forcing metro in your face was to try to kick start app development. If people could easily make it go away right from the start no one would bother writing an app for metro knowing some percent of windows 8 users would never see it. At least that was the thinking at MS.
 
I have failed to see any growth and the 900+ million write off sure as shit is not encouraging sign either. I have yet to come across a 200 dollar windows tablet any where in the retail sector but I have come across a 100 dollar android tablet.
Why you will never see a 200 dollar tablet that runs windows is simple MS charges for its os and google doesn't where do you think OEMs are going to go?

You also miss the point these days with SaaS you don't need a windows tablet to get benefits of Office or other MS products.


I didn't cuss either. I just think you are seriously have an overly obtuse outlook on MS strategy just as MS has.

Its funny how Google is using the tactics of yesteryear to beat the company that used those same tactics yesteryear.

Microsoft practically gave DOS and Windows away in the early days to build share and build a base.

Google is doing the same now and trends are hard to ignore.

Truthfully the recent sale @ MicrosoftStore proves it though, if you can get me a full blown Windows tablet for a good price, I'd probably buy it, IF I was in the market for a tablet. I'm not though, and I don't see that changing. But if MS wants to compete, it has to bring the price down, the Surface is cool, but its too expensive compared to the Android variants.
 
Hmm yeah sure it was there to enhance my ass. This is why MS went and called the Desktop and called it legacy. Bullshit on both poster counts MS tried to coral every one into their walled garden.

Then why didn't Microsoft migrate their own software to the modern UI? Look at Microsoft's documentation for the APIs. Look at the white papers. It's clear that Microsoft has never intended for Win32 to go away.
 
It's kind of pointless to try and combat the sometimes blind hatred. If anyone has taken even the slightest look at the history of Windows/MS OS's, the one thing that's glaringly obvious is that backwards compatibility is #1. They go to great lengths to make sure they never break old apps, very much unlike Linux/OSX/any other OS.

This is Windows' biggest strength and biggest weakness. It allows the haters to constantly complain how Windows never evolves, yet MS can't just throw out the existing code and start from scratch and say a big 'screw you' to the millions of legacy apps businesses and people depend on.

Every time they try to change something - Office ribbon, Vista, Win 8, Longhorn - there's a huge outcry and backlash from everyone. This is the cost of being the most dominant OS on the planet and being conservative.

MS isn't like Google/Apple, who have the luxury to cancel whole products and brands overnight and introduce breaking changes and APIs that alienate users for months. Windows runs everywhere on nearly everything, its not just a bunch of websites or a locked market which they can force to upgrade.
 
This is different as the market is changing. The most dominant OS is shifting. Keep your head in the sand and time will pass you buy. You can't shove "your version" of the future down people's throats because of a monopoly anymore. People aren't biting.
 
Last edited:
It's kind of pointless to try and combat the sometimes blind hatred. If anyone has taken even the slightest look at the history of Windows/MS OS's, the one thing that's glaringly obvious is that backwards compatibility is #1. They go to great lengths to make sure they never break old apps, very much unlike Linux/OSX/any other OS.

This is Windows' biggest strength and biggest weakness. It allows the haters to constantly complain how Windows never evolves, yet MS can't just throw out the existing code and start from scratch and say a big 'screw you' to the millions of legacy apps businesses and people depend on.

Every time they try to change something - Office ribbon, Vista, Win 8, Longhorn - there's a huge outcry and backlash from everyone. This is the cost of being the most dominant OS on the planet and being conservative.

MS isn't like Google/Apple, who have the luxury to cancel whole products and brands overnight and introduce breaking changes and APIs that alienate users for months. Windows runs everywhere on nearly everything, its not just a bunch of websites or a locked market which they can force to upgrade.
Wish someone had told Microsoft that.
 
This is different as the market is changing. The most dominant OS is shifting. Keep your head in the sand and time will pass you buy. You can't shove "your version" of the future down people's throats because of a monopoly anymore.People aren't biting.

Do you even realize how contradictory your statement is?
 
This is different as the market is changing. The most dominant OS is shifting. Keep your head in the sand and time will pass you buy. You can't shove "your version" of the future down people's throats because of a monopoly anymore. People aren't biting.

On the desktop, yes Microsoft can force the issue. Even with the all of the controversy over Windows 8, no other non-Windows OS gained any ground. The desktop war is over, Microsoft won, now the battle is in mobile where obviously Microsoft is well behind.

With totally ineffective competition on the desktop, it does make sense for Microsoft to leverage the desktop for mobile traction. Sure that's ticked off some folks and sure it's slowed Windows 8's adoption but the desktop OS benefits from this the most is also called Windows.

We'll see how this holiday goes for 8.1. I think 2014 does hold a lot of promise for 8.1 in that there's finally pretty cheap full Windows 8 tablets and hybrids and they seem to be popular and ironically one reason they are is because they run desktop applications. I don't believe the ultimate success of Windows 8 and its hybrids successors was really ever going to be about conventional desktops and laptops. There's really no way for Microsoft to sell more copies of Windows in a market it thoroughly dominates that is also shrinking in new sales. The best chance for Windows growth are devices that can do everything, desktop to tablet and everything in between that around the same or less as an Android tablet, Chromebook or iPad. Buy one device, to everything. I don't see how the Start Menu is more compelling long term than that proposition.
 
Do you even realize how contradictory your statement is?

Yeah, it does somewhat sound that way with the "head in the sand part". What I meant was they tried "their" vision of the future with Windows 8 fits all, which clearly isn't working, especially on the desktop front. Yet they seem content to ride that train into the side of a mountain, i.e., "keep their head in the sand". Only now are they begrudgingly starting to change. Hope that clears it up a bit.
 
If someone doesn't like a change that you did to your product, but you are invested in said change, what would you do? You would obviously try to find some middle ground first. Once that option doesn't work, then you revert back. Same thing that is happening here.
 
We'll see how this holiday goes for 8.1. I think 2014 does hold a lot of promise for 8.1 in that there's finally pretty cheap full Windows 8 tablets and hybrids and they seem to be popular and ironically one reason they are is because they run desktop applications. I don't believe the ultimate success of Windows 8 and its hybrids successors was really ever going to be about conventional desktops and laptops. There's really no way for Microsoft to sell more copies of Windows in a market it thoroughly dominates that is also shrinking in new sales. The best chance for Windows growth are devices that can do everything, desktop to tablet and everything in between that around the same or less as an Android tablet, Chromebook or iPad. Buy one device, to everything. I don't see how the Start Menu is more compelling long term than that proposition.

This is what gets me. There is a lot of promise in future products - tablets, touch screens. However, with current hardware and older hardware, they are given the finger? It wasn't so much an easy transition. It's a throw it in there and see what happens (more for the Windows Store to gain ground). If it were an option from day 1 (during install given a choice and have it in the control panel to switch it), it would have been better. Tablets, touchscreens and some desktops would have Modern UI as it's perfect on those. The other desktops and non-touch laptops would have the standard desktop.

The change is good, but it's like putting Windows on a machine without a mouse. It's hard to use. Give them the choice and let the hardware model catch up. Then, make the complete switch over. Like from DOS to Windows to finally full Windows not on top of DOS. In 5 years, most Windows devices will better with Modern UI. But, right now, it's the painful part.
 
If someone doesn't like a change that you did to your product, but you are invested in said change, what would you do? You would obviously try to find some middle ground first. Once that option doesn't work, then you revert back. Same thing that is happening here.

Good, so we agree then...

And just a PS: I would not have done such drastic changes in the first place. But hindsight is 20/20 I guess...
 
Its funny how Google is using the tactics of yesteryear to beat the company that used those same tactics yesteryear.

Microsoft practically gave DOS and Windows away in the early days to build share and build a base.

Google is doing the same now and trends are hard to ignore.

Truthfully the recent sale @ MicrosoftStore proves it though, if you can get me a full blown Windows tablet for a good price, I'd probably buy it, IF I was in the market for a tablet. I'm not though, and I don't see that changing. But if MS wants to compete, it has to bring the price down, the Surface is cool, but its too expensive compared to the Android variants.

Yeah I find that very Ironic. How many countless companies were put out of business by Microsoft "Free" versions. Now they are getting killed by the same strategy.

Microsoft Cloud is sure as shit not helping them either with SMB.
 
honestly the start menu is a really powerful button, that pretty much gives you quick access to your hole computer with out taking up your whole screen... Also i installed a mod on my Windows 8.1, i cant even figure out how to see metro.....
 
This is what gets me. There is a lot of promise in future products - tablets, touch screens. However, with current hardware and older hardware, they are given the finger? It wasn't so much an easy transition. It's a throw it in there and see what happens (more for the Windows Store to gain ground). If it were an option from day 1 (during install given a choice and have it in the control panel to switch it), it would have been better. Tablets, touchscreens and some desktops would have Modern UI as it's perfect on those. The other desktops and non-touch laptops would have the standard desktop.

The change is good, but it's like putting Windows on a machine without a mouse. It's hard to use. Give them the choice and let the hardware model catch up. Then, make the complete switch over. Like from DOS to Windows to finally full Windows not on top of DOS. In 5 years, most Windows devices will better with Modern UI. But, right now, it's the painful part.

I understand the point but one thing about the vast majority of Windows machines, even in business, they tend not to get upgraded much during their life of service. What came with the machine is what typically stays there.

Secondly, I suspect that there's a lot more touch hardware being sold these days. Last year in a place like Walmart, almost none of the laptops had touch. This year it's the opposite, almost all do, Wally World even sells Windows tablets now. Hardware was always a big part of it, and much like Windows 8, the hardware was on the incomplete side. I've said from day one that Windows 8 adoption would be slow and that we really wouldn't be able to judge it well until the right hardware at the right prices started coming online and that's just now started to happen.

The way I figured it is if good cheap tablets and hybrids and touch devices couldn't sell Windows 8, I don't think a Start Menu would offer much hope either.
 
honestly the start menu is a really powerful button, that pretty much gives you quick access to your hole computer with out taking up your whole screen... Also i installed a mod on my Windows 8.1, i cant even figure out how to see metro.....

There's really nothing that powerful about the Start Menu, just it's a list of static links that exposes the Start Menu directory with a local search box. Not saying that's a bad thing and the minimalism is part of the charm for many.
 
honestly the start menu is a really powerful button, that pretty much gives you quick access to your hole computer with out taking up your whole screen... Also i installed a mod on my Windows 8.1, i cant even figure out how to see metro.....

You simply can't make a Heroin addict and make them cold turkey can you.

Simple fact is that Start Button and Menu is like a Heroin to majority of users. You can't undo 15+ years of social engineering and conditioning. Bulk of Users are those users that have been indoctrinated to this particular "Iconic" (No Pun intended) Feature are the ones that are rebelling. Sure enthusiasts and younger users are more willing to change but "old dogs" not so much.

I still don't understand why MS found this so difficult to comprehend.
 
Back
Top