Why Windows Needs A Start Menu

[heatlesssun]

No gestures.
No powersave features like turning off wifi that the OS overrides and turns back on anyways.
A true desktop mode.

Gestures are NOT UNIQUE to Windows 8.x. Track pads forever have for years supported at least some gesturing before 8. If there was an issue with power saving with your WiFi that's more likely an issue with the driver than Windows. And yes, 8.x has a true desktop mode that runs windowed desktop apps as always.

Again, and this is the important part, if you don't like Windows 8 then you don't like it. But it's these kinds of criticisms that just aren't that useful because they really aren't problems nor even anything new.

No charms bar popping up every time I try to scroll down a web page.
Is that too much to ask of an OS?
I'm guessing MS thinks it is.

This criticism is legitimate as there's no way to in the box to disable the bottom right hot corner. So the charms bar can pop up when hitting the corner. That said, scrolling is usually done with a wheel or even a track pad gesture.

No Duplex blocks GUI. Grant it, it still looks a bit more childish looking than 7 but it doesn't look like it was designed for a 3 year old.

Tiles are technically superior to static bitmapped icons. While it's perfectly reasonable to not care for how the Start Screen and tiles have been implemented and to have a preference, it's not exactly forward thinking to believe that static icons that were designed in an era when computers were far less powerful are just always going to be the way things are. If people want the option for a Start Menu, fine. But it should a Start Menu based on the technically superior tiles rather than static icons.

 

[Red Falcon]

My whole point that went over the 8 marketing team's head here was had it been an option, had it been something detected and adjusted, there would NOT have been a problem, there would have been no uproar, there would have been no hate.
Instead, as an end user, I have to hear how its my fault MS f#cked it up and I didn't like what was done.
I do use Ubuntu on what was an 8 laptop, and it runs well and does what I want without the annoyances 8 brought. Steam is officially supported on it, and that's all I need.
I still run 7 on my gaming rig. It works, I'm familiar with it.

Well, it's not your fault, and saying "Microsoft should have given us options or choices" is exactly what I have been saying.
I'm hoping they fix this with Windows 9.

But, if not, there are a plethora of other OSes to pick from.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

But, if not, there are a plethora of better OSes to pick from.

I made it more accurate.

 

[heatlesssun]

Instead, as an end user, I have to hear how its my fault MS f#cked it up and I didn't like what was done.

No. But not everything you're pointing out adds up or is indeed not even true anymore in 8.1 Update 1. So if MS screwed up and then fixed it I don't see what the point is in continuing on with something that was acknowledged as a problem and then corrected.

 

[mope54]

My first install of Windows 8, a rc, did nothing but push television, movies and music at every turn. 'Sorry, we can't run that video but look at this Batman movie you can buy' was my first experience.

Live Tiles are neat but the only thing keeping ads out of them was a Microsoft App Store rule. Something they could change in a heartbeat.

I never saw anything like that

 

[Red Falcon]

I made it more accurate.

LOL!
You know, as much as I love Linux, there are a few things that haven't really been perfected on it yet.

Video editing is one of the big ones, and I wouldn't even attempt one of the serious programs like Adobe Premiere in WINE.
There are some things, unfortunately, that either Windows or OS X are still needed for.

In terms of general purpose, yes, Linux has improved leaps and bounds over what it was just a few years ago.
For HPC and specialized/dedicated purposes, Linux is by far the best, with UNIX coming in a close second.

Windows and OS X still reign supreme in terms of general purpose and all around usage, though.
But you know something? I tend to like Linux where it's at right now.

If it were completely mainstream and corporatized, I'm sure it would have tons of built-in ads and other awful bloat like DRM and copyright and other nonsense designed to give the mega-corps every ounce of $$$ they can get out of it.
Just look how bad Ubuntu is now that Canonical tried to make it "mainstream"; the front-end AND back-end both suck!

Linux is right now what Windows was back in the mid-80's to the mid-90's, the rebel!
But, I'm sure in another decade, Linux will be what Windows is right now, and we will eventually have to go back to UNIX/BSD OSes; a dark, dark future awaits us...

 

[Max9R]

Wow this has been a fun read, might as well throw in my 2 bits...

I'm running Windows 8.1 Pro on three of my PC's. I ran them all in their full Metro glory for some time to give the good old collage try. After a few months I found I was getting a long fine with it. At that point I switched to using Startisback just to see if I would miss Metro on my main workstation. I figured if I missed it, it must be good right? Well here I am months later still using SIB and I've now converted my other two to SIB as well.

For me it comes down to this. I do work on my PC's. Most every app I use runs on the desktop and was pinned there anyway. For the odd occasion I wanted something else I'd be flipped over to Metro, only to be returned to the desktop. So what's the point of Metro I found myself asking. The whole experience using Metro to me always felt disjointed and not well thought out for use on a workstation PC (who the hell wants finger prints all over their monitor anyway??? I hate that!). It just seemed like MS said well we need to have Metro on the PC because it's on our tablets.... Well no, I just don't see it that way. My point is Metro doesn't add anything to the PC experience, sure its usable, and even has some visual appeal to some people, but as a functional PC desktop it's pointless IMHO and brings nothing to the table for me.

Unfortunately even in a SIB world, or Classic Shell world for that matter, you still get plagued with dumb stuff. For instance I connect to multiple different VPN's around the world for work. In Windows 7, you simply click on your network icon and select the VPN you want to connect to from a nice little popup window that appears right beside your mouse. In Windows 8 you do the same thing, and the slide out bar (that consumes a 1/6 of your screen) is 30"s away on the other side of my monitor up near the top. (note I run my task bar down the left side of my screen so my network icon is in the lower left corner). This is just pointless. In desktop mode, act like a desktop, instead of acting half pregnant. Somethings you can get in a desktop based window experience, but others you're forced into the full screen app crap that isn't productive when you just want to make a quick change.

Anyway, I'm used to it now, but I do hope that whatever they do with Windows 9 it's at least consistent based on the experience you choose.

A side note, I also work for a large corporation with over 50K employees. Windows 8.1 failed our pilot tests miserably. Users were screaming about Metro, it was widely hated by most all of the 1000 lucky testers by the time the pilot was over. Shortly thereafter it was announced by our IT team we will not be "upgrading" our corporate laptops/desktops to Windows 8.x ever. hehe... Whew... good times...

Bottom line, I'm happy with 8.1 with or without SIB/Classic Shell. The OS feels faster than it's 7 counterpart, over it's very stable. That said, I definitely like it more with my normal start menu. LOL...

 

[mlcarson]

I agree that is the type of research they did. I for one liked the 2003 Office product menus -- I still occasionally use Office 2003 but have mostly moved on to Softmaker Office. It doesn't insist on throwing that damn ribbon in my face.

I also like the Windows 7 start menu. I actually preferred the UI from Windows 2000 but adapted to the Win7 way of doing things. I thought the XP default UI looked like something that they purchased from Fisher Price so always changed the XP look to "windows classic style". All Windows 8 had to do to be successful was to make a "windows7 classic" alternative style but they had to go off the reservation and force the Win8 abomination of a UI that tried to take the windows out of Windows with Metro.

The thing that I always liked about Windows was that I could do almost everything with the mouse without having to touch the keyboard. Microsoft seems to be moving away from this paradigm for some reason. Maybe it's Linux envy or something but in my opinion they've need to get back to their roots and are moving in the wrong direction.

They did LOTS of end user research and made some design decisions. Same type of research that saved office from its 2003 menu hell into the ribbon that has proved far more useful. As time has gone on and the idea has fleshed out.

 

[Reimu]

I bet there must be ways to disable charm altogether in desktop mode.
Max9R, have you deployed Windows 8 onto tablet convertibles at your workplace? This is one area where having Metro is not a detriment imo.

 

[Draxanoth]

For me it comes down to this. I do work on my PC's. Most every app I use runs on the desktop and was pinned there anyway. For the odd occasion I wanted something else I'd be flipped over to Metro, only to be returned to the desktop. So what's the point of Metro I found myself asking. The whole experience using Metro to me always felt disjointed and not well thought out for use on a workstation PC (who the hell wants finger prints all over their monitor anyway??? I hate that!). It just seemed like MS said well we need to have Metro on the PC because it's on our tablets....

Nobody with a desk workstation should use a touchscreen, the ergonomics are awful.

I know the cheerleaders keep telling us it "has all the same functions" of the start menu, but I still haven't heard any actual reasons as to how the start screen is an improvement. They came armed with that "analysis" that was supposedly going to "prove" it was a revolutionary design, but all it amounted to was some ridiculous claims that people were perplexed by things such as uninstall icons, and the Metro screen has saved us from such perils.

Metro is an eyesore. If I wanted a desktop littered in icons for the blind I could have done that in Windows 7, Microsoft didn't have to make me a second screen with essentially the same function using tiles. I don't want full screen menus, no sane person wants full screen menus, and that's exactly what Metro is. The Start menu was a secondary launchpad to keep things out of the way, making it easy to launch/search/etc without breaking workflow, and it was good at it. They keep telling us it was a terrible design because it had an all programs button on it... but so does the damn start screen. And the current state of redirected start menus makes me want to lay siege to the Micro$oft HQ. Anyone with an enterprise network knows what a farce network managed start screens are.

I gave it a few months myself and was wholly unimpressed. I'm glad I know how to help people with it, but I would never encourage anyone to use it outside the tablet/phone arena. It's very sad they didn't just include multiple options because the back end is great, but even with the 3rd party start screen removers you can't totally escape the "surprise! metro is here!" crap that likes to get in the way periodically.

Dear Microsoft, my workstation is not a media center, stop trying to make it look like one.

 

[Flogger23m]

Nobody with a desk workstation should use a touchscreen, the ergonomics are awful.

I know the cheerleaders keep telling us it "has all the same functions" of the start menu, but I still haven't heard any actual reasons as to how the start screen is an improvement. They came armed with that "analysis" that was supposedly going to "prove" it was a revolutionary design, but all it amounted to was some ridiculous claims that people were perplexed by things such as uninstall icons, and the Metro screen has saved us from such perils.

Metro is an eyesore. If I wanted a desktop littered in icons for the blind I could have done that in Windows 7, Microsoft didn't have to make me a second screen with essentially the same function using tiles. I don't want full screen menus, no sane person wants full screen menus, and that's exactly what Metro is. The Start menu was a secondary launchpad to keep things out of the way, making it easy to launch/search/etc without breaking workflow, and it was good at it. They keep telling us it was a terrible design because it had an all programs button on it... but so does the damn start screen. And the current state of redirected start menus makes me want to lay siege to the Micro$oft HQ. Anyone with an enterprise network knows what a farce network managed start screens are.

I gave it a few months myself and was wholly unimpressed. I'm glad I know how to help people with it, but I would never encourage anyone to use it outside the tablet/phone arena. It's very sad they didn't just include multiple options because the back end is great, but even with the 3rd party start screen removers you can't totally escape the "surprise! metro is here!" crap that likes to get in the way periodically.

Dear Microsoft, my workstation is not a media center, stop trying to make it look like one.

Lets not forget, you can not create or copy/paste files onto the Star Screen. Such a massive step back it is incomprehensible.

 

[ManofGod]

Nobody with a desk workstation should use a touchscreen, the ergonomics are awful.

I know the cheerleaders keep telling us it "has all the same functions" of the start menu, but I still haven't heard any actual reasons as to how the start screen is an improvement. They came armed with that "analysis" that was supposedly going to "prove" it was a revolutionary design, but all it amounted to was some ridiculous claims that people were perplexed by things such as uninstall icons, and the Metro screen has saved us from such perils.

Metro is an eyesore. If I wanted a desktop littered in icons for the blind I could have done that in Windows 7, Microsoft didn't have to make me a second screen with essentially the same function using tiles. I don't want full screen menus, no sane person wants full screen menus, and that's exactly what Metro is. The Start menu was a secondary launchpad to keep things out of the way, making it easy to launch/search/etc without breaking workflow, and it was good at it. They keep telling us it was a terrible design because it had an all programs button on it... but so does the damn start screen. And the current state of redirected start menus makes me want to lay siege to the Micro$oft HQ. Anyone with an enterprise network knows what a farce network managed start screens are.

I gave it a few months myself and was wholly unimpressed. I'm glad I know how to help people with it, but I would never encourage anyone to use it outside the tablet/phone arena. It's very sad they didn't just include multiple options because the back end is great, but even with the 3rd party start screen removers you can't totally escape the "surprise! metro is here!" crap that likes to get in the way periodically.

Dear Microsoft, my workstation is not a media center, stop trying to make it look like one.

Exactly what we mean by unreasonable and overblown arguments. So I guess I am insane but I do not seem to have issues of lacking self control.

 

[Blown 89]

Navigating with a mouse is far slower than hitting the windows key on your keyboard, and typing just a few letters of the application you want to launch, then hitting enter to launch it. You never even need to remove your hands from the keyboard to the mouse.

Navigating the start menu/programs is a giant pain in the ass, especially if you have lots of programs installed. I don't want to sift through all of my installed applications to find the one I want to launch; I just want to launch it. The start menu was more and more deprecated, and the summary of users usage of it showed that. MS was just really dumb with how they decided to get rid of it, and not help the user out at all with the new interface.

It honestly seems like the people who continue to complain about windows 8 UI are the people who (a) are regurgitating early reviews prior to significant improvements and changes, (b) the people who only tried windows 8 once, or (c) the people who have never tried it. Most of the 'complaints' about it are things that have been entirely addressed by MS up through the latest version.

And the moron in this main article clearly does not know how to properly use windows 8. If you want to launch photoshop, you don't need to go to the start screen and then start flicking through your programs. Hit the start button, type "Photo" and the application will be either the only one in the list--in which case you just hit enter, or one of a few results, in which case you hit the down button and then enter. Visually navigating through an icon or menu list is archaic at this point, bordering on draconian.

Agreed. The metro screen can hold 84 app tiles. That more than covers every program I need and is much easier to access than some tiny little subwindow in the bottom left corner. Outside of what is a superficial change nothing has changed. The desktop is still the desktop and I can still navigate faster with the keyboard commands that nobody bothers to use. Speaking of Photoshop, it's pinned to my taskbar just like it was in Windows 7.

I hated Windows 8 when I first installed it a month ago but after a few days I got the hang of it and it's been smooth sailing since. The things people don't like are superficial, everything they complain about works exactly the same way functionally. I've had problems with the app store self destructing with certain programs installed (an old version of CorelDraw I use for work), and the insistence of a few of my major programs working out of a stripped down app interface.

 

[Quix]

I run Windows 8.1, I no longer even notice the lack of start menu. They can bring it back, I don't care either way.

What I do hate is when IT outsourcers install 3rd-party start menu replacements on terminal servers (that I have to access at work all the time) because none of them are designed to run in a multi-user environment and run per-user hogging resources and running slowly. Classic Shell is the worst because half the time trying to open the start menu freezes Windows Explorer. Damn annoying.

 

[DPI]

So what's the point of Metro I found myself asking. The whole experience using Metro to me always felt disjointed and not well thought out for use on a workstation PC? It just seemed like MS said well we need to have Metro on the PC because it's on our tablets.... Well no, I just don't see it that way. My point is Metro doesn't add anything to the PC experience, sure its usable, and even has some visual appeal to some people, but as a functional PC desktop it's pointless IMHO and brings nothing to the table for me.

 

[xpclient]

I run Windows 8.1, I no longer even notice the lack of start menu. They can bring it back, I don't care either way.

What I do hate is when IT outsourcers install 3rd-party start menu replacements on terminal servers (that I have to access at work all the time) because none of them are designed to run in a multi-user environment and run per-user hogging resources and running slowly. Classic Shell is the worst because half the time trying to open the start menu freezes Windows Explorer. Damn annoying.

Classic Shell is designed to work in a multi-user environment. I use it all the time without issues on Server 2012 R2 Terminal Server. If you have Explorer slowdown/freezing issues, you could capture a slowdown dump using procdump.exe as instructed here: http://www.classicshell.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6 and help them fix the slowdown/freeze. The developer is open to bug reporting and fixing them very fast.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

So what's the point of Metro I found myself asking. The whole experience using Metro to me always felt disjointed and not well thought out for use on a workstation PC? It just seemed like MS said well we need to have Metro on the PC because it's on our tablets.... Well no, I just don't see it that way. My point is Metro doesn't add anything to the PC experience, sure its usable, and even has some visual appeal to some people, but as a functional PC desktop it's pointless IMHO and brings nothing to the table for me.

The only rational justification I can see for ignoring all the warning signs and complaints is that Microsoft thought that forcing metro would get their app store going. They'd love to appify the desktop and skim free money off of sales.

It could just be groupthink though.

 

[Ranulfo]

Its a touch screen UI. Its a desktop UI. Its a hybrid! So its eco-friendly too!

Its so hybrid that it took a major patch/service pack to allow you to boot into desktop mode. So hybrid it auto assumed you wanted it to act like a tablet with full screen apps. Welcome to MS Window 8. Its modern. Then there is RT. Windows 8 is so hybrid MS brings out RT for tablets that can't run Win8. That lasts 1.5 years till tablet hardware catches up.

All MS had to do was offer actual hybrid UI design, offering users choice and most of the complaints would melt away.

 

[Ranulfo]

Regarding ads in win8, usually it seems to be ads for MS products in apps like the weather one.

http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/microsoft-cheapens-windows-8-ads

 

[Serpent]

They did LOTS of end user research and made some design decisions. Same type of research that saved office from its 2003 menu hell into the ribbon that has proved far more useful. As time has gone on and the idea has fleshed out.

And they thought it was a good idea, both times to completely remove the old way with a new way, with no transition, or middle ground.

So, they might've done end user research, but they clearly didn't ask what they needed to, or they didn't listen. If they did, then people wouldn't be bitching. Metro looks like a great idea (horrid colors though) for a touchscreen device but not so much for a mouse input system, esp where people want to see their screen, and not have it covered when trying to do anything else.

 

[c3141hf]

LOL!
You know, as much as I love Linux, there are a few things that haven't really been perfected on it yet.

Video editing is one of the big ones, and I wouldn't even attempt one of the serious programs like Adobe Premiere in WINE.
There are some things, unfortunately, that either Windows or OS X are still needed for.

In terms of general purpose, yes, Linux has improved leaps and bounds over what it was just a few years ago.
For HPC and specialized/dedicated purposes, Linux is by far the best, with UNIX coming in a close second.

Windows and OS X still reign supreme in terms of general purpose and all around usage, though.
But you know something? I tend to like Linux where it's at right now.

If it were completely mainstream and corporatized, I'm sure it would have tons of built-in ads and other awful bloat like DRM and copyright and other nonsense designed to give the mega-corps every ounce of $$$ they can get out of it.
Just look how bad Ubuntu is now that Canonical tried to make it "mainstream"; the front-end AND back-end both suck!

Linux is right now what Windows was back in the mid-80's to the mid-90's, the rebel!
But, I'm sure in another decade, Linux will be what Windows is right now, and we will eventually have to go back to UNIX/BSD OSes; a dark, dark future awaits us...

http://www.lwks.com/

 

[pxc]

LOL, one OS to rule them all. http://arstechnica.com/information-...operating-system-aint-new-and-wont-be-one-os/

 

[PornoSatan]

Windows 8 is a great example of human adaptation, for better or worse. No matter what situation someone is put in, they end up adapting to it. In this case, people are given an inferior desktop UI that was only designed to seize market share on a completely different device (phones, tablets), but even then, are beginning to "warm up" to it.

This little plan of MS's woulda been alot better if they actually did have any impact on the other devices, but that didn't really happen.

Now what is everyone stuck with? A POS GUI that's only saving grace is the ability to right click the bottom left of the screen to bring up a useful context menu. Can you imagine if that wasn't there?

And now everyone is already talking about Windows 9. Hahaha

 

[VladDracule]

Windows 8 is a great example of human adaptation, for better or worse. No matter what situation someone is put in, they end up adapting to it. In this case, people are given an inferior desktop UI that was only designed to seize market share on a completely different device (phones, tablets), but even then, are beginning to "warm up" to it.

This little plan of MS's woulda been alot better if they actually did have any impact on the other devices, but that didn't really happen.

Now what is everyone stuck with? A POS GUI that's only saving grace is the ability to right click the bottom left of the screen to bring up a useful context menu. Can you imagine if that wasn't there?

And now everyone is already talking about Windows 9. Hahaha

Your right! Screw all of us on desktops who legimately have no issues with metro. And im still waiting for any one single person to prove to me how the start menu is faster than searching in ANY OS Win 7 or Win 8. Start screen is archaic and should have been removed a long time ago.

 

[TwiceOver]

I originally hated Win8. Now after plenty of time with it, I don't really have any problem with it. The positives far outweigh the negatives.

I do still have problems finding some settings from time to time though.

 

[PornoSatan]

Your right! Screw all of us on desktops who legimately have no issues with metro. And im still waiting for any one single person to prove to me how the start menu is faster than searching in ANY OS Win 7 or Win 8. Start screen is archaic and should have been removed a long time ago.

So now that our GUI's are just used to type on, does that mean our command lines will now have all clicking elements?

Start screen is terrible, and the ribbon sucks

 

[VladDracule]

So now that our GUI's are just used to type on, does that mean our command lines will now have all clicking elements?

Start screen is terrible, and the ribbon sucks

Then dont use the start screen. You can boot to desktop. On your desktop you can pin folders with short cuts and you have your start screen functionality back 100%.

Have you spent the time customizing your start screen? Or customizing your desktop and quicklaunch bar the same way you do in windows 7? Its no freaking different. Start screen, as ive said, is insanely slow. Navigating through folder structures always has been and always will be slower than typing in a command/search phrase

 

[PornoSatan]

Your right! Screw all of us on desktops who legimately have no issues with metro. And im still waiting for any one single person to prove to me how the start menu is faster than searching in ANY OS Win 7 or Win 8. Start screen is archaic and should have been removed a long time ago.

Ok, I just installed 30 random applications on your Windows 8 box. Without looking at the Programs and Features uninstall list (which every version of Windows has, ie add/remove), how would you normally see them? Your shitty little search is completely out the window because you don't know what's installed. What are you going to do, go to your start screen and go to all applications? What a complete piece of garbage that is, atleast on a desktop. Total joke. Oh hey look, if you were using anything other than Windows 8 you would see them all neatly put in and highlighted on the start menu.

Yes, I run Windows 8.1 too, but I still have the honestly to call it like it is.

By the way, I'm still waiting for one single person to tell me why letting people choose either one is a bad thing. Oh right, because we know which one everyone would choose.

 

[VladDracule]

Ok, I just installed 30 random applications on your Windows 8 box. Without looking at the Programs and Features uninstall list (which every version of Windows has, ie add/remove), how would you normally see them? Your shitty little search is completely out the window because you don't know what's installed. What are you going to do, go to your start screen and go to all applications? What a complete piece of garbage that is, atleast on a desktop. Total joke. Oh hey look, if you were using anything other than Windows 8 you would see them all neatly put in and highlighted on the start menu.

Yes, I run Windows 8.1 too, but I still have the honestly to call it like it is.

By the way, I'm still waiting for one single person to tell me why letting people choose either one is a bad thing. Oh right, because we know which one everyone would choose.

Sounds like someone didnt check the create desktop shortcut box on the installation process.

 

[VladDracule]

Sounds like someone didnt check the create desktop shortcut box on the installation process.

Not to mention the fact that it only adds it to the start screen in win 7 if you check that box. Lets find more bogus crap to make up shall we?

 

[Red Falcon]

This is the problem with both sides of the argument.

VladDracule: Microsoft should have given us choices rather than forcing the Modern UI on everyone with every platform; many individuals just don't like it.

PornoSatan: Just install Classic Shell, or some other 3rd party GUI customizer, and get over it.


Windows 8 isn't a bad OS by any means, but I believe the lack of built-in, out of the box GUI options was the biggest flaw it had.
...and it by no means is a repeat of Windows ME or Vista.

 

[PornoSatan]

This is the problem with both sides of the argument.

VladDracule: Microsoft should have given us choices rather than forcing the Modern UI on everyone with every platform; many individuals just don't like it.

PornoSatan: Just install Classic Shell, or some other 3rd party GUI customizer, and get over it.


Windows 8 isn't a bad OS by any means, but I believe the lack of built-in, out of the box GUI options was the biggest flaw it had.
...and it by no means is a repeat of Windows ME or Vista.

This is my first time participating in a Windows 8 thread in a while, i'm already over it all, just stating my opinions. Also, there's something kinda offensive about having to immediately install a 3rd party app in order to restore a (what everyone woulda thought) basic functionality. As a result, for me and other people's benefit i've learned to work with the default gui.

Not a fan of it, but yeah. Human adaptation, for better or worse.

 

[VladDracule]

This is my first time participating in a Windows 8 thread in a while, i'm already over it all, just stating my opinions. Also, there's something kinda offensive about having to immediately install a 3rd party app in order to restore a (what everyone woulda thought) basic functionality. As a result, for me and other people's benefit i've learned to work with the default gui.

Not a fan of it, but yeah. Human adaptation, for better or worse.

If you want the best possible/fastest solution for launching you use a third party app not matter what OS your using. Try Launchy, once you learn how to use it youll never want to see a start menu again

 

[heatlesssun]

What a complete piece of garbage that is, atleast on a desktop. Total joke. Oh hey look, if you were using anything other than Windows 8 you would see them all neatly put in and highlighted on the start menu.

In the Apps Screen in 8.1 sort by date installed and you get a history in chronological order of everything that's been installed.

 

[PornoSatan]

Ok, so now that I completely trashed Windows 8, I'll say some good things about it.

Hybrid shutdown is nice. Bootup times on even a crappy 30 MB/sec benched old HD was only a few seconds.

Device detection and driver installation is pretty seamless. I took out a drive with Windows 8 that was installed onto an old VIA based motherboard and slapped it into an Intel based motherboard and it booted up without issue. This isn't possible in Windows XP, though it might be possible in 7, haven't bothered to test it.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Is there that much of an issue with keeping an interface that people are used to? Or let me put it this other way, is it really that much of an issue with having the ability to make your own choice about which interface to use rather than having it being thrown in your face "You're going to use this clunky shit now because we did the marketing and the marketing says people like iPads and iPhones and we're going to make our own version of that so you better like it because that's all you're getting"

Got a laptop which unfortunately had Windows 8 on it, I opted for a newer faster processor which unfortunately came with the downside of having Windows 8 on it. One of the first things I did, was find a way to mimic the older interface, via an app or whatever the hell they are calling them... and I did that on my windows 7 desktop. I've been using computers since before computers had GUI, and I genuinely was feeling frustration and anger because I couldn't figure out shit the way it came out of the box, I was thinking did it expect me to touch the screen only? why is there this keyboard attached then?

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Then dont use the start screen. You can boot to desktop. On your desktop you can pin folders with short cuts and you have your start screen functionality back 100%.

Have you spent the time customizing your start screen? Or customizing your desktop and quicklaunch bar the same way you do in windows 7? Its no freaking different. Start screen, as ive said, is insanely slow. Navigating through folder structures always has been and always will be slower than typing in a command/search phrase

You still don't get it and here is why no one is putting a great deal of effort into arguing with you. We already hashed all this shit out years ago, just because you are new to the party doesn't mean we want to bother rehashing it all. There is a search function, or are you adverse to that on a forum?

Why the Start menu is superior in bullet points to keep it simple.

1) It doesn't take up my entire 24" monitor.
2) It is far faster to scroll through to find those rarely used programs and it doesn't take up my entire monitor.
3) I don't want or need to pin every program to my task bar. I only pin the half dozen most frequently used ones.
4) No creating shortcuts on the desktop isn't an option, I'm sorry if you find having 5000 things on your desktop acceptable, I don't. I intensely dislike dealing with computers that every damn thing is on the desktop, it is cluttered and disorganized.
5) If you have more than a dozen programs using the start screen is a nightmare.
6) Searching is Amazing if you know what you are searching for. If you do not then the start menu is far faster at finding that program you use once every 5 months.
7) It Doesn't Take up my Entire 24" Monitor.

Get it yet? Probably not but at least that ends your stupid question you keep trying to insist isn't answered. If you like the Start screen, good for you. I have to juggle dozens of programs and having a cluttered desktop isn't acceptable. Win 8 Completely fails users like me and is why we refuse to adopt it.

 

[Red Falcon]

We already hashed all this shit out years ago, just because you are new to the party doesn't mean we want to bother rehashing it all. There is a search function, or are you adverse to that on a forum?

No, no no no, no!
Do not tell him to use the search function!

What happened in 2012, stays in 2012.
That thread became almost legendary, and we don't need another one like it, or anyone bringing it up for that matter!

In fact, what thread?

 

[VladDracule]

You still don't get it and here is why no one is putting a great deal of effort into arguing with you. We already hashed all this shit out years ago, just because you are new to the party doesn't mean we want to bother rehashing it all. There is a search function, or are you adverse to that on a forum?

Why the Start menu is superior in bullet points to keep it simple.

1) It doesn't take up my entire 24" monitor.
2) It is far faster to scroll through to find those rarely used programs and it doesn't take up my entire monitor.
3) I don't want or need to pin every program to my task bar. I only pin the half dozen most frequently used ones.
4) No creating shortcuts on the desktop isn't an option, I'm sorry if you find having 5000 things on your desktop acceptable, I don't. I intensely dislike dealing with computers that every damn thing is on the desktop, it is cluttered and disorganized.
5) If you have more than a dozen programs using the start screen is a nightmare.
6) Searching is Amazing if you know what you are searching for. If you do not then the start menu is far faster at finding that program you use once every 5 months.
7) It Doesn't Take up my Entire 24" Monitor.

Get it yet? Probably not but at least that ends your stupid question you keep trying to insist isn't answered. If you like the Start screen, good for you. I have to juggle dozens of programs and having a cluttered desktop isn't acceptable. Win 8 Completely fails users like me and is why we refuse to adopt it.

So let me get this straight, windows 8 makes it completely impossible to pin a folder to the task bar, and inside said folders you have a folder structure with shortcuts to the programs you use. This is impossible in win 8 amiright?

Scrolling through a start menu that has a limit as to how much it can display which is significantly less than the start screen cannot in any way shape or form be faster than the start screen. On my desktop right now i use more than a dozen programs on a daily basis, including multiple VM's and every installation of visual studios and other IDEs going back several years due to changes in the pre compiler settings for older software that i have written and still need to maintain.

Nothing youve said is valid, it it is strictly the fact that you dont like the fact that the start screen takes up your entire monitor, completely ignoring the fact that you can customize whats on it making things easier to find so long as you manage what is or is not pinned to it.

 

[Max9R]

I bet there must be ways to disable charm altogether in desktop mode.
Max9R, have you deployed Windows 8 onto tablet convertibles at your workplace? This is one area where having Metro is not a detriment imo.

There may be a way to disable them, I haven't looked into it. It's not a huge deal to me at this point

We actually don't use Surface tablets hehe... Our field techs have either iPads or Samsung Note 10's. They choose based on their preference.