Windows 8 UI is Dropping the ‘Start’ Button

After 15 years..
Click to expand...

Someone needs a lesson how to use a calendar!! How about after 16 years, 5 months, 13 days!!

From and including: Thursday, August 24, 1995
To and including: Sunday, February 5, 2012

It is 6010 days from the start date to the end date, end date included

Alternative time units
6010 days can be converted to one of these units:
519,264,000 seconds
8,654,400 minutes
144,240 hours
858 weeks (rounded down)

Windows-95-Start-Button.png
 
Wait .. they're getting rid of the Start button or the Start Menu? Because the latter is quite important to ease of navigation, infact Windows 7 nailed it pretty good. Why not just have both? The Windows 7 feature should still be there, allow people to toggle between traditional and metrosexual.
 
Ashbringer said:

Windows Vista failures.

#1 Over performance. Nothing was snappy or fast in this OS. The dreaded drag and drop issue was a big one, as files that you copied took far longer to move.
Click to expand...

Windows 8's hardware requirements will be no higher than 7's, 8's might actually end up being a bit lower. I would expect 8 to perform better than 7 overall on the same hardware. For all of the hating on the UI I think a lot of people are overlooking the optimization work that's going into 8.

Ashbringer said:
#2 Graphics performance and stability. Despite being DX10, Vista can be 1/3 the performance of XP in games. Since the OS used graphic cards to render the desktop for the first time, neither Intel, ATI, or Nvidia were prepared with their drivers, caused severe stability issues.

#3 Removal of XP driver support. Lots of companies didn't make drivers that support Vista. What's worse is that companies claimed their devices were Vista compatible, but never supplied a driver.
Click to expand...

These shouldn't be a problem, most Windows 7 drivers will work in 8. In my use of the Developer Preview GPU stability hasn't been an issue.

Ashbringer said:
#4 Removal of 3D hardware sound. Owners of Creative sound cards were left in the dust to wonder how they would gain support for the prime feature of their sound card. Creative actually charged their customers with a software update that would allow it to work again in Vista using OpenAL instead of Direct Sound.
Click to expand...

Since this already the case there should be no issue. Dolby won't be included in the box in Windows 8 from my understanding but can be added by 3rd parties.
 
Guess I'll be sticking with Win 7. I hate having clutter on my screen. Tried Win 8 preview and immediately went back to 7 because of those metro themes.
 
Spidey329 said:
Wait .. they're getting rid of the Start button or the Start Menu? Because the latter is quite important to ease of navigation, infact Windows 7 nailed it pretty good. Why not just have both? The Windows 7 feature should still be there, allow people to toggle between traditional and metrosexual.
Click to expand...

It's still all there. The problem is that Metro apps can tie in deeply with the Start Screen, disabling the Start Screen would cause a lot of Metro apps to break. Also, Microsoft has never been about lots of different UI options in the box. Windows has always had a single UI.
 
Just so folks know, they are disabling the Start Button and Start Menu. When you press the Start 'thingy' you get brought to a big and intrusive 'made for touch' UI that overtakes the entire screen. It's completely different than any Windows 'start menu' that you've seen.

The most irritating part about this is that the UI is designed for touch, yet 99% of PC users do not have a touch screen. This OS is going to fail.
 
bigdogchris said:
Just so folks know, they are disabling the Start Button and Start Menu. When you press the Start 'thingy' you get brought to a big and intrusive 'made for touch' UI that overtakes the entire screen. It's completely different than any Windows 'start menu' that you've seen.

The most irritating part about this is that the UI is designed for touch, yet 99% of PC users do not have a touch screen. This OS is going to fail.
Click to expand...

Sounds like shit. I wouldn't care if they got rid of the start button but kept the start menu. Sounds like they're adding more clutter and crap, just what I don't want from my OS.
 
bigdogchris said:
Just so folks know, they are disabling the Start Button and Start Menu. When you press the Start 'thingy' you get brought to a big and intrusive 'made for touch' UI that overtakes the entire screen. It's completely different than any Windows 'start menu' that you've seen.

The most irritating part about this is that the UI is designed for touch, yet 99% of PC users do not have a touch screen. This OS is going to fail.
Click to expand...

So what if it takes up a whole screen? You bring it up, click on what you want, it goes way. The Start Screen can also act as gadgets, displaying a lot of useful information that could never be done in the Start Menu.
 
Final... This is crazy, they are just telling people, "People better accept the start screen, and that's final."
 
Ashbringer said:
To be more specific.

Windows ME failures

#1 They changed how Windows networks, and Windows 2000 was already better then WinME at networking. This caused a lot of problems for those wanting to connect to services like AOL, which hadn't support for WinME. Lots of devices lacked driver support, and lots of software didn't support it.

#2 They disabled the ability to shutdown into MSDOS mode. At the time, going into MSDOS mode was the best way to speed up Dos games, and Microsoft disabled it. You could enable it with a hack, but why do this to begin with? WinME was mostly Win98, so why hide such a feature?

Windows Vista failures.

#1 Over performance. Nothing was snappy or fast in this OS. The dreaded drag and drop issue was a big one, as files that you copied took far longer to move.

#2 Graphics performance and stability. Despite being DX10, Vista can be 1/3 the performance of XP in games. Since the OS used graphic cards to render the desktop for the first time, neither Intel, ATI, or Nvidia were prepared with their drivers, caused severe stability issues.

#3 Removal of XP driver support. Lots of companies didn't make drivers that support Vista. What's worse is that companies claimed their devices were Vista compatible, but never supplied a driver.

#4 Removal of 3D hardware sound. Owners of Creative sound cards were left in the dust to wonder how they would gain support for the prime feature of their sound card. Creative actually charged their customers with a software update that would allow it to work again in Vista using OpenAL instead of Direct Sound.
Click to expand...

Your things on vista are wrong. VIsta still has xp driver support, graphics performance after drivers matured were actually better and were never bad enough to give 1/3 performance and the os is pretty snappy even on pretty old hardware. Find a sp2 install image and put it on a test machine and you'll see that once the initial release bugs were removed it was actually a huge improvement over XP.
 
heatlesssun said:
So what if it takes up a whole screen? You bring it up, click on what you want, it goes way. The Start Screen can also act as gadgets, displaying a lot of useful information that could never be done in the Start Menu.
Click to expand...
And for the tenth or so time, you pipe up telling us we're all wrong about the Start Screen, and that you are right. I think you are the only person on this board that likes it.
 
While you're at it Microsoft, why not replace keyboards with a siri like application?

I want my damn start menu... dammit!

I don't want the UI to get dumbed down, we have macs for that.

I also don't have any desire for a touchscreen desktop device, hence no desire for metro on my desktop. I have this thing called a mouse, which happens to be SO much more efficient than people rubbing their grimy hands all over my monitor.

I don't think there is any way Microsoft completely removes the start menu from the OS. There will probably be an option to enable it buried somewhere deep in the abyss of metro on the release version. If not I guess most of us will be sticking with Windows 7 for longer than we planned. I personally don't have a problem with that.
 
dagamer34 said:
ME/Vista were failures for "performance" reasons. I doubt people care that much about UI changes. Case in point, Facebook changes it's UI every 3 months and while people complain, no one really leaves.
Click to expand...

You haven't delt with business users. Many of the non-technical office users will be lost just going from XP to Windows 7. It's even worse for office, many of them are still using office 2003, and I'm dreading moving them to 2010.
 
No problem with this. Seriously, if they're removing the start button, just fucking press the Windows key on the keyboard damn it!
 
heatlesssun said:
Windows 8's hardware requirements will be no higher than 7's, 8's might actually end up being a bit lower. I would expect 8 to perform better than 7 overall on the same hardware. For all of the hating on the UI I think a lot of people are overlooking the optimization work that's going into 8.
Click to expand...
I wasn't comparing Vista issues to Windows 8. I have no idea how Windows 8 runs or functions, as I haven't touched the OS yet. Currently, I probably won't ever.

So far, every OS Microsoft has released performs worse then the previous. Though that's fixed over time with improved drivers and patches. Vista right now isn't the Vista I'm talking about. Vista right now runs mostly like Windows 7, with some minor differences. The same thing happened to Windows 2000, after XP was released. Many people tried to game on that OS, but it was slower then 98. After XP was released it received much improved drivers, which just so happens Win 2k can also use.

Even after Windows 7 was released, many benchmarks showed that XP could still be faster in most situations. With improved drivers and software patches, Windows 7 is clearly the superior OS today. Who's to say that isn't going to be the situation with Windows 8?

Since this already the case there should be no issue. Dolby won't be included in the box in Windows 8 from my understanding but can be added by 3rd parties.
Click to expand...
This clearly shows how Microsoft is committed to the tablet. Tablets will never go beyond Stereo sound, but home PCs can. Given that most people who use a PC use a laptop, which never goes beyond Stereo, and if have a home PC then they never go beyond Stereo speakers either.

The problem is for those who want to use their PC as a Media Center. The PC I'm using now is hooked to my TV, and uses 5.1 sound. With NetFlix being very popular, you'd think that Dolby would be an important feature to have. Instead Microsoft is hoping PC manufacturer's will license Dolby's technology directly, which means they have to pay. Which only means the consumer will lose, as nobody will include it just to avoid the license fees.

I understand that Microsoft is doing this to save money, as Windows 8 won't be geared towards playing DVD's. What does this mean for Blu-Ray? The drives are starting to come down in price, with Blu-Ray readers at $60 and BR burners are now $90. Especially with the Xbox 720 to use BR, we'll probably see a lot of PC games begin to make use of BR media.

It's pretty clear that Windows 8 isn't geared towards the consumer. It's geared towards the app store and the tablet. While I have no complaints to the app store, I do have complaints forcing users to accommodate for it. All for the hope of making a buck. Chances are Microsoft will make revenue from the app store, and literally turn Windows into a reoccurring revenue source. At that point I'd feel that Microsoft could at least include Dolby support in Windows 8.
 
BDS23 said:
No problem with this. Seriously, if they're removing the start button, just fucking press the Windows key on the keyboard damn it!
Click to expand...

Problem is, users need visual reminders. Remove the visual clues and you will have to train people to use it, or give them a big manual to read before commencing operation.
 
heatlesssun said:
So what if it takes up a whole screen? You bring it up, click on what you want, it goes way. The Start Screen can also act as gadgets, displaying a lot of useful information that could never be done in the Start Menu.
Click to expand...
Ever used this OS called Windows 3.1? The concept is a lot like that. The idea of the start button was to introduce something that wasn't intrusive. Windows 8 is taking it away, to give you something intrusive. There's no reason for this, other then to accommodate for tablet or touch screen users.

As Linux users and they'll tell you that Gnome 2 is still the best UI. Gnome 3 and Unity stink.

blackhand1001 said:
Your things on vista are wrong. VIsta still has xp driver support, graphics performance after drivers matured were actually better and were never bad enough to give 1/3 performance and the os is pretty snappy even on pretty old hardware. Find a sp2 install image and put it on a test machine and you'll see that once the initial release bugs were removed it was actually a huge improvement over XP.
Click to expand...

In my experience a lot of XP drivers won't work in Vista. Problems get worse when XP drivers need utility programs that run at startup and require admin rights. A lot of times it's a hit or miss, but for me it's a miss nearly 100% of the time.

Vista is as good at Windows 7 cause the drivers matured, as did the OS. I'm talking about my experience for the first year of using the OS, where there wasn't good drivers and service packs. I've long since abandoned Vista for 7, but the experience has left me hating the idea of quickly switching to another OS.

With both Vista and Windows 7, upgrading the OS has caused nothing but problems. As there's always an issue with an application or something. With Windows 8 offering even less then Windows 7, I think I'll be patient with it. I've always been in favor of being an early adopter, but it's burned me too often in the past.
 
Windows 8 will spawn a lot of "user interface replacements" that sit on top of the OS and allow you to use your computer like a computer rather than like a phone.
 
bigdogchris said:
And for the tenth or so time, you pipe up telling us we're all wrong about the Start Screen, and that you are right. I think you are the only person on this board that likes it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I'm right about anything, I'm simply saying that Start Screen looks very different but functionally isn't all that different in many ways and I really have no idea why it being full screen has any real significance.

You're the one that may be right, Windows 8 may flop but I'm sure Microsoft pretty much had to anticipate that many long time and technical Windows users weren't going to like this change. Honestly I don't see what better alternative Microsoft has right now. They HAVE to get a tablet this year. No one would care about about a separate tablet OS at this point. The desktop while not dying is simply a mature market with little growth. Windows is simply old, the thing that dad uses for work, at least in the minds of consumers these days.

I just think that Microsoft is doing what it HAS to do and I think it will do well because Windows 8 just does everything and should work well for enough people that will simply see that changes, realize that it supports everything Windows 7 does, has an app store will some slick apps that look like things that run on their phones and probably like that.
 
DeathPrincess said:
Problem is, users need visual reminders. Remove the visual clues and you will have to train people to use it, or give them a big manual to read before commencing operation.
Click to expand...

No, you've got to be kidding me. It's easier to tap a key than move and click. And how could anyone miss that Windows key? Try this: blur out your eyes and look at your keyboard and tell me which key is the most apparent. I fail to see how tapping a keyboard key requires a big manual. I'm under suspicion that you're telling me that tapping the Windows key is difficult; ''commencing operation''. I don't consider myself as tech-savvy as those hardcore Linux users, and even I know what the Windows key does.
 
I'm not on the bash Microsoft bandwagon this time.

I used the developer preview as my PRIMARY OS for two months.

It's good. I like it. The Metro style launch for programs is a fine replacement for the start button and is more visually representative of your software.

And if it can enable me to run the same OS on my pocket device, tablet, and high end desktop I'm sold.
 
BDS23 said:
No, you've got to be kidding me. It's easier to tap a key than move and click. And how could anyone miss that Windows key? Try this: blur out your eyes and look at your keyboard and tell me which key is the most apparent. I fail to see how tapping a keyboard key requires a big manual. I'm under suspicion that you're telling me that tapping the Windows key is difficult; ''commencing operation''. I don't consider myself as tech-savvy as those hardcore Linux users, and even I know what the Windows key does.
Click to expand...

Not talking about you or I or any person on this forum. I'm talking about your typical grandparents and the bulk of users. For absolutely no reason when loading this new OS why would they think to hit this key with a strange symbol on it? Theres no logical connect between the two. Which would be why some kind of hint in the form of teching would need to take place. The start menu has a little button, you can see it, you know it does something. The windows key has 0 indiction it does anything more than the alt gr. key.
 
I'd also like to add that considering Windows Phone has been an epic flop, and currently holds a LOL-worthy 1.5% marketshare, I'm not sure why Microsoft is pushing the Metro UI so hard. Clearly people don't want it.
 
Basically we've told all our business customers that if you want to keep running business apps, as of right now, stay the hell away from Windows 8.

The new interface with Windows 8 is yet more dumbing down of the interface (a'la The Ribbon) making things more obtuse to navigate and functionality harder to find.

If you're running one or two apps and that's it, great. Windows 8 can do that.
If you're running a half dozen or more, it starts to get unwieldy REALLY fast.
 
heatlesssun said:
So what if it takes up a whole screen? You bring it up, click on what you want, it goes way. The Start Screen can also act as gadgets, displaying a lot of useful information that could never be done in the Start Menu.
Click to expand...

I am 100% behind you on this. I haven't actually 'used' the start menu for years. It has only been hit windows button, start typing name (if the shortcut is not one of about 5 that i have on desktop) and hit enter.
The start search functionality is improved a lot in WDP8, the system is WAY faster on my hardware, and I have been using the start screen to display RSS Feeds, weather, etc. Added the most commonly used apps as shortcuts, and overall the system is much easier to get around and use. I personally cannot wait.
 
Sorry, but no purchase from me. I have ZERO interest in a WP7-based smartphone, and I DESPISE the Metro based UI on the Xbox 360 (and before anyone starts, I won't get rid of my 360 because of all of the money I've spent over the years for various games and game add-ons). I forsee no need in my future to buy a touchscreen monitor so why not have two UIs to choose from: traditional for us that prefer the "old" interface, and Metro UI for others?

For that bluescreen, why not just use what Apple's OS7 (or was it OS8) did and just have a frowning OS logo (and use that "EEP!" sound)? Win8, from the looks of it, seems to be a bunch of dumb decision (I did like the setup for the new Task Manager however).
 
New ad campaign idea. Have Windows 98 and the Start me Up from the Rolling Stones, and then transition to today and have the Start button getting shot like JFK and play Candle in the Wind behind that.
 
Cmdrmonkey said:
I'd also like to add that considering Windows Phone has been an epic flop, and currently holds a LOL-worthy 1.5% marketshare, I'm not sure why Microsoft is pushing the Metro UI so hard. Clearly people don't want it.
Click to expand...

It's for the app store as they'll make 30% of any sale of an app. So they're creating a ecosystem for it. One that will be on Windows Phone, tablets, and probably even Xbox 720. They'll all be using some variant of the Metro UI. From what I understand, Microsoft can only make that 30% if the app is made with the intention to use the Metro UI.

The way Microsoft see's it, you don't know what you want but they certainly do.
 
The Verge said:
Fear not though, the Start button functionality isn't as dead as it seems. We have confirmed with sources close to Microsoft's Windows 8 development that a hot corner has replaced the Start button orb. A thumbnail-like user interface will appear in Metro or desktop mode, providing a consistent way to access the Windows desktop and Start Screen in Windows 8 regardless of touch or mouse input. The new interface is activated on hover from the lower-left corner of Windows 8 and includes a thumbnail preview of where you will navigate to after clicking on the new visual element. The same element will appear in touch mode, and we expect it will be activated by a swipe action. If you are in desktop mode then it will show a preview of the Metro mode and vice versa.

Microsoft will also keep the Super Bar, first introduced in Windows 7, with its legacy pinning for desktop applications and desktop Internet Explorer 10. The removal of the Windows Start button orb means the Super Bar acts like a shortcut dock for the desktop mode.
Click to expand...


Good thing people read to source article!
 
The new UI on the 360 is derived from the same design philosophy as what we will see in Win 8? If so, I will not be touching Win 8 with a ten foot pole. Used my 360 for the first time in like 18 months the other day and had to undergo the obligatory firmware upgrade only to be greeted by a god awful UI which was entirely unintuitive and cumbersome to use.

Reminds me very much of the UI downgrade occasioned with Office 2007. Despite having used the new version of word for over two years, I still fucking hate its interface with a passion. The garbage ribbons introduced is a beautiful example of form over function, with previously logically ordered information being hidden behind massive illogical menus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top