Microsoft reportedly working to block apps that re-enable the Windows 8 Start button
447 replies, posted
Do you really have to get to this point MS?
It's also funny, I saw some forum discussions from a long time ago about people complaining how the new look of Windows XP was shit and they wanted to downgrade to 98, or didn't want to update at all.
Same when Microsoft started pushing the mouse as the main way of controlling the PC, people complained and bitched that it was difficult and distracting and was never going to be as good as the keyboard alone.
I will agree that metro apps have issues on mouse+keyboard (elements are too damn big) but if you use it for a while, you can get used to it and actually enjoy it (like myself). What we're seeing is a transition from m+keyboard PCs to PCs to touch devices (also laptops with touchscreens). What microsoft needs to do is push for the right balance between mouse and keyboard and touch, which they ahven't accomplished quite yet.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;36145624]Yeah, no, that's entirely false. It's fullscreen and horizontally navigated, while the original one is only a small window and entirely vertically navigated. One's entirely designed around keyboard and mouse, the other is not. How much someone [I]enjoys[/I] the menu is opinion, but the simple fact is that one menu is designed for people who use a keyboard and mouse, and the other is for mobile touchscreen platforms. It's not postulation at all, and the fact that it's completely mandatory is even worse.
Nobody is saying it's less functional. All the core is still there, it's just harder to use and a gigantic switch from the (now classic) old menu.[/QUOTE]
I'd argue that it's still very much vertically (mouse-wise at least), as you'll be using the scroll to do the horizontal shit, and the mouse to do the vertical shit. On 7's start menu, you have to do some horizontal moves to access everything as well. I'm not saying it's exactly the same, but the movements you're doing with your mouse are very much the same.
Facepunch BandWagon goooo!
[QUOTE=barttool;36145675]It's also funny, I saw some forum discussions from a long time ago about people complaining how the new look of Windows XP was shit and they wanted to downgrade to 98, or didn't want to update at all.
Same when Microsoft started pushing the mouse as the main way of controlling the PC, people complained and bitched that it was difficult and distracting and was never going to be as good as the keyboard alone.
I will agree that metro apps have issues on mouse+keyboard (elements are too damn big) but if you use it for a while, you can get used to it and actually enjoy it (like myself). What we're seeing is a transition from m+keyboard PCs to PCs to touch devices (also laptops with touchscreens).[B] What microsoft needs to do is push for the right balance between mouse and keyboard and touch,[/B] which they ahven't accomplished quite yet.[/QUOTE]
Right on the money. Those of us who found it unenjoyable would like if Microsoft actually cared about our preferences.
[QUOTE=Morgen;36145627]It kills your workflow because it is full screen.[/QUOTE]
Well, what are you gonna do while having the start menu open in 7? I dunno, starting programs? It's not like you'll be doing anything else. And I think you'll survive the occasional "Watching movie, gotta open word".
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;36145367]I'm not going to go rambo in this thread, but while he made a postulate, you just postulated that it's unintuitive for desktop use. That's again opinion, and while this thread is very much uniform, it's still something you're imposing on others.
And it seems like people are think they're removing the start menu and the functionality that comes with it - this is [I]not[/I] true. It's different in design, but whether you like it or not, the functionality is [I]exactly[/I] the same. It acts the way the old one does - start typing something, it'll come up. The "only" (like it's a small thing) thing that's different, is that it's full screen, and has got some new, and actually useful, managing options. I can understand why people don't like it, but please don't judge it only on the looks (I'm aware of that a good bunch of you aren't).
[editline]31st May 2012[/editline]
While I can understand that people don't like the start menu, I can't even begin to fathom why people would agree with this. Whether you like any of the OSs, it doesn't show every version on this chart, and a lot of the hate on Vista is a bandwagon. This is a forum devoted to a computer game (orginally), don't you people know about Windows 2000? All the NT versions? Windows 98 SE? This is incredibly dumb.[/QUOTE]
A lot of the hate on Vista was not a bandwagon. When Vista came out it was slow, it was buggy. It was bloated and just a bunch of eye candy. It was only after a few years and a couple service packs later that Vista became bearable. Even then it was only because hardware matured enough to run Vista smoothly.
[QUOTE=barttool;36145675]What microsoft needs to do is push for the right balance between mouse and keyboard and touch, which they ahven't accomplished quite yet.[/QUOTE]
There is no good balance for that, since those two methods of using a computer is so vastly different.
Ideally they should suck it up and ship windows with 2 different UI's that you can easily and seamlessly change between.
So you have one UI for when using it as a touchscreen device, and one for when it's being used with a keyboard+mouse combo.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;36145606]How does it kill your workflow? You can fit more programs onto it, and, this is a well-kept secret, if you click anywhere else than on the start menu in 7 [I]it closes.[/I]
[/QUOTE] It closes yeah, that's great.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;36145606]
Horizontal scrolling makes sense, as you'll probably be using a 16:9 monitor. If it was vertical, you'd have to move the mouse itself around a lot more, killing workflow.
[/QUOTE] Because mouse scrollwheel scrolls down. When you scroll down but it scrolls to the side is silly.
And you don't need to move mouse at all, you can use arrow keys. Which is great because if my mouse is in a position I care about I don't need to move it at all.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;36145606]
"The stuff is all over the place" I don't know... organize it? Microsoft introduced a little thing called groups, so you can group your programs together. That way they aren't a complete mess. And if you want access to your documents from the start menu, place a shortcut to the folder - or make a whole group called "documents" or whatever, having shortcuts to maybe every subject you have in school. Incredibly useful, and one of the things I very much prefer to Windows 7.[/QUOTE]
I don't want to open a fullscreen menu for 7 icons. Really I don't.
I know you're sad that some might dislike something you like, but there's no need to take it so personally. Unless MS is paying you to defend win8
[editline]31st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Van-man;36145759]
Ideally they should suck it up and ship windows with 2 different UI's that you can easily and seamlessly change between.
So you have one UI for when using it as a touchscreen device, and one for when it's being used with a keyboard+mouse combo.[/QUOTE]That's what it was originally planned to be. Metro as an optional ui. Then they decided to make it a start menu.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;36145723]Well, what are you gonna do while having the start menu open in 7? I dunno, starting programs? It's not like you'll be doing anything else. And I think you'll survive the occasional "Watching movie, gotta open word".[/QUOTE]
[url]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/5273861/startvsmetro.jpg[/url]
Tried to get everything onto Metro that's on my 7 start menu. So much wasted screen space.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;36145723]Well, what are you gonna do while having the start menu open in 7? I dunno, starting programs? It's not like you'll be doing anything else. And I think you'll survive the occasional "Watching movie, gotta open word".[/QUOTE]Ah yes, accept the change because you will deal with the problems that weren't there before.
You should accept economical crisis too, you'll survive it. Homeless people don't die easily.
the other issue I saw is that aero made no sense being along with metro. Thankfully they have dropped it so the experience feels more unified, more seamless. It's a step in the right direction.
What Microsoft is doing is pushing for fusing touch with traditional mouse and keyboard, and we'll inevitably see a rise in laptops with touchscreens, slates with keyboards or slates alone. A shift towards touch interaction.
Windows 8 will be infamous for this, but in the next years, when the consumer trends move toward touch (with or without mouse) people will have long forgotten this outrage and will feel effectively more comfortable with touch interfaces even in their regular workstations.
[editline]31st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Van-man;36145759]There is no good balance for that, since those two methods of using a computer is so vastly different.
Ideally they should suck it up and ship windows with 2 different UI's that you can easily and seamlessly change between.
So you have one UI for when using it as a touchscreen device, and one for when it's being used with a keyboard+mouse combo.[/QUOTE]
You CAN have a balance between mouse, keyboard and touch. I installed windows 8 on a friends laptop with touchscreen and you would think "oh, my arms will get tired from raising it to touch the screen, but this is hardly the case. You can do things more effectively with m+kb but when given a good touch interface, it is so satisfying, even more than a tablet alone, because you still have your mouse and keyboard to do precise operations while touch to navigate easily through your computer, it is a very rewarding experience.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36145761]It closes yeah, that's great.
Because mouse scrollwheel scrolls down. When you scroll down but it scrolls to the side is silly.
And you don't need to move mouse at all, you can use arrow keys. Which is great because if my mouse is in a position I care about I don't need to move it at all.
I don't want to open a fullscreen menu for 7 icons. Really I don't.
I know you're sad that some might dislike something you like, but there's no need to take it so personally. Unless MS is paying you to defend win8
[editline]31st May 2012[/editline]
That's what it was originally planned to be. Metro as an optional ui. Then they decided to make it a start menu.[/QUOTE]
The "it closes" comment is about how you're actually [I]completely[/I] focused on the start menu. When would you open it, and not launch a new program? That'd just be stupid. So when you're opening the start menu, you're actually not doing anything else, so why not make it full screen? Here' an article for you: [url]http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/03/evolving-the-start-menu.aspx[/url]
Mouse wheels scroll down, that's entirely correct. However, try to understand how fucked up a vertically scrolling and horizontally spaced out start menu would be. That's my point, it would be shit, as you'd have to move your mouse around a lot. And the arrow key method is, in my opinion, a pretty bad alternative. But whatever flots your boat. I got it visualized here:
[img]https://public.sn2.livefilestore.com/y1pFS-Opi5HBYKfRBcUdrJM9aeBaWO9w2N3gzvPIzgnUnMj0YBboJcW3GigHl1p2eXGCXjcKQUZcBPDC7DMcfkf0g/Untitled.png?psid=1[/img]
I don't knwo why you just posted "I really don't want the full screen start menu" - this was actually just (or maybe a bit snarky, but I hope you'll excuse that) a post to inform you, that you can actually manage the shit. If you don't want it cluttered, clean it up. And don't try to pull the "Microsoft employee" - card. I've been using Windows 8 since DP (albeit not on this computer), and as such I'd regard myself as somewhat informed of what it can do when you want it to.
And I haven't heard a single report from a credible source that this was going to be optional at any point.
my idea of finding a good balance for mouse and keyboard is make the elements of the apps scale appropriately depending on the screen size and the input method. If you're using mouse, fullscreen and split is fine, but please make the buttons, icons and other elements smaller. If you're using touch then unleash metro at its fullest potential.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36145797]Ah yes, accept the change because you will deal with the problems that weren't there before.
You should accept economical crisis too, you'll survive it. Homeless people don't die easily.[/QUOTE]
Comparing this to the economic crysis is stupid. 95% of you already said that you're gonna stay on Windows 7, so why would you have to accept anything? Buy a mac or install Linux, stay on Widnows 7, Microsoft's not forcing you, you know.
I don't think I understand how the system will even be functional without the Start Button and Menu. What're they gonna do; make it like the top-bar on a Mac OS? Hope not; that's confusing as all hell.
Personally, i'd only go as far as Window 7 if this is the current trend.
Why are you so pissed over a button? Calm down.
[QUOTE=ironman17;36146094]I don't think I understand how the system will even be functional without the Start Button and Menu. What're they gonna do; make it like the top-bar on a Mac OS? Hope not; that's confusing as all hell.
Personally, i'd only go as far as Window 7 if this is the current trend.[/QUOTE]
It's a full screen menu instead and you click on the bottom left corner to get it to come up. No there isn't any visual indication until you hover your mouse over where the start button used to be.
[QUOTE=Uberpro;36146115]Why are you so pissed over a button? Calm down.[/QUOTE]
people tend to consider it The Windows OS Signature of sorts
like how apple has the taskbar thing on the bottom of the screen.
[QUOTE=ironman17;36146094]I don't think I understand how the system will even be functional without the Start Button and Menu. What're they gonna do; make it like the top-bar on a Mac OS? Hope not; that's confusing as all hell.
Personally, i'd only go as far as Window 7 if this is the current trend.[/QUOTE]
Start menu and button are still there. You click in the lower left corner of the screen and it takes you to the start screen.
Or you could just press the the Windows key on your keyboard.
Also Sensationalist Headlines is really living up to its name these days.
[QUOTE=Uberpro;36146115]Why are you so pissed over a button? Calm down.[/QUOTE]
1. Because there was no need to remove it, it's kinda symbolical for windows. It's as if christianity removed all crosses.
2. Because everything behind the button is different and there's no way to get the old menu back
Well, I kinda guess that makes some kind of twisted sense, though they really should have AT LEAST some indication in the bottom-left, like the Windows Orb on Windows 7 (even though my PC is still running XP because i'm old school, the computers at my college all use Windows 7, so I know how to work with it).
What advantages does Windows 8 HAVE over Windows 7 anyways? I can guess it allows more RAM usage, but asides from that what does it offer?
[QUOTE=ironman17;36146192]Well, I kinda guess that makes some kind of twisted sense, though they really should have AT LEAST some indication in the bottom-left, like the Windows Orb on Windows 7 (even though my PC is still running XP because i'm old school, the computers at my college all use Windows 7, so I know how to work with it).
What advantages does Windows 8 HAVE over Windows 7 anyways? I can guess it allows more RAM usage, but asides from that what does it offer?[/QUOTE]
It boots faster, even though you get the same results with W7 on an SSD.
[QUOTE=Morgen;36146121]It's a full screen menu instead and you click on the bottom left corner to get it to come up. No there isn't any visual indication until you hover your mouse over where the start button used to be.[/QUOTE]
Neither is there with any of the other "hot corners" - this is not something I endorse at all, but anyhow; people forget about the other hot corners. Not having a start button is apparently a disaster, but the other hot corners aren't talked about much. Not saying that I like the change in UI (removing the start button is not very functional UI wise), but people almost exclusively criticise this, while other "No indictation at all corners" get by just okay. Is this because people actually just find the start button that much more of a problem, or are people just so accustomed to seeing it that they get crazy over its disappearance? It's not a bandwagon, but it's overblown, in my opinion. Not as a problem to new users, but as a legacy homage. It's not like any of you will be confused by it now, so are you complaining about the start button from the view of a new consumer, or because you're simply accustomed to it?
[editline]31st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36146161][b]1. Because there was no need to remove it, it's kinda symbolical for windows. It's as if christianity removed all crosses.[/b]
2. Because everything behind the button is different and there's no way to get the old menu back[/QUOTE]
Seems like my question was unneeded; it's really because you don't want it gone. And the button itself has nothing to do with the start menu itself - the button was even there in the DP.
[editline]31st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ironman17;36146192]Well, I kinda guess that makes some kind of twisted sense, though they really should have AT LEAST some indication in the bottom-left, like the Windows Orb on Windows 7 (even though my PC is still running XP because i'm old school, the computers at my college all use Windows 7, so I know how to work with it).
What advantages does Windows 8 HAVE over Windows 7 anyways? I can guess it allows more RAM usage, but asides from that what does it offer?[/QUOTE]
You're right, they should have some indication of it.
Anyhow, there's a lot of improvements. Faster boot times for one - my 2 year old laptop boots in 15 seconds, and it's on a HDD. You get "refresh" and "reset" options, which pretty much gives you a clean installation of Windows, without you needing to go reinstall it. USB boot - you can put the installation on a USB, and take it with you wherever you go. Speed increases - it's blazing fast compared to 7 on my laptop, but to be fair, the 7 installation is quite old. Less RAM usage - go figure. A lot of other quirks that I can't remember on top of my head, but it paints the general picture. Whether you'd find the new start menu an improvement is up to you.
[QUOTE=Coffee;36146228]It boots faster, even though you get the same results with W7 on an SSD.[/QUOTE]
How fast're we talkin' here? My XP currently boots in just under a minute (I don't really count the seconds, and i'm not about to test it right now, so it probably boots faster than a minute), and the Windows 7 on the college computers usually take a similar amount of time.
Pricing for people upgrading just in: [url]http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/31/microsoft-confirms-upgrade-path-and-pricing-for-windows-8/[/url]
15$. If you find it an improvement (and own a pre-built (god have mercy on your soul)), this is pretty darn fucking cheap.
Apparently, I pulled the trigger a bit fast there, it's only if you buy a [I]new[/I] pre-built.
[QUOTE=ironman17;36146382]How fast're we talkin' here? My XP currently boots in just under a minute (I don't really count the seconds, and i'm not about to test it right now, so it probably boots faster than a minute), and the Windows 7 on the college computers usually take a similar amount of time.[/QUOTE]
On a normal HDD, W8 boots in about 10 seconds. On an SDD, W8 probably boots in about 5.
On a normal HDD, W7 boots in about a minute. On an SDD, W7 boots in about 15.
We are coming to the era of xp AGAIN.
I don't even remember how fast my win7 boots, I reboot once a month. Sleep mode ftw.
about a minute for win7? did you install that on legacy hardware? it's around 20 seconds on my 5400RPM laptop drive
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.