In other words, you have no data.I don't I need to be showing data when Microsoft, the makers of Windows, have already shown the data; of which some people call BS on just because they don't like the Start Screen.You talk about majorities of people doing this, and slim minorities of people doing that. Do you have any data? I didn't think so. You are merely projecting, simply making it up. The way everyone in this useless discussion does.I'm finding as time goes on, the majority of people that complain about not having a start menu are just people that have used it for 15 or more years, that doesn't change without people throwing their hands up in the air. Now, is the Start Screen better than the menu? From my experience personally and seeing how others have used Windows 7 shows yes. It is better. When people figured out how to pin things to the Taskbar, the need for the Most Frequently Used list of the menu becomes redundant. A typical laptop resolution can have over 16 items pinned to it, which is more than what the MFU lists can display. Most of those usually have jumplists that are used. Usually after that, the All Programs list becomes a once in a blue moon adventure, I honestly can't say if it's ever used or not from what I can gather. If something needs found, it's either in the MFU list and not pinned to the Taskbar, or just searched for with a text query. Or sometimes, people just keep shortcuts on the Desktop and use those, basically how Windows has been used since like Windows 2 and 3. I know I PERSONALLY used the start menu quite often. I preferred having items pinned to the Taskbar of the programs I used often. I didn't use the MFU list as I kept the All Programs neat and tidy and could find things pretty quickly when needed. Shoot, I was thinking about doubling the size of the Taskbar and pinning EVERY program I had installed onto it, which would make the start menu UTTERLY pointless...
Now, there are a very slim group of people that probably use the Taskbar pins and the start menu in conjunction. There is a small group of people that do use the All Programs list as they have their poop in a group and have things organized to find a program that they don't use too often. That's them, that's not the overwhelming group of everyone else.
I just helped build a budget gaming rig for a friend of mine who is a HARD CORE PC gamer, the kind that has actual shelves full of PC game disks, along with a huge collection of Steam games. He went for Windows 8 as he really doesn't get why people are complaining about a start menu that he never used. And this is true, looking at his start menu, I can see why he just used the Desktop shortcuts as that was a MESS! In a Start Screen environment, those Desktop shortcuts become tiles on the Start Screen, of which can be organized neatly, things can be unpinned if needed, grouped, and further tweaked with a couple of third party tools. The Start Screen effectively becomes the original purpose of the Desktop, of that being just being the launcher of programs. It's visual like the Desktop, except different.
But honestly, people did complain when Windows 95 came out and forced people to use the start menu. People complained about the Luna UI design of xp being crap to the old school UI. People did complain when vista condensed this preposterous fly-out start menu that took over the whole Desktop if large enough and condensed it down into this small little scroll menu. There were even people that complained about the new Taskbar in Windows 7 saying just that they didn't like it. In retrospect, people adopted the use of the start menu. People adopted the use of the newer start menu in xp. People adopted and defend the vista style start menu. People adopted the use of the new Taskbar in 7. And in all new UI changes, people just took advantage of the new over the old. Do you see people complaining and trying to disable the start menu in Windows these days like in 95? No. Was it easy to disable the start menu in 95? Yes. But did matter five years later with 98 or 2000? Not really.
Please, Metro lovers, simply leave it alone, and accept that, e.g., Metro simply doesn't work for many serious PC users. Why the constant psychoanalyzing? You do your thing your way, and I'll do my thing my way. But this constant over-analysis based on nothing is getting very, very tiresome.
Can't we just give it a rest?
I say the same, stop assuming you simply can't use Windows 8 for anything serious and we can be off on our merry ways. What I used to do with 7 I can do that same easier and better with 8. If you don't want to see that and state fallacies on something you're not fully aware of, then no amount of reasoning or logic or data or proof can obviously show otherwise.
But never mind - I didn't say Windows 8 was useless for getting work done - I was talking about Metro. I've tried very hard to make sense of the apps for a typical workflow, and just don't see it. Again, on a tablet or something, probably some utility.
I think part of the futility of this "debate" is equating 'Windows 8' with 'Metro'. I've always said the Desktop is a good Windows. I use a 3rd party start menu. All is well.
Metro is useless on a desktop system with a large screen and no touch. Maybe it works for you - more power to you.