How do you believe the Start Screen is to be used?

[Coke Robot]

Hmmm....

I've been seeing kind of a trend from certain areas about the Start Screen. It seems like some people think the Start Screen literally is becoming a second desktop of sorts. That's arguable, I'll take that. But that's not what the Start Screen is intended for AT ALL. Maybe on day in the far, far, far future, this maybe true; but for now, it's not. The Start Screen is your home page, your start launcher. It's where you can start your Mail app or check stocks or type up a word document or even use command prompt. It's your directory of your PC. It's where you find literally everything you have, both files and apps, and start them with either an app or start an app to access a file.

It's like exactly in the year 1995 when the Start Menu concept was introduced. There were the initial pessimists that declared superfluous and yet it became the pinnacle of Windows that was shaped and innovated for almost 17 years. Now, in 2012, the Start Menu has been evolved to the Start Screen. It's not only how the Start Menu was used in Windows 95, but it's also something that the next generation of PCs, slates and tablets, will be using frequently. It's their home screens, their start launchers. A tablet user can start their Mail app or check stocks or type up a word document or even use command prompt. It's something in itself a new way to use a device and digital media.

I thought I should clear this up before people start making the biggest change to Windows in generations into a secondary, dumbed down Desktop. It's clearly not and it shouldn't be used as such because if it is, then you might as well go back to the days of Windows 3 where a cluttered Desktop was normal. If it weren't for the Start Menu, we'd still being doing such today. And if it weren't for the Start Screen, it'd become even more difficult to manage the plethora of digital media, information, and apps we have today.

 

[Calico]

Before addressing your comments, I really think, when writing posts of this sort, you should concentrate on a single type of platform. I don't think many are in doubt about the efficacy of running Metro as the primary interface on a tablet or smartphone. The main criticism, is from those who want to use their powerful desktop PCs, for something other than running single instance social applications and without the need to navigate an additional screen, before getting to where they want to be.

Hmmm....

I've been seeing kind of a trend from certain areas about the Start Screen. It seems like some people think the Start Screen literally is becoming a second desktop of sorts. That's arguable, I'll take that. But that's not what the Start Screen is intended for AT ALL. Maybe on day in the far, far, far future, this maybe true; but for now, it's not.

It's only a 'desktop' in that icons (tiles) can be pinned to it. In that respect, it's little different to the normal desktop but with considerably less functionality. However, it's really an interface and one that Microsoft would like to be the primary interface across all platforms. Whilst this is obviously the most appropriate solution for the handheld devices, it should be an option on desktops. Unfortunately, this seems unlikely to happen, especially when one considers Steven Sinofsky's earlier comments:

And if you want to stay permanently immersed in that Metro world, you will never see the desktop—we won’t even load it (literally the code will not be loaded) unless you explicitly choose to go there!

The Start Screen is your home page, your start launcher. It's where you can start your Mail app or check stocks or type up a word document or even use command prompt. It's your directory of your PC. It's where you find literally everything you have, both files and apps, and start them with either an app or start an app to access a file.

How is that, with the exception of being a convoluted, less functional eyesore, any different from the standard desktop?

It's like exactly in the year 1995 when the Start Menu concept was introduced. There were the initial pessimists that declared superfluous and yet it became the pinnacle of Windows that was shaped and innovated for almost 17 years.

The Start menu is just one way of launching applications, granted, it's the method a great many have come to know and love, but it's not the sole method. For many, the desktop is the perfect place to store their frequently used applications and this has been used since Windows 3.1.

Now, in 2012, the Start Menu has been evolved to the Start Screen. It's not only how the Start Menu was used in Windows 95, but it's also something that the next generation of PCs, slates and tablets, will be using frequently. It's their home screens, their start launchers. A tablet user can start their Mail app or check stocks or type up a word document or even use command prompt. It's something in itself a new way to use a device and digital media.

In the same way it's inappropriate to call Metro a desktop, so it is to call it a start menu. Whilst it's true one may launch applications from it, that function is not supposed to be it's sole purpose. Whether it's an evolution or not, is debatable. It's certainly a change. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it's a change, that's absolutely perfect for small devices but wholly inappropriate for the desktop, at least for the foreseeable future.

I thought I should clear this up before people start making the biggest change to Windows in generations into a secondary, dumbed down Desktop.

It's not, it's the primary 'dumbed down' interface that's perfect for 'one-at-a-time' tasks on handhelds.

It's clearly not and it shouldn't be used as such because if it is, then you might as well go back to the days of Windows 3 where a cluttered Desktop was normal.

How is having a hundred tiles, most of which can't be seen unless one 'zooms out' any different, apart from being less functional, than the standard desktop?

If it weren't for the Start Menu, we'd still being doing such today.

People still do, and now they have Metro, they can continue to do so, but now they won't be able to see their icons unless the flip back to Metro.

And if it weren't for the Start Screen, it'd become even more difficult to manage the plethora of digital media, information, and apps we have today.

Straw Man anyone.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
I'm getting more used to the Metro screen --in spite of those hideous tiles that "Normal apps" are installed to.

However what I really DO miss is the fact that if I use multiple monitors (not usually required on smart phones / tablets etc) I don't want to keep going back to a single start screen to launch another instance or application - Ms can learn from Linux here --Virtual desktops (I don't mean Virtual Machines here).

Cheers
jimbo