My logic behind Microsoft's controversial decision: Removal of Start

[pparks1]

The reason is because a Windows 8 upgrade is $39.99 and a little bit of hacking, you could have a faster version of Windows 7 for only $39.99.

Aside from slightly faster boot up, which almost goes away when you disable the hibernation file...which I do to save space on my SSD, I don't see Windows 8 being any faster. In fact, some of the nicety graphics of metro have a negative impact on performance. They look pretty, but do take a small bit of time to draw in and launch.

 

[HippsieGypsie]

The reason is because a Windows 8 upgrade is $39.99 and a little bit of hacking, you could have a faster version of Windows 7 for only $39.99.

Aside from slightly faster boot up, which almost goes away when you disable the hibernation file...which I do to save space on my SSD, I don't see Windows 8 being any faster. In fact, some of the nicety graphics of metro have a negative impact on performance. They look pretty, but do take a small bit of time to draw in and launch.

What does that have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[Coke Robot]

Well, from my experience seeing how people use Windows, it also comes down to the fact that the start menu was being used less and less.

That is what they say. However, seems tons of people are complaining about it..so that seems odd. In addition, I work in a corporate environment where nearly everybody uses their Start menu. Lots of power users utilize quick launch and other tricks, but the majority of just average users tend to use either the start menu to launch an app or they create a shortcut on their desktop (but they use the Start menu to find that application in the first place). These are the same type of people who use the Network icon to browse network shares instead of hitting the start menu and typing \\servername.

What they're offering now is a unified, fluid user experience where devices work better together.

Their hope is that everything works better together. Having a unified interface can certainly make things more consistent for people, but with the differences in devices and how people use them, one common interface may not be the best. For example, with desktop computers and such today without touch screen interfaces, I question the value of the Metro interface. Sure, it's consistent with the phone and the game console......but having a full screen application isn't ideal to many computer users.

I think it's odd how many people are claiming lost features from Windows 8 when you can still get them but in a different version of the OS. Yeah, you have to pay a little more for them, but if YOU use them and many people don't, it makes business sense to do that since it costs Microsoft some to offer features people aren't using.

And yeah, you could say full screen apps aren't appropriate on the desktop, but that's the thing, the metro styled app isn't just the only part of the experience. It's the all out metro design in general that provides for the experience. The new Office 2013 has metro design as well as the Desktop in the RTM of Windows 8. If you don't use metro apps, that doesn't mean it's not part of the overall user experience.

But, then again, it's is a new Windows for new PCs, which includes tablets and touch systems...so I don't know.

 

[FSeal]

I am reminded of a Gilligan's Island episode... "Now... Would you like some wicks to go with those candles?"

Why not ship a $5 kernel and then charge for each addon? CLI? Networking? OGL? "Pro desktop"? (That'll be $250 by itself).

Yay!

 

[lehnerus2000]

Credible Telemetry?

Microsoft has conducted many polls sighting that for most users start menu isnt the end all of end all.

If you truly believe that, I may have a sweet deal for you on some beach front property.

I've heard other Microsoft "polls" indicate Media Center is used by 6% of the Windows base. I don't know which is funnier, that ludicrous claim, or suspending disbelief long enough to laugh at Microsoft's response, "Kill it! Kill it with fire!"

I think Microsoft's telemetry is just as credible as Pharmaceutical company reports on new drugs.
Somehow the reports are always edited, so that they show only benefits and remove any references to side effects.

The telemetry has been "massaged" to support Microsoft's stated position (it wasn't used to establish the position initially).

Just look at the "hotspot" charts of "Metro vs the Start Menu" on Sinofsky's blog.
They seem convincing, until you realise that Sinofsky doesn't know how to use the Start Menu at all (or he's distorting the truth).

 

[pparks1]

The reason is because a Windows 8 upgrade is $39.99 and a little bit of hacking, you could have a faster version of Windows 7 for only $39.99.

Aside from slightly faster boot up, which almost goes away when you disable the hibernation file...which I do to save space on my SSD, I don't see Windows 8 being any faster. In fact, some of the nicety graphics of metro have a negative impact on performance. They look pretty, but do take a small bit of time to draw in and launch.

What does that have to do with the topic of the thread?

Threads are dynamic and they grow and change a bit. I responded to a post where somebody said Windows 8 was a faster version of Windows 7. I'm questioning whether or not it really is faster or not. This isn't too hard to follow. I even quoted it, so it would be obvious what I was talking about.

 

[HippsieGypsie]

OK. You certainly have a right to your choices. I have mine.



I'll just........................ View attachment 7368......................and unsubscribe.

It's hard to imagine that I could be any less excited about Windows 7.

 

[Coke Robot]

If you truly believe that, I may have a sweet deal for you on some beach front property.

I've heard other Microsoft "polls" indicate Media Center is used by 6% of the Windows base. I don't know which is funnier, that ludicrous claim, or suspending disbelief long enough to laugh at Microsoft's response, "Kill it! Kill it with fire!"

I think Microsoft's telemetry is just as credible as Pharmaceutical company reports on new drugs.
Somehow the reports are always edited, so that they show on benefits and remove any references to side effects.

The telemetryhas been "massaged" to support Microsoft's stated position (it wasn't used to establish the position initially).

Just look at the "hotspot" charts of "Metro vs the Start Menu" on Sinofsky's blog.
They seem convincing, until you realise that Sinofsky doesn't know how to use the Start Menu at all (or he's distorting the truth).

That's comparison of defaults between the menu and screen. Sure, you can set the menu to take up the whole side of the Desktop, but if I remember right, more items are displayed on the screen than menu. I find the telemetry data fairly correct. The animation between an app to the Start Screen is a couple of seconds and by that time, my mouse is already in the location of a tile shortcut that I need even before the animation is complete.

Or it could be just me....

 

[Coke Robot]

OK. You certainly have a right to your choices. I have mine.



I'll just........................ View attachment 7368......................and unsubscribe.

It's hard to imagine that I could be any less excited about Windows 7.

Those cats make me laugh!!

 

[Pixel Eater]

The start menu is vastly better for those using the desktop UI

I don't know how people can take this mantra about tablets so seriously. Metro shouldn't change a thing if tablets never existed. The Start Menu is inferior at today's resolutions and in terms of visual elements that draw you in. This implementation encourages people to finally execute things the Start Menu has always been capable of, but were oft neglected.

So you actually know the spelled out name of /every/ application and utility item etc on your computer to type them in on the metro screen huh?

This would be pertinent if it weren't for Win+Q/All Apps being an even better version of what you're stuck on.

Even xp's start menu was better than 7's. You got a full view of all the menus and sub menus.

Sub menus are a great example of clutter that should be discouraged.

 

[Ivo]

The Start Menu is inferior at today's resolutions and in terms of visual elements that draw you in. This implementation encourages people to finally execute things the Start Menu has always been capable of, but were oft neglected.

Are you saying you need an incentive to click on some program? Are you saying you won't use Notepad or Photoshop or Outlook if there is no in-your-face colorful icon to "draw you in and encourage you"?

This would be pertinent if it weren't for Win+Q/All Apps being an even better version of what you're stuck on.

Sub menus are a great example of clutter that should be discouraged.

Beg to disagree on this one. Having everything on one screen is the definition of clutter. I bet you use sub-folders to orgnaize your documents instead of dumping everything in My Documents. The sub-menus are the menu equivalent to sub-folders.

 

[crawfish]

Beg to disagree on this one. Having everything on one screen is the definition of clutter. I bet you use sub-folders to orgnaize your documents instead of dumping everything in My Documents. The sub-menus are the menu equivalent to sub-folders.

The Start Menu has always been horrible because it's laborious to navigate, and it GOES AWAY when you select something from it, forcing you to do the navigation all over again the next time.

The desktop has always been horrible because it's usually covered by windows, obscuring the things it contains. Also, Windows has always been horrible about remembering where you placed icons.

The Metro Start Screen is horrible because it's an infinitely scrolling roll, a full-screen, modal monstrosity, that depends upon things like "The 4 Corners", which are certain to appear in the next edition of "GUI Bloopers". The "live tiles" are worthless because they aren't visible when I'm actually using my computer, and they're too small to convey much useful information anyway. Metro would never have been invented if Microsoft wasn't so desperate over losing the mobile market and so lacking in confidence in their mobile efforts they're trying to leverage their success on the desktop to make mobile happen. I think it's going to backfire in a big way.

The Windows 7 taskbar is brilliant because it combines the original taskbar purpose of helping one locate and activate windows with program launching. By pinning programs, you always know where to look for a program to launch it, activate its window, check on its progress indicator, access its jump list, etc. Programs stay exactly where you pin them, which improves efficiency over time through familiarity and muscle memory. On a relatively small 1680x1050 monitor, it's possible to fit 18 icons on a single row, taking up about 70% of the horizontal area, leaving room for some folder shortcuts and the notification area. The taskbar really comes into its own when you use multiple rows, like I described in this message. I use a lot of different programs, and people who use fewer will easily get by with 1 or 2 rows.

 

[Dok]

I have been running 8 on my main laptop for a month now and at one time or another I have agreed with every post on this thread. At first I was so frustrated I hated the start screen and the metro ui. I've learned and adapted and now I love it. First, I have the programs (or files) that I use most often pinned to the task bar. I then customized the start screen so that 99% of what I need is either pinned to the task bar, given a shortcut on the desktop or found on the start screen. Now I rarely have to go to the All Apps screen. I find the start screen much faster than the old start menu. I'm glad they forced the change. I went through all the XP years with the start set up as "classic" and if MS didn't force me I'd probably set up 8 like Win7 and never learn the advantages.

 

[Arpan]

I have been running 8 on my main laptop for a month now and at one time or another I have agreed with every post on this thread. At first I was so frustrated I hated the start screen and the metro ui. I've learned and adapted and now I love it. First, I have the programs (or files) that I use most often pinned to the task bar. I then customized the start screen so that 99% of what I need is either pinned to the task bar, given a shortcut on the desktop or found on the start screen. Now I rarely have to go to the All Apps screen. I find the start screen much faster than the old start menu. I'm glad they forced the change. I went through all the XP years with the start set up as "classic" and if MS didn't force me I'd probably set up 8 like Win7 and never learn the advantages.

:thumbup: You are absolutely right, Dok. Those who are complaining about the start screen are those who don't have the attitude of embracing the new. They are those being unreasonably stubborn. I have read posts where some say, to invest little time to learn the new os is 'loss of productivity'. I had taken less than two hours to get used to windows 8.
You are a brilliant example of people having positive attitude being the one benefited. Take some time to at least get the very basics of the new os.

 

[lehnerus2000]

You are absolutely right, Dok. Those who are complaining about the start screen are those who don't have the attitude of embracing the new. They are those being unreasonably stubborn. I have read posts where some say, to invest little time to learn the new os is 'loss of productivity'. I had taken less than two hours to get used to windows 8.
You are a brilliant example of people having positive attitude being the one benefited. Take some time to at least get the very basics of the new os.

Have you seen anyone complain about the reduced RAM usage in W8?

Can you guess why?
I'll spell it out for you, reduced RAM usage is a worthwhile change.

Like all Metro fans, you assume that people that don't like it, just haven't used it enough.

It's like saying that if you don't like drinking sump oil, you just haven't drunk enough of it. :shock:

 

[bridges]

I think the fact of the matter is to compete in todays market MS needs to make one software that will work with all your devices and I think MS has got it right with the new metro start menu. I think the desktop days are soon to be over. Just think about it, how fast windows will load up once the desktop is gone!

 

[Arpan]

You are absolutely right, Dok. Those who are complaining about the start screen are those who don't have the attitude of embracing the new. They are those being unreasonably stubborn. I have read posts where some say, to invest little time to learn the new os is 'loss of productivity'. I had taken less than two hours to get used to windows 8.
You are a brilliant example of people having positive attitude being the one benefited. Take some time to at least get the very basics of the new os.

Have you seen anyone complain about the reduced RAM usage in W8?

Can you guess why?
I'll spell it out for you, reduced RAM usage is a worthwhile change.

Like all Metro fans, you assume that people that don't like it, just haven't used it enough.

It's like saying that if you don't like drinking sump oil, you just haven't drunk enough of it. :shock:

I'll spell it out for you, reduced RAM usage is a worthwhile change.

I hope you know the difference between change and improvement. Reduction in RAM usage isn't a "change" its an "improvement". It means the computer is performing faster. Why would anybody complain about that? Metro is something that "changes" the way a user uses his/her computer. So, those who are not willing change, are the ones complaining. Do you think microsoft is paying me or people like me for liking metro? If there was nothing in metro, why would I like it? I am not the only one liking metro.

But yes, I agree that microsoft should give users the option of booting directly into desktop mode.

 

[Arpan]

Like all Metro fans, you assume that people that don't like it, just haven't used it enough.

It's like saying that if you don't like drinking sump oil, you just haven't drunk enough of it. :shock:

You couldn't get me because I put that line without any reference. Its my mistake. I don't assume that people haven't used metro enough.
Actually, I had said that its a bit of a problem for organisations because they have to train thousands of employees to use win8. But microsoft has said it would include a 'Get Started' assistant software with the stable windows 8 release so that, the problem is solved to some extent. And the reply I got was, this change was 'loss of productivity'.

 

[legacy7955]

The question is if MS is so confident in the new configuration why not allow a default selection that allows the user to have a CHOICE of the traditional start menu?

 

[mart4494]

I think the fact of the matter is to compete in todays market MS needs to make one software that will work with all your devices and I think MS has got it right with the new metro start menu. I think the desktop days are soon to be over. Just think about it, how fast windows will load up once the desktop is gone!

I doubt if the desktop days are going to be over any time soon especially with corporate. Cannot see any company investing potentially expensive training time in Win8 to achieve what they could already do with Win7.

Boot times are IMO largely academic especially if you're operating with a SSD. I personally did not experience any improvement with my short time experimenting with Win8 and a few seconds here and there at boot time is really of no significance.