No Microsoft Start Menu for Windows 8 until 2015: Sources

Microsoft won't be delivering a new Start Menu for Windows 8 with its coming Windows 8.1 Update 2, after all.

That recent change in plans comes courtesy of a couple of my sources who've had good track records on Windows information.

Up until recently, Microsoft was hoping to make a new "Mini" Start Menu part of a second update to Windows 8.1. Windows 8.1 Update 2 was -- and still is, last I heard -- slated to arrive in August of this year.

Microsoft's operating systems group has decided to hold off on delivering a Microsoft-developed Start Menu until Threshold, the next "major" release of Windows. Threshold, which may or may not ultimately be called Windows 9, is expected to be released in April 2015. I'm not clear whether the postponement is because the feature won't be fully baked in time, or if there's another reason for the change in plans.

Read more at: No Microsoft Start Menu for Windows 8 until 2015: Sources | ZDNet

 

[Tepid]

There is more to Win8 than the dang Start Screen. If one actually takes the time to learn how to use Win8 efficiently, it actually is faster and easier to use.

 

[Rxd]

Blah, blah, blah...

If you would only learn Windows 8 blah, blah,blah....

I know Windows 8.

I don't lke a Windows 8.

 

[mdmd]

Why pure ignorance? If someone uses the start menu all the time? That's his/her right and preference. Not ignorance. With a well arranged start menu you can access hundreds of programs and documents very quickly. Faster than by browsing several pages of Start Screens. Few people use it, and I almost never use it, because most if not all of your useful shortcuts find there place on the desktop but it's potentially a formidable tool should you choose to use it.

Hello Fredledingue.

Microsoft is designing a desktop menu, right?

With a well arranged start menu you can access hundreds of programs and documents very quickly.

I could say the same. But, with your suggestion, how would you go about designing a desktop menu that can handle hundreds of programs and documents? Do you like the 7 menu?
It does not cascade. Do you think they will bring back cascading?

As to your point about scrolling through pages,
this is an area of controversy because, as designed, no scrolling is required.

I have close to 300 "apps" installed, everything fits on 1 page as listed by zooming or alphabetical list.
The default is always to go with a scrolling complaint.
My start screen is often times blank, so there is no movement there.


It could be necessary to scroll through a desktop menu, necessary to scroll through a toolbar.
A taskbar is awesome, but has limited icon space unless you drag / resize.
If one only does 12 things with their PC, do they need a desktop menu?

Sure, there's more to 8 than a menu.
Can you post a screenshot of a desktop menu with hundreds of programs?

I get it, the metro menu is for tablets, not for a desktop computer.
Right?

 

[mdmd]

There is more to Win8 than the dang Start Screen. If one actually takes the time to learn how to use Win8 efficiently, it actually is faster and easier to use.

I agree, but take a different view. As others have and do,
time taken to use what is by default, can be lightning quick, fast, and easy.

In some ways, it could be more efficient than desktop icons.
A great deal depends on preference /
... like this, I hate desktop icons, I don't care for more than a few taskbar icons,
I don't even like a cluttered start screen.

So what is Microsoft to do? Windows 9 is likely to increase metro stuff across devices.
Their clouds / accounts / live tiles / tile notifications / synchronizations are important to them.

Linux and Apple are looking better eh?

 

[pparks1]

Well said, pparks

What's well said?
Anybody got a Microscope?
Who operates a PC at 2560 X 1440?

Everybody at my office, who has the new Dell UltraSharp 27" monitor is running at 2560x1440. It's fantastic.

Who almost never goes full screen?
You like this?

View attachment 44532

Righto, that's exactly what my screen looks like. SMH!!!! That's what you get with multiple things open with low resolution. At 2560x1440, you can actually have multiple things sharing your screen.

This idea of click complaints ... It's got to be 1, really?

Sure, why would I want to click around multiple times to launch the stuff I use 98% of the time? Waste of time. I've got a dock on my Mac as well that requires 1 click for the stuff that I use 99.95% of the time.

You never scroll, ever? For anything?

Come on, why are you being so all or nothing? Sure I scroll from time to time, but I don't have to scroll the start screen to find the overwhelming majority of what I use day to day, it's all on my bar at the bottom.

You never close anything?

I don't have to flip to the Start screen, and have my running apps go out of view to launch other apps. That's what I'm saying. If I have a powershell script running, hitting start and having my entire screen taken over by the start screen is like closing/minimizing my powershell window because I cannot see what is going on.

The Windows 7 start menu does not have a classic option.

My bad for using the word "classic". A better choice would have been the current way and the previous way. You have choices when it comes to 7.

My system has at least 40 third party applications. Should I be sad?

Only if you want to be sad. My system has lots of 3rd party apps too. They are for things other than basic functionality. Think a few inches outside of the box, you knew what I was getting at.

 

[pparks1]

And 2560 X 1440 is a very normal res, ... so having 17"+ monitor definitely needs 2560 X 1440.

ok. Is that normal on your screen? Without setting the DPI to larger, it is hurtful to look at.
Going from (2560 x 1440) to (1920 x 1080) makes a huge improvement.

View attachment 44589

I upgraded from a 24" Dell UltraSharp at work that ran 1920x1200 to a 27" that runs 2560x1440. I want all of the screen resolution that i can get. And no, I don't run with larger DPI. My DPI is set at 100%. I have a MacBook Pro that "can" run 2560x1440 on a 13" screen. Yes, that one is too small. On a 27" screen, it's a different ballgame.

I agree, but take a different view. As others have and do,
time taken to use what is by default, can be lightning quick, fast, and easy.

In some ways, it could be more efficient than desktop icons.
A great deal depends on preference /
... like this, I hate desktop icons, I don't care for more than a few taskbar icons,
I don't even like a cluttered start screen.

So what is Microsoft to do? Windows 9 is likely to increase metro stuff across devices.
Their clouds / accounts / live tiles / tile notifications / synchronizations are important to them.

Linux and Apple are looking better eh?

Nobody says you cannot have it the way you want it. Nothing wrong with your approach at all. It's those of us who "lost" the way that we like it without having to resort to third parties that are annoyed.

The metro interface is great on the phones, it's fine on the Surface's, it's good on tablets, some people like it on their desktops/laptops. Microsoft can do whatever they want with Metro, it's totally fine with me. Just give us an option if we don't want to use it or find it beneficial. MS has been bringing back most of what we have been complaining about since Windows 8 launched, so clearly we cannot all be totally wrong.

Apple is looking a bit better. I bought my very first Apple MacBook Pro a few months ago. Using it right now. Never before have I owned a single piece of Apple gear. (no iphones, no iPad's, no iPods, I dislike iTunes). Cannot say I am disappointed in any way with my Mac.

 

[mdmd]

I was expecting this. You like to pick sentence by sentence. If that is your choice.
ok. Here is a reference.

... It's all right there, I don't have to close anything, I don't have to scroll, and I only have to click one time.

I assume you scroll web pages.
My monitor is not as good as yours (or others, I think).
Going with that resolution creates an awful blur, unreadable.
Have you increased your DPI?
As far as overlapping goes, I am getting a sense that your single screen space is so huge that nothing ever overlaps. I tried that resolution, the screen space did not increase much more than 1920 x 1080.

About clicks, I do the same with docks.
It's the work environment, and using a mouse and keyboard,
could require hundreds of clicks daily and thousands of keystrokes.

I do get fluffed, but try to make a point. Microsoft will spend millions on the design of a desktop menu.
We can have one now for free / or 5 bucks.

That's what you get with multiple things open with low resolution

It is an example going back to Windows 95.
I never get to that point either.
The taskbar does allow for cascaded windows, that looks much like that screenshot.

As described in another post here, Windows is all about maximized, minimized, defaulted, moved, resized and closed windows. Paging to another screen, to me, seems easy and quick using Edge UI thumbs, Windows Switcher or Win hotkeys.

 

[mdmd]

Oops, you got a second post in before I completed the first.

I looked at a Surface, and wow, nice but my old age and eyes cannot handle the tiny size of everything.
Same with desktop monitors, same with file explorer, same with tiles.

I cannot function without huge, vision impaired stuff. I need to up the DPI on everything.
I've seen the Apple screens at Best Buy.
They are fantastic!

 

[pparks1]

I assume you scroll web pages.

Well of course I scroll web pages. I was talking about scrolling as it pertained to launching applications. I prefer ~10 icons on the taskbar, and I prefer a hierarchical menu over a full screen start screen where I have to scroll off to the right in order to find applications to launch. That's what I mean by scrolling. I didn't mean I didn't scroll at all when utilizing computers.

My monitor is not as good as yours (or others, I think).
Going with that resolution creates an awful blur, unreadable.
Have you increased your DPI?
As far as overlapping goes, I am getting a sense that your single screen space is so huge that nothing ever overlaps. I tried that resolution, the screen space did not increase much more than 1920 x 1080.

The monitor that I have is pretty nice. It's a Dell U2713HM, 27" IPS flat panel. Dell UltraSharp 27 Monitor - U2713HM

I have not increased the DPI. It's running at 100%. I had not increased the DPI on my 24" monitor that ran 1920x1200. Increasing the DPI would have somewhat negated the advantages afforded by the 2560x1440 resolution.

I found the screen space increase going from 1920x1200 to this new monitor to be outstanding. I've got quite a few people at work who come by and say, "hey, when are you going to upgrade my monitor to one that looks like that"? Everybody else at work is on a 23" Dell Ultrasharp running 1920x1080

I cannot function without huge, vision impaired stuff. I need to up the DPI on everything.
I've seen the Apple screens at Best Buy.
They are fantastic!

It's funny, because when I bought the Apple MacBook Pro, the 13" Retina display looked great, but the resolution was practically useless to me. Technically, it's 2560x1600, but it's pixel doubled. So, in essense, it's the screen real-estate space of 1280x800. I couldn't stand it whatsover. So, I'm running the 13" screen at a scaled resolution of 1680x1050. It's not quite as sharp as the "best for the display, Retina setting", but I can see so much more that it's a trade-off I'll make 100 times out of 100.

 

[mdmd]

I was talking about scrolling as it pertained to launching applications. I prefer ~10 icons on the taskbar, and I prefer a hierarchical menu over a full screen start screen where I have to scroll off to the right in order to find applications to launch. That's what I mean by scrolling. I didn't mean I didn't scroll at all when utilizing computers.

This is one of my one note rants I always get into.
(Like your taskbar reference number)
Funny thing is, I am on the opposite side of the fence with other start screeners.
I, as well, prefer minimal start tiles, like 10 or less or NONE at all. I prefer none.

The hierarchical issue is a matter installer results.
The apps screen is automatically sorted and grouped as my endless screenshots have shown.
I would have to see evidence that a hierarchical structure a.k.a. nests, work better than what exists in apps.

Over time here, I have seen dozens of screenshots of nests, but I haven't seen anything that could not be managed by apps.

It's one of my quirks / rant points. Using semantic zooming, all scrolling is eliminated in apps.

 

[mdmd]

My computer monitor is a Westinghouse TV !

 

[pparks1]

I would like start screen more if it wasn't the whole screen. That is what really bugs me. The way it works is ok, but not the whole screen. Personal preference.

So, since I don't like the above, I like having a choice. That's all. Don't need to change for everyone.

 

[Berndruppert]

i don't care about the start menu, i care the easy way to use. so i will not wait for that.





samsung galaxy s5 handytasche

 

[Fredledingue]

I could say the same. But, with your suggestion, how would you go about designing a desktop menu that can handle hundreds of programs and documents? Do you like the 7 menu? It does not cascade. Do you think they will bring back cascading?

No. I hate the 7 menu. I hate when it lists the last used shortcuts. Non-cascading menu is besicaly useless. But I think you can make it cascading in 7. Never cared to try...

If one only does 12 things with their PC, do they need a desktop menu?

In my case the menu is useful for accessing programs which I usualy never use. I dig into it to find it. Daily stuffs are naturaly on the desktop as it's the first thing appearing on the monitor screen... Until 8 was invented. With 8, I'm in the wierd situation when I click on a tile on the start screen, the desktop appears and then, after about half a second later it launches the choosen application. Why do I need the Start Screen if it's to launch the desktop almost everytime an application is started?

I get it, the metro menu is for tablets, not for a desktop computer. Right?

I don't even know or care how it looks on tablets. I don't own any one. But on a desktop PC I'm still at odds with why we need it at all. What's the point with two overlapped full-screen displays listing clickable shortcuts, both having exactely the same purpose?

 

[mdmd]

...What's the point with two overlapped full-screen displays listing clickable shortcuts, both having exactly the same purpose?

It's easy to say there's no point. I would say, primarily, it's an entry point to the Microsoft Store.
It's a way to get people onboard with what Microsoft wants to sell.
Some might say it's a way to get synchronization across devices.

You'd have to go to a Microsoft website that sells its vision.

On the other hand, people get wrapped up in the isolation box known as the desktop.
Someone mentioned I should think outside of the box, but staying in desktop mode only is ONLY inside the box.
Desktop mode only is the usage that dates back to the origins of a graphical user interface GUI.

You'd have to do a little research on what exactly the desktop is.
It's not real, it's a metaphor, it's a compilation of DLL's and Binaries that give the illusion of an active workspace but is actually a group of constructs like the taskbar, the coordinate system for mouse and keyboard, ASCII translation, video rendering etc...

There is nothing special about its appearance except that square fixed model is what people are used to.

There is no point for me to try and sell the start / apps.
I use it differently than others, how others use it, I don't care for, how I use it, others don't care for.
All I can say is, that they (start / apps) can handle more than a desktop menu by far, more than desktop wallpaper can handle by far because it is multipage. They (start / apps) can handle more than a taskbar or a toolbar. Start / Apps can handle far more than a desktop dock.

And again, if people complain about scrolling, it's because they don't know how to use it. (semantic zooming doesn't ring any bells / or does apps screen hot keys) At the same time, they would scroll endlessly through websites. Scroll endlessly through file explorer. Scroll endlessly through every program they use. Why don't they complain about that? Also, arguing against full screen paging is nonsense. It is literally no different than memo pages in a pad, or full screen sticky notes.

Since there is so much vile revulsion with touch, it is pointless to discuss it. But arguments about that fail to make the case as to how easy it is to use with a mouse and keyboard. Still, it is pointless to discuss it because people have been whining for years about how ugly it is.

I like it because it can do what a desktop menu cannot.

 

[pparks1]

Well said, pparks

What's well said?
Anybody got a Microscope?
Who operates a PC at 2560 X 1440?
Who almost never goes full screen?
You like this?

View attachment 44532

No, it looks more like this. So that's my email open, my instant messenger, a web browser, a power shell window, a command line, the calculator, my remote desktop connection app and room to spare. It's on a 27" display at 2560x1440.



And here is what happens if I drop my resolution to 1920x1080. (it's not pretty)

 

[mdmd]

It's all good!

 

[livingenzyme]

Hi there.

Agree -- the Metro stuff is virtually USELESS on the current desktop.
Cheers
jimbo

I respectfully disagree with this assessment.

I'm guessing you work in a nice comfy office at a desk all day?

As an engineer, I need to do work both in my nice comfy office and out at construction sites. Desk jockeys have trouble understanding computing on your feet. So, currently there is zero published applications for people like myself that need some kind of application that works in both a touch/tablet environment and a nice comfy office environment.

I've been working on such an application, having been a software developer in my past life. I've been developing and field testing the app everyday both in the field and in my office. Sure beats the traditional way of hand-writing out everything like what everyone else currently does.

There is currently a huge disconnect between desk jockeys and field jockeys. And this is exactly why there are so few applications written for field jockeys right now. Desk jockeys can't imagine what it's like to compute on your feet, and field jockeys don't know how to code.

Anyway, to say that metro apps are useless on a desktop is misguided. Try carrying a laptop around to do honest to god field work at construction sites and see what I mean. Desktop apps are horrendous to work with in the field. Why? Because they are designed by desk jockeys who have no comprehension of computing on your feet.

 

[HippsieGypsie]

Welcome to Windows Eight Forums, livingenzyme.

Having worked building for a career, I know exactly what you mean. Very well put!

 

[Rickkins]

There is currently a huge disconnect between desk jockeys and field jockeys. And this is exactly why there are so few applications written for field jockeys right now. Desk jockeys can't imagine what it's like to compute on your feet, and field jockeys don't know how to code.

Is there any chance it could be because desk jockeys outnumber filed jockeys 100,000 to 1....???

(note, I made the number up based on absolutely actual factual data whatsoever)