Is This What The Windows Start Menu Will Look Like?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AsTheDeath

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2011
47
0
18,530
0
So it has a list of apps on the left-hand side, an "All Apps" option and a search bar, and some metro tiles on the right-hand side.

Isn't the only difference between this and the start screen as it is now that the start menu is not full screen? I have all the apps I use regularly pinned on the left-hand side of my start screen, with the metro tiles pinned to the right.

So if the only change is less usable UI space, I hope there will be an option to keep the start screen instead of a start menu.
 

Shneiky

Distinguished
Windows 8.1 performance? Where is it? Oh, you mean the "faster" boot time complimented with several tons of compatibility issues, bad interaction and I won't even comment on the interface.

Workstation + Mouse + Keyboard + 2/3 monitors = Desktop.

Touch = Metro Start Screen.

Don't mix them. Don't go Apple. If I wanted this I was going to buy a Trashcan Pro and then kill myself, because I could not look myself into the mirror.
 
ugly, but better than none.

But monthly fee for os is completely stupid.(windows 9)
What happens if you can't pay, you won't be able to go into your computer until you pay.
Sounds like ramsonware to me
 

knowom

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2006
780
0
18,990
1
It really could use paint on the start menu above note pad and command prompt lowered below calculator. In fact I'd rather them do that and have paint on the start menu than media player which I'll never used to begin with and if I did it would automatically open on it's own.
 

Steve Simons

Honorable
May 31, 2014
105
0
10,710
10
So I wonder what 'feature' microsoft will take away in Windows 9 to make sure that people have to install windows 10?

It's a bunch of BS that Windows 8 won't have an official start button and that they are basically attempting to hold people hostage over it with 9. I'm a big windows guy, but this is a part of Microsoft that I don't particularly care for.
 

t1burc1o

Reputable
Mar 12, 2014
2
0
4,510
0
I must confess that at first I was a bit reluctant to change to windows 8.1, because I've read so many negative reviews and personal opinions, but 3 months have gone by, and I almost completely forgot about that win7 image of both my laptop and my gaming rig!
Thruth be told I am still to find all those problems and difficulties almost everyone talks about!
Yes, the start menu is gone, and yes the start screen is sometimes a bit annoying, but you can still put almost everything on your desktop, and there is little need to go there all the time!
It takes some time getting used to it, but this is by far the best OS from Microsoft I have tried! Fast and reliable, and games run better too!
 

Durandul

Honorable
Apr 23, 2013
119
0
10,680
0
So it has a list of apps on the left-hand side, an "All Apps" option and a search bar, and some metro tiles on the right-hand side.

Isn't the only difference between this and the start screen as it is now that the start menu is not full screen? I have all the apps I use regularly pinned on the left-hand side of my start screen, with the metro tiles pinned to the right.

So if the only change is less usable UI space, I hope there will be an option to keep the start screen instead of a start menu.
Of course they keep the start screen, however much I wish death upon it.
Alas, the main difference between this and the start screen, is that this doesn't destroy your entire workflow, and take you out of whatever you were doing.
 

eriko

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2008
212
0
18,690
1
I just want a lighter version of Windows, less code, less features, just enough to run the applications I install. (such as Steam, Office, Firefox)

Why does Windows need to get bigger, heavier, slower with each iteration?
 

drapacioli

Distinguished
Dec 6, 2010
530
0
19,160
69
I just want a lighter version of Windows, less code, less features, just enough to run the applications I install. (such as Steam, Office, Firefox)

Why does Windows need to get bigger, heavier, slower with each iteration?
I agree on the storage space used, but there are tons of performance increases in Widnows 7 and 8 compared to older OSes, particularly Vista. I've installed 7 and 8 on decade old machines that shipped with XP, and they arguably ran faster than a clean XP install, at least when given enough graphics power (For Aero) and RAM (4GB is good for 8, 2GB is even manageable for 7)
 

Bondfc11

Honorable
Sep 3, 2013
232
0
10,680
0
No real horse in this race, I use 7 and love it, no plans on going to 8. What I found a little interesting was the posts with anything remotely negative to say about 8 all seemed to be downvoted - and anything with something positive were voted up. Interesting.
 

demonhorde665

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2008
1,492
0
19,280
0
I just want a lighter version of Windows, less code, less features, just enough to run the applications I install. (such as Steam, Office, Firefox)

Why does Windows need to get bigger, heavier, slower with each iteration?
actulaly so far been using win8/8.1 for a year now and it far lighter than any previous version of windows. Keep in mind it was designed to run fast on tablets. it uses minimum ram , has a relatively small HDD foot print for a modern OS. the only draw back is the fact every one hates the tiles. me personally I've gotten used to them they are not really as ugly as every one makes them out to be , also you can customize them to the size of a thumbnail so they don't look like tiles any more.
i really don't see why every one hates 6win8 so much. and honestly if they kill features in win 9 that wer in win 8 I'll be pissed (like how win 8 is bassically linked to your xbox account if you have one for example.)
 

ultameca

Distinguished
Mar 5, 2010
82
0
18,630
0
Don't do it Microsoft, removing metro for mouse and keyboard is a mistake... I guess I won't be upgrading from windows 8.1 sadly. I don't want to be forced back to that start button/start list. I use a mouse and keyboard and I want to keep my Modern UI :(
 
No real horse in this race, I use 7 and love it, no plans on going to 8. What I found a little interesting was the posts with anything remotely negative to say about 8 all seemed to be downvoted - and anything with something positive were voted up. Interesting.
That's because those of us who have tried the OS and bothered to take five minutes to customize it and figure out how to make good use of it realize that it is an improvement over windows 7. I mean, I would take windows 8.1 any day of the week over 7 just because of the massively improved bluetooth.

The people complaining about windows 8 or metro are the ones who obviously either haven't tried the OS or are too lazy to customize it just slightly. If you get rid of Metro apps and just use it to hold your programs, it works wonderfully - the ones that you use frequently, you know exactly where they are... the ones that you don't, press the windows key, type three or four letters, and hit enter.

I don't know about you, but not having to take my hands off the keyboard sure sounds like an improvement to me. Yes you could do that with win 7, but it was much slower and less accurate.
 

Shneiky

Distinguished


I definitely agree. People sit on their laptops and tablets and down vote anything anybody says about the 8.1. But those people forget that there are people like me who make our bread with computers. I am a 3D/Compositor generalist and even the Z420s from HP that we got we have forcibly moved to Windows 7 because we all could not work on that. I want my workstation to feel like a computer. Multitasking or multiple displays are horrible on Win8. I don't need a toy. Keep your Metro for tablets where it was intended for. Don't push it on my workstation. And let the down voting begin.
 
The worst mistake that Microsoft could would be to add a start menu back into Windows. Windows 8.1 is perfect the way it is. There is no need what so ever for a Start Menu it is not needed period. Windows 8.1 has all if the speed and performance to handle any program/game there is. Getting rid of the Start Menu was the best thing Microsoft could have done. I can't eve remember the last time I even used/needed it.
 

Shneiky

Distinguished
There are no performance gains in 8. There are performance trade offs. The main issue is that Win8 does not preload a lot of assets that Windows 7 does. This does look like a "performance gain" to a normal user, but if you are running Maya, Photoshop and etc, anytime you open a something you have to wait for it to load from complete 0. Specially if you need DirectX SDK to run some of your plug-ins. Windows 8.1 may be perfect as it is, but it is not the solution to everything. No Start Menu on a tablet makes sense, but on a workstation - that is degradation. Running several mouse/tablet (like a real tablet - Wacom) driven softwares and having to lift your hand every time to type is awful. Keep your Windows 8 for your games/browser and etc, but don't bash people who don't fit in your 8 utopia category.
 

razzb3d

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2009
163
0
18,690
1
I love it. It looks even better then the win7 start menu. Now all they have to do is enable Aero and I'm sold.

@bryonhowley - what if I told you I (and lots of others) rely on the start menu and want it back?
 

razzb3d

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2009
163
0
18,690
1
I just want a lighter version of Windows, less code, less features, just enough to run the applications I install. (such as Steam, Office, Firefox)

Why does Windows need to get bigger, heavier, slower with each iteration?
I agree on the storage space used, but there are tons of performance increases in Widnows 7 and 8 compared to older OSes, particularly Vista. I've installed 7 and 8 on decade old machines that shipped with XP, and they arguably ran faster than a clean XP install, at least when given enough graphics power (For Aero) and RAM (4GB is good for 8, 2GB is even manageable for 7)
???? windows 8 doesn't have the Aero interface, and uses far less ram then win7 because it doesn't preaload anything. Win 8 runs fine even on 1GB of ram, while win 7 likes at least 2Gb.
 

gm0n3y

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2006
3,441
0
20,780
0
Haven't used Windows 8 yet, but I have used Windows Server 2012 R2 and I have to say that it is really annoying to use in a server environment. Sure, I could customize it to 'pin' all of the programs that I use to the home screen (or whatever it's called), but I use ~20 different servers / VMs and we get new ones and retire old ones all the time. I'm not going to spend the time customizing the interface on every new system that I work with. Out of the box it is generally 1-2 extra steps to access the same settings compared to 2008 R2.

At least they haven't changed most of the core functions much. Once you get past the useless 'touch screen' interface it is pretty much the same as 2008 R2. Why would they put a touch interface on the server version anyway? The vast majority of server users are remote connecting from their workstation and I haven't run into one that has a touch screen. At least make the touch screen an option (turned off by default) so that 'normal' IT users don't have to suffer the lower productivity of the new interface.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY