Start Menu Could Return to Windows in Spring 2014

[bmwman91]

I am not sure if "bloated" is really applicable to Win8. When I switched from Win7 Ultimate to Win8 Pro on my old T61p, and had everything set up and installed...Win8 used 500MB less RAM than Win7 after a full boot. It booted faster and generally felt more responsive than Win7, although I sure do miss Aero effects.

Now I do have ZERO love for the metro apps and the first thing I do on any Win8 install is right click+uninstall all of the annoying built-in metro apps. MS needs to hurry up and put in an easily accessible option for users to select between "desktop" and "tablet" modes. I'd be fine with them leaving the start screen as I actually prefer it to the start menu of Win7 now that I have gotten used to it, but leave all that full screen metro app garbage out!

 

[TommyTanker]

I am not in IT and dont use PCs or OS for work, I'm just a casual gamer who has owned a few PCs of his lifetime.

I find Windows 8 as a user, incredibly confusing. If want to open the web browser I can do it in two ways at the layout of the browser is totally different. Either going through apps or from my desktop.
It feels like I have two different 'work areas' where my icons are placed, I don't need two work areas. Start button used to remedy all my requirements, now I spend my time hunting for things between different screens and menus.

 

[pjmelect]

bring back Aero glass too windows, Microsoft removed it to make the desktop look less appealing so that people would be more likely to use Metro

 

[bryonhowley]

I really hope this is not true or at the very least Microsoft gives us a way to disable it as part of the install completely. Windows 8.1 is perfect the way it is and the Start Menu needs to stay dead completely and for ever.

 

[rokit]

OMG yet another change in the menu, MS can't fix the problem at the core os it does just that.
Windows 8 - most of the programs work in classic desktop which means that even if you like metro ui you will still hop in and out - disturbing
Windows 8.1 - they added menu button...but the button leads to metro ui again, so whats the point if you could do it with some other method?
Windows 8.2 - they will add menu that looks like metro one on your classic desktop and will allow you to use both normal program and metro shit ones.

MS - no release without fail

Windows 8.3 - they'll add normal Windows 7 theme so that you can use something better looking than flat garbage they forced on you. Not only the flat windows borders look ugly but they also intersect with other windows and you can't properly distinguish them.

Have to see Windows from time to time because of my friends, so it does disturb me as well. Please Mikes fix the bullshit you created, gave some customization, gave simple access to all settings from 1 place not 2 of them, make the naming in those setting logical and simple to understand.

 

[Maxor127]

I use Classic Shell. It works pretty good. The only things I'm missing now is that it's still missing sort columns in the open/save windows, and I still hate the ribbon.

 

[danwat1234]

Start8, ModernMix, etc, etc, 3rd party software FTW. Makes win8 look like win7 with the win8 kernel improvements.

 

[belardo]

Apps that float on the desktop?! You mean, like how programs have run on a WINDOW on a desktop for the past 30+ years? Oh My GOD!!! Maybe they should call it... I dunno... Windows!?

 

[KelvinTy]

While newer companies are producing lightweight OS, Windows is going as heavy as possible, with as much stupid features as possible... With customizability making a return, Windows is closing down on options...
I really don't get their business model, less features, slower, higher price, less option? That doesn't sound right...

 

[belardo]

Metro apps should have been the new gadgets from the beginning of win8. Start Menu should have been replaced with something better than unorganized metro start bullshit screen, something more logical and useful. Microsoft should stop copying everybody, and start innovating.

And MS came up with some stupid BS about gadgets being dangerous... so they shut down their own gadgets. Thank got I still have mine downloaded.

Microsoft, innovate? Since when? They either buy it or steal it... been that way since they bought "MS-DOS".

 

[belardo]

Start8, ModernMix, etc, etc, 3rd party software FTW. Makes win8 look like win7 with the win8 kernel improvements.

WOW! Really?! It makes Windows8 look just like Windows7?! So the stupid ugly flat 80's skin on Win8 is updated to Windows 7 style? With all that work, hacks and crap.... there are two other options that are easier and cheaper:

Use Windows 7 or Use LinuxMint

 

[techguy911]

Sure the fix is to install windows 7 but do you realize that microsoft has stopped making windows 7 and for oem builders it is becoming harder to find and for retail they pulled it off the shelf.
That way in 2 years you will have no choice either win 8.2 or go SteamOs i think MS is afraid if SteamOs catches on goodbye profits.

 

[burkhartmj]

I don't know if I'll ever understand the hatred for Windows 8. It seems like people simply don't want to adapt to change, and thus assume that the change is inherently bad, just because it's change.

I have my desktop [with no touchscreen] on 8.1, and a tablet on 8.1 [as well as my work desktop on Windows 7]. I use them in very different ways, and I don't spend as much time in Metro on the desktop by far, but metro also doesn't get in my way at all. The Start screen is as useful as the Start menu ever was [though they do need to add a folder mechanism to it], while being more attractive and giving better access to certain features [like search for example]. It's a matter of going into Start and clicking what you want, or if you don't see it instantly, just type the name and hit enter and you're golden. You don't have to hunt through the all apps screen if you don't want to.

On top of this, Windows 8 is a better performer, using less memory, running lighter on the CPU, and booting in half the time of Windows 7.

Can someone explain to me how the Start menu is actually functionally better than the Start screen, aside from familiarity and nostalgia? Keep in mind I said functionally, not aesthetically. I understand it can be a bit jarring jumping from a full screen menu to the desktop, but that doesn't effect functionality and you just get used to it. Also, saying "it's ugly" is based on personal preference, so it's also irrelevant to discussing functionality.

If they remove the ability to install desktop apps, even in a desktop environment, then my tune will change quite a bit, but as things stand right now Windows 8.1 is my favorite Windows OS to date.

Also, for everyone suggesting MS is dying by sticking to the pay model for Windows vs free alternatives, how many average users buy an OS? It ALWAYS comes preinstalled, so it's just as 'free' to them as OSX is to Mac users. And before anyone mentions how the latest version of OSX was free, so was 8.1 and it made more changes and added more features than OSX. OSX hasn't released anything beyond updates for years and has made you pay for them, while MS releases actual features for free until an entire new OS is released.

And I'm sorry, but Linux is still going nowhere on the consumer front. It's a usability nightmare once you get past the most basic of functions, and even those can get hosed up with bugs too often. Also, talk about UI changes! I've used a number of distros, and none of them are exactly lookers, and they change more often and in worse ways than Mac or Windows ever has.

 

[JD88]

Also, for everyone suggesting MS is dying by sticking to the pay model for Windows vs free alternatives, how many average users buy an OS? It ALWAYS comes preinstalled, so it's just as 'free' to them as OSX is to Mac users. And before anyone mentions how the latest version of OSX was free, so was 8.1 and it made more changes and added more features than OSX. OSX hasn't released anything beyond updates for years and has made you pay for them, while MS releases actual features for free until an entire new OS is released.

And I'm sorry, but Linux is still going nowhere on the consumer front. It's a usability nightmare once you get past the most basic of functions, and even those can get hosed up with bugs too often. Also, talk about UI changes! I've used a number of distros, and none of them are exactly lookers, and they change more often and in worse ways than Mac or Windows ever has.

Operating systems come already installed on store bought PCs, but the OEM still has to pay for them. OEMs are currently looking for ways to reduce costs and make hardware better in the race to the bottom that has occurred since tablets took over much of the market. For example, look at Chrome OS devices vs Windows devices in the same price bracket. They Chrome devices have about $50-100 worth of better hardware thanks to the OEM not having to budget so much for the now VERY overpriced Windows 8. Microsoft knows this which is why they are starting to offer Windows and Office free on lower end machines and tablets just to prop up their market share against Chromebooks and Tablets.

Linux has already won. There are more Android devices in this world than Windows devices and Chrome OS is catching fire. Microsoft is spending tens of millions on trying to bury it, but all they are doing is drawing attention to a competitor. The outdated business model of charging large sums for an operating system is simply not going to keep Microsoft floating in the long term and they know it, thus the transition to be more like Apple and Google. They have admitted as much.

 

[aatir]

Well windows 7 does the job well in gaming and all other stuff. I am not upgrading anytime soon..

 

[burkhartmj]

Operating systems come already installed on store bought PCs, but the OEM still has to pay for them. OEMs are currently looking for ways to reduce costs and make hardware better in the race to the bottom that has occurred since tablets took over much of the market. For example, look at Chrome OS devices vs Windows devices in the same price bracket. They Chrome devices have about $50-100 worth of better hardware thanks to the OEM not having to budget so much for the now VERY overpriced Windows 8. Microsoft knows this which is why they are starting to offer Windows and Office free on lower end machines and tablets just to prop up their market share against Chromebooks and Tablets.

Linux has already won. There are more Android devices in this world than Windows devices and Chrome OS is catching fire. Microsoft is spending tens of millions on trying to bury it, but all they are doing is drawing attention to a competitor. The outdated business model of charging large sums for an operating system is simply not going to keep Microsoft floating in the long term and they know it, thus the transition to be more like Apple and Google. They have admitted as much.

Chrome OS devices don't have $50-100 better hardware because Chrome OS is a joke so it wouldn't be able to utilize it. There's really nothing else to say about it. Chrome OS might suit people who don't need to do anything taxing or professional, but I've seen more people with Surfaces than with Chrome devices [and I've only seen a handful of surfaces] And OEM's have always found other methods of subsidizing, like installing other services and AV. We hate it, but it makes the OS cost practically a wash for OEM's. That's something you can't do on Chrome OS, because it only supports the handful of things that Google allows on it.

Linux hasn't won crap. Android is a highly modified and comparatively limited system when talking about Linux. Almost all it shares with the Linux environment is its kernel. I'm referring to full OS's of the likes of Mac, Windows, Ubuntu, Mint, etc. That's why you had to broaden your statement with the term 'devices,' because on COMPUTERS, Android doesn't really exist, and Linux is not doing well at all. Only enterprise Linux distros you find on servers and supercomputers do particularly well in regards to marketshare.

And they're only giving RT away for free, not Windows 8, which makes sense considering RT is the biggest waste of time they've ever made and no one wants to touch it, and since it's almost as limited as Android and iOS and thus should be free.

 

[timaahhh]

If you like your Start menu, you can keep your Start menu. Period.

I see what you did there

 

[JD88]

Operating systems come already installed on store bought PCs, but the OEM still has to pay for them. OEMs are currently looking for ways to reduce costs and make hardware better in the race to the bottom that has occurred since tablets took over much of the market. For example, look at Chrome OS devices vs Windows devices in the same price bracket. They Chrome devices have about $50-100 worth of better hardware thanks to the OEM not having to budget so much for the now VERY overpriced Windows 8. Microsoft knows this which is why they are starting to offer Windows and Office free on lower end machines and tablets just to prop up their market share against Chromebooks and Tablets.

Linux has already won. There are more Android devices in this world than Windows devices and Chrome OS is catching fire. Microsoft is spending tens of millions on trying to bury it, but all they are doing is drawing attention to a competitor. The outdated business model of charging large sums for an operating system is simply not going to keep Microsoft floating in the long term and they know it, thus the transition to be more like Apple and Google. They have admitted as much.

Chrome OS devices don't have $50-100 better hardware because Chrome OS is a joke so it wouldn't be able to utilize it. There's really nothing else to say about it. Chrome OS might suit people who don't need to do anything taxing or professional, but I've seen more people with Surfaces than with Chrome devices [and I've only seen a handful of surfaces] And OEM's have always found other methods of subsidizing, like installing other services and AV. We hate it, but it makes the OS cost practically a wash for OEM's. That's something you can't do on Chrome OS, because it only supports the handful of things that Google allows on it.

Linux hasn't won crap. Android is a highly modified and comparatively limited system when talking about Linux. Almost all it shares with the Linux environment is its kernel. I'm referring to full OS's of the likes of Mac, Windows, Ubuntu, Mint, etc. That's why you had to broaden your statement with the term 'devices,' because on COMPUTERS, Android doesn't really exist, and Linux is not doing well at all. Only enterprise Linux distros you find on servers and supercomputers do particularly well in regards to marketshare.

And they're only giving RT away for free, not Windows 8, which makes sense considering RT is the biggest waste of time they've ever made and no one wants to touch it, and since it's almost as limited as Android and iOS and thus should be free.

You're mistaken because Android tablets can act as a replacement for a Windows PC in the consumer market very easily and the consumer market is what is most important. Without that, Microsoft is can be relegated to what IBM is these days. This is especially true in the developing world where there are no prior commitments to ecosystem.

Chrome OS is a joke? Tell that to the nearly 30% of U.S. school districts that are now using them. Tell that to nearly ever major OEM including Dell that is now selling them. Hell tell it to Microsoft who has spent tens of millions trying to sweep it under the rug through advertising. It's awful funny what happens when someone can walk into a store and have an option as to what OS they want on their machine. If Chrome and Android prove anything it's that people really aren't that tied to Windows at all.

Microsoft is a ship without a captain heading for really turbulent waters. You simply can't operate a business when your product does not justify the cost you are charging for it. No one is saying Microsoft is going under anytime soon, but their days of having a near total monopoly on the PC industry are long past.

 

[burkhartmj]

You're mistaken because Android tablets can act as a replacement for a Windows PC in the consumer market very easily and the consumer market is what is most important. Without that, Microsoft is can be relegated to what IBM is these days. This is especially true in the developing world where there are no prior commitments to ecosystem.

Chrome OS is a joke? Tell that to the nearly 30% of U.S. school districts that are now using them. Tell that to nearly ever major OEM including Dell that is now selling them. Hell tell it to Microsoft who has spent tens of millions trying to sweep it under the rug through advertising. It's awful funny what happens when someone can walk into a store and have an option as to what OS they want on their machine. If Chrome and Android prove anything it's that people really aren't that tied to Windows at all.

Microsoft is a ship without a captain heading for really turbulent waters. You simply can't operate a business when your product does not justify the cost you are charging for it. No one is saying Microsoft is going under anytime soon, but their days of having a near total monopoly on the PC industry are long past.

As someone has an Android phone and has owned Android tablets, they are an incredibly poor replacement for a full OS. Outside of media consumption, they quickly become very cumbersome to use. Even Quickoffice and Drive pale in comparison to full office suites, much moreso Office itself.

That's a fair point about schools, but it's also not really what I was referring to. What I meant by calling it a joke is the OS itself, not the marketshare. It could have 90% of the PC market and it'd still be a weak OS with very few capabilities. Hell, Chrome OS is the only PC oriented OS I believe COULD be replaced by Android without losing much or possibly any functionality or user friendliness.

To your last point, cool. I don't want MS to be the monopoly it was. I don't want ANY OS to be the monopoly. I admit, when it comes to tablets and computers I can be a bit overloyal to MS products because they've provided the best experience on both for me [though I love Android on phones], but monopoly stifles innovation, which is why it took actual competition heating up before MS did anything different from its status quo for the past 18 years. Even though I find it less than Windows, I'm more than okay with Chrome OS taking a slice of the pie and pushing others to do something about it.

My main issue is the blind hate and the prediction from people that MS is going to die off just because those people don't like change. Especially because most people I know personally who hate Windows 8 simply tried it for about a day [and by try I mean shoehorn a Win7 operating paradigm into a fundamentally different OS] and got expectedly frustrated. If you approach OS X like it's Windows or vice versa, you'll get frustrated and hate the OS. You have to expect adjustment and judge it based on that, which few people seem to do.

 

[MidnightDistort]

I'm guessing the new start menu would still look like the metro config they have started with W8/8.1. I'm not holding my breath that 'Threshold' will be a proper solution to users cries but if they won't avoid it like W8/8.1 it will work. Either way i think the Microsoft ship is already sinking. I am moving to Linux regardless of how well MS does the upcoming Windows, imo Windows has already been hijacked by a bunch of dystopian fanboys. I have noticed more and more that Linux has a warm group of people that only want a simple thing called freedom. Windows used to be similar, but now it's 'do it this way or else'. Microsoft's reputation is already dying. Vista was a disaster but it's over, Windows 8 is separating the whole Windows userbase. I doubt i'll ever need any new Windows systems because i will not support a company and a W8 fanbase that cares nothing for the people. It's all about money.

 

[cwolf78]

"Notice how fast 95/98/XP are"

Umm... if you're trying to tell me that XP is faster than 8.x I'm going to say you're full of it. Even 7 feels faster than XP on fast hardware, and 8 (esp 8.1) even faster than that. Not only does 8.x "feel" faster than XP, any number of benchmarks are available that show that 8.x actually "is" faster than XP. And what's all this talk about Win 8 being bloated? 8.x has more options than any previous version when it come to uninstalling or disabling features. Yes, Windows is going to have more bloat than Android or ChromeOS regardless of what version you're talking about, but one is a mobile-only OS and the other is bootable web browser. Do the math.

 

[ojas]

2015, not 2014.

 

[Xyos]

Why even bring it back? What function does it serve?! Anyone who knows Windows 8 knows its useless. The explorer lets you get to where you want. If you RIGHT CLICK the W8 start button you get tons of shortcuts to control panel, device mgr, etc.

The metro UI is a quick app launcher and helps free up the desktop. What function does START bring to the table?! Everything in the old start menu can be accessed just as fast or faster in W8. I know TONS of tech saavy people who had no idea you could right click the W8 start menu to get tons of shortcuts. So much hate based on ignorance!

 

[chumly]

Windows Good. Metro Bad.

 

[ta152h]

I still think Windows XP was a bloated form of Windows 2000, and Win 2K was their best release, but I fully understand why people like Windows XP, as it's not as bloated as Windows 8.1, which is not as bloated as Windows 7, which is not as bloated as Vista.

I'm using 8.1 now, and while it's no XP by any means, it's still not the disaster Windows 7 is, or even worse, Vista is. It's more responsive and quicker, and considering Windows 7 was a bit quicker than Vista, at least it's a move in the right direction.

Still, I'm in full agreement with the folks that categorize this as still bloatware. It's just not as bad as it was before.

And, the performance improvement shouldn't have to come with the stupid interface. The reality is, any real enthusiast isn't going to use Windows 7, that's for the neophyte who doesn't know how to really work a computer. The interface is better, but a power user isn't going to throw out 6% performance because they don't want to personalize the interface so it actually works OK. Whether they are doing engineering work, compiling, or even playing demanding games, this type of person won't give up that performance.

So, they're stuck with an interface that requires customization, and still is somewhat annoying compared to the previous one, just so it works better on a tablet, which they aren't using. It makes no sense.

I love Windows 2000, still, really like Windows XP, and could never go back to Windows 7 for the reason people here are saying - it's severe bloatware. I have to use Windows Vista/7/8.x because that's all my hardware supports (Kabini A6-5200), so of those three gas giants, 8.1 is the obvious choice. Still, I'm much more open to other operating systems than I was, and will be buying a few new HDs to try them out.

Microsoft really screwed up with Windows 8. It's a nice improvement, internally, but still bloated, but the interface is just wrong for the desktop. They need to stop taking half-steps, and make it the best OS for the platform it is on. 8.1 was a half-step, and is much better, but still not what we want. 8.2 needs to stop trying to be a bridge to tablets, and be the best desktop interface they can make.

Even then, some damage has been done and it's irreversible.