Windows 8.1 TV Ad Highlights Return of Start Button

[belardo]

" In case you were worried that the months since Computex have seen the Start button cut once more, you needn't have worried.

Is Jane on Microsoft crack?!

Who the hell has ever said anything about BEING WORRIED that the Start Menu was cut? MS made a big stupid deal that it was coming back.

Nobody gives a damn about the Fracking Start Button. It IFKAM (Interface Formerly Known As Metro) that people bitched about. Press the Start button... and there you go... back to the damn place MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T want to be in the FIRST DAMN PLACE.

Microfart deserves to fail... and they are. They are a completely STUPID company. Windows 8 is BUTT UGLY. Metro is a crappy UI for a desktop system.

Microsoft is SO DAMN stupid and unprofessional that when they released IE10 for Windows7, they SKINNED IT with Windows 8 bland boring design? Hello?! Windows7 is NOT WIN8... why the hell make a program that looks like Win8?!

Why? because Microsoft is a stupid company with stupid management, period.

 

[belardo]

What Win 8 should have been:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp8_jetKEu8

Too bad you can't run 95% of games on linux or I would switch in a heartbeat.

Who cares?!
Really?! The AAA games are console only... then some games are ported to PC with the limitations of a console. So why bother? I'm going PS4... screw xBone and screw microsoft!

So without games... and what people need are a browser, facebook and maybe an office suite.... (yes yes, OpenOffice is NOT MS-Office... but for most people, IT WILL DO and its $150 cheaper).

I installed LinuxMint on one of my computers because of Windows8 (actually, I installed Linux OVER Win8... killed it)... and Linux was easier to use... made more sense, just as fast at booting up.

So really... MS is becoming a dinosaur... they missed the boat and worse, they burnt their bridge with legacy user... and that is what MS has become... a LEGACY company... old farts.

Unless I'm doing WORK on my Windows7 computer... I'll use my phone and tablet more than a desktop.... and guess what... Windows NOT required.

Hence, MS panicked, came up with this Windows8 garbage and totally screwed themselves and their end-users.

And as we see from that video... it is a BETTER design than Win8 and it IS WHAT Microsoft should have done... Except the task bar at the bottom, metro style icons on the left (but two to match their phone) and Metro apps running on the desktop. they screwed the pooch.

 

[back_by_demand]

Seeing as there is a healthy cottage industry in Start Menu replacements, if MS are not putting it back themselves to allow that industry to grow - much like the vast array of freeware that already exists - that would be better? Instead of accepting the Start Menu that is provided by MS let the software market blossom for excellent replacements?

 

[gopher1369]

My Windows 8 with Classic Shell installed does not care in the slightest.

 

[cypeq]

I think J could make something more than cheerful copypasta journalism here.

 

[DiaSin]

What Win 8 should have been:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp8_jetKEu8

Too bad you can't run 95% of games on linux or I would switch in a heartbeat.

Who cares?!
Really?! The AAA games are console only... then some games are ported to PC with the limitations of a console. So why bother? I'm going PS4... screw xBone and screw microsoft!

Are you even a PC gamer? 95% of games release on PC, ESPECIALLY the AAA titles, and very few of them have any major issues, and they usually look far better than their console counterparts.

 

[stephenkendrick]

Start Menu vs Start screen: it reminds me a lot of the very early days of DOS. How many of you can remember that in the earliest version of DOS, there were actually no folders? That's right, ALL your files were in the root of a disk. Then in version 2 they added folders and subfolders. Obviously an improvement, right? After all, who would want all their files shown together in a single place. Getting this? Yep, the so called MODERN UI is just like going from DOS 2 to DOS 1. Please explain why this is better in ANY way.

 

[timaahhh]

Windows 8 already has a start button... Its in the bottom left hand corner you just have to hover over it and it switches you between desktop and metro UI. This isn't a new feature of Windows 8.1 its already there by default in windows 8.

 

[8350rocks]

Also, to all you Linux users out there, here is a fix for Silverlight on Linux (needed for Netflix, Xfinity on Demand, and others:

http://www.webupd8.org/2013/08/pipelight-use-silverlight-in-your-linux.html

Just another issue down in making Linux a livable alternative.

Now if only someone could hack DirectX 10/11 into the OS..

There is already partial DX10 support via WINE/PoL. Full DX9 support, and DX11, wweeelllllllll....not quite there yet.

However, CryEngine 3.4 works on Ubuntu, and CryTek is working on bringing over CE 3.5. If/when that happens, you'll see accommodation for full DX11 support.

Also, keep in mind, if you can run the game with MANTLE, then you can run it on Windows/Linux/Mac without issue, and want to bet TrueAudio has drivers for Linux too?

The issue with Mantle is that from my understanding it will not work with games that are already out. The games have to be coded for it.. And the other issue is AMD.. I have heard that AMD is even more of a pain to deal with on linux than windows, and I have heard that Nvidia has more linux driver support. Also I had a friend tell me that OpenGL runs far better on the green side.. I know I get FAR less fps than I should in OpenGL games, even as underpowered as my laptop is the original Day of Defeat should run at more than 50 fps.

AMD actually has more current Linux drivers than NVidia. NVidia on Linux is a mess right now, even Linus Torvalds (Inventor of Linux) called them out recently for their terrible support. For example, you can actually download a Linux version of Catalyst with current drivers for OpenGL.

Additionally, MANTLE accepts HLSL, which is the language that DX uses, so it would be easy to port current games on DX9/DX11 to MANTLE. In fact, that's how BF4 is going to do it.

So, I don't think any of the issues you're concerned about would be a problem at all.

 

[Emerald]

The only positive thing about the Start Button is that it is easier to shut down you computer. I rather stick with Start Menu8 from IOBit. It work like Windows7 and it is FREE.9 out 10 of my clients returned their new computer because they did not want to deal with Windows8. The main reason was they wanted the start menu. Now with Windows7 off the marked I been trying to keep people happy using the IOBit Start Menu. Why is it so hard to give people what they ask for?

 

[redstar]

right click on that start button and you have more options than your old start menu ever did

 

[mdahlke]

In all fairness, the menu everyone wants back is not conducive for touchscreen devices, which Windows 8 is primarily meant for. I'm not a fan of Windows 8 for non-touchscreen devices. In fact I just installed Windows 7 on my Fiance's Windows 8 laptop because it's not a touchscreen and it blows with Windows 8. I understand what Microsoft is trying to do and honestly, I think it is the right thing to do as it is the future for touchscreen devices. It's one full blown OS for multiple platforms. Where they went wrong is shipping Windows 8 on non-touchscreen devices.

 

[8350rocks]

The only positive thing about the Start Button is that it is easier to shut down you computer. I rather stick with Start Menu8 from IOBit. It work like Windows7 and it is FREE.9 out 10 of my clients returned their new computer because they did not want to deal with Windows8. The main reason was they wanted the start menu. Now with Windows7 off the marked I been trying to keep people happy using the IOBit Start Menu. Why is it so hard to give people what they ask for?

Show them Ubuntu 13.04...they won't go back to windows after that. Not if they're tech savvy at all anyway.

 

[JD88]

The only positive thing about the Start Button is that it is easier to shut down you computer. I rather stick with Start Menu8 from IOBit. It work like Windows7 and it is FREE.9 out 10 of my clients returned their new computer because they did not want to deal with Windows8. The main reason was they wanted the start menu. Now with Windows7 off the marked I been trying to keep people happy using the IOBit Start Menu. Why is it so hard to give people what they ask for?

Show them Ubuntu 13.04...they won't go back to windows after that. Not if they're tech savvy at all anyway.

They don't need to be tech savvy. I put 13.04 on my 64 year old father's laptop. He knows nothing about computers except how to check his email and browse the web. With Windows 7, I would have to remote desktop his PC at least once a month to deal with some "popup" or something he didn't understand. Since installing Ubuntu, I've had to do so once within a year and that problem wasn't related to the OS. He comments all the time about how fast and smooth his PC is now.

 

[8350rocks]

The only positive thing about the Start Button is that it is easier to shut down you computer. I rather stick with Start Menu8 from IOBit. It work like Windows7 and it is FREE.9 out 10 of my clients returned their new computer because they did not want to deal with Windows8. The main reason was they wanted the start menu. Now with Windows7 off the marked I been trying to keep people happy using the IOBit Start Menu. Why is it so hard to give people what they ask for?

Show them Ubuntu 13.04...they won't go back to windows after that. Not if they're tech savvy at all anyway.

They don't need to be tech savvy. I put 13.04 on my 64 year old father's laptop. He knows nothing about computers except how to check his email and browse the web. With Windows 7, I would have to remote desktop his PC at least once a month to deal with some "popup" or something he didn't understand. Since installing Ubuntu, I've had to do so once within a year and that problem wasn't related to the OS. He comments all the time about how fast and smooth his PC is now.

Case and point! Ubuntu 13.04 is what windows 8 should have been.

Once gaming on Linux begins to take off, I think Windows may be done. How long we have to wait for that to happen...who knows...? However, I think that day is coming.

 

[Superusers]

No one using Windows 8 really cares about the "start button" it has been more or less useless for several years. It was a pleasure leaving it behind with Windows 7. I understand that Microsoft needs to please enterprise customers with the boot to desktop but I for one think the new Start Menu is way better.

 

[Superusers]

No one using Windows 8 really cares about the "start button" it has been more or less useless for several years. It was a pleasure leaving it behind with Windows 7. I understand that Microsoft needs to please enterprise customers with the boot to desktop but I for one think the new Start Menu is way better.

 

[8350rocks]

No one using Windows 8 really cares about the "start button" it has been more or less useless for several years. It was a pleasure leaving it behind with Windows 7. I understand that Microsoft needs to please enterprise customers with the boot to desktop but I for one think the new Start Menu is way better.

Keep in mind In terms of desktop OS by % usage:
Windows 7: 46%
Windows XP: 22%
Windows 8: 14%
Windows Vista: 10%
Linux (Various distros): ~5%
Mac OSX: 3%

Those are the best estimates I can get that are recent, so keep in mind, while those using windows 8 may not care about a start button...that encapsulates only ~15-16% of all users with a Windows OS on their machine.

Part of the reason M$ is failing badly right now, is because nobody is switching from Win7, in fact, you can buy Win8 online cheaper than Win7 right now. Win8 is $89 for OEM and Win7 is $99 for OEM.

 

[prince_david]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me what they like about the old start menu as opposed to the new one. The old one was such a disasterous cluster with folders everwhere requiring you to click around like a mad person. The only thing i did on the old start menu was start typing what I was looking for and clicking on it or pushing enter. Guess what, that's the same freakin way the new Start menu works only it looks nicer, and runs on a much quicker OS. Windows 7's speed is so slow compared to Windows 8.

 

[prince_david]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me what they like about the old start menu as opposed to the new one. The old one was such a disasterous cluster with folders everwhere requiring you to click around like a mad person. The only thing i did on the old start menu was start typing what I was looking for and clicking on it or pushing enter. Guess what, that's the same freakin way the new Start menu works only it looks nicer, and runs on a much quicker OS. Windows 7's speed is so slow compared to Windows 8.

 

[stevejnb]

David, as an avid Windows 8 fan, I can entirely understand the complaint of many people who don't like that the equivalent - and far superior - version of the start menu you have in Windows 8 takes the full screen. The charms bar search doesn't show your programs unless you are using a keyboard, and switching to the start screen interrupts what you're doing and takes over the full screen rather than just being a little popup menu. Right clicking on the lower left corner brings up power user features but not programs like the menu did. For someone who liked that little unobtrusive popup, the full screen start screen could be a jarring pain in the arse. While I don't find it in ANY way a problem for my use, I can understand people wanting that option - and simply put, Microsoft SHOULD have given it to them rather than leaving them looking for third party applications.

 

[8350rocks]

Can someone PLEASE explain [...]Windows 7's speed is so slow compared to Windows 8.

Well, Ubuntu 13.04 is significantly faster than Windows 8, and manages to integrate most of the functions of the old start menu with a bit of a twist.

So...if you really want something great...look away from the supernova failure that is M$ and go with *gasp* FREE software (that happens to be better)!!!

 

[JD88]

What I find so interesting in all of this is how much the PC landscape is changing thanks to faster internet speeds.

In just a few years, operating systems as we know them will be obsolete as all the normal public will need is a web browser for everything they do.

My guess is that most people already only use desktop applications for little more than file browsers, photo editors, gaming, and word processing and all of that can now be done through a browser page or a browser page posing as an app (HTML5).

People will say "But what about Photoshop and AAA games?" If you look at what is already possible in the cloud, those things too will be done in a web browser. Browser based games of today are already as good as AAA games from 5 years ago. The new game streaming tech from MS, Valve, Sony, and others is already making local streaming possible.

My guess is that 5-7 years from now, the need for high end CPUs and GPUs will be virtually nonexistent. All PCs will be a low power interface to the web that scales based on the size of your screen.

Operating system and app compatibility issues will be no more and the companies already know this. Microsoft is preparing for it's Windows revenue stream to be gone, that's why it's transitioning in to services. Google is already ahead with Chrome OS and is leading the way. Microsoft has already said Win 10(or whatever it will be called) will be a cloud based OS. Apple will probably be alright offering premium hardware. The big winners will be the data providers. Google knows this that's why it's offering Google fiber.

I would almost argue that MS threw together Win 8 in order to divert resources over to cloud development because that's where the future is. The Xbox and PS4 have mid end hardware because it only has to get them by a couple years until they become game streaming boxes. Steam knows that too. They all just want to get positioned in your house before it happens.

 

[gopher1369]

Once gaming on Linux begins to take off, I think Windows may be done. How long we have to wait for that to happen...who knows...? However, I think that day is coming.

I work in a corporate environment and can assure you that this isn't true. Microsoft's corporate infrastructure means it will live on for a long, long time even if gamers (a niche hobby enjoyed by a very small number of people) abandon it.

 

[8350rocks]

Once gaming on Linux begins to take off, I think Windows may be done. How long we have to wait for that to happen...who knows...? However, I think that day is coming.

I work in a corporate environment and can assure you that this isn't true. Microsoft's corporate infrastructure means it will live on for a long, long time even if gamers (a niche hobby enjoyed by a very small number of people) abandon it.

That's interesting, because Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the most run Server architecture OS in the Corporate IT world. M$ has a fairly strong presence in the IT infrastructure in the US, however, on a global scale, RHEL is the preferred OS of choice. It's more secure, with better support, and costs only a subscription to RH support. No licensing fees like M$ charges for server/client OS.

TL;DR: Red Hat Enterprise Linux is preferred in IT because it's cheaper, more secure, and has better support.