Windows 8.1 Update 1 Will Boot Directly to Desktop

[canadianvice]

I can't stand the useless metro apps taking up memory on my computer. I don't want to use the metro apps because they're moronic. I can make do with the start screen, but orienting many of my pinned programs in that sort of space with a mouse and keyboard quickly becomes very tedious. The purpose of start should be quick, efficient access to programs, and with the lacklustre search capability... it's just not all there.It's a similar problem to linux, it made things more complex, and while I'm a power user who can use complex if I want to - what logic is there? Never use something more complicated to achieve the same objective.

 

[Jaxian]

I do dislike the Metro UI. But that is the smaller of two concerns for me. What concerns me more is that only applications approved and published to the Windows Store can be run in this mode. Since it's the default mode, it sort of becomes the recommended way to use Windows, and publishing applications to the Windows Store becomes the recommended way to distribute applications for Windows.But think of where this leads. Microsoft wants people to use the store exclusively and to distrust applications that aren't distributed by them. So they relegate non-Store applications to the "old" operating system mode, and maybe that "old" mode is only used by old-fashioned users and hope eventually the vast majority of the users get applications from only the Windows Store. If this happens, Microsoft gains full control over what applications are allowed to run on Windows and can take a slice of the profits from every sale.I hope it is clear to everyone that allowing Microsoft this control would be a huge step backwards in the world of computers. If Microsoft has full control over what can run on Windows, then they can put in whatever restrictions they like. They can stop applications from ever being created because the creator knows it won't be approved. Even now the Store has content restrictions and requires pre-approval. Who knows how far they will stretch that control in the future. They could refuse to approve applications created by competitors or refuse applications that subvert some political agenda. They could prohibit applications that aren't child-friendly (they are partway there already). They'll have whatever control we let them, and they'll take it all.So for me the problem isn't the Metro UI as much as it is the increased reliance on the Windows Store. As long as the Metro UI can only run Microsoft-approved applications, it should not be the default for any user.

 

[Christopher Shaffer]

I can't stand the useless metro apps taking up memory on my computer. I don't want to use the metro apps because they're moronic. I can make do with the start screen, but orienting many of my pinned programs in that sort of space with a mouse and keyboard quickly becomes very tedious. The purpose of start should be quick, efficient access to programs, and with the lacklustre search capability... it's just not all there.It's a similar problem to linux, it made things more complex, and while I'm a power user who can use complex if I want to - what logic is there? Never use something more complicated to achieve the same objective.

You can literally remove like 95% of them and the rest are so small it's completely insignificant. It should also be noted that thinks like PDF readers, video players, etc. take up less hard drive space as "metro" apps because they are programmed just like a mobile app. In fact, I'm learning VB right now to program Win 8.1 apps ... using JS and HTML5. They're super light weight.

I can read and edit PDFs in an app that's maybe a few MB vs. Adobe Reader which only allows reading and takes up like 150MB. The video player is also very small vs. WMP that's like ~75MB. So, I don't think this argument holds water.

It's actually a lot easier to access apps, too. You hit Start, then just start typing the name and it will just find it for you. You don't even need to touch the mouse.

I hate to say it, but while I don't like the idea of booting to the Start "menu", when you need to use it, it's far more convenient than navigating tiny little folder accordion menus via the old Start. Although, I never used that either; I'm old school, so I'd usually just hit Win+R and type the name, which with my typing speed was almost always faster.

 

[DarkSable]

I do dislike the Metro UI. But that is the smaller of two concerns for me. What concerns me more is that only applications approved and published to the Windows Store can be run in this mode. Since it's the default mode, it sort of becomes the recommended way to use Windows, and publishing applications to the Windows Store becomes the recommended way to distribute applications for Windows.

So many false assumptions I can't even fathom it...

Why in the world would you presume that it's the "recommended" way to use windows or distribute applications? And even if you did, why in the world would you use something only the way the company recommended?

You can very easily remove most if not all traces of metro apps from your computer - nobody in the world is making you use them, because pretty much all of us agree that they suck.

But saying the entire OS is worthless... because of these things... that you feel like you have to use because microsoft put them in there? Give me a break!

This is the sort of whining about windows 8 that bothers me - it takes less than three minutes to uninstall the metro apps, set it so that the three or four that you can't uninstall are at the very back of your start list, and never have to look at metro apps or the windows store again. Saying that the entire OS sucks because of it is a joke.

I also don't know why you say it's the default for any user. Yes, it's there, trying to get users to use it, but why do you think the average user isn't going to pull up IE and get a program in exactly the same way they've been using windows for years?

 

[Christopher Shaffer]

I do dislike the Metro UI. But that is the smaller of two concerns for me. What concerns me more is that only applications approved and published to the Windows Store can be run in this mode. Since it's the default mode, it sort of becomes the recommended way to use Windows, and publishing applications to the Windows Store becomes the recommended way to distribute applications for Windows.But think of where this leads. Microsoft wants people to use the store exclusively and to distrust applications that aren't distributed by them. So they relegate non-Store applications to the "old" operating system mode, and maybe that "old" mode is only used by old-fashioned users and hope eventually the vast majority of the users get applications from only the Windows Store. If this happens, Microsoft gains full control over what applications are allowed to run on Windows and can take a slice of the profits from every sale.I hope it is clear to everyone that allowing Microsoft this control would be a huge step backwards in the world of computers. If Microsoft has full control over what can run on Windows, then they can put in whatever restrictions they like. They can stop applications from ever being created because the creator knows it won't be approved. Even now the Store has content restrictions and requires pre-approval. Who knows how far they will stretch that control in the future. They could refuse to approve applications created by competitors or refuse applications that subvert some political agenda. They could prohibit applications that aren't child-friendly (they are partway there already). They'll have whatever control we let them, and they'll take it all.So for me the problem isn't the Metro UI as much as it is the increased reliance on the Windows Store. As long as the Metro UI can only run Microsoft-approved applications, it should not be the default for any user.

Application approval has a lot more to do with compatibility and content than it does control. Obviously an app that isn't compatible w/the Metro UI shouldn't be approved. The distribution method is more about convenience than anything.

They're approval process isn't Bill Gates sitting with a gavel and yelling "yay" or "nay". It's done by a large team of people and probably largely automated. It's also far less restrictive than the Apple approval system. I should know - I'm in the process of creating apps of my own for the store. Literally ANYone can get a license to publish apps, and frankly some pretty weak and pointless apps exist. This is hardly a political conspiracy.

That said, the Metro "experience" IS a Microsoft creation; they need to have some control over what constitutes an acceptable app, but there is still a wide range of choice.

All that aside, I've barely installed any apps, but the ones I have include some pretty cool features, like a 3D rover app from NASA that let's you tour the Mars surface.

There's nothing saying that someone can't distribute a Metro app outside of the store. But just like any other software, it must be signed by a trusted signer like Verisign as a matter of formal validity and this will prevent warning messages in Windows. ALL APPLICATIONS/SOFTWARE are required to have this to run on Windows and it's been that way for a very long time. Even so, it doesn't prevent you from installing unsigned software. But you should know, that software doesn't HAVE to be signed by MS, in fact, it usually isn't. It's usually using a Certificate Authority via Symantec. This is nothing new.

The conspiracy theory that this is meant to make all applications allowed to run on Windows completely under MS control is just ignoring the blatantly obvious fact of UI/UX and how this differs so much on the Metro apps. The Metro UI is an MS creation being used to create a unified architecture that is applicable across MS systems. It isn't meant to take over the whole Windows ecosystem. It's meant as an interface to allow devs to create 1 app for multiple platforms and to allow those platforms to easily communicate and transfer control (think Surface -> Xbone -> desktop).

If your app doesn't apply in these situations, then it's not affected by their control, either. This applies to 95% of all Windows software - it's completely unaffected by Metro, and that isn't likely to change any time in the near future, nor would it make sense for MS to try to do that.

 

[canadianvice]

I can't stand the useless metro apps taking up memory on my computer. I don't want to use the metro apps because they're moronic. I can make do with the start screen, but orienting many of my pinned programs in that sort of space with a mouse and keyboard quickly becomes very tedious. The purpose of start should be quick, efficient access to programs, and with the lacklustre search capability... it's just not all there.It's a similar problem to linux, it made things more complex, and while I'm a power user who can use complex if I want to - what logic is there? Never use something more complicated to achieve the same objective.

You can literally remove like 95% of them and the rest are so small it's completely insignificant. It should also be noted that thinks like PDF readers, video players, etc. take up less hard drive space as "metro" apps because they are programmed just like a mobile app. In fact, I'm learning VB right now to program Win 8.1 apps ... using JS and HTML5. They're super light weight.

I can read and edit PDFs in an app that's maybe a few MB vs. Adobe Reader which only allows reading and takes up like 150MB. The video player is also very small vs. WMP that's like ~75MB. So, I don't think this argument holds water.

It's actually a lot easier to access apps, too. You hit Start, then just start typing the name and it will just find it for you. You don't even need to touch the mouse.

I hate to say it, but while I don't like the idea of booting to the Start "menu", when you need to use it, it's far more convenient than navigating tiny little folder accordion menus via the old Start. Although, I never used that either; I'm old school, so I'd usually just hit Win+R and type the name, which with my typing speed was almost always faster.

I know, but the ones I don't want are the ones that stick around - with application redundancy on many of them anyhow, why? Especially for a student, the full-screen paradigm would be murder. Even with snap it's so much easier to just have a regular windows application open that I can minimize or murder depending on my mood with a minimum of effort and bring back not long after.

As for the start menu/screen, it is a matter of preference. What I've found is simply that arraying things in that large 2D space of the start screen is not suited to what I want to do. I prefer being able to manually tweak the start menu with shortcuts for stuff without having to scroll four or five times to access it.

Frankly, and I'll maintain this to my dying day - as I understand they had start menu functionality in the early builds of 8. They should simply have left the option as one of those "Add or remove windows features" and furthermore detected touchscreens during installation for purposes of asking for the start screen or menu.

You had it, why not keep both, just like that Mexican girl says.

 

[DarkSable]

I know, but the ones I don't want are the ones that stick around - with application redundancy on many of them anyhow, why? Especially for a student, the full-screen paradigm would be murder. Even with snap it's so much easier to just have a regular windows application open that I can minimize or murder depending on my mood with a minimum of effort and bring back not long after.

...so use regular windows applications? This is the argument against windows 8 that I really really just don't understand - nobody is forcing you to use metro applications and installing programs works just the way you would for windows 7. Those of us who like windows 8, I pretty much guarantee you, aren't using metro apps.

As for the start menu/screen, it is a matter of preference. What I've found is simply that arraying things in that large 2D space of the start screen is not suited to what I want to do. I prefer being able to manually tweak the start menu with shortcuts for stuff without having to scroll four or five times to access it.

But see, the trick is that you don't have to use it like that. All you have to do is press the windows key on your keyboard and type the name of what you want - it's WAY faster than either the start screen or the start menu ever was. On top of that, you still have an area where you can pin shortcuts (the taskbar) if you don't like the start screen... but my question is, if space is the issue, why can't you just use the leftmost column of the start screen and have it work in pretty much the same size area as the start menu had?

Frankly, and I'll maintain this to my dying day - as I understand they had start menu functionality in the early builds of 8. They should simply have left the option as one of those "Add or remove windows features" and furthermore detected touchscreens during installation for purposes of asking for the start screen or menu.

Yeah, I can't really argue with that. It would have made a LOT more sense to do it that way. However, they didn't... and if you really want your start menu back, there are at least a dozen free programs that will do exactly that for you. So what's the issue again? Just that you have to spend a little time setting things up and changing settings for it to work the way you'd like? If I recall, I had to do that on windows 7, too. I guess we should all go back to XP?

 

[Lizard7777]

"of us embraced the design, clicked on the desktop tile and went on with our lives. Many customers haven't been quite so welcoming; it was entirely too much change."Change is useless unless it is an improvement. You can "change" a priceless oil painting by pissing on it, that doesn't make it better. The tiles and touch screen are a way to do exactly the same thing with more unnecessary complication and steps involved. The reason you don't use a keyboard and a mouse with a tablet is that you have a space limitation forcing you to use an inferior interface (the touch screen). A desktop does not have that limitation because it is a stationary platform. Therefore the touchscreen is not only cumbersome, but it is unwelcome. I do not want to put my fingers all over monitor when I can just use a mouse. This author is not the sharpest tool in the shed. You can tell he hasn't really thought any of this through and his statement is enormously condescending and shows an enormous lack of insight.

 

[dwdesign]

Microsoft lost me after windows8 came out. I started with dos and ended with xp. Moved to a stable and reliable OSX. I miss windows sometimes but not much. I don't miss the viruses and crashes.

 

[canadianvice]

I know, but the ones I don't want are the ones that stick around - with application redundancy on many of them anyhow, why? Especially for a student, the full-screen paradigm would be murder. Even with snap it's so much easier to just have a regular windows application open that I can minimize or murder depending on my mood with a minimum of effort and bring back not long after.

...so use regular windows applications? This is the argument against windows 8 that I really really just don't understand - nobody is forcing you to use metro applications and installing programs works just the way you would for windows 7. Those of us who like windows 8, I pretty much guarantee you, aren't using metro apps.

As for the start menu/screen, it is a matter of preference. What I've found is simply that arraying things in that large 2D space of the start screen is not suited to what I want to do. I prefer being able to manually tweak the start menu with shortcuts for stuff without having to scroll four or five times to access it.

But see, the trick is that you don't have to use it like that. All you have to do is press the windows key on your keyboard and type the name of what you want - it's WAY faster than either the start screen or the start menu ever was. On top of that, you still have an area where you can pin shortcuts (the taskbar) if you don't like the start screen... but my question is, if space is the issue, why can't you just use the leftmost column of the start screen and have it work in pretty much the same size area as the start menu had?

Frankly, and I'll maintain this to my dying day - as I understand they had start menu functionality in the early builds of 8. They should simply have left the option as one of those "Add or remove windows features" and furthermore detected touchscreens during installation for purposes of asking for the start screen or menu.

Yeah, I can't really argue with that. It would have made a LOT more sense to do it that way. However, they didn't... and if you really want your start menu back, there are at least a dozen free programs that will do exactly that for you. So what's the issue again? Just that you have to spend a little time setting things up and changing settings for it to work the way you'd like? If I recall, I had to do that on windows 7, too. I guess we should all go back to XP?

To a degree, I'm kind of obsessive. I don't like the fact that those metro apps are even on my system. It's space I could be using in more productive ways - admittedly, I know how to remove most of them manually, but why bother?

As for the new start - the search is nice, but I still have to go away from my work simply to access it. The start menu isn't nearly as intrusive.

Why should I need to purchase third party programs which can be broken simply to fix what I consider a relatively glaring hole in the OS? I started seven, and sure there's work to be done with partitioning and removing the shortcut overlays, but otherwise it works exactly how I want something to work.

The fact of the matter is that Windows 8 has drastically changed the paradigm to something better used for touch screens - but that has to be used on desktops. Furthermore, it is not a compelling upgrade from any major standpoint. I'm no luddite, but there's progress and there's not - Windows 8 is not progress, it has decreased overall usability for the sake of covering multiple platforms that are still far from ubiquitous.

I also say this because I sell computers where I work - do you know how many people's first question is "Does it run W8?" and the moment I say "Yes", they turn around and leave. I'm not surprised. This OS does not serve the masses and it shows. I don't honestly care much. I have high hopes for Linux once it gets some games - and they figure out a more universal solution to software installation. Barring those two, which I think will march in relative lockstep, I should be fine.