Microsoft killed the start button because it wasn't used

From what I can gather MS are even trying to prevent 3rd party apps from restoring any legacy features. There isn't anything that I've seen that I like about Win 8. I'm sure the overall speed & security have been improved, but I really believe that MS have miscalculated the market with this coming release. Win 7 has a few years in it yet before its support is ended. I can live with that. I certainly won't be upgrading my desktop. I had it custom built & I am very happy with it & Win 7 64 bit. As for when I eventually buy another machine, the desktop is fairly new (not much over a year) but I can see me buying a new netbook/notebook sometime either later this year or early next year. If I can't purchase one with Win 7 I will downgrade Win 8 to it & use it until it is not supported. After that, if Win 9 isn't an improvement for me, I'll switch to Mac or Ubuntu.

 

the only thing i use the Start button for in Win 7 is to shut down the computer.
my Desktop is empty most of the times, i use a folder where i store my shortcuts to launch programs.
i also use the Taskbar to pin apps that are needed very often.
by keeping my Desktop empty it is essentially used as an Inbox.

so for me having a Start button on steroid (Metro) getting in my way every chances it gets is just madness.

hopefully, this situation will be corrected by the time the RTM is released.
if not, my options is to keep on using Win 7 or switch to Linux (either Bodhi or Mint)

 

Microsoft is changing the start button and using metro because of the popularity of handheld devices and other smaller media like netbooks and tablets. Because of wireless access and that now the majority are using computers and online (majority being relative of course), you have a large number of users who do nothing but surf the web, social updating like facebook/twitter or look at pictures and movies.

All of this combined is the new landscape. The standard desktop pc is indeed fading away because the majority simply don't have a compelling need. It therefore makes sense the Microsoft should change what they do in order to capitalize on the trends.

This means they focus on tablets and company. This means they develop thier OS and software for things like touchscreens. I do believe that is what the majority wants, small devices without keyboards and mice. I do not believe the desktop pc market is wishing for this change though.

HungryMan is correct. He has voiced the positives of win8 for some time. But he also realizes how changes to core components is not a desired thing. It is not that people are fearful of change. It is that people don't see why they have to learn something new when the old was perfectly fine.

I look to vista and 7 as prime examples. They modified things quite a bit. These are not really bad things in and of themselves. Much of the same functionality is there. Some old tools are missing, some new ones exist. Some of the old ones were better, some of the new ones are better. But the crux of the issue is that if they are going to make such changes, the changes should be linear to the current experience, building upon and enhancing so that the already familiar remains familiar but becomes more refined and more helpful.

I don't have a vendetta for any version of windows simply because it is new and has some changes. I am against performance decreases like vista and 7 brought. I am against having to tweak the OS to make it perform as fast as its predecessor on a new and powerful machine. I am against UI changes that make me have to dig to find basic things I have been using for years. I am against UI changes that cause useability to go backwards - 3 mouse clicks extra to do the same thing, simply idiotic.

I am for change that streamlines my experience. I will embrace metro if it actually is as productive as my standard experience. If I have to spend hours watching a video to learn how to do something I have been doing for years, then I will call it regurgitated trash. I see no benefit at all in changing things so radically that I have to spend more than a couple minutes to find what I have been using for 15 years.

At that point, I might as well invest time into any number of OSes, not just windows.

Sul.

 

Whether the desktop PC is fading away is debatable, but regardless there doesn't seem to be any reason to force this on the desktop environment. I just don't see how leaving the desktop UI in 8 essentially unchanged would negatively impact Metro in tablets and phones, etc.

 

i don't see why they did not think of something like Bodhi Linux does;
you use different user interface (Profiles) depending on what hardware you use: desktop, laptop, tablets etc...

instead of imposing the tablet interface on desktop/laptop users.

 

True. Perhaps that statement is a bit too factual. What is fact though is the trend to handheld devices. I personally don't understand the reasoning to swap the realestate of your monitor and keyboard/mouse for a small touch screen, but then I don't really have a need to be mobile either.

And I agree, I don't see how leaving the pc format the way it is should really make or break the next version. I definately understand the business perspective to cash in on that market, and I am sure for handheld users things will only get better. I just can't see why pigeon-holing desktop users into the same mold has to happen. Maybe it will be a good thing, but my testing it a number of months ago didn't really seem all that great to me. But, some things need to grow on you sometimes.

Sul.

 

Admittedly I'm working from the viewpoint of an XP user. But I'm one more who much favors the desktop over the start menu ... I only use the latter for two things, shutting down the system or the odd time I need to open something I rarely use (like the character map), which is usually a little faster and easier to find there than in Win Explorer.

Anything I use regularly gets a shortcut-icon on the desktop. And other than things I'm into very frequently (e.g., Control Panel, Calculator, Notepad, PowerDVD), those are organized into folders so that icons plus folders take up less than 1/4 of my desktop. Lots of room left for wallpaper if I choose (which I don't).

 

either way windows metro will be a success especially when all computers you buy only have windows metro installed. Whether start button is good or bad doesnt matter, in the end windows metro will be a success and microsoft will have the data to back it up.
My question is how are people going to turn off windows? isnt the start button where the off button was? some people not "resourcesful" enough with shortcuts etc. yes control alt delete will bring up the taskbar where the off button is but how many people know that? Keep it simple is very good to have happy customers. Not all customers are computer experts.
People who use linux will have no problem operating a complex OS like metro, but those people are not normal computer users, they are more like power users. Me I might build my own computer rather than be stuck with a OS that confuse me.

 

I'm kind of a minimalist person so usually i have 0 clutter in my desktop. I only have 3 icons, which are 2 Folders for shortcuts and the Recycle Bin.

Everything else is accessed through the Start Menu which is Control Panel, Computer, Documents, Pictures and some programs. Actually i still use the Start Button tons of times everyday because i access Downloads, Documents and Control Panel quite often. I would say i use it at least like 30+ times a day.

BTW, if you read carefully i'm not bashing MS this time, just giving my honest opinion.

 

To me it will depend on a lot of different things. I don't use my start button soley either. My desktop gets cluttered with project files as it is my workspace much of the time. However, I don't keep a lot of other things there not required for whatever I am currently working on. The start menu then becomes the tool to find things quickly without browsing. I don't like the change vista/7 made, so I use Classic Start Menu utility.

It goes beyond whether the button is there or not though for me. Flyouts and menus that appear when I need them might be nice or might not. It will depend on how they operate, how intuitive they are. After years and years of using one basic design, a radically different one may or may not be better for me, where better will be faster or slower, not prettier or hidden. I won't personally tolerate a slower way of doing things by much. If repetitive tasks are more cumbersome, either I will hack something to work or not upgrade or move to something else.

To me, it isn't how it looks or how many new features there are, but in how efficient I can utilize the system. But then, I am either tearing something apart or building something usually anyway, so my input is probably abnormal.

Well, when you give no real alternative, there can only be one end result - comply or don't comply. So in that respect, it will have to be a success I suppose. I don't understand though what you mean by "microsoft will have data to back it up". If you mean to back up that it is a success, you are 100% correct - every person who uses win8 will make them believe that everyone likes it. Especially when the majority of sales come from OEM new machine purchases. Personally, that demographic seems flawed to me.

The same with me. I don't really care about whether M$ is controlling or not any more. A good number of years ago I accepted that it is good enough, bugs and all. I do have a choise for everything but gaming which OS I use. So I choose to use the OS that most other people use because I help them and make extra money doing so. If linux were used heavily by neophytes, I might go that route, but it just doesn't offer the same opportunities.

Sul.

 

I got to thinking about it today and have to agree with the fact that I rarely do use the start button. Everything I use is pinned to the taskbar or has a desktop shortcut. Alt + F4 will shutdown whatever has focus, including Windows, and Win + Q will get me to anything I want. I already plan to upgrade, and I bet most of the people complaining about 8 will be running it within a year.

 

I wouldn't bet your lifesavings on that if I were you.

 

maybe i should give it another try.

i will concentrate on performance vs Win 7 and if it's possible at all to avoid Metro as much as possible.

 

You rarely use it now, but was that always the case? Did the Start Menu facilitate the customization of the desktop and pinned shortcuts?

 

I use the start menu all the time. I don't have any programs pinned to the task bar on my home laptops (except for the default ones), but I have pinned just 3 programs on my desktop at work.

99% of the time I run programs from the start menu. If the program is not listed as one of the most frequently used progams, I just enter the program name (or part of it) in the search box and then press enter to load it.

Running software solely from the task bar is not an option for me, as I have way too many programs installed to for them all to fit on the task bar.

 

IMO the competent OS is the one that allows the user to run their programs and access their files as fast and efficiently as possible (as much as the hardware allows). The aesthetic part of the OS is important, but not to the point that strongly interfere with what basically matters to the user: run programs and access files, fast and efficiently. When comes the time that you notice a lot that you have an OS that's because it sucks, imo.

 

It likely did... but... I never navigated the menu, I would hit the Winkey and type into the search box the name of what I was looking for. It would usually come up within 2 or 3 letters. With 8, I can hit Winkey + Q and I still get a search box that works pretty much the same way. Rather than the result coming up in a little start menu, this is a full screen thing. Actually, if you start typing when at the search screen it does the same thing, saving an additional keystroke. There is no loss of anything here, it is just presented in a different way. It is no slower, as a matter of fact I find it usually takes less keystrokes in 8 than 7. I have been using computers since the days of DOS, so I am more likely than not to use the keyboard than a mouse anyway, so it is no big deal to me. If you are a heavy mouse user, you may find 8 to be more work if you want to go poking around through menus. A lot of people I know don't even know the standard keyboard shortcuts. Plus, as others have stated, so far at least, 8 performs faster than 7. We'll see if that sticks in the final.

 

I don't mind no start menu too much, I don't use it that often in 7 anyway. But what I do object to is having Metro forced on us desktop/laptop users. That just doesn't fly for me. Start menu... I can take or leave it really.... There are other ways to do things that we typically use the start menu for...

 

they haven't killed the Start button, they've replaced it with Metro Start.

i gave Win 8 another try tonight.
the whole thing wasn't as bad as i remembered.

 

I've learned to skip every other MS OS.

 

i might skip this one too.

apparently, Win 8 will be the last Windows with 32 bits.
my computer is 5 years old, waiting for Win 9 in 3 years for now would be perfect timing to get a new machine and OS.

 

They said Vista wold be the last 32 bit, then 7, claiming that 7 would have a 128 but version, and then 8 would have one. It has not happened, and I still don't believe them.

I remember when Vista first came out, I was like "A new start menu!? What's with this. I don't like it!" Then after I got used to the search function I wondered how we ever used that old clunky start menu from Windows 95 - XP. So even though I was hesitant with Windows 8, I think once people get used to it, we really won't miss the old way.

 

I may be in the minority, but I use the Start Menu all the time. For instance:

1. I pin applications to its menu on the left, as a dock of sorts that's easier to access than an actual dock. I don't have to pull up the desktop to get to them. I don't like pinning to the taskbar because it takes up a lot more space when every app gets its own icon. And once you load the app, that icon becomes useless and really does just take up space.

I guess the main reason I want the taskbar open is because I don't combine the windows (so that every browser window is in one button, for instance). Combining them is a good way for pop-under windows to hide, and I like being able to see every task I am running, which of course is contrary to the Metro paradigm.

2. I use the feature to pin the Favorites menu. I don't even start the browser on its own, but rather go to the URL I want to load. Even long after I've switched away from Internet Explorer, I still use its bookmarks system so I can put them on the Start Menu. Windows 8 is going to force me to use Chrome or Firefox's own bookmarking for the first time.

3. I find it useful to launch apps I don't use very often. They're even loosely categorized, at least under each folder. From what I've seen of Metro, there doesn't seem to be much organization to it. But, I suppose you can customize this.

4. I like how it stays in a corner of the screen, and lets you still see what you're doing, instead of switching to a completely different screen like Metro. It just makes the OS feel more seamless.

 

You probably are in the minority. It doesn't make you wrong, just less likely to get what you want.

Some possible suggestions... There are docks that can be docked to the side or top of your screen that will hide until you move the mouse to them. You could use one of those and even though it may not be your preference, it really would not be any more work than pinning them to the start menu would have been.

You can still create folders on the taskbar. You could put whatever you want in that folder and use that as a sort of menu for launching things.

I was originally displeased at losing the quick launch from the taskbar in Windows 7, and I realize you can add it back with a little work, but I do not miss it at all anymore. There are always ways to get things done, and in most cases they don't involve any more work than the way you were used to doing it.