Microsoft may bring back windows 7 style start menu in "Windows 8.2"

[PliotronX]

Ok, now I know that this is false. No where does anything settings related get pushed on the left side of the screen. Settings is app context sensitive and desktop sensitive, and will vary depending on what is on the right of the screen (if you split pane things, settings will be context of the one to the right).

He is talking about hitting change PC settings which does in fact open a menu towards the upper left corner. This might be okay on a 7" tablet screen but completely discontiguous and adds to the horrendous desktop experience with Windows 8.

The RT apps are useless for the desktop, WMP fulfilled music and video roles without taking over the entire screen. Picture viewer didn't need to take over the entire screen either (thank goodness it's still available). I've avoided installing Classic Shell on my work PC as opposed to all of my coworkers and have learned how to use Metro but it is still a horrible choice for relative position input devices and larger monitors.

 

[Savatar]

looks like the start button might be coming even sooner to 8.1 http://www.winbeta.org/news/start-menu-could-return-windows-thresholds-release-windows-81-be-updated

Yes, the start button is there in 8.1 (this has already been released, but you have to use the Windows Store "app" to get the update - not regular Windows updates for some silly reason - again, just a weird thing that Microsoft decided). It provides a button instead of hot-corner for you to open the full-screen Modern UI (Metro) interface. It also provides a right-click menu for quicker access to some settings. Not ideal, but it's an improvement. However, myself (and a lot of other users) still prefer 7's start menu.

A regular start menu is more intuitive (note that this doesn't mean spoon-fed, it's just good design). Additionally, the full-screen modern UI start menu doesn't provide an immediately intuitive place to go for many of the things that the old start menu provided... even though you can customize it a little more now and newly installed programs don't just appear there by default anymore.

 

[Imaginer]

Try it... when you go to open the charms bar, that is always on the far-right of the screen. In Desktop mode (not full-screen or half-and-half "Modern UI" mode, which isn't that modern at all), if you click settings on the charms bar, it transitions to the full-screen Modern-UI and the settings menu opens on the far left (not anywhere near the far-right, where you just clicked settings).

What should happen? From a usability perspective it should open in-context - around where your input and eyes are already focusing from just clicking 'Settings'. This can be partly resolved by placing the charms elements on the new start menu supposedly coming in Threshold.

PC settings does this, NOT Settings. PC Settings works like this in any setting - giving a full screen PC Settings mode. Settings (that cog) will give you options for Control Panel, Personalization, etc. It is still taking only a portion of the right side.

 

[Imaginer]

He is talking about hitting change PC settings which does in fact open a menu towards the upper left corner. This might be okay on a 7" tablet screen but completely discontiguous and adds to the horrendous desktop experience with Windows 8.

The RT apps are useless for the desktop, WMP fulfilled music and video roles without taking over the entire screen. Picture viewer didn't need to take over the entire screen either (thank goodness it's still available). I've avoided installing Classic Shell on my work PC as opposed to all of my coworkers and have learned how to use Metro but it is still a horrible choice for relative position input devices and larger monitors.

I gave my gripes about the whole "PC Settings" and "Control Panel" disconnects. No need to sing to me on why this is hated. Even I find it disconcerting at times.

Also, this goes back to another post I did, in that 8 and 8.1 will inevitably make the techs on the tech support side be more "descriptive" and "detailed communicatively" in their approach. He mentioned "Settings", but there is clearly labeled options that appear after that cog. Meaning two clicks of "Settings". He mentioned that you click once on that cog labeled "Settings" and "PC Settings" screen showing up immediately.

 

[PliotronX]

Sorry about that bud, I just can't stop venting, I really wish MS had thought this out more.

 

[Imaginer]

Sorry about that bud, I just can't stop venting, I really wish MS had thought this out more.

No problems. But I am glad that it was out sooner than later. The events that are Windows 8 led up to me being a happy user of a Surface Pro 2 (not perfectly happy mind you, I encountered some quirks).

 

[PliotronX]

No problems. But I am glad that it was out sooner than later. The events that are Windows 8 led up to me being a happy user of a Surface Pro 2 (not perfectly happy mind you, I encountered some quirks).

I hear you, it's frickin awesome for a Pro tablet. The power of Windows x86 in a tablet platform with an interface that is tailored for it... but I don't believe RT belongs anywhere near anything with a mouse.

 

[Savatar]

PC settings does this, NOT Settings. PC Settings works like this in any setting - giving a full screen PC Settings mode. Settings (that cog) will give you options for Control Panel, Personalization, etc. It is still taking only a portion of the right side.

Ahh, now that I'm at home I tried it and you're right. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't know why I never noticed that - it is two clicks instead of one. The same basic complaint though. Maybe they will move more settings into a more dynamic window like the first settings click, then... and I also think it might work well on a new start menu.

Kind of unrelated, but ... did anyone else notice that in Windows 8.0 the charms menu was centered vertically, and it is no longer centered in 8.1? All the charms are near the top of the bar now.

 

[Imaginer]

Ahh, now that I'm at home I tried it and you're right. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't know why I never noticed that - it is two clicks instead of one. The same basic complaint though. Maybe they will move more settings into a more dynamic window like the first settings click, then... and I also think it might work well on a new start menu.

Kind of unrelated, but ... did anyone else notice that in Windows 8.0 the charms menu was centered vertically, and it is no longer centered in 8.1? All the charms are near the top of the bar now.

I think it depends which corner (top or bottom) your mouse is closer to that where the charms icons appear. It also depends on your resolution as well. My Surface Pro did not do this, the Charms icons stayed centered vertically. So did my HTPC's 1080p resolution. Both use the larger scaling options.

My desktop PC however, does position the charms icons like you said. But it depends where my cursor is. If it came from the top corner, the icons will be at the top near the mouse. As is if coming from the bottom corner. This is in 8.1, but not 8 and Microsoft probably did this to try and reduce mouse drag for some users (like I said and pointed out why many are upset by the Metro/Modern tiles).

 

[Maximilian]

Massive amounts of back peddling :thumbsup:

I thought this would happen eventually, as soon as I saw what windows 8 was I knew it wasent gonna fly in that form.

 

[Imaginer]

Back peddling? More like offering older options that may apply to older periphery interfaces (and cheap non-touch screen laptops with horrid trackpads - a bulk of new Windows 8 hate).

But hey I, again, like the new tiles of the Start screen, Modern IE (on my Surface Pro), and won't change back. I also did not mind the tiles, Start screen, PC Settings (when I do rarely go in there) and the Charms bar on my pure desktop PC (the lift and drag and extended multiple lift and drag exercise of the mouse? I escaped that pain with a trackball, adopted earlier when transitioning to an PC connected TV in the living room)

But funny that nowadays, many periphery makers are now marketing a trackpad built in with the keyboard as the solution. I never liked trackpads, even ones done right (Macbooks). Reason being for me, there is still extensive lifting and dragging. A trackball can have the pointer travel as far or as short with minimal lift and drag of the thumb or finger because of the "infinite" sphere space (versus mousepad, versus trackpad). This is done with the least real estate space compared to the pointing devices. Granted, to have this built in to a laptop is a no go. But that is why I am surprised it took THIS LONG for a proper touchscreen PC devices to show (a resurgence of a GOOD tablet PC). That is my functional analysis of the peripheral.

If anything I can boil down as to the "back tracking", it is this.

 

[Maximilian]

Meh sell it how you want, they went the modern UI direction firmly with windows 8 and they've been slowly back peddling on it ever since. First canning the guy who thought it up then with 8.1 allowing boot to desktop and putting the button back, now talk of bringing back the start menu.

This isn't how MS wanted it to pan out.

 

[Megatomic]

My son and I were both pretty down on Win8, but after using it for a while now we've both decided that we probably won't enable the "new" start menu in Win8.2 if it indeed comes back. The new UI is easy for us to use and we both have touch enabled computers so it makes sense to us.

 

[corkyg]

My Win 8.1 opens to Desktop. I rarely use the Start Menu - it is for programs less used than my desktop. I insist on being able to open a program with one click from my desktop. I will not use an added layer. I will not use a touchscreen or even buy one. I hate fingerprints on my screen.

 

[Megatomic]

I don't touch my screen either. But I got used to using the mouse in the Modern UI. My son's laptop - smudge city!! yuck

 

[Mushkins]

I don't buy the Control Panel argument,simple right click in bottom left corner(ie on start button) with mouse brings up Win+X menu and as you know CP is on there,you could also make your own shortcut on both Metro or old desktop , its also on Charms bar via settings again Win8 is quite customisable but a lot of people ignore even the basic right click in left corner on either Metro or old desktop UI,do they still need to be spoon fed?..How much more basic can they make it,I don't use touch unless you count my Android tablet.

And thats *precisely* my point. Can you do that? I had no idea you could right click the start button and get options, and i've been using Windows 8 regularly for 9 months on my laptop. There's nothing in the UI suggesting that there is functionality to be found right clicking that button. Even the tutorials when installing Windows 8 make no mention of right clicking the start button. *Why* would right clicking the button that takes you back to Metro give you desktop configuration options? There is nothing intuitive about that at all.

Maybe all those people are "ignoring the basic right click in left corner" because there is nothing indicating that doing that should do *anything*, much less what we're specifically looking for.

Either way, you can argue and defend it and talk down to us and tell us we're all dumb for not magically figuring out all the metro UI quirks until you're blue in the face, but the backlash in both the Tech *and* Consumer segments cannot be written off as "people dont like change." It's absolutely impacting sales, and Microsoft is steadily backpedaling on their decision to use a touch-optimized UI on a non-touch device to respond to user feedback. It's pretty clear cut: there are problems with the fundamental design of the UI that need to be fixed. And hey, I dont want Windows 8 to crash and burn, I want them to fix those concerns! There are some pretty solid OS improvements hiding under that horrendous UI.

 

[Imaginer]

And thats *precisely* my point. Can you do that? I had no idea you could right click the start button and get options, and i've been using Windows 8 regularly for 9 months on my laptop. There's nothing in the UI suggesting that there is functionality to be found right clicking that button. Even the tutorials when installing Windows 8 make no mention of right clicking the start button. *Why* would right clicking the button that takes you back to Metro give you desktop configuration options? There is nothing intuitive about that at all.

Maybe all those people are "ignoring the basic right click in left corner" because there is nothing indicating that doing that should do *anything*, much less what we're specifically looking for.

Either way, you can argue and defend it and talk down to us and tell us we're all dumb for not magically figuring out all the metro UI quirks until you're blue in the face, but the backlash in both the Tech *and* Consumer segments cannot be written off as "people dont like change." It's absolutely impacting sales, and Microsoft is steadily backpedaling on their decision to use a touch-optimized UI on a non-touch device to respond to user feedback. It's pretty clear cut: there are problems with the fundamental design of the UI that need to be fixed. And hey, I dont want Windows 8 to crash and burn, I want them to fix those concerns! There are some pretty solid OS improvements hiding under that horrendous UI.

Have you ever had something not include an operation manual (even a few pages)? Have you had an appliance that did not come with a user manual?

Devices NEVER were purely self explanatory on their own, no matter how you cut it. All things came with manuals. Even something as simple as a coffee maker (because there are those that will screw things up and blame the manufacturer).

My problem why people aren't used to 8, is that it was never explained (to their comprehension) the minute they turn it on. They also never took the time to even fully use it on floor models in the store, ask questions, do their due research. It would be alleviated, if there were proper new user instructions.

And right clicking on the start icon, there are things even in 7 I don't know about that are brought up, after the fact I am using 8. Much like a car, there are many things many general users do not even know about. But as a consumer whole, we expect things to be dumbed down, shown to our face or we will never see it, and what we see, is what we get period.

I bet that those with Android tablets would never know that you can pretty much load anything on it and try to come close to getting PC like customization, software configuration, etc. - because this isn't an advertised feature. The Settings on the charm bar, is fine for most people, to level into the Control Panel (which to a point, explains things) or my slight disliked "PC Settings" that clashes in function with the Control Panel, that had Microsoft put some perceived basic user settings in this area.

 

[Mem]

And thats *precisely* my point. Can you do that? I had no idea you could right click the start button and get options, and i've been using Windows 8 regularly for 9 months on my laptop. There's nothing in the UI suggesting that there is functionality to be found right clicking that button. Even the tutorials when installing Windows 8 make no mention of right clicking the start button. *Why* would right clicking the button that takes you back to Metro give you desktop configuration options? There is nothing intuitive about that at all.

Maybe all those people are "ignoring the basic right click in left corner" because there is nothing indicating that doing that should do *anything*, much less what we're specifically looking for.

Either way, you can argue and defend it and talk down to us and tell us we're all dumb for not magically figuring out all the metro UI quirks until you're blue in the face, but the backlash in both the Tech *and* Consumer segments cannot be written off as "people dont like change." It's absolutely impacting sales, and Microsoft is steadily backpedaling on their decision to use a touch-optimized UI on a non-touch device to respond to user feedback. It's pretty clear cut: there are problems with the fundamental design of the UI that need to be fixed. And hey, I dont want Windows 8 to crash and burn, I want them to fix those concerns! There are some pretty solid OS improvements hiding under that horrendous UI.

It's not a question of being dumb,every OS has some sort of learning curve even when I go over to my Linux distros,point being how much time do users actually take to learn an OS rather then decide they hate it and so decide no point in learning the OS in question.

Metro Start for example when I first saw and started playing with it I was not that impressed, but thought I will learn all the tricks and features of this OS and make it work for my needs before I make a final judgement,end of the day I now find Win8/8.1 natural now and very easy to use .

I will do the same with Win9,10,11 etc so it's really not a question of loyalty to one OS but a user(myself) actually bothering to learn my way around the OS in question whether it be Win95,Win7,Win8 or Linux etc..


I'll agree Microsoft could of done a better tutorial for Win8 but that's down to Microsoft.

 

[ElFenix]

Kudos for options for the less inclined. One thing I will definitely not miss is Aero GLASS. Aero is always been apart of Windows from Vista forward, but the blurry glass aspect annoyed me a bit, because window title names are not as readable. Transparency exists in 8 and 8.1 if you look closely at the taskbar. But otherwise, transparent window title bars are REALLY not needed. Neither was the sliding shuffle thing of ALT + TAB of Vista.

taskbar transparency is the worst part of windows 8 for me. i don't really use the start menu much so the start screen isn't that bothersome, but i use the taskbar all the damn time. it look horrible and is confusing when it pops up, transparent, in front of a window. it's like no one bothered using it at MS before shipping it to manufacturing. there's a workaround involving installing the.basic skin that was in the preview, but was removed for the RTM. wtf.

 

[Berryracer]

taskbar transparency is the worst part of windows 8 for me. i don't really use the start menu much so the start screen isn't that bothersome, but i use the taskbar all the damn time. it look horrible and is confusing when it pops up, transparent, in front of a window. it's like no one bothered using it at MS before shipping it to manufacturing. there's a workaround involving installing the.basic skin that was in the preview, but was removed for the RTM. wtf.

If you use StartIsBack or Start8, you can easily disable the taskbar and start menu transparencies

 

[Imaginer]

I don't touch my screen either. But I got used to using the mouse in the Modern UI. My son's laptop - smudge city!! yuck

Sure, but no different than requiring regular cleaning once in a while, that also applies to any keyboard and mouse setup (old and new).

Even Cintiq display users wear gloves for extended periods of work, to alleviate the smudge issue. The same can be said for ANY tablet user, even with screen guards that advertise smudge resistance.

 

[mechBgon]

Win 7 is fast enough and secure enough (barring any unforeseen even) for me at the moment.

Actually, Windows 7 is about 10 times closer to Vista than to Windows 8 when it comes to security enhancements. Just in memory protection alone...

Credit: Valasek's presentation at BlackHat on Win8 memory protections


Beyond that, support for CPUs with a new type of execution prevention (SMEP) and SecureBoot to arbitrarily thwart bootkits are especially noteworthy. If you prioritize on security and mitigations, Win8 (and specifically Win8.1) are where it's at.

On the original topic, Win8.2 and a rumored "mini-Start" aka the real Start menu, I think that would be a smart concession on Microsoft's part. Without a Start menu replacement, we would definitely still be on all Win7 at work, and even with a Start menu replacement, any instance of a Metro app is something the guys tolerate only for as long as necessary. Kill it with fire!

Remarking on the "yeah but it's great with a touchscreen" viewpoint: My personal work system has a pair of ELO 2420L touchscreens. They have a washable glass surface, so I can touch them without concern even if my hands aren't clean (and being a bicycle mechanic, that's most of the time). I've got them hooked up as touchscreens, but trying to get any actual work done with the touchscreen interface, with or without Metro, is like trying to type on a keyboard while wearing mittens, even with the Windows UI boosted to 125% size. I was never a fan of the typical laptop's trackpad, but that's still paradise compared to using my touchscreens.

So yes. Microsoft, give us back our options, and you may actually be rewarded with some big wins in the markets that dread retraining their people for your nutty Metro UI.

 

[glugglug]

Actually, Windows 7 is about 10 times closer to Vista than to Windows 8 when it comes to security enhancements. Just in memory protection alone...

Credit: Valasek's presentation at BlackHat on Win8 memory protections

Don't know who made these lists but they are mostly BS.

Virtual Memory Non-Determinism was introduced in Vista (so of course Win7 has it as well). It still only applies on a per-app basis (the app must be built with a flag to allow it). There is no reason for x64 bit applications built using VS2008 or later not to, but older apps (since it wasn't available when they were built) and a lot of newer x86 apps will not have it enabled because it increases heap fragmentation.

Guard pages are there (and many debuggers use them) since Windows 2000, possibly even Windows NT, not sure. So the red checkboxes for Vista and Windows 7 are pretty blatant silly BS there.


Abitrary Free Protection (assuming they mean the C level allocator, not the VirtualAlloc/VirtualFree calls which have always blown up if you free abitrary pointers even in Windows 95), is mostly irrelevant, since performance conscious applications routinely replace the default visual C++ runtime malloc/free with SmartHeap or other 3rd party allocators, and sometimes wrap those 3rd party allocators for better control/debugging. And pretty much every debug allocator does that. Also, this is NOT an OS level feature, but basically a compiler runtime library one. VS2012 might implement it in the release allocator where VS2010 did not but that has nothing to do with Windows 7 vs. Windows 8.

Similarly, they would have to be talking about Compiler runtime allocators, not the OS when listing "LFH Non-Determinism" and "Cache Aligned Allocations", as LFH only applies to small allocations, and the OS itself doesn't deal with anything smaller than a VM page. I have in fact created my own allocators that do cache aligned allocations for performance in Windows 2003 server.

I have no idea what some of the others like "FrontEndStatusBitmap" actually are or what exactly they mean by "Exception Handler Removal" (and a quick google search didn't help), so can't comment on them.

 

[Savatar]

ExtremeTech has the same list here: http://www.extremetech.com/computin...y-desktop-users-should-upgrade-from-windows-7

But they don't go into detail about what, specifically, those entail. I would say that usually ExtremeTech is very reliable, though. One potential thing is that at least some features may have been primarily targeted towards 64-bit processes, and Windows 8 was the first version of the OS that was released as 64-bit only. Therefore, maybe they're talking about those? (It would need some investigation)

In either case, I would agree that Vista and Windows 7 are similar architecturally, from what I've read [1], whereas Windows 8 did have to go back to the drawing board and change quite a bit more low-level things [2].

[1] http://www.techhive.com/article/153624/windows_7_under.html
[2] http://www.extremetech.com/computin...y-desktop-users-should-upgrade-from-windows-7

This doesn't mean it's necessarily more secure, but there's some good reasons to suggest that perhaps Windows 8 is intrinsically more secure than 7.

 

[glugglug]

One potential thing is that at least some features may have been primarily targeted towards 64-bit processes, and Windows 8 was the first version of the OS that was released as 64-bit only. Therefore, maybe they're talking about those?

Nope.

There are 64 bit versions of XP, Vista, Windows 7, and even Windows NT (if you count the DEC Alpha).

And there is a 32 bit version of Windows 8. Which oddly enough the first couple generations of x64 processors are restricted to because of new instructions used by the 64-bit version of 8.1.