Such as...all of them? Hierarchical folder menus beat scrolling across the start screen for a program that's moved since you last used it, because it will still be in the same folder, named the same, making it a one-dimensional search, rather than two-dimensional; and the old desktop allowed arbitrary but stationary positioning of other icons.
No, but more than a handful in a vertical manner.
The Start Screen still allows hierarchical sorting to the user, even more so if the tiles are grouped with the name above. Important stuff to the left most as it is shown initially upon Start screen launch, less used, but still as somewhat used items more to the right.
The difference is, in the Start menu, folders needed to be opened and revealed.
TMK, only Administrative Tools has opened more icons to choose from, from Windows NT through Windows 7. Grouping them for more clicks is just one more regression, that should have been nixed after we all switched back to classic view in XP, every single time. But, at least we could, with just one click, permanently disable that regression. Control Panel was never full enough to need more menu-like groupings. Separating flat groups, like the grouped My Computer view, sure, but not click through subcategories.
The Menu like groupings (but more so the menu titled descriptions, help some lay-users out. These things are not exactly intuitive no matter how you slice it, hence why icons with just the name went away in favor of the main Control panel listing as it is in 7 and 8 as of today.
[quote[
Another regression, requiring many more clicks to get rid of, if the image is in a folder with other images. Vista does not do it by default, like 7 and up do, apparently (I have a fresh Vista install right now, so I checked--I didn't know either, off the top of my head).[/quote]
By default now, there is only a single wallpaper set. If you have selected a folder, sure it is going to initially select everything. But there is a "Clear all" button, and you can check only one of the many images in a folder. Saving the "theme" would allow it to be saved.
It isn't implemented perfectly in the past. I had some situations where my saved theme is copied over to being an unsaved theme and the unsaved theme is being actively used. But it does not effect the in place settings.
Explorer as a whole, yes. They took all the right things from KDE, and even implemented a few better, like the file transfer notification. The ribbon, specifically no, because vertical space is precious, and it's not adding much functionality for the space, but it at least it can stay out of the way 99% of the time.
Vertical space back then was at a scarcity, due to resolution per information density. That is why the menu bar of windows have the click and reveal, the menu bar itself being the cue for users to see that this is where you find more options and functions.
But by using the space for dedicated "always shown" buttons, it takes up screen space. This is a drawback on smaller devices. Hence, initially, the misguided idea was to eliminate the Start icon (Start button). But there was no good reason to do this.
Nowadays, the ribbon can be expanded like in the past of the menu drop down. It actually keeps some vertical space showing, because the menu is organized more horizontal.
The ribbon does have more cursor movement, versus the compactness of a drop down. On that same token, it is easier to horizontally cursor (trackball or mouse regardless) because our wrists have an easier back and forth motion. This is my deduction why the ribbon is implemented.
NUKE IT FROM ORBIT. Contextual views are frustrating as Hell, and totally worth a reg hack to be rid of. That is one lack of feature they need to be ripping off from KDE and OS X. Moving functionality out of the more obscure context menus is good, though.
Contextual views are EVERYWHERE. Even on webpages. Depending on the immediate view, things that are not necessary are not shown (in the past, grayed out - but that takes space, in third party programs and if I recall, some Windows menu elements)
What keeps this from being completely unsettling, is the unity of common menu options being shown along side. Now in File Explorer, it is with "File". Windows as a whole, the Start button and Taskbar alongside the clock.
I know there is at least one edited screenshot that showed the taskbar on the bottom of the Start Screen. That is a good change to implement. The taskbar on any device (small tablets to desktop PCs with a range of monitor(s) can spare this real estate, and there is still plenty of it in the Start Screen.
It existed as of Vista, in the toolbar, and last time I used 8, it still didn't remember view changes across reboots for the same folder type.
It maybe a bug back then. Now, individual folders keep their own view settings when applied.
There was never a problem with that. if you're working with the windows active, you don't need to show desktop. It's a self-solving problem, once sufficient applications are running. It's primarily useful for short-term but common file accesses, unrelated to other workflows.
Then there shouldn't be a problem booting to the Start screen either, unless it is a recently upgraded PC that still had desktop icons in place. This could be fixed now, with the upgrade recognizing desktop icons and copying them as tiles in a Start screen group (for shortcuts and folders).
The desktop is useful, as a scratch space for files anyways, but still requires a reveal or multiple monitors to shift through.
Long term access, would still need "All Programs" access or a search.
Except that it moves, while the desktop does not, so it's easier to go to a location on the desktop.
How does it move? It only moves, if you change the layout. Scrolling is like scrolling a menu. If you are talking about transitions, it transitions with a soft zoom fade, but it does lack a static transition element. The Taskbar shown on the bottom of the Start Screen I mentioned before would keep a point of unity.
I also presented in keeping "a point of unity" of the "File" in the menu bar of windows, to the Start button and Taskbar in Windows.
Sure it does, so that the desktop is what is usually displayed. As long as there is something other than the desktop to work with, it's showing disrespect to the desktop users, because it gets in the way of using it as a desktop. Modern needs to either go away, or be an extension of the desktop.
It does not get in the way for long, it is a home menu. It is like being mad at the iconic iOS screen. But what else marketing has to do to show that it is different, but still as functional? This is a lose-lose situation.
This is also ingrained and amplified every time a commercial shows and all it does is show the Start screen, with no regards to the desktop or opened windows of before (remember my point of unity? There is not a call back to the desktop space in PC advertisement).
This is where I find it shows disrespect to desktop users. Functionally, 8 behaves like 7 in the desktop space. It just has a Start screen, rather than a Start menu, that I have grown accustomed to. Not that I use my Start menu for much anyways, other than some things permanently pinned there.
I do miss the "Recent Documents" folder. But it in itself is a catch, as there are times where you do not want that to appear, but it helps gain track of what you once worked on.
I use mine for a couple folders, but only out of laziness, and don't use it at all outside of Windows. The desktop is easy to not really use, if you don't want to. But, I am not normal in that, and I do see a problem with trying to change things like that for those people for whom the physical placement of things matters, because they don't grok abstractions like the file system well enough to not have those icons laid out like say, the top of their desk. The Modern switching when least expected only makes it worse. They need something like the relatively static desktop and start menu, and have work to be doing, instead of fussing about w/ the new Windows. The way it was prior to Modern could have used some work, but it was fundamentally right.
Recognizing that the Start Screen, is just a very customizable menu for launching, that you aren't there for an even extended time, and with arranging as such, pushes the shortcuts of the desktop off the way, leaving more scratch space.
I am reading more and more that you like an entire static area, but I see benefits of the Start screen paradigm too. In 8 initially, there was a joining lack of a unity element, and the desktop tile seemed obscured (the default background and the white lettering did not help either).
To solve this, the Start Screen possibly needs the Taskbar to be shown and in conjunction, would keep part of the desktop shown (in a manner of splitting Modern apps).
The Start screen would slide from the side to take up a portion of the screen (enough for tablet space, enough for the desktop space by about 85% visibility). The percentage can be adjustable as Modern apps have an ability to remember the last snap settings (until a reboot or a cold boot).
You go over this a lot, but it hasn't been an issue for like a decade, now. You don't need to pin from the all programs section of the menu much. You can pin from the recently used section, with big icons and labels, and programs worth pinning will be there, either by virtue of having been run, or by having been recently installed. Having to go to all programs is a rarity.
It is, but I get the impression that some people bring this as a counter to keep the Start menu because it does this function well for them. This is also the same sentiment from Microsoft, as that area is pushed to a single, horizontally scrolled screen.
TL-DR (or more like, main points)
Windows 8 initially lacked an element of unity to upgrading users.
Control Panel is more menu descriptive in 7 and 8.
Commercials just showing the Start screen and modern apps is akin to how people viewed iOS's home screen, driving hatred from desktop users.
Ribbon is fine, taking up horizontal space rather than vertical. It is easier to move the cursor horizontally with the ribbon layout, versus vertically.
Context sensitive menus are not bad, but there has to be an element of unity as a transition.
I won't upgrade to 9.
However, I will if it is just as cheap as I had obtained 8.
I will upgrade if there is more functional changes and improvements to performance (some folder access and Control panel
of all things at times will result in a progress bar of longer than I liked to view items).
Off topic note, 8.1 got rid of directly showing a Windows Experience Index. A workaround is needed to roughly gauge this number (and it was an off the bat useful index for a quick look). It should be used more, to gauge programs to being able to operate or if it doesn't operate well as a first level indicator.
Facebook
Twitter