Will Windows 9 Bring Back the Start Menu

[Lisathedinosaur]

Will the Start Screen get replaced in favor of the start menu? I heard millions of different thingd :\.

 

[Hugh Jass]

Do you want the winning lottery numbers as well?

 

[nemesismk2]

Do you want the winning lottery numbers as well?

yes please

 

[KeypoX]

Are you really a dinosaur?

 

[Mem]

Will the Start Screen get replaced in favor of the start menu? I heard millions of different thingd :\.

Repeat after me,

Mem:"You don't want the old start menu." Lisathedinosaur: "Uh, I don't want the old start menu." Mem: "You want to go home and rethink your life." Lisathedinosaur: "I wanna go home and rethink my life."

 

[Lisathedinosaur]

 

[88keys]

Windows 9 beta should be public in May, so we'll have an idea by then.

However it's important to note that the first betas aren't going to look much different than it's predecessor. If you look at an early beta of Windows Whistler (XP), you'll swear that it looks just like Windows 2000. Same thing with early Windows Longhorn betas (Vista) looking just like XP.

Either way, the start screen needs to go. I don't know who honestly needs a program launcher that hogs up the entire screen, let alone 2 or 3.

 

[Imaginer]

Either way, the start screen needs to go. I don't know who honestly needs a program launcher that hogs up the entire screen, let alone 2 or 3.

I do, I make use of that thing on all of my PCs with 8 now. I even eliminated all desktop icons sans recycle bin realizing how little I need to use them now.

The bolded part, that there is wrong. There is only one start screen, invoked on the monitor the cursor is at. All other screens are either on their usual screens of app or desktop showings.

Again, the start screen SHOULD be thought as a replacement to desktop shortcut launchings, separate from the desktop, not needing to window manage things to access the shortcuts - with a Windows key, start icon in the taskbar, to launch that screen.

Grouped and resized tiles to be as small if not smaller than usual desktop icons + text descriptions, and you basically have a better "Show desktop" way of accessing your shortcuts (that being the Start screen).

If one were to use the "All Programs" screen for drilling down, that is where I have current issues with the implementation, and can poise longer pointer travel for accessing folders and shortcuts versus the scrolling, close proximity pointer travel of the Start menu.

It is even more advantageous on a touch screen, given the quickness of fingers and hand travel and direct pointing versus mouse cursor travel and cursor zeroing in.

Even more expertly so, using the Windows key on the keyboard and given a mouse position, tiles can be shorter to cursor travel to. Tiles being backgrounded versus an icon, make sure that there isn't much "zeroing" in of the cursor.

Using the start menu, interrupts your focus anyways directing your eyes to select the folders and icons. It is no different than focus on an entire screen and back again. Speaking of diverting attention, this is a way of "pseudo-widgetting" by quickly switching to that screen for live info (that doesn't have to be always showing on the screen) and back again with either windows key, tablet windows icon, or a cursor travel to the start button.

I am going to say these things like a broken record. The Start screen, should be here to stay for the above reasons, but 8 (in it's first iteration) should have a reversion.

Hell, I find it LONGER to traverse a folder hierarchy of the "all programs" listing, a search is mostly what I do now. There are some things I would drill down for (7 and 8) but very few and far between. "All Programs" is a listing where I know what software is currently installed, without going to the "Uninstall" area of the control panel.

 

[88keys]

I do, I make use of that thing on all of my PCs with 8 now. I even eliminated all desktop icons sans recycle bin realizing how little I need to use them now.

The bolded part, that there is wrong. There is only one start screen, invoked on the monitor the cursor is at. All other screens are either on their usual screens of app or desktop showings.

Okay, 2 or 3 pages. Either way it's still way too big. We had start menus, OSX has a dock, Linux has start menus and sidebars and all kinds of other things. But not a program launcher that takes up the entire screen. I don't use desktop icons either because I just have what I need in the start menu. It's small, lightweight and easy to use and navigate. The start screen is none of these things. It might be alright for a tablet or a phone, but not a desktop. I ran Windows 8 for a week, and I tried to get used to it. But no, it's horrible.


Trying to use the same OS for mobile devices and PCs was a bad idea. The markets and the needs are totally different.

 

[MongGrel]

I'd doubt it, been running 8.1 easily for awhile now without it myself while now, and you can do things to basically do it there anyways.

I have migrated past needed it these days, the windows key on the keyboard is actually useful now.

 

[Morbus]

I don't want the old start menu. I don't want Windows XP's start menu, I want Windows 7's start menu, and that's what I have at the moment.

Though to be fair, Microsoft could well turn the programs shortlist into a panel of icons and be done with it. There's no real need to show their names, not that prominently at least. It's like 80% title, 20% icon, you could fit at least 3 times the icons in the same space.

And by that I don't actually mean fit 3 times the icons in the start menu, I mean have a smaller, leaner start menu, cause you wouldn't be wasting so much space.

On the topic, though, Microsoft has said multiple times they are thinking of giving the OS "back" to desktop users a bit, specifically those without a touchscreen.

 

[88keys]

The windows key has been just as useful then as it is now.

I use it all the time.

 

[homebrew2ny]

With great and seamlessly simple add-on programs like classic shell, I see zero need.

 

[88keys]

I don't want the old start menu. I don't want Windows XP's start menu, I want Windows 7's start menu, and that's what I have at the moment.

Though to be fair, Microsoft could well turn the programs shortlist into a panel of icons and be done with it. There's no real need to show their names, not that prominently at least. It's like 80% title, 20% icon, you could fit at least 3 times the icons in the same space.

And by that I don't actually mean fit 3 times the icons in the start menu, I mean have a smaller, leaner start menu, cause you wouldn't be wasting so much space.

On the topic, though, Microsoft has said multiple times they are thinking of giving the OS "back" to desktop users a bit, specifically those without a touchscreen.

The thing is that touchscreen monitors for desktops are still very expensive when compared to their non touchscreen counterparts. They might be alright for a kiosk type of set up. But if you have a 22" monitor (which seems to be pretty average these days), think of how awkward it would be to use that has a touchscreen. Your arms would get tired.
The only way I could see that being efficient would be if your monitor were set up like a drafting table. But even then I would have to try it out before I'd be convinced.

 

[blankslate]

According to bloggers who cover windows their "inside sources" suggest that some form of start menu will be in windows 9.

I would hope it's a windows 7 style start menu but nothing is certain.

However, the team that was in charge of windows 8 isn't there anymore and head of that team is no longer with MS.

So it's a good bet that whatever anyone thinks of Win 8 that Win 9 will be different from win 8 in ways that try to address some of the major complaints about win 8.


....

 

[code65536]

Yes, the Start Screen is optimized for touchscreens. No, that does not necessarily mean that it's un-optimized for keyboard/mouse.

As I've said before, I cried bloody murder when the start menu was taken away. I hated it so much that I dumped the Windows 8 beta after a few minutes. But eventually, I gave it a more serious shot, and to my surprise, the more I used the start screen (yes, with keyboard and mouse), the more I found myself liking it. It's just so much more efficient! There's enough space for me to pin everything that I use. I couldn't do that with the start menu and would have to do menu-digging for some things.

And it's a lot better than throwing a gazillion icons on the desktop as I did once upon a time (for one, it's easier to access, since there's no need to minimize everything and then restore windows).

And it's perfectly usable with a mouse/kb. I have a touchscreen laptop, and I virtually never use the touchscreen because I can get around everything just fine with the keyboard and trackpad. I honestly don't get it when people complain about things being harder to use because my experience has been quite positive--have they actually tried to seriously use it and customize it to suit their needs, or did they just try it for a minute or two, get frustrated, and declared it a failure without really giving it a chance?

 

[nickbits]

I hope so. I tried getting used to for a few months but installed classic shell about a week ago. I found the full screen popup too distracting on at 1440p on a 27" monitor.

 

[ControlD]

I hope they bring back some fashion of the start menu, more to make migration from Windows 7 to a newer OS easier in the enterprise market. I find Windows 8.x easy enough to use, but if people on a technical forum can't come to terms with it I can only imagine what less savvy users are going to run into.

At the same time, I hope they keep the Metro interface as well because it is by far the best interface I have used on a tablet to this point. I hope to see other operating systems make similar efforts in the mobile space.

 

[blankslate]

I hope they bring back some fashion of the start menu, more to make migration from Windows 7 to a newer OS easier in the enterprise market. I find Windows 8.x easy enough to use, but if people on a technical forum can't come to terms with it I can only imagine what less savvy users are going to run into.

At the same time, I hope they keep the Metro interface as well because it is by far the best interface I have used on a tablet to this point. I hope to see other operating systems make similar efforts in the mobile space.

I'm pretty sure they'll keep Metro for touch screens and hopefully the OS will suggest a Metro interface if it detects a touchscreen or that the device is a tablet and suggest a more desktop oriented ui for desktops and laptops without a touchscreen.



.....

 

[ControlD]

I'm pretty sure they'll keep Metro for touch screens and hopefully the OS will suggest a Metro interface if it detects a touchscreen or that the device is a tablet and suggest a more desktop oriented ui for desktops and laptops without a touchscreen.



.....

Agreed. And I honestly think that is the best way forward for MS. Let's see if they actually do it!

 

[bbhaag]

Yes, the Start Screen is optimized for touchscreens. No, that does not necessarily mean that it's un-optimized for keyboard/mouse.

As I've said before, I cried bloody murder when the start menu was taken away. I hated it so much that I dumped the Windows 8 beta after a few minutes. But eventually, I gave it a more serious shot, and to my surprise, the more I used the start screen (yes, with keyboard and mouse), the more I found myself liking it. It's just so much more efficient! There's enough space for me to pin everything that I use. I couldn't do that with the start menu and would have to do menu-digging for some things.

And it's a lot better than throwing a gazillion icons on the desktop as I did once upon a time (for one, it's easier to access, since there's no need to minimize everything and then restore windows).

And it's perfectly usable with a mouse/kb. I have a touchscreen laptop, and I virtually never use the touchscreen because I can get around everything just fine with the keyboard and trackpad. I honestly don't get it when people complain about things being harder to use because my experience has been quite positive--have they actually tried to seriously use it and customize it to suit their needs, or did they just try it for a minute or two, get frustrated, and declared it a failure without really giving it a chance?

You're spinning your wheels man. Nobody likes Win8. It's like the ME or Vista of Microsoft's OSs. It doesn't matter if it's more efficient or more secure people have already made up their minds.

 

[Morbus]

The thing is that touchscreen monitors for desktops are still very expensive when compared to their non touchscreen counterparts. They might be alright for a kiosk type of set up. But if you have a 22" monitor (which seems to be pretty average these days), think of how awkward it would be to use that has a touchscreen. Your arms would get tired.

Exactly. I, for one, do not want a touchscreen for my desktop in a million years. I'd rather have a keyboard-like touch-enabled screen just above my keyboard for added functions, but any interaction that involves you putting your hands in front of what you're trying to see, that's moronic, and is only tolerable on mobile because it actually saves space. For desktops or laptops, it's just idiotic.

The only way I could see that being efficient would be if your monitor were set up like a drafting table. But even then I would have to try it out before I'd be convinced.

As I said, that would work, but only if you had two screens: your usual screen in the usual place, and the kind of drafting table you suggest, between the keyboard and the main screen. That I would buy. Specially if it came in the 21:9 format.

 

[corkyg]

I detest fingerprints on my monitor screen. I have worked primarily from the Desktop since Win 3.11. The start menu is only used occasionally to find things used infrequently.

 

[13Gigatons]

I'm Microsoft's worst customer. I have Windows 7 on desktop, Apple iPad for tablet and a smart phone running Android.

I'm perfectly fine these days with this combo.


The days of Microsoft owning everything are most likely over.

 

[brokEN2]

I think they should just try to make the next version of windows the version that everyone wants. They should give the user the option to use what they want to use whether it be the start menu legacy desktop,metro tiles, something new,etc. I think making the OS customization like that would make people more comfortable making a switch to it and should hopefully make everyone happy in theory.