Windows 8.1 Update 2 Start Menu

[Mem]

8 was a new kind of start menu more or less I would have thought.

:biggrin:

You miss my point,I wonder if they are going to bring out another new Start menu for Win9,10,something completely different from 8 and all previous Windows.

 

[Anubis]

its good but im still on 8.0 because 8.1 breaks my laptop (dells fault)

 

[StinkyPinky]

People that use the start menu to launch applications on Windows 7/8 are doing it wrong.

 

[RampantAndroid]

its good but im still on 8.0 because 8.1 breaks my laptop (dells fault)

How does it break?

 

[Towermax]

The hate is because people hate change. My flow was interrupted for as long as it took me to customize the start screen.

No, the hate is for a variety of reasons, depending on the user and his needs. Yes, some dislike change, but others don't care at all--they just find that 8 is not as efficient for them. Everyone else's flow is not the same as yours, ya know?

 

[JEDIYoda]

its good but im still on 8.0 because 8.1 breaks my laptop (dells fault)

I have a dell laptop and no issues at all with any of the updates!!

 

[Anubis]

How does it break?

it breaks the switchable graphics,

 

[Kenmitch]

I don't miss the start menu enough to load a 3rd party app....Having said that I'll welcome it back.

 

[lupi]

I find it interesting in the closing of the article they talk about a cloud OS while MS using ads about the chromebook being crap because it relies on the cloud.

 

[stockwiz]

I prefer the start screen pop up.. don't need that menu anymore. Adapted to the change and thriving with it. I'm glad the icon was put back in 8.1 though just so I can access the start menu with a mouse or finger instead of having to press keyboard key.

Ultimately I'd like them to integrate the start screen and desktop into one solution in the next windows. The old style desktop is really not needed, just allow people to adjust the DPI of the icons to suit their needs, and put all the icons that are on the desktop in the start screen format. I'd like to be able to access the desktop versions of software on the start screen however, not just 'apps' since I prefer the full featured software versions.

However "apps" are where the money is going, so it wouldn't surprise me if they tried to lock down windows in such a way as to kill traditional desktop software and restrict the ability to, for example, block ads and the like. Us old dinosaurs that like to use the desktop version of chrome or firefox and install adblock plus, and not use 'apps' are killing everyone's bottom line... I do see where things are headed... they want to give away the OS for free and sell content, that's the way of the future.... windows phone can't really have ads blocked, for example.. but they give it away free...

 

[Maximilian]

No, the hate is for a variety of reasons, depending on the user and his needs. Yes, some dislike change, but others don't care at all--they just find that 8 is not as efficient for them. Everyone else's flow is not the same as yours, ya know?

This guy gets it :thumbsup:

 

[yinan]

I have a 4k display for my primary monitor, this makes me happy. I use Startisback currently because when I want to start a new application I shouldn't lose complete visibility to everything else going on on the screen. Metro was a huge fail in this setup. I also only pin frequently used programs to the taskbar. Any other program I launch I start by using the start menu, and typing to search for it.

 

[Ancalagon44]

When people enthusiastically adopt the original iPhone back in 2007, its because it was a fad and not because it was good.

When people enthusiastically reject Windows 8 on the desktop, its because they hate change.

Public announcement - everyone vote Republican in the next election, since obviously change is always good.

 

[mikeymikec]

No, the hate is for a variety of reasons, depending on the user and his needs. Yes, some dislike change, but others don't care at all--they just find that 8 is not as efficient for them. Everyone else's flow is not the same as yours, ya know?

Yup. I make heavy use of the Windows 7 Start menu with Jump Lists as well as and the older 'Recent Items' option. I use the taskbar at the bottom of the screen for currently open programs only, not a launch pad / jump list substitute. If I populated the taskbar with all the apps I have pinned (small icons) to the start menu, the taskbar would probably overflow on my 1080p screen, and I would also lose the view of having pinned apps and recent apps right next to each other. Also, if I populated the taskbar in that way, then enabled the non-combined view (I prefer to see text labels next to the app icons that are currently running - with a low profile taskbar), the number of visible pinned taskbar icons would dramatically drop.

I also get more search results on the screen when I search the start menu for documents than I would on Windows 8.

My way works perfectly well for me, and changing to the Windows 8 way of doing things is not a way that works well for me, nor would it increase my productivity (long or short term). So what's the point?

There isn't a single way that Windows 8.1 would improve my productivity. At some point I'll have to upgrade from Windows 7 (ie. 2020). At that point, if Windows 8.1 was the only version available then (or something virtually identical to it, or something that embraces tablets even more and desktop users even less), then my choices are:

- Downgrade to the latest version of Windows and suck it up
- Try to make a GUI on Linux work the way I want it to, as well as sorting out all of the compatibility between what I do now and what's available then.
(No, I refuse to change to MacOS, there's a million things I hate about it)

Changing the UI should be about improving productivity as well as walking the tightrope of simplifying things for the user without losing accessibility for power users.

Microsoft either couldn't be arsed to implement an optional Start menu (a la Win7) in Windows 8 and/or they were so supremely arrogant that they believed an 'our way or the highway' attitude would work on their (predominantly business) user base.

IMO, Microsoft needed another 'safe bet' with Windows (after the well-received Win7), after the PR disaster (and implementation of, to some extent) Vista. MS needed its customers to think that a new version of Windows is a safe bet, rather than "it it be another turd or not?". Instead, we got Win8, which is going to have repercussions for Microsoft for years to come, both in maintenance and in customer confidence.

Microsoft made other mistakes with Windows 8 as well. For example, on XP, Vista and 7 it is very easy to copy a Start menu item to the desktop. On Windows 8, it's like drag and drop never existed in this respect, I have to browse for the exe! (that is, if a user even knows how to create a shortcut from scratch). That's because MS thought, "we don't want you to use the desktop!". Sorry MS, it's not about what you want, it's about what your customers want. You lost sight of that, and that's why you're having to make very unusual efforts to salvage the situation.

Yes, people don't like change generally speaking, but if a software maker makes it worth their while, they'll eventually warm to it.

 

[Mushkins]

Yup. I make heavy use of the Windows 7 Start menu with Jump Lists as well as and the older 'Recent Items' option. I use the taskbar at the bottom of the screen for currently open programs only, not a launch pad / jump list substitute. If I populated the taskbar with all the apps I have pinned (small icons) to the start menu, the taskbar would probably overflow on my 1080p screen, and I would also lose the view of having pinned apps and recent apps right next to each other. Also, if I populated the taskbar in that way, then enabled the non-combined view (I prefer to see text labels next to the app icons that are currently running - with a low profile taskbar), the number of visible pinned taskbar icons would dramatically drop.

I also get more search results on the screen when I search the start menu for documents than I would on Windows 8.

My way works perfectly well for me, and changing to the Windows 8 way of doing things is not a way that works well for me, nor would it increase my productivity (long or short term). So what's the point?

There isn't a single way that Windows 8.1 would improve my productivity. At some point I'll have to upgrade from Windows 7 (ie. 2020). At that point, if Windows 8.1 was the only version available then (or something virtually identical to it, or something that embraces tablets even more and desktop users even less), then my choices are:

- Downgrade to the latest version of Windows and suck it up
- Try to make a GUI on Linux work the way I want it to, as well as sorting out all of the compatibility between what I do now and what's available then.
(No, I refuse to change to MacOS, there's a million things I hate about it)

Changing the UI should be about improving productivity as well as walking the tightrope of simplifying things for the user without losing accessibility for power users.

Microsoft either couldn't be arsed to implement an optional Start menu (a la Win7) in Windows 8 and/or they were so supremely arrogant that they believed an 'our way or the highway' attitude would work on their (predominantly business) user base.

IMO, Microsoft needed another 'safe bet' with Windows (after the well-received Win7), after the PR disaster (and implementation of, to some extent) Vista. MS needed its customers to think that a new version of Windows is a safe bet, rather than "it it be another turd or not?". Instead, we got Win8, which is going to have repercussions for Microsoft for years to come, both in maintenance and in customer confidence.

Microsoft made other mistakes with Windows 8 as well. For example, on XP, Vista and 7 it is very easy to copy a Start menu item to the desktop. On Windows 8, it's like drag and drop never existed in this respect, I have to browse for the exe! (that is, if a user even knows how to create a shortcut from scratch). That's because MS thought, "we don't want you to use the desktop!". Sorry MS, it's not about what you want, it's about what your customers want. You lost sight of that, and that's why you're having to make very unusual efforts to salvage the situation.

Yes, people don't like change generally speaking, but if a software maker makes it worth their while, they'll eventually warm to it.

Couldn't have said it better myself. If anything, the fact that a debate on love it or hate it Windows 8 crops up weekly, if not daily, three years after its release is a solid indication that there's something fundamentally different between the product and the public's expectations for that product.

I've been using it since release, I still hate it for personal use, can clearly see where the users I am in charge of would drastically lose productivity with it, and have no intention of ever implementing it in a business setting. I think three years is more than a fair time to "warm up" to the changes, and it hasn't happened.

 

[Ketchup]

...Everyone else's flow is not the same as yours, ya know?

Why don't people get this? It's not efficient for some, more efficient for others. I am glad some people like it, and consider it an improvement. Nothing wrong with that. Telling other people they are wrong/stupid for not liking it ..... doing so really is stupid.

 

[showb1z]

Yup. I make heavy use of the Windows 7 Start menu with Jump Lists as well as and the older 'Recent Items' option. I use the taskbar at the bottom of the screen for currently open programs only, not a launch pad / jump list substitute. If I populated the taskbar with all the apps I have pinned (small icons) to the start menu, the taskbar would probably overflow on my 1080p screen, and I would also lose the view of having pinned apps and recent apps right next to each other. Also, if I populated the taskbar in that way, then enabled the non-combined view (I prefer to see text labels next to the app icons that are currently running - with a low profile taskbar), the number of visible pinned taskbar icons would dramatically drop.

Well... You can pin a lot more programs to the start screen, and with a minimum of effort you can actually organize it pretty nicely.
I've always felt the start menu to be too cramped to be actually useful. And cascading menu's are just annoying as hell. So I never bothered with it ever since they put search in. The start screen in 8 is at least somewhat useful to me. But to each his own.

 

[sweenish]

Why don't people get this? It's not efficient for some, more efficient for others. I am glad some people like it, and consider it an improvement. Nothing wrong with that. Telling other people they are wrong/stupid for not liking it ..... doing so really is stupid.

It's the other scenario that's far more prevalent. I'm fine with Windows 8, but apparently I'm backwards and wrong. I get defensive in a naive effort to quell the ignorance that gets spouted on this forum almost daily.

If people would shut up in general about it, we'd all be a lot happier. At the end of the day, 8 is better than 7. It's faster and safer. Whether you feel the need to install software to get your start menu back is irrelevant to that fact. I change my keyboard and launcher and icons and download extra paid apps for functionality on my phone but don't complain that Android is a mess. Windows should be no different.

It was a rough step, but a necessary one. And the OS is fine. I will always recommend people install it over 7.

To be honest I'm just sick and tired of people ignorantly complaining about Windows 8 when the ability to change it to their liking is perfectly within their grasp.

 

[Chiropteran]

The Start Menu that by its very design covers only part of the screen gets in the way more than the Start Screen that completely covers your entire desktop?

Somehow, I doubt that. IF you said this about the Start Button, I could see your argument. But saying it about the Start Menu when the current option is far and away worse at "getting in your way" is really the most absurd argument you could make in defense of the current status quo.

If you are trying to interact with your desktop while you have the start menu up, you are doing it wrong. There is *no* situation where that makes any sense. The fact that the win 8 start screen covers the desktop while up is irrelevant for 99.99% of all situations, because it's only ever up for a fraction of a second once you get used to it and memorize your icon locations.

On the other hand, the old nested menus in the start menu took several seconds to navigate and click.

Still, I don't dislike options. Bringing back the start menu as an option is a good thing.

 

[mikeymikec]

Well... You can pin a lot more programs to the start screen, and with a minimum of effort you can actually organize it pretty nicely.

Great. No jump lists however, as I already pointed out is an extremely useful feature for me.

I've always felt the start menu to be too cramped to be actually useful. And cascading menu's are just annoying as hell. So I never bothered with it ever since they put search in. The start screen in 8 is at least somewhat useful to me. But to each his own.

Good for you. Choice is good (Start screen / menu / desktop / taskbar, for locations to store app shortcuts, for example). Less or no choice is not good.

 

[Mushkins]

If you are trying to interact with your desktop while you have the start menu up, you are doing it wrong. There is *no* situation where that makes any sense. The fact that the win 8 start screen covers the desktop while up is irrelevant for 99.99% of all situations, because it's only ever up for a fraction of a second once you get used to it and memorize your icon locations.

Not to be argumentative, but I can think of tons of situations where various types of users would want to interact with the start menu without hiding the entire desktop to do so, especially for people with multiple monitors.

Streaming video, playing any windowed game, any sort of video chatting app, simply reading an article.

Your mouse pointer focus may be restricted to one or the other at any given time, but my vision can definitely handle focusing on two things at once. Covering it all up with a fullscreen menu is unnecessarily jarring and causes me to lose focus. It's like if I was reading a book and I had to close it to answer my telephone. I don't need 100% of my attention to pick a familiar object out of my pocket and hit a button, I can do it with my eyes closed, or while still reading the book. Likewise, I can open the start menu and click the big blue icon for Outlook without diverting my attention from my web browser, and I don't need the OS telling me that I can't.

Does the Metro interface have it's own perks? Absolutely, but any benefits were at the cost of multitasking functionality. The irony is that the Windows OS and the idea of having applications open in windows is 100% about multitasking.

 

[TerryMathews]

It's the other scenario that's far more prevalent. I'm fine with Windows 8, but apparently I'm backwards and wrong. I get defensive in a naive effort to quell the ignorance that gets spouted on this forum almost daily.

If people would shut up in general about it, we'd all be a lot happier. At the end of the day, 8 is better than 7. It's faster and safer. Whether you feel the need to install software to get your start menu back is irrelevant to that fact. I change my keyboard and launcher and icons and download extra paid apps for functionality on my phone but don't complain that Android is a mess. Windows should be no different.

It was a rough step, but a necessary one. And the OS is fine. I will always recommend people install it over 7.

To be honest I'm just sick and tired of people ignorantly complaining about Windows 8 when the ability to change it to their liking is perfectly within their grasp.

Why would you recommend someone install software that is unsuitable for its intended purpose? That makes no sense.

Microsoft Windows is an application who's primary feature is providing a graphical user frontend to your PC. If it doesn't provide that service well for a particular user's needs, recommending it anyway makes as much sense as recommending a Corvette to someone needing to haul timber.

 

[RampantAndroid]

especially for people with multiple monitors.

That's great - it only pops up over one monitor, and you can set where it goes.

 

[HeXen]

Explorer looks to be pretty heavy and moreso all the time. Since I only use my rig for gaming only, I still wouldn't mind a light and small Windows alternative to have more room on SSD's for games.

 

[xSauronx]

Win 8.1 right now is perfect for me

seriously. 8.1, and the last couple of tweaks with the Update are great. you couldnt convince me to switch to windows 7 for any reason. love 8.1. 8 was cumbersome but ive forgotten about it mostly. i might have 2 surface users still on windows 8 instead of 8.1

your regularly used tasks should be on the taskbar. why go look for them at all if you use them much?

also, right-clicking the start button is GREAT. id love to have that in windows 7. its awesome.

we are replacing 100 xp boxes at work, and over half are slated to get 8.1
I just have to keep 7 on some pcs because we are a manufacturing business and lots of vendors dont support 8 and i require support for those instances.

but office users and admin staff: 8.1

no complaints so far. they are working. the only people complaining about the start menu are people who would be doing themselves a favor to get up to speed on a few conveniences.

and honestly, if you want to pick a few more apps than you want on your taskbar...fill the start screen up with them. its handy. really.