Windows 8.1 Lastest Build Leak address many issues.

[GoodBytes]

"Boot to desktop" and "disable edge shortcuts" in Win 8.1 is a first step, but there's still a lot of work to do. MS should add this functionality to the start screen for desktop user productivity and efficiency.

They have. Search is even better than Windows 7 now, not only it's back to unified, but also searched the web.

Win 8 is not "just fine", nor are we "afraid of change", there is just certain functionality removed from the start screen that many desktop power users relied on. The 'workarounds' for this lack of functionality either don't exist or take longer/more clicks/steps, making operations less efficient and productive.

What has been removed?

1. Resizable start screen, so it doesn't cover the entire desktop.

Why? Why restrict yourself to a few items, when you can have everything.

I already tried to make a Start Screen column layout like the network panel, but pops up on the other side on the Start. No one was interested in this concept. Everyone said, they prefer full screen, or not even look at it, and say: I'll just get the Start Menu replacement.

2. True context menu access from the start screen. Renaming and deleting shortcuts, etc.

You can. Right-click, and a menu pops up at the bottom. However, I agree with you on renaming, it's there and needs to be. Maybe in Win8.1 final or 8.2

3. All Apps sorted in even columns with nesting.

I don't understand. You can make groups.

4. Nested control panel, network, favorites, recent documents/programs, restart/shutdown, etc.

I don't know what you mean, but in 8.1, the Control Panel has been replicated fully in Modern UI "PC Settings" panel, and the home page of that PC Settings, shows you the last set of options used, which is pretty cool. Now you don't have to navigate all the way back to recharge something, or use often. It's right there in front of you.

5. Metro apps should be able to run in a window on the desktop.

That defeats the purpose of ModernUI.

6. Traditional search from the start screen.

Ok now you are exaggerating... you are like the people that moan all day about how Vista doesn't have XP search with the animated dog, and how it was better and more friendly. Come on. You really want that dog?

7. Fix the new explorer ribbon, networks sidebar, notifications, newly metro-ized dialogue boxes, etc.

Huh? It's all ModernUI since day 1.

8. (superficial) Restore title bar transparency, allow tile color changing from Metro defaults, etc.

It used to be, and people like NO TOMORROW complained how transparency should go away, as it didn't unify the Metro look with the desktop. People said that they should do like the Zune UI, and people did mocks-up like none stop. Here was a popular one that was suggested for Microsoft to do.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/24/2822891/windows-desktop-ui-concept

Sadly, this layout would break programs compatibility (all programs). So we have what we have now.

[GoodBytes]

Comparing Win 3.1 to 95 complaints as a way to dismiss Win 7 to 8 complaints is a fallacious false equivalency and says nothing about functionality.

Why? The Start Screen is new, much like the Start Menu back with Windows 95.

You can already 'press start and type in a program name' in Win 7. This is not new to Windows 8.

It's not something being new, it's something that you can do, much like Windows 7 and Vista.

Insulting people who don't like Win 8 as "afraid of change", ignorant, idiots, etc. is not only fallacious but rude and should be modded as flamebaiting. Furthermore, insulting the people who are supposed to be buying MS' products is a recipie for business failure.

There is no such insult. "Afraid of Change" is not an insult. It's an actual issue, and human property. There is a strong coloration between people getting older, and not being open to new changes.

"Change = good" is another often repeated yet meaningless fallacy in regards to Win 8.

If one is afraid of change, then he or she is not willing to learn something new, let alone try it seriously.

And because of this, one assumes that new is not good, automatically, and complain how unproductive one design is, which is even more insulting.

[Kirihuna]

Sorry if you guys already know this, but have you tries this layout?

 

Mixed with the most used program pinned on the Task Bar.

I'm so glad they made it where you can name clusters now.

[Matsy]

I'm so glad they made it where you can name clusters now.

 

Can already replicate that with a program called Fences.

I use fences to organise my desktop, it works very well.

 

I might load the 8.1 preview into virutalbox and see what its like.

[obsidian1200]

I don't even care about the modern UI at this point. I'm still running Windows 7 because when I tried Windows 8, enough of my older games refused to work properly on it. If that's fixed in 8.1, which I doubt because a lot of the compatibility issues there are on the publishers/devs, not M$, then I'd probably upgrade.

 

On the note of the UI, I've said this before, Linux has it right. There, people have choices when it comes to their UI. Don't like Unity? Download Gnome! Don't like Gnome, try KDE! They all let you use the OS, just in different ways. If Microsoft just added a menu option to the login screen, for "Classic" or "Modern" UI before logging in, so many complaints would be nulled. From a programming stance, I don't see why this isn't feasible.

[martinrox1568]

I'm still waiting for a proper Start Button for Pete's sake....

to be fair, once you get used to windows 8's start menu its alright. I'm running the 8.1 consumer preview, and the search it WAY better. and it you can access it just as quickly as on windows 7(start button and type). I know the arguement of it taking up your whole screen and stuff, but it really doesn't matter cause it only takes a second to start an application. Also, setting your background on the start menu as your desktop background really helps.

[mjemirzian]

"Why restrict yourself to a few items, when you can have everything." Covering the whole screen interrupts workflow and prevents multitasking productivity. I would like it if it took about 1/4 of the screen like the start menu, so I can still see the desktop.

"Right-click, and a menu pops up at the bottom." That's not the desktop context menu.

All Apps sorting is still a mess. Folders and shortcuts are stacked on top of eachother in uneven columns instead of nested, making a giant mess of shortcuts. This is far worse than the start menu for quickly eyeing and spotting a needed folder/shortcut that you don't remember the name to. All apps shortcuts can't be managed in any way either, you need to go to the Start Menu folder on the desktop.

More stuff I wrote on the start menu/screen if you care: http://www.tbstactics.com/2012/10/windows-8-impressions-start-menu-is.html

By nested control panel this is what I mean: http://techfleece.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/42.jpg

"That defeats the purpose of ModernUI." Fullscreen apps defeat the purpose of Windows. Docking is not a windows replacement, either.

"There is no such insult." It's an ad hominem argument. Here's some reading to help:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

[fracking4oil]

I'm so glad they made it where you can name clusters now.

 

 

You can do that in Windows 8.0 already, by clicking the - symbol at the bottom right & right clicking the group/cluster you want to name.

 

[Kirihuna]

You can do that in Windows 8.0 already, by clicking the - symbol at the bottom right & right clicking the group/cluster you want to name.

 

didn't even know that

[TheProfosist]

I don't even care about the modern UI at this point. I'm still running Windows 7 because when I tried Windows 8, enough of my older games refused to work properly on it. If that's fixed in 8.1, which I doubt because a lot of the compatibility issues there are on the publishers/devs, not M$, then I'd probably upgrade.

 

On the note of the UI, I've said this before, Linux has it right. There, people have choices when it comes to their UI. Don't like Unity? Download Gnome! Don't like Gnome, try KDE! They all let you use the OS, just in different ways. If Microsoft just added a menu option to the login screen, for "Classic" or "Modern" UI before logging in, so many complaints would be nulled. From a programming stance, I don't see why this isn't feasible.

 

how old are the games? If they were designed to run on something prior to WinXP SP2 I could see how they wouldnt work. Also if it was designed for Vista some games may not work due to some tech that came out them that never proliferated past it and not just stuff built into windows. Did you also try running i compatibility mode or an even bigger thing run it as Admin? With Win8 you may be an admin but your not THE admin which is actually a good thing and is something they got away from with Vista and 7.

 

i can see why that works with linux but I can also see how that wouldnt work for a mainstream OS like Windows for tons of reasons.

 

 

 

"Why restrict yourself to a few items, when you can have everything." Covering the whole screen interrupts workflow and prevents multitasking productivity. I would like it if it took about 1/4 of the screen like the start menu, so I can still see the desktop.

"Right-click, and a menu pops up at the bottom." That's not the desktop context menu.

All Apps sorting is still a mess. Folders and shortcuts are stacked on top of eachother in uneven columns instead of nested, making a giant mess of shortcuts. This is far worse than the start menu for quickly eyeing and spotting a needed folder/shortcut that you don't remember the name to. All apps shortcuts can't be managed in any way either, you need to go to the Start Menu folder on the desktop.

More stuff I wrote on the start menu/screen if you care: http://www.tbstactics.com/2012/10/windows-8-impressions-start-menu-is.html

By nested control panel this is what I mean: http://techfleece.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/42.jpg

"That defeats the purpose of ModernUI." Fullscreen apps defeat the purpose of Windows. Docking is not a windows replacement, either.

"There is no such insult." It's an ad hominem argument. Here's some reading to help:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

 

I dont get what your on about here because if you use it as a start screen it isnt up for long

 

what are you having to right click so frequently? also its that way for tablet or touch screen use imagine try to hit a right click menu on the desktop with a touch screen

 

I actually prefer things not being nested because your going to open the folder anyway if you need it. Its also scrolling horizontally because thats the style many things are now days. There may or may not be a reason behind this but I dont know if there is, my only guess has to do with widescreen being standard so theres not much vertical space. Also they baically assume since win vista that if you need a program youll just search for it or if yo uuse it frequently enough its already on your desktop or since win8 pinned to your taskbar and now since win 8 pin to start screen

[WanderingFool]

Personally I am not opposed to the start screen, I think it is a brilliant concept, I would just prefer the option to have the start menu added back on (natively without third party apps).

 

For myself, I do have use cases which the start menu doesn't interfere with my activity while a start screen does.  The biggest one is when having having text on the screen with people reading, and I open a start menu to quickly access the next program I want to open.  Other cases are just the small movements quick movements to open a previously opened file from a program....while you can optimize a start screen, having the startmenu meant opening my project files in just a second with one click.

 

So while I do find having a start screen to be an advantage (it should not be removed from windows), the start menu can also provide a vital role and should not have been removed (at least make it an option).  To me it would be the equivalent of removing bat file support, might not have too many uses for it, but the specific uses are important to some.  The other thing is it is a large learning curve for people, if you have two interfaces (one familiar and one foreign) then you can slowly learn to adapt to the new one (start screen)

[mjemirzian]

The real context menu lets you do just about anything to a shortcut. You can manage your shortcuts from within the start menu itself, you don't need to open a separate folder in explorer.

Doesn't necessarily matter how long the start screen is open. Not being able to resize the start screen hinders multitasking/general productivity regardless of 'how many steps it takes' to do something.

Nested is often more efficient. If I can mouse over 'control panel' and see a list of control panel options instead of having to click control panel then click the option, it's more efficient. The nested recent documents/apps folder is another good example.

 

Also, it's easier to visually scan for a shortcut you don't know the name to rather  than the current start screen All Apps view.
 

Hopefully MS continues to improve the start screen because we know they aren't bringing the start menu back.

[TheProfosist]

Personally I am not opposed to the start screen, I think it is a brilliant concept, I would just prefer the option to have the start menu added back on (natively without third party apps).

 

For myself, I do have use cases which the start menu doesn't interfere with my activity while a start screen does.  The biggest one is when having having text on the screen with people reading, and I open a start menu to quickly access the next program I want to open.  Other cases are just the small movements quick movements to open a previously opened file from a program....while you can optimize a start screen, having the startmenu meant opening my project files in just a second with one click.

 

So while I do find having a start screen to be an advantage (it should not be removed from windows), the start menu can also provide a vital role and should not have been removed (at least make it an option).  To me it would be the equivalent of removing bat file support, might not have too many uses for it, but the specific uses are important to some.  The other thing is it is a large learning curve for people, if you have two interfaces (one familiar and one foreign) then you can slowly learn to adapt to the new one (start screen)

 

 

The real context menu lets you do just about anything to a shortcut. You can manage your shortcuts from within the start menu itself, you don't need to open a separate folder in explorer.

Doesn't necessarily matter how long the start screen is open. Not being able to resize the start screen hinders multitasking/general productivity regardless of 'how many steps it takes' to do something.

Nested is often more efficient. If I can mouse over 'control panel' and see a list of control panel options instead of having to click control panel then click the option, it's more efficient. The nested recent documents/apps folder is another good example.

 

Also, it's easier to visually scan for a shortcut you don't know the name to rather  than the current start screen All Apps view.

 

Hopefully MS continues to improve the start screen because we know they aren't bringing the start menu back.

 

I know why they dont want both. I also know why Win8 needs the start screen but I agree with everything about it breaking flow. But I have also seen that if someone frequently uses a program they arnt going to the start menu/start screen to use it. I myself only go there for fairly infrequently used programs and then I search for them. As for the control panel, my computer, and your user folder I used to use it for that as well but I have adapted to not using the start menu that way, especially since it would have problems with anything with a lot of files or data when it would pop out. Since I also navagate with a keyboard a lot once I learned the shortcuts i think I not find it quicker and better. Win-X help a lot with that. The one thing that currently doesnt have direct access is Network which I found quite annoying and forced me to make a macro for it.

 

the one thing I dont see is how is it easier to visually find a shorcut on the start menu than all apps in the start screen I find it easier.

[obsidian1200]

 

how old are the games? If they were designed to run on something prior to WinXP SP2 I could see how they wouldnt work. Also if it was designed for Vista some games may not work due to some tech that came out them that never proliferated past it and not just stuff built into windows. Did you also try running i compatibility mode or an even bigger thing run it as Admin? With Win8 you may be an admin but your not THE admin which is actually a good thing and is something they got away from with Vista and 7.

 

i can see why that works with linux but I can also see how that wouldnt work for a mainstream OS like Windows for tons of reasons.

They're pretty old, Windows 98 optimized with no updates or remasters, yet. I hope this changes, but if it doesn't, oh well. I'll make that choice later.

 

I'm curious, why wouldn't it work for a mainstream OS? Programming reasons (I'm sketchy with trusting microsoft's word on programming issues, given their history)? User issues? Implementation? I don't see the reasons personally, since it seems like you could just add a drop-down menu at the login screen for choosing between modern and classic windows. I mean, we had the options for themes in W7, and this doesn't seem that different.

[GoodBytes]

Are you sure there is a no remaster? Check out GOG (Good Old Games). GOG is a sub-company from CDProjekt, the maker of The Witcher games series.

What they do, is patch, or use DOSBox, which they sometime modify (depending on the game, and permission from the original developers and publisher (yes they go through all that trouble)) to make old games playable on modern systems, exactly like the original game. Same speed, no graphical glitch, no sound issue, and such. 100% legal, with full permission from the original developers and publisher.

 

Like their games, the company are completely against any form of DRM, including not even having a serial key. If the original game had a DRM, the DRM has been removed.

Prices include all taxes, no mater where you live. if the game is 5.99.... you pay 5.99.

http://www.gog.com/

 

Most games are at or under 5.99$. Newer the game, the more expensive it is. They are also trying to get more modern games recently, of course 100% DRM free.

I already got several games from them. Never had an issue. They did a fantastic job making the game work.

[constanrine5d]

I do not even see difference to w8 :D

directx 11.2. Thats it lol

[sof006]

directx 11.2. Thats it lol

There is a lot more than just "directx". They're is a lot of under the hood changes that you don't see that increase performance and handle tasks better. Windows 8 has been proven to use less RAM and manage RAM better than Windows 7. 

[constanrine5d]

There is a lot more than just "directx". They're is a lot of under the hood changes that you don't see that increase performance and handle tasks better. Windows 8 has been proven to use less RAM and manage RAM better than Windows 7. 

He said he didnt the the difference to windows 8 not windows 7

[sof006]

He said he didnt the the difference to windows 8 not windows 7

Yeah and I explained what is different between Windows 8 and Windows 7. I explained that Windows 8 has a lot of under the hood changes. You obviously didn't read.

[constanrine5d]

Yeah and I explained what is different between Windows 8 and Windows 7. I explained that Windows 8 has a lot of under the hood changes. You obviously didn't read.

He said he didnt even know the dif between win 8.1 and 8 (correct me but thats what i understood) .I know that win 8 is better than win 7 in performance. I explained him the difference between win 8 and 8.1 sarcastically by saying that the only real difference is dx11.2

[Wulfgar]

Every new iteration of Windows and the changes to the GUI pisses off people, even those that haven't actually used said iteration. Get used to it, and all shall be fine and dandy.

[Wulfgar]

He said he didnt even know the dif between win 8.1 and 8 (correct me but thats what i understood) .I know that win 8 is better than win 7 in performance. I explained him the difference between win 8 and 8.1 sarcastically by saying that the only real difference is dx11.2

 

What is the #killedmywife tag in your signature for?

[Mo5]

The thing I hate about it is that you need to link it to a Microsoft/live account, it's forcing you to use Skydrive etc etc. It's just stuff I don't need or will ever need. But most of all the required connection to a Microsoft account in the installation -.-

 

But unlike other people, I don't mind the Modern UI at all. In fact I kinda like it 

[GoodBytes]

The thing I hate about it is that you need to link it to a Microsoft/live account, it's forcing you to use Skydrive etc etc. It's just stuff I don't need or will ever need. But most of all the required connection to a Microsoft account in the installation -.-

 

No you don't. There was a button for Local account only.

But don't worry, you can change anytime.

 

To change from a Microsoft account to local account (or do the reverse).

 -> Do: Win+I

 -> Select Change PC Settings at the bottom

 -> Click on Users, then click on Change to Local Account or Change to Microsoft Account button

[Caito]

The thing I don't understand is why the f don't they give us the option to choose between the Start Screen and the Start Menu. How hard is it to just put a button somewhere that let's you switch?!?