News - Windows 8.1 will have a Start Screen button

[nacasatu]

Agree with the first part, don't agree - AT ALL - with that second bit. You'd be surprised the number of business that WILL take Ubuntu. Oh, and to slag OSX off as a "children's desktop" is also mightily unfair, actually a bit surprised that none of the aficionados have picked you up on that.

For them, to take on Ubuntu or any other Linux distro (I'd prefer Mint tbh myself) requires a different in-house IT support set of skills. At the very least, staff would have to be re-trained.
OSX, because it's so ridiculously simplistic for users in that it's so stupidly simplistic itself, is seen as an easier jump.

Myself I would prefer to switch to Linux as a business. I detest Apple and their overpriced hardware and simplistic and childish operating system.

*If* the core business systems are hosted/managed externally then it makes it much more easier for a business to switch to Linux in-house as after all, it's just a platform that the tools you use need to sit on and in that regards, Ubuntu (or Mint!) would be much more preferable and easier to manage with no license costs.
The HUGE benefit of Linux also is that for the most part, it doesn't require hardware upgrades, in fact it makes better use of older hardware and thus would save on more costs.

For home users, the reason many still stick with Windows of any flavour is for games support. Wine just doesn't cut it and never really did and it needs big companies like Blizzard and EA to start developing/porting to Linux to make a difference.

It would be my opinion that if the likes of Blizzard, SoE and some other MMO developers ported/developed their games for Linux - then Microsoft would be wiped out, and they know this too. If anything, I think the anti-trust stuff that goes on against microsoft in the EU should look into unfair incentives paid to big gaming houses to keep their stuff on Microsoft and stop them developing on Linux.

Anyway, sorry, I brought this off on a wild tangent.

[kingpotnoodle]

Uhm... no it is not. The world has not gone touchy feely. A new market for mobile devices has emerged and the innovative input method for those devices is a touch screen which also happens to be the easiest way to operate those devices.

Consumers are flocking to smartphones, iOS and Android tablets apparently at the cost of PC and laptop sales. Hardware manufacturers are now (maybe stupidly) trying to blend touch everywhere. Microsoft want a slice of the pie, their strategy is a unified approach. I'm not judging right or wrong (time will tell I suppose), just observing.

None of this has made desktop computers change, lest you are forgetting that Windows 8 is a desktop operating system, not a mobile one.

Why is it a desktop OS, I'm pretty sure Microsoft don't say that anywhere? It's on laptops, it's on Surface. Looks like x86 devices are swiftly getting quite mobile to me, whether anyone wants them remains to be seen.

Windows RT and Phone are mobile operating systems for mobile devices, Windows 8 is a desktop system for desktop computers with keyboards and mice.

Windows RT is not the new Windows Mobile it is Windows for ARM, it could be an ARM desktop. You know you can plug USB keyboards and mice into a Surface RT and stand it on a desk? It's just not that clearly defined between desktop/mobile anymore.

I'd like to know where this hardware is that is forcing Microsoft into a touch interface on systems that use a completely different input method... Tablets are not desktop computers and they should have no influence on how you use your desktop system, just because there are millions of smart phones and tablet computers using touch screens doesn't mean desktop computers should use touch screens.

Tablets are the hardware that push MS, consumers like them and they don't want to be a business only company. I don't think they are trying to force all desktops to use touch (although the option is now there), it's a funny misconception. Microsoft want to have a slice of the tablet pie but also and separately use the same OS on desktops in the traditional way... Windows 8 doesn't require touch it just aims to better support it.

Before Windows 8 existed I don't recall there being any touch enabled desktop computers, and now that we have some I don't see people wanting to use them.

The hardware was there years ago I saw it and Microsoft "invented" the tablet PC a decade ago, it was mostly a design failure though. Touchy Windows hardware hasn't been that good, the tablets are still expensive and/or fat, so it's not a fair sales comparison really. A lot of people seem interested in the large table computers and AIO hybrids...

Desktop computers use a keyboard and mouse so the operating system on these machines should be optimised for keyboards and mice, not touch screens. Please elaborate the reason why having a touch interface on a non-touch device is necessary. No-one had a problem with Windows Phone 7 and Windows 7 operating systems using separate interfaces, so where is the necessity to make non-touch devices use a touch interface?

Unlike Android or iOS (mostly) MUI isn't a touch only interface though... it's a touchable interface that can also be mouse driven, well it's supposed to be but opinions differ. It's very easy to move a mouse pointer and click in place of a finger prod, conversely though it is very hard to use something like Windows 7 with a finger on a small screen. Therefore in Microsoft planning the touchable interface goes everywhere because it's supposedly workable everywhere and the strategy is to have one interface.

Microsoft's strategy is obviously not the only solution, time will tell how well they do in comparison to Apple, Google, Linux etc.

[kingpotnoodle]

That not the case, though. The world has not gone all touchy feely, nor in the near term, is it likely to.

Tablets have, yes, but desktop PCs have not, and among the corporates I deal with, for desktops, none are planning to. In many situations, it is neither necessary nor desirable. In some embedded situations, sure, like supermarket checkouts, but not in the mainstream.

But even if it had, there's still the legacy upgrade category, with vast numbers of people with non-touch monitors, and they aren't going to upgrade perfectly good monitors just to get touch.

People love touch, it's intuitive and simple. If they didn't then touchscreen phones and tablets would have been an abysmal failure. That doesn't mean everyone is going to arm wave at giant vertical screens on a desk though, although in my office everyone asks for an iPad rather than a work laptop, it'd be useless for the job but they still ask or try. Of course for serious work touch is never going to be any good... I'm not touchscreen typing this... but devices that work both ways with suitable docking would be very flexible. You can upgrade to Windows 8 without a touch screen just fine, I have on several devices.

What was, arguably, necessary for for MS to accommodate the touch environment. So, having MUI, in one form or another, fine.

What was not necessary was to try to strong-arm everybody else that doesn't have, or want, touch to have a UI less well-suited to mouse and keyboard than what they had, know and are used to.

MS want to break into the tablet market, and they're getting creamed by Apple and Android. This is, in my opinion, a very clumsy and ill-conceived attempt to use the market dominance of Windows to elbow it's way in to the tablet market by trying to unify things that, other than to MS, don't need unifying, to leverage tablet sales from Windows sales by changing the Windows paradigm, whether users want to change or not.

Well, it hasn't worked. It blew up in their faces. A LOT of people either rejected Win 8 because of this, or used any one of a range of tools to give them the Win 8 they want, and that doesn't involve either touch or MUI.

I can't argue with the fact that MUI is divisive, it clearly is. It needs improvements, most things do, but personally I like MUI and the unified strategy, I think it has a future.

All it needed, as I said ages ago, is to give people the choice. Make MUI the default if they wish, but if we can (and loads of us do) all use third-party tools to dump MUI and use our PC's how we want, then MS could have built-in a simple switch. It could have been an install-time choice, in an ideal world, or even a post-install option to choose your boot default later, but either way, third parties have given us the choice anyway, so all MS have achieved is to generate a very considerable amount of ill-will towards both MUI and MS themselves, by being so high-handed about this issue.

What happens when a computer dunce accidentally switches modes on their tablet though, mistakenly following some guide online titled "Make Windows 8 Better"? One interface just avoids the support headache as much as anything else.

I definitely agree the way Windows 8 was launched has been poor, it needed FAR more help and tutorials and explanation of the decisions. Microsoft have gifted the community a money making opportunity though, maybe they just wanted to hug a few coders and slip-em a fiver ;-)

I have a tablet, and get on fine with touch screens. But I have no touch screens on my dozen or so desktops, and NO interest in putting any on. I'm buying some monitor upgrades at the moment, and they will not include touch screens. For those desktops, touch offers me nothing, absolutely nothing at all, of interest.

100% agreed, I have no plans to reach out and poke my desktop either. Other people may not agree though...

And nor does MUI. Either I use W8 how I want to, or I won't use it.

Seems like most people find tools to use it as they wish, one of Windows biggest plus points is the absolutely massive 3rd party ecosystem. Maybe simplicity is a good thing in a base OS, if Microsoft brought out competing tools there would probably just be an anti-competitive hoohah instead.

[kingpotnoodle]

I'll just share this, the discussion of mono & polychronicity under ModernMix is pretty well argued and I think this is probably a far bigger part of the problems people have getting along with MUI than the method of application launching.

http://www.zdnet.com/start8-and-mode...op-7000012471/

I don't see the point in Start8 but ModernMix does look pretty useful as I rarely use the new apps on my desktop PC for that very reason.

[crossy]

I'll just share this, the discussion of mono & polychronicity under ModernMix is pretty well argued and I think this is probably a far bigger part of the problems people have getting along with MUI than the method of application launching.

http://www.zdnet.com/start8-and-mode...op-7000012471/

I don't see the point in Start8 but ModernMix does look pretty useful as I rarely use the new apps on my desktop PC for that very reason.

Hmm, I'm kind of with you on that - the start charm is probably good enough to do what I want. I'm not that wedded to the idea of a Start menu with a big list of apps. Give me a way to text search quickly and the odd pinned app and I'll be a happy bunny.

Interesting article - thanks for sharing - and the author there is also wrong. He's saying about tablet OS's being monochronistic, but he's forgotten that Samsung are busy "perverting" Android TO allow multiple windows - both my Galaxy S3 and Galaxy Note 10.1 will do this, (although personally speaking I can't see the utility myself).

[Willzzz]

I don't really get it though, if I want maps or weather in a window then I just use my browser as before.

[Ulti]

Along with getting Start button back, they need to make shutting down a much more easily located action, as the first time I tried Windows 8, I had no idea where it was. Shouldn't be hidden like that.

This.

Usually I shut my PC down via the power button on the case, but I've currently not got a case and it's a bit of hassle to turn off the PC. I'm sure most people just press the power button to turn their PC off but I agree that with the way it's hidden, most people won't have a clue where it's gone.

[Saracen]

People love touch, it's intuitive and simple. If they didn't then touchscreen phones and tablets would have been an abysmal failure. That doesn't mean everyone is going to arm wave at giant vertical screens on a desk though, although in my office everyone asks for an iPad rather than a work laptop, it'd be useless for the job but they still ask or try. Of course for serious work touch is never going to be any good... I'm not touchscreen typing this... but devices that work both ways with suitable docking would be very flexible. You can upgrade to Windows 8 without a touch screen just fine, I have on several devices.



I can't argue with the fact that MUI is divisive, it clearly is. It needs improvements, most things do, but personally I like MUI and the unified strategy, I think it has a future.



What happens when a computer dunce accidentally switches modes on their tablet though, mistakenly following some guide online titled "Make Windows 8 Better"? One interface just avoids the support headache as much as anything else.

Latter point first, there are so many other situations where a "dunce" can mess things up right royally, that this is just one more. Besides, it keeps some of us in work.

As for the support headache, lock the button out in group policy, or whatever, for business machines.

First point .... "people love touch".

Well, yes, .... in the right context. It makes perfect sense for a smartphone, and a lot of sense on a tablet, thouh I also agree about docking kb's etc. But that's because of the nature of the device driving the interface, and because of the type of things such devices are used for.

Computing is/has changed, I grant you. And there is an element of overlap between phone, tablet and desktop. But ultimately, they are very different devices with different design criteria. Phones, obviously, have portability as the primary driver and that dictates size, which determines screen size, which limits functionality. Know anybody that wants to spend all day doing credit control or editing in Photoshop on their phone?

Tablets exist because of the limitations of screen, and device, size on phones. If size wasn't a major drawback, nobody with a smartphone would want a tablet, and nobody would buy a tablet when they could buy a smartphone.

The things people want each device for is different, which is why loads of people have both - it's definitely horses for courses.

And, of course, a PC is for different things to a phone, and to a considerable but lesser degree, different things to a tablet. And that's precisely why MS ramming a touch-optimised UI down the throats of people wanting what is and always has been primarily a desktop OS is so obnoxious.

The ONLY major advantage of forcing (or attempting, unsuccessfully as it happens) that on users rather than letting them choose, is that it suits MS's strategic objectives in trying to leverage their way into the iPad/Android tablet market using Windows, and to hell with user's convenience.

I find it hard to believe that MS can have been so monumentally, collossally pig-ignorant of human nature as to not know the likely reaction to shoving this on people, so I'm forced to conclude that it wasn't that they didn't know, but that they didn't care, and that their own strategic objective trumps any notion of giving us the choice.

Oh, and a lot of my forum posts are typed on a tablet touch screen these days, which explains the dramatic deterioration in spelling standards, because my typing on this is nowhere near as good as it is on a decent KB, let alone my dictation via a trained voice recognition implementation. That's another drawback to phone/tablet over PC.

[crossy]

For them, to take on Ubuntu or any other Linux distro (I'd prefer Mint tbh myself) requires a different in-house IT support set of skills. At the very least, staff would have to be re-trained. OSX, because it's so ridiculously simplistic for users in that it's so stupidly simplistic itself, is seen as an easier jump.

I went to have a word with one of the desktop folks about this, and he disagrees. His line was that Unity is close enough to the Windows 7 interface to make transition a heck of a lot easier than it would be to go to MUI, (although he went with the corporate line - Windows7 is best). Conversely OSX might look better (he said it does) but there's a lot of niggling things that are different enough to cause a Windows user some pause.

Also the small matter that retraining courses to Linux (whether that be Red Hat or Ubuntu) are easier to come by than those for OSX. Mint's nice - I've got a live distro stick with it on that I use to get a Linux fix when I'm away on business. From a business prospective though I'd argue for one of the big three - Red Hat, Suse, or Ubuntu since you can get support contracts from the manufacturer (which keeps the contract folks happier).

*If* the core business systems are hosted/managed externally then it makes it much more easier for a business to switch to Linux in-house as after all, it's just a platform that the tools you use need to sit on and in that regards, Ubuntu (or Mint!) would be much more preferable and easier to manage with no license costs. The HUGE benefit of Linux also is that for the most part, it doesn't require hardware upgrades, in fact it makes better use of older hardware and thus would save on more costs.

I'm not going to disagree with what you're saying - especially that last bit - interesting to see that some folks are recommending "throwing hardware" at Windows 8 to make it run better, don't think this is necessary myself. Other point is that if you've outsourced your IT then it's very likely that your outsourcer will have Linux desktop skills. E.g. I have experience that both IBM Global Services and HP Enterprise Services can support Linux on the desktop and actually do use it themselves.

For home users, the reason many still stick with Windows of any flavour is for games support. Wine just doesn't cut it and never really did and it needs big companies like Blizzard and EA to start developing/porting to Linux to make a difference.

SteamBox!

Anyway, sorry, I brought this off on a wild tangent.

No, no, it's interesting what you say and mercifully free of any fanboydom. I think "our" original point was that if Windows8 is a pain, then there is a window of opportunity perhaps for other OS's to be valid migration targets. But as you say, perhaps I'd better zip it in case others get annoyed.

[Biscuit]

I'll just share this, the discussion of mono & polychronicity under ModernMix is pretty well argued and I think this is probably a far bigger part of the problems people have getting along with MUI than the method of application launching.

http://www.zdnet.com/start8-and-mode...op-7000012471/

I don't see the point in Start8 but ModernMix does look pretty useful as I rarely use the new apps on my desktop PC for that very reason.

Whilst I still don't quite agree with his opinion on the start menu, that's a superbly written article and we'll worth a read. It does explain exactly why there needs to be a divide between touch devices and traditional desktop devices perfectly.

I would also advise people to read over his prior article, including the feedback comments he had from it. Anyone claiming 'people should just learn' especially. The comments really draw attention to how wrong MS have got this OS.

[Saracen]

The David Gewirtz article linked to in that article is also very apposite. He sees it pretty much exactly as I do.

[clovy]

When somebody try to deleted start button, he got's fired.. Start button on Windows is sacred.

[komakaze]

it's a tiny change to what was a tiny in-convenience. I have no problem with windows 8 as it is. I don't use the Metro style tiles interface. If I need to run a program I press "windows key" on the keyboard then start typing the letters of the program I want, as soon as it is listed I hit "Enter" to run my program. Short cut key's a very fast to use.

[aidanjt]

People don't like change, but that doesn't make change bad.

No, but these changes are bad, Windows 8 is objectively poor and inefficient UI design.

[dangel]

Computing is/has changed, I grant you. And there is an element of overlap between phone, tablet and desktop. But ultimately, they are very different devices with different design criteria. Phones, obviously, have portability as the primary driver and that dictates size, which determines screen size, which limits functionality. Know anybody that wants to spend all day doing credit control or editing in Photoshop on their phone?

I have a Samsung Activ Pro 700T sat on my desk - it's a very confusing device initially since it's both a tablet and a laptop. It's made me think about 8 a little differently and I find it very interesting how given it's got all three input methods - mouse/trackpad, keyboard and touch - that they all work together quite so well. I've caught myself fiddling with the trackpad to click on something and then realised - oh, I can just touch it on screen. It's a lot quicker and more intuitive in a whole heap of circumstances than the mouse (which, at the end of the day reduces an entire arm into a single interaction point - might as well have a pointy fist). Whilst writing this i've remembered it's got pen input too - something different again - accuracy of the mouse but pressure sensitive and (spookily) sensed *before* you touch the screen (you seen the pen cursor appear approx 2cm before you touch down). So that's four not three methods. I don't see these input methods as mutually exclusive (I remember people saying how the mouse was built to replace the keyboard) and, as a developer, I'm actively looking to exploit their strengths so that they compliment each other in our app.

But back to the device - so it's changed my mind somewhat about convergence - as it is it's a far more flexible device than my (now gone) iPad 3 or Nexus 10 as well as my powerbook. Interesting. I think in terms of portable devices (laptop->tablet) these things have got a future - they're not perfect in iteration 1 (neither is Windows 8) but they show a new way forward. I can't see the point in buying a tablet AND a powerbook now. I'm also questioning how useful iOS/Android tablets are given their OS' are far more restrictive (I sold my iPad3 because Android walked all over iOS in terms of features and flexibility). I wouldn't be thinking this way a year back (despite being an 8 user from the early previews).

The desktop? Well I agree touching the screen doesn't make sense - but is it just about that? What's to become of some of the newer interaction methods - leap motion/kinect for example? Why not have devices that sense gestures when your hands are on or near the keyboard? I wonder is all.

I don't think 8 is either complete or polished - but I do think it's the start of an interesting journey for MS - but it's also not 'broken' enough to cause me consternation either because I can go days without touch MUI on a PC at all in a working environment. That said there's easily enough in the OS 'proper' to warrant me using it - and like all versions of Windows it's the accumulative small changes that your eventually miss when stepping back a version (or two).

BTW Saracen I can type very accurately and quickly with swiftkey on the nexus 10 but the iOS keyboard/was/is a travesty. Still prefer a real keyboard, naturally.

[shortie87]

Personally, I'd be sticking with StartIsBack anyways. I've got Windows 8 Pro booting straight into desktop mode, with my start menu almost exactly the same as in Windows 7. Navigation the Metro interface on a desktop is a PITA.