Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Jun 2013 16:41 UTC
Windows Microsoft has released the Windows 8.1 preview for download, but they region-locked it to 13 specific languages, and Dutch is not one of them. So, even though my Surface RT has been completely and utterly English from the day I bought it, I can't install Windows 8.1 and tell you something about it. Those of you who can download it, why don't you tell us what it's like - or you can head to The Verge who got early access. In case you couldn't tell, I'm a little annoyed that we're arbitrarily being left out once again.
Thread beginning with comment 565703
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Start Button Useless??
by lustyd on Wed 26th Jun 2013 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Start Button Useless??"
lustyd
Member since:
2008-06-19

"Why, therefore, have most chosen not to go full screen, by complaining at Microsoft & not buying their new system? I suppose very few people must fully understand the options."

Well since you asked. Most nerds see the start menu as a heirarchical list of applications just like it was in 1995. They are unable to accept that for quite some time now this is not the primary function nor the most efficient way to use the menu.

Ask yourself, are you the guy that still uses "run" under Windows 7/8 rather than just type the command in and press enter?
Do you launch Explorer and then use the search box?
Do you waste hours of your life "optimising" the start menu heirarchy so you can find your applications "faster"?
Do you open Control Panel and browse to an applet?
Do you (and I feel dirty just saying this) still use folders to sort and find office documents rather than metadata and search?
Do you, perhaps, see no reason why metadata is better and more flexible than folders? (hint, folders only let data be in one place!)

If you can answer yes to any of these questions then you're in the minority, and should be using a Start replacement. Everyone else understands.

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[7]: Start Button Useless??
by M.Onty on Wed 26th Jun 2013 20:13 in reply to "RE[6]: Start Button Useless??"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

Well since you asked. Most nerds see the start menu as a heirarchical list of applications just like it was in 1995. They are unable to accept that for quite some time now this is not the primary function nor the most efficient way to use the menu.


Do you waste hours of your life "optimising" the start menu heirarchy so you can find your applications "faster"?

I'm happy to accept that the drawers/list method is not the most efficient. I think a combination of commonly used list on one side & a catagorised drawers list next to it is good, but no doubt others are better.

Ask yourself, are you the guy that still uses "run" under Windows 7/8 rather than just type the command in and press enter?

No.


Do you open Control Panel and browse to an applet?

The Control Panel is a horrible mess, unable to serve either yours or my argument in any meaningful way.

Do you (and I feel dirty just saying this) still use folders to sort and find office documents rather than metadata and search?

Do you, perhaps, see no reason why metadata is better and more flexible than folders? (hint, folders only let data be in one place!)

Do you launch Explorer and then use the search box?

I arrange things in directories, yes. It works well for me as it forces order, but more importantly I move data around on memory sticks almost constantly, so I don't much trust meta-data searches across Windows XP, 7 & Linux to give me an equally useful experience. Folders might make you feel dirty, but they are pretty universal.

However searching by meta-data is a very powerful way doing things. I use it for my e-mails as I only have one e-mail client, which allows me, as you imply, to do very granular & specific searches. Different strokes for different folks. It depends on the way you use the data & the machines you use it within.

If you can answer yes to any of these questions then you're in the minority, and should be using a Start replacement. Everyone else understands.

This comes back to the actual point I was making. If "everyone else understands" then how come sales have been poor? Its not a bunch of geeks that drive sales of Windows boxes; its people from all walks of life. I think you underestimate the conservatism of the average PC user. They seem to want their phones & tablets to do the exciting stuff, but their PCs to evolve gradually.

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[7]: Start Button Useless??
by phoenix on Wed 26th Jun 2013 20:27 in reply to "RE[6]: Start Button Useless??"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Ask yourself, are you the guy that still uses "run" under Windows 7/8 rather than just type the command in and press enter?


For some things (like cmd), yes. For other things (like actual apps), no.

Do you launch Explorer and then use the search box?


Don't use Explorer except to explore folders. Don't even have a search box enabled in Windows Explorer anywhere. And never run Internet Explorer for any reason.

Do you waste hours of your life "optimising" the start menu heirarchy so you can find your applications "faster"?


Yes. I like things to be neat and orderly. Why bother with a search function if things are already organised and put where they need to be?

Do you open Control Panel and browse to an applet?


Yes. It's actually a lot simpler to find an icon that's always in the same space (muscle memory) and organised alphabetically than trying to read through a wall of text (default on 7) or trying to find the hidden search field (default on 7). Pictures are faster than words. And an organised list is better than a jumble.

Do you (and I feel dirty just saying this) still use folders to sort and find office documents rather than metadata and search?


Yes, because it's faster to find something if it's put away in its proper place. Organisational skills, and all that. The computer needs to get out of my way, and let me do things *MY* way. Afterall, the computer is *MY* tool.

Do you, perhaps, see no reason why metadata is better and more flexible than folders? (hint, folders only let data be in one place!)


And using both is somehow anathema? Do you really just leave your files all jumbled together in one single folder with no organisation of any kind?

If you can answer yes to any of these questions then you're in the minority, and should be using a Start replacement. Everyone else understands.


Actually, if you answered no to any of the above, you need to go back to elementary school for some lessons in cleanliness, organisation, alphabetising, and other non-language-based skills. In fact, if more people went back to elementary school and actually learned how to learn, the computer world would be a better place. All this stupid dumbing down of interfaces and removal of options would stop.

Reply Parent Score: 13

RE[7]: Start Button Useless??
by WereCatf on Thu 27th Jun 2013 01:08 in reply to "RE[6]: Start Button Useless??"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Well since you asked. Most nerds see the start menu as a heirarchical list of applications just like it was in 1995. They are unable to accept that for quite some time now this is not the primary function nor the most efficient way to use the menu.


Efficiency depends on the person using it.

Ask yourself, are you the guy that still uses "run" under Windows 7/8 rather than just type the command in and press enter?


Some things yes, because there are no menu entries for everything and for e.g. the command-line hitting Win+R and typing "cmd" is a much faster way of launching it than doing a search.

Do you launch Explorer and then use the search box?


If I have to locate a specific file under some specific file-hierarchy, yes.

Do you waste hours of your life "optimising" the start menu heirarchy so you can find your applications "faster"?


No.

Do you open Control Panel and browse to an applet?


Yes. Once you've learned where the applets are it's faster to just click your way there than doing a search.

Do you (and I feel dirty just saying this) still use folders to sort and find office documents rather than metadata and search?
Do you, perhaps, see no reason why metadata is better and more flexible than folders? (hint, folders only let data be in one place!)


Ah, here's the multi-million dollar question: I have plenty of other files than just office documents and not all files I have contain any meaningful metadata! If you only handle office documents then good for you, the rest of us have lots of other kinds of files to handle and searching for them is simply no workable replacement for a good hierarchy.

If you can answer yes to any of these questions then you're in the minority, and should be using a Start replacement. Everyone else understands.


Drop down from your high horse and break your neck. There is no "understanding," there are differing tastes and needs.

Reply Parent Score: 9

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"Why, therefore, have most chosen not to go full screen, by complaining at Microsoft & not buying their new system? I suppose very few people must fully understand the options.


Well since you asked. Most nerds see the start menu as a heirarchical list of applications just like it was in 1995. They are unable to accept that for quite some time now this is not the primary function nor the most efficient way to use the menu.
"

The "Start Menu" on Windows, may be. But KDE, GNOME, Mac, etc all have equivalents that do very well and in many cases are much better than what Microsoft has ever provided with Windows.

Ask yourself, are you the guy that still uses "run" under Windows 7/8 rather than just type the command in and press enter?


Run is accessible with Win+R, and doing the same in the Vista/7/8 start-menu often leads to unpredictable results. So yes, I find the "run" command to be a better feature.

Do you launch Explorer and then use the search box?


No. I always disable the File Indexing on drives in Windows for performance reasons. I might use the search (F3) to find documents; or I might use grep (or GrepWin) in targeted searches (e.g. on specific locations). Windows Search has always been poor.

Do you waste hours of your life "optimising" the start menu heirarchy so you can find your applications "faster"?


No. I simply right click on the Start Menu and select "Sort by name". Everything is then where I expect it and quickly findable. Vista/7/8 make me take more steps than what Win95/98/Me/2k did; XP is half-way in between.

Do you open Control Panel and browse to an applet?


Control Panel since Vista is a horrid disaster. I always revert to the "Classic Control Panel" where I can actually find stuff. But it all depends, I might right-click on the "Computer" and select "Manage" depending on what I want to do - or on "Network" and select "Properties". Alas, they've made even though harder to get to with Vista/7/8 - you can re-add them to the desktop though.

Do you (and I feel dirty just saying this) still use folders to sort and find office documents rather than metadata and search?


Windows MetaData Search Sucks, and the File Indexing is a performance inhibitor. Yes, I allow KDE4 to do Meta Data searches.

However, most of the time I can still more quickly find what I am looking for by using a folder heirachy that categorizes them properly (and to my thinking) than I can with meta-data searches.

In either case, you have to way a long time for Windows to do something as it takes a long time just to load Windows Explorer to see drives and folders and such, or to get the search done. So there is zero savings either way.

Do you, perhaps, see no reason why metadata is better and more flexible than folders? (hint, folders only let data be in one place!)


Obviously you haven't heard of NTFS Junctions, where you mount folders and drives into numerous places on an NTFS file system. (Hint: Microsoft uses it in all those SXS folders since Vista.) Yes, NTFS does actually support true Hard Links and Software Link (Symlinks) too; it's just that no many know about it and you have to know the tools (e.g mklink as MS doesn't provide something graphical to do it).

If you can answer yes to any of these questions then you're in the minority, and should be using a Start replacement. Everyone else understands.


I deliver systems to people that typically know how to do only basic functions of computers and don't want to know more. So when I delivered a Windows Server 2012 Standard Edition to them, I had to put Classic Shell on so they had the Start Menu just like they were use to with Windows 7 (as WS2012 is more akin to Win8). They don't want to (nor should they need to) relearn the stuff - they just want to use the software we provide to do their job with as few hassles as possible. They're smart guys, but they're not computer people by any stretch.

So get over it. Win8 interface sucks. People don't like it and don't like the new Start Screen. It's not a matter of technical prowess. Only the Microsoft Fanboys tend to like it, and if you are one then you really need to go get a vaccine - the world has moved on, and Microsoft is being left behind.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Start Button Useless??
by galvanash on Thu 27th Jun 2013 21:39 in reply to "RE[6]: Start Button Useless??"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Well since you asked. Most nerds see the start menu as a heirarchical list of applications just like it was in 1995. They are unable to accept that for quite some time now this is not the primary function nor the most efficient way to use the menu.


True, but the fact that it isn't the primary function doesn't negate the need for the function entirely...

Ask yourself, are you the guy that still uses "run" under Windows 7/8 rather than just type the command in and press enter?


That feature is on the Windows 7 start menu.

Do you launch Explorer and then use the search box?


Why would I need to do that. The search box is on the Windows 7 start menu.

Do you waste hours of your life "optimising" the start menu heirarchy so you can find your applications "faster"?


The start menu organizes my apps for me for the most part (something the Windows 8 homescreen doesn't do), I will occasionally pin something but thats about it.

Do you open Control Panel and browse to an applet?


What does that have to do with the start menu?

Do you (and I feel dirty just saying this) still use folders to sort and find office documents rather than metadata and search?


Search is entirely orthogonal to the current discussion... Whether you use the start menu in Windows 7 or the Home screen in Windows 8, search basically works exactly the same way.

Do you, perhaps, see no reason why metadata is better and more flexible than folders? (hint, folders only let data be in one place!)


Um... I don't follow. Windows 8 stores application shortcuts the same way as Windows 7 did for desktop apps - it is in folders in your profile. You can search on metadata in either OS more or less the same way. What does this have to do with anything?

If you can answer yes to any of these questions then you're in the minority, and should be using a Start replacement. Everyone else understands.


No - not a single thing you mentioned represents any significant functionality difference between the Windows 7 start menu and the Windows 8 home screen...

If I am primarily a desktop user and don't use many (or any) Metro apps, I do not lose context when I use the Windows 7 start menu. It doesn't cover the entire screen. I can still see a portion of my desktop, running apps, and the task bar - and the relative amount of space the start menu occupies drops with screen resolution. I can drag things onto and off of it (admittedly, not that big of a deal, but it is occasionally useful). I can reorganize it if Im OCD or whatever. Those are actual differences - things you are not acknowledging at all.

How about this? Name a must have feature that the Windows 8 Home Screen introduces that is not already in the existing Windows 7 Start Menu. Now, from that list remove anything related to touchscreens (something desktop application users don't care about and never will) and running/interacting with Metro apps (something most desktop users will only do infrequently if ever).

Whats left? I'm not saying there is nothing left (live tiles?), but that list is rather uncompelling imo. The point is if you don't like Metro apps and don't care about touchscreen support then the Home screen is just a big middle finger from Redmond pointed at you every time to have to resort to using it. It serves no useful function for this class of user, it is nothing more than a hindrance.

For tablets? Sure, its great. Touchscreen laptops? Im kind of on the fence on that one - maybe, maybe not. For 27" single/dual monitor setups running 1440p, i.e. gaming rigs or professional workstations? Are you kidding? Its a total train wreck. What is it for in that scenario? Its simply too f*cking big to be useful.

I was a fan of Metro too (still am in fact), but only for what I envisioned as its intended use - which was a UI simplification for less sophisticated users and for its touchscreen support. I don't want to get rid of it, I just want to be able to decide when I see it - because for me (on a 1440p desktop) most of the time I get nothing of value from it at all.

Reply Parent Score: 2