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 565789
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Start Button Useless??
by Nelson on Thu 27th Jun 2013 11:00 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Start Button Useless??"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

The rationale for the Start Screen is that Windows 7 users engaged it less as a result of the new Taskbar introduced in Windows 7.

With Windows 8, that idea is expanded upon. You're able to pin your favorite apps to a familiar location, organize them the way you want, and receive at a glance information.

The Start Screen takes over the function of the Taskbar and the Desktop, while the All Apps menu takes over the function of the Start Menu.

The reasoning for this is that the Start Menu was a dumping ground for Search AND App discovery. It was fine for a few results (say 20 or less), but it scaled terribly for more results than that.

In fact, the rest of the screen was unusable when the Start Menu was open. It was essentially a modal dialog taking up a fixed amount of pixels on your screen regardless of the real estate available.

Search is a similar situation. The Start Menu just did not scale to the size of the results.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Start Button Useless??
by Fergy on Thu 27th Jun 2013 13:28 in reply to "RE[8]: Start Button Useless??"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

The rationale for the Start Screen is that Windows 7 users engaged it less as a result of the new Taskbar introduced in Windows 7.

With Windows 8, that idea is expanded upon. You're able to pin your favorite apps to a familiar location, organize them the way you want, and receive at a glance information.

The Start Screen takes over the function of the Taskbar and the Desktop, while the All Apps menu takes over the function of the Start Menu.

The reasoning for this is that the Start Menu was a dumping ground for Search AND App discovery. It was fine for a few results (say 20 or less), but it scaled terribly for more results than that.

In fact, the rest of the screen was unusable when the Start Menu was open. It was essentially a modal dialog taking up a fixed amount of pixels on your screen regardless of the real estate available.

Search is a similar situation. The Start Menu just did not scale to the size of the results.


When I start the startscreen it is filled with junk just like the old startmenu. I have not found a way to clean it easily. If it could learn to show my most used programs and settings in categories it might be useful.but it would still mean moving my mouse over my whole 24inch monitor.

Reply Parent Score: 2

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

The rationale for the Start Screen is that Windows 7 users engaged it less as a result of the new Taskbar introduced in Windows 7.


No offense meant but I don't see that as a rationale - I see it as an excuse. The real rationale is that Microsoft wanted to force wider exposure of Metro. It was a calculated risk, not a decision made with the user's best interest in mind. Leaving the start menu as it was (as an option at least) would not have in any way impacted users who preferred the start screen...

In fact, the rest of the screen was unusable when the Start Menu was open. It was essentially a modal dialog taking up a fixed amount of pixels on your screen regardless of the real estate available.


That is where I always see this argument going off the rails. If you are a desktop user, you want to see the rest of your screen. Both approaches are modal, so there is no difference in that regard... The difference is, again, if your priority is seeing your desktop why would you be the least bit upset that as your resolution increases you get to see more of it?

In fact after reading your post I think I can honestly boil the argument down further than I could before - the most important feature of the old start menu was that it did not scale with resolution...

Here is the thing... I don't want more functionality if it can't fit into the same footprint, because (as you yourself argued) I hardly ever use the start menu, and when I do I want it to obscure as little of the rest of my desktop as possible. I value the ability to see my desktop much higher than any of the features the start screen brings that I didn't have before.

Its great in Metro - If all my apps were in metro and I had a tablet or other touchscreen that was comfortable to use I would want to use the start screen. But that isn't my reality, won't be for at least 3 or 4 more years (if the apps ever arrive), and I don't appreciate being forced to use something that is offers a significantly worse user experience when I know damn well there is no technical reason I should have to.

Reply Parent Score: 2