8.1 Start Button, MS still pouting

MS is still pouting about their start menu. Still insisting desktop users to use it.

I just found out all the button does is take you to the new start menu.

Anyone else thinks this was completely a waste of time? That was clearly not the reason why desktop users wanted the start button back...

Classic Shell 3.9.5 was updated to support 8.1. Even in 8.1, many desktop users will still be using classic shell, startisback or whatever else.

 

I disliked windows 8 at first. What really convinced me was installing it on a 8 year old machine (Pentium 4, 1GB ram) and seeing it run faster than XP, Ubuntu, or Windows 7 ever did. After a few weeks I ended up installing it on nearly every computer in the house. I don't think I could go back to windows 7. It is a change, yes. It is difficult at first. But for me, it was worth the time and effort learning slightly different system.

 

I have had to reprogram myself to avoid looking at the "Metro"interface in 8.1. Especially after booting straight to the desktop. It is irritating but is more palatable than 8. It is all a matter of comfort. This should have been 8 like Windows 7 needing to be Vista.

My opinion is this: I am still not happy with where MS is trying to force us to go. I still like Windows 7 and I hope they change their minds and release another service pack soon.

 

In 8.1, you have the choice of the start button taking you to the (1) live tile screen, or (2) the all-programs screen (which is more customizable in 8.1 than in 8.0). If you want a quarter-screen menu, not a full-screen solution, you can use one of the third-party UI modifications out there.

 

Microsoft can go stuff itself. After having to train a new employee on a windows 8 machine, i refuse to ever touch it. Ever. I've started to familiarize myself with Linux. Outside of a few programs that i only use at work, I can satiate my computer appetite with the win 7 machine i have now. I;m cautiously optimistic about steam OS. if it can let me play all my games (already confirmed) and has a quality web browser or options for third parties, then im out.

 

Problem with this is they should've from the getgo make and install option for Desktop or Metro. That is the problem here not using Windows8 they never wanted to ask what would benefit the users it was benefit their bottom line only. They are trying to still be Apple but look at apple they have two different O/S configuration and they communicate but M$ has only one and think we should all fall in line with just one? Not going to happen on my watch or my computers. I shouldn't have to use 3rd party software to get a True desktop start menu to begin with. From them to leave out such a install option mean they were only concern with themselves and not what the core users wanted. aka Start up and go to desktop and start using right away and least not remember some programs don't run will with W8 or don't give you a icon where you have to create it unlike W7 that sits at Desktop and from there you can configure til your heart's happy that how it should be a customizable O/S not what M$ wants.

 

That's a shame. Everyone I've deployed Windows 8 to at work has embraced it, with minimal issue.

 

i think it's tailored quite well to whom they're responding.

 

It's fine after I installed Start8 to bring back my beloved Start Menu. After that, it's basically an improved Windows 7. I never use metro interface at all, ever. Or even see it.

 

Yeah Windows 8.1 changes nothing for me. For someone who never uses Metro it doesn't make sense for me to switch from Windows 8 + StartIsBack, plus I lose compatibility with some software and gadgets I'm currently using. My GPU doesn't support DirectX 11.2 or even 11.1 so there's no benefit from a gaming perspective. The return of the Start Button but not the Start Menu is a joke.

It's really shady how M$ is essentially deceiving and forcing people to use Metro or certain online-based Microsoft features practically from the moment installation starts. When you reach the create user account section of 8.1 installation it only gives the option to sign in with an existing or new Microsoft account, completely hiding the option of using a local account that was present during Windows 8 installation. In fact, to use a local account, you have to actually click on the create a new Microsoft account button, where it gives the option to use a local account in small letters at the bottom of the screen. If this doesn't smack of outright deception, I don't know what does, because I believe the local account option was purposely hidden in order to trick unsuspecting and less-informed users into using a Microsoft account.

In a similar vein, when you reach the Settings page during installation, M$ defaults to enabling Bing-based ad-driven searches in Windows Search. For people who gloss over this setting and leave it enabled, this means that when you use Windows Search, not only will it display search results from your system but also online search results found using Bing, which include Bing-based advertising, served right on your Desktop for your convenience.

There are also some truly bizarre decisions made in 8.1 that just left me scratching my head. For example, the hiding of Libraries from the default view of File Explorer and the removal of the Windows 7 File Recovery component of Windows Control Panel, along with its automatic Windows Backup feature. It can be argued that the new File History feature in Windows 8, which is similar, makes the older method redundant. Except that File History doesn't allow a choice of folders to backup. It only backs up the contents of your Desktop, Favorites, Contacts, and Libraries. So the only true automated backup alternative left available in Windows 8.1 depends entirely on users adding files and folders to their Libraries for it to be effective - yet the OS now hides Libraries by default.

The removal of Windows 7 File Recovery means the System Image Backup method has been removed from ready view as well. This is one of the most important backup methods and one which I use on a regular basis. Thankfully, it hasn't been removed from the OS completely, it's been relegated to an obscure corner of the File History window. And it doesn't show up in any Windows Search results, which means M$ hid it on purpose.

I believe Microsoft has hidden or removed existing backup features in Windows 8, which are quite useful and have come to be relied upon by many users such as myself, as a blind push to get people to use their cloud-based services, particularly SkyDrive. I don't think I need to get into how foolish it is to forgo local backup and rely solely on cloud for system and file backups. The privacy and data loss implications are huge, what with the NSA essentially having tech companies like Microsoft on a leash, and there's no guarantee that SkyDrive servers won't be hacked or experience data loss.

 

+1 for steam os. I could see myself ditching windows if the os is stable and can use standard linux packages.

 

And it was not even me who started this thread. Consumers are not happy and this is just one more item of proof. Will M$ ever listen up? I fear they will when it is too late.......................

 

My feeling is that at this rate, Microsoft will cease to be relevant in 10 years.

 

Have any photographs or descriptions of the UI of SteamOS been released?

 

Did they have a choice between Win 7 or Win 8?

Does it matter? We know how Linux packages are built and what the current Steam UI looks like. It's a competitor to MS. To be honest if I didn't play games the way things are going I'd probably go strictly to Linux. Well that and MS Office. I hate to say it, but MS knows what they're doing there. The Linux options just aren't as robust.

But I still don't understand how Windows games will be handled. Unless their goal is to have all future games developed for their OS instead of or as well as Windows. DirectX will be hard to dethrone though.

 

Well, if you were going to leave your current OS because you don't like the UI, I would think the UI of what you're switching to would matter quite a lot.

And the Steam UI is great for browsing and launching games, but it's not a UI meant for all-around productivity work. And if people are saying they'll leave Windows because they don't think the current UI is good enough for all-around productivity work, then I certainly don't think the current Steam UI would be an upgrade.

And sure, because it's Linux, you could customize the UI to suit your needs instead of using it in its out-of-the-box format, but you can do that with Windows as well (StartIsBack and all the other UI modifications out there), so once again, it's not an upgrade on that issue.

If someone wants to move to SteamUI because they get better framerates on games, because they don't want to pay license fees to Microsoft, etc, more power to 'em. But if someone talks about moving to SteamUI because they don't like the current Windows UI and don't think it's suited to serious productivity work...it doesn't make sense to plan to jump to an OS where we don't know what the UI will be and it will probably just be structured around buying and launching games.

 

Nor me...
Good to see that there's plenty of people feeling the same way. I've said it before, I'll say it again: All that 8.1 did was to add insult to injury. I won't touch Windows 8.x, ever. If things don't improve dramatically in Windows 9, or at least by the time support for Windows 7 ends (2020), I'm done with this. On the plus side, they've got more than half a decade left to try and get things right again.

 

Another bright side...it took W8 to be released for me to check out RHEL after *many* years and see how much it has improved...:thumbsup:

I know where I'm going if W9 doesn't end up being the burial of everything I dislike about W8...

 

+1

People who act as if 8.1 will correct all the mistakes of Windows 8 just haven't used it, or they enjoyed Windows 8 in the first place. And I can't stand the Windows 8 apologists whose argument against haters like me is that we and our "unwillingness to adapt" are the problems, not the OS itself.

 

I had actually pulled Linux from my primary system. Win7 will do here till 2020, I found for the 120GB of my SSD running it that I just was not booting enough to it to justify the disc space.

I am thinking of making the P79xx a full time Linux machine. My guess here is this will be my next OS. Then again Win9 may fix things. That is if it is not too late by then.

Back on topic though. Win 8.1 just alienates more consumers that were on the fence. On that same note some that were on the fence may just say this is better than nothing. M$ is making a gamble, too me a foolish one at that.

 

I don't know about 8.1 being "better than nothing," as I elaborated on why I think 8.1 is even worse than 8, at least for me, in a long post on the first page of this thread.

 

I meant in the sense that at least there is a start button. Some users will never customize the OS other than settings for email etc...............

 

For Windows 8.1 button solution, I really don't think that's what users wanted when they said bring back the start button. They wanted Classic Shell back. Though I do look forward to using the option in 8.1 that disables all Metro App when logging into desktop. That should be very tasty.

This isn't at you HTWingNut since it seems you know your way around Linux. This is for others who I get the impression, don't have a clue.

I'm running Mint and use Linode for my website with Debian. As a Windows user who isn't a programmer or learned to use Linux, can say Linux desktop is hell for anything other than scripting, programming, compiling, using git, etc.
- Microsoft knows this and I think shouldn't worry at all about SteamOS or any Linux distro.

Unless one is a computer science grad or engineer and very comfortable working in a terminal, Linux even with SteamOS will be very difficult. Especially since no doubt Valve will use Ubuntu's packages, most accessible and updated/supported. But nearly everything is command line, no GUI. I'm flabbergasted by Windows users thinking they can ditch Windows without having a taste of Linux. Install Ubuntu and see what it really is like to mess with Nvidia Optimus. Installing BumbleBee, and getting it to override Nouveau with proprietary 319 etc.

I find it hard to believe Valve has the resources and staff to maintain their own packages and overhaul all the hardware manager software and provide GUIs for driver management. Actually seems absurd to me others think they will. I just don't see why AMD and Nvidia will waste their time on SteamOS as I bet they think as I do, SteamOS is just more news for Valve, but that's it, it will be a failure. Steam on Linux so far seems to me a failure.

The only way I see SteamOS working is if they do what Google did. Create a horrible crappy OS like ChromeOS in which you can only launch apps and games from within the Steam program/GUI. And it comes prepackages with graphics, audio drivers etc. All hardware control through Steam's settings. I simply don't see Valve having resources to change enough of Ubuntu to make it accessible for the average PC gamer.

 

This is not so much the point here. The point is more with Win8's consumer failure that there is an opening for other OS's. If Win8 were a success like Win7 was then most people would not even consider an alternate OS at all. The other point is that where the PC world is concerned it has always eventually followed then gamers. As an example even today I use a gaming class machine................

 

What? If this were true, the desktop replacement laptop would be king. Instead, OEMs (who have better data about what genre sells than you or I do) are cutting their DTRs, discontinuing models like the Vaio F, XPS 17, and MacBook Pro 17. Instead, the MacBook Air and its ultrabook competitors (including the new flock of convertible ultrabooks) dominate hardware releases. Almost nobody besides gamers are still interested in two-inch-thick, ten-pound laptops. You're the exception, not the rule, in this situation.

 

As others have pointed out. Windows 8 is a success. Windows 8 has allowed Microsoft from zero marketshare in tablets to being third big gun. They are a huge success in corporations and businesses. Plenty of businesses are now providin their employees with Windows 8 tablets instead of iPads or Nexus/Android iPads.

For the average person, Windows 8 new start menu is great. For the average user who just wants to email, social media and some small games, Windows 8 Metro is unbelievable. The touch browser to me is bar none the best touch browser out there. The live tiles for all their social needs, email and what is trending is superior to any notification system that Android or iOS has. The marketplace is easy to use and everything is integrated in to the Windows Live experience. One account for your email, your games, your social. Microsoft did a great job ensuring they are Facebook's partner for example.

That's something that a lot of NBR seem to miss. Windows 8 is easily accessible and easy to learn for anyone who has ever used a smartphone now. We are not the majority who are power desktop users. For us, we want to stay on the desktop and not going into Metro. I think we are in the minority here.

And I will admit, I think using Windows 8 on a touch screen laptop is very enjoyable experience.

 

That was never the debate. For the millionth time, it's the fact that it's a forced UI on the customer when they could have easily implemented it for "advanced" or "legacy" users with all the other enhancements of Win 8 without the Metro UI. Metro UI is a decent touch OS, but it is NOT for any kind of multi tasking or serious desktop work.

 

Wasn't the Start button forced on users back in Windows 95?

 

Windows 8 is a success in its limited market. That is touch devices, no one disputes that. the problem is these devices just can not, as of yet, replace production machines. For production machines, the vast majority of the Windows market, Windows 8 is a failure at best. Once touch tablets can be more productive as a production machine this may change...............

Edit I mention gamers as the leaders of the market, not the majority. Also yes it is my choice to use a gaming machine as a DTR for production.................

Edit 2; Actually it is not yet a success in the tablet markets as Android and even IOS kill it there right now.................

 

No. Think about it.

No, it's not.

No, they did not start at zero marketshare. And, people's opinion may differ on what it means to be third out of three...
Fact is, Microsoft has probably more than a million unsold tablets rotting in some warehouses, if they haven't yet recycled them, that is. If that is what you call success, then I really don't know what the term "success" could mean for you.

"Huge success"? Very funny. There are a few businesses, some of them moderately high-profile, that have adopted their products and that Microsoft is touting far and wide. In the grand scheme of things, the number of businesses adopting Windows Tablets is small, and pretty much negligible. Bottom line, so far Windows tablets haven't gotten off the ground. There is no reason to expect this to change any time soon.

I have no hard data on that, but I doubt it. If you have data, let's see 'em.

What exactly do you think is "unbelievable" about it?

Not true. Android gadgets are in many respects far superior. But, yes, iOS has some catch-up to do there, and iOS7 is a big disappointment overall. Mostly because this OS now also seems to have been ruined by those morons who feel that it's a great idea to have light grey fonts on a white background, unrecognizable icons, random unintuitive and half-baked/half-broken features, and similar idiocies that started, I believe in Android, and by now have found their way into Metro, and now to iOS7.

Sure, but so what? It doesn't have the apps that people want. Case closed, end of story.

No, I'm not missing anything, as far as I can see.

 

You're attributing the lack of success of the Surface RT (one manufacturer's model, running a hamstrung version of Windows that OEMs have abandoned) with Windows tablets as a whole, ignoring ALL OEM convertible tablets in the process. Lenovo's new-model lineups are dominated by convertible tablets, and with the Flip line replacing the Fit line, Sony's entire lineup besides the "Pro" ultraportables are now convertible (and the Pro laptops offer touchscreens). Slates offering both Haswell and Bay Trail processors are now being offered by Sony, Dell, etc.

The OEMs have better data than the general public on which body styles are selling and which aren't. The fact that many DTRs are being discontinued, traditional laptops are being de-emphasized by the OEMs, and convertible designs are dominating new product unveilings by the OEMs says something. The OEMs can see which way the winds are blowing, and they clearly believe that convertible and slate designs are a big part of their future.

 

More like they are hoping that touch will be needed for the items to sell. problem is even with the lineup conversions sales are not picking up, if anything they are actually declining from the prior year. The problem will be unless there is a drastic reason most people are not upgrading their current hardware. The other issue is workstations, be it DTR or dedicated or just a laptop that is transported between work and home is going nowhere unless these convertibles can become good as production machines!

Even let s say for the local photographer that needs to run LightRoom along with plugins etc. a tablet is a joke. Forget even more demanding things like video encoding. While agreed even with a tablet things such as camera control via software and storage are possibly a good use again it is the post production where CPU and GPU cycles are needed.

What is great is all these proponents of Win8 keep touting its success but the market share, sales and heads that are, and will be, rolling tell the real story......................

Edit; not even one percent in a month, even Windows 7 did better - ROFLMAO
Windows 8 market share climbs to 8% while Windows 7 also gains - TechSpot

 

Now this is indeed fascinating: Windows 7 market share climbing faster than the one for Windows 8! If this is not a disastrous indictment of Windows 8, then I don't know what is...

 

Couldn't agree more it wasn't and wouldn't be big leap for M$ to give either isntall for Desktop mode or Metro mode and trust me their sales would rocket and most likely give them a bigger market lead but no they had to as you mention force a terrible UI that if rumour were true their own tester gave it a thumbs down that should've told them the sale plummed doing such a bone head move not listening to their own tester. And just look at all the people forced out so far I didn't see that kinda forceout when Windows 7 was released after the debacle with Windows Vista they actually sold alot of Windows 7 to their own surprise and I think this is when they thought hey why not make the change if they liked that change they should like our change. That was the wrong thinking to start with a evolution of Windows toward Metro should been the way to proceed but they wanted to say they were Apple but completely forgetting about the main core PC users wanted a good working O/S not a tablet on their PC laptop/Desktop.

 

First of all, no, I'm looking at the Surface, RT and Pro. As far as I know Microsoft has not revealed how many of either type of the Surface were left unsold. Second, we were discussing tablets. Convertibles are a different class of device, in my opinion.

That's all nice and well, but it remains to be seen how well these things are selling. The data that TANware was quoting do not bode well in that respect.

All it says is that OEMs are betting on these form factors. Whether that bet is correct will have to be seen. You are certainly correct that UltraPortables have been selling better than DTRs, for example. My guess is that this has a lot to do with the fact that those UltraPortables now have more than enough power for just about any usage scenario, with the only exceptions at the very extreme end, high-end computational engineering, and gaming. The former is a very small (albeit very profitable) niche, and the latter has taken a serious hit, for a number of reasons. The question, however, of whether it is really touch devices that people are particularly interested in is a different one. We'll have to see how this pans out. Right now Intel and Microsoft together are doing whatever they can to push these into the market (Intel specs say that in order for a laptop to receive the label of "ultra-portable", it must have a touchscreen, for example). The one truth that is quite often forgotten here is that it is the customer who decides what s/he wants. I just don't see that big of an interest in touchscreens from customers, and there's plenty (such as myself) who will not buy a touchscreen device period: Why would I pay a higher price for an inferior-quality screen with a feature I'll never use?

 

I think I read somewhere that Apple is currently earning more profit selling PCs (which is what Macs really are these days, with BootCamp they can also become Windows PCs) then all Microsoft's OEM partners combined. It is a sad state of affairs for the OEMs. Now that Microsoft has also turned from partner to competitor, they are looking for good Android SKU strategies.

Apple is doing things right in this field too - OS X has gained some iOS features, but it is still a place where an OSX user feels comfortable.

 

What I really find amazing is through all the touting of how great windows 8 is, other than Microsoft's own, there are no real links from these people to bolster their points. No real data other than skewed data to make the numbers look better than they really are. instead of baseline data they will use relative or progressive data and the like. Even at one point incorrect relative data. I mean this is all becoming real old real quick.

So all you Windows 8 touters out there, put up or shut up! Give us real data we can talk about and debate, not just your opinions posted as factual content..................................

Edit; it doesn't matter what anyone here thinks, including myself. The numbers as in the link I provided is what matters. I can cry Windows 8 is not what I want, others can cry it is good enough and why doesn't everyone just buy it. In the end the users will determine the market as it will eventually follow them and their money. That is the great thing about capitalism....................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Server

 

It's been that way long since before Windows 8 came about. Due to competition between multiple OEMs, profit margins on the Windows OEM side have always been very small. They're huge on the Apple side, since Apple has a monopoly on hardware that runs OSX. If you want OSX, you pay whatever price Apple sells their hardware for. No competition = huge profit margins.

 

The other thing with Apple is there is no real separate server software and the like as structured by M$. This puts them into the consumer market and lighter enterprise market. While agreed these can sometimes be preferred in multi media markets they are not usually a preferred system for large companies such as Telco's etc. Since these are such a niche market item they can afford to be higher priced.

Now if Apple say cut all the prices to be competitive with current day PC's this would be a disaster for Apple. They could probably not handle the demand as a first item. Then if they were to catch on with Enterprise server structures would need development that could compete with M$. I am sure there are many other issues too but these are just a few.

I'll be honest in that I am not familiar enough with OSX to state it would be even worth looking at it to switch camps. for most users the cost at this point of the hardware is prohibitive of even looking at this as an option. One day that may change but if history prevails it may never happen.........................

 

Judging from this article, things are not getting better, at all. Like I said, just about nobody wants those things.

 

The biggest problem here too is that there are no numbers. Whilst I'll agree in not trusting M$ and their spin machine I will not discount the new machines till the actual data is in. That being the true numbers or the fact the machines can't be given away. Or like the original Surface Pro in where there was a severely limited release and they claimed a sell out. We shall see soon....................

 

Not trying to get into this debate, but data actually shows that Tablets are on the rise and they are going to overtake PC in market share by 2015. So Microsoft is actually planning the long con of being able to flaunt that they can run full desktop applications and have a touch friendly UI. This is of course later on down the line.

 

Actually links to this data would be great, without it then it just doesn't exist. Also this data is speculative data based on many things that may, or may not, happen. As well as Tablets, as a system, is a very loose term to say the least..................

 

PC boom is over as tablets and smartphones take over, says IDC | Technology | theguardian.com
Tablet sales to overtake PCs this quarter | News | PC Pro
Tablets to overtake laptops in 2013 | ExtremeTech
NPD: Tablets to Overtake Laptops in 2013 | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

Pick your source

You're right about Tablet's including both Apple & Android devices, but a world where tablets are the norm is a world where Metro can--attempt to--succeed.

"Problem is even with the lineup conversions sales are not picking up, if anything they are actually declining from the prior year. " I'd personally like to see your data for this as well.

 

Right, for the purpose of our topics from the first link I'll quote below. The problem is all PC's, notebook and otherwise not just DTR's, are getting replaced because of Windows 8. Eventually for consumption tablets, and as the links also infer smart phones, can replace any PC.

 

Speaking of the first link, and quote that TANWare has already posted...

Makes one wonder what these people are drinking and/or smoking...or what parallel universe they reside in...

 

Well it addresses some concerns, just not the ones that matter to most of us or only half hazardly addresses them...............

Edit I think here we need to address life cycles too. Smart phones have a 1 to 2 year life cycle before the owners and their contracts with the wireless vendors let them be replaced. I am not too sure about tablets but I am willing to bet they are about the same if just slightly longer.

Now PC's I've seen go 4-8 years or more. This especially true since Vista and the fact that most systems that ran vista in 2007 with a little upgrading can easily handle even Windows 8. Maybe they are slow but they work fine..............

 

Yeah, like I said in my first post--paraphrased--"I am not getting involved in the debate". I only posted because it was mentioned somewhere in this topic that touch screen/tablet devices were failing and that is simply not the case.

I personally could care less about what Microsoft does as long as it doesn't go completely closed garden and cease improvements to the underbelly of the OS. I lost the start menu and I found a third party replacement. Though I actually learned how to use the applications menu in metro and it's not that bad. It reminds me a lot of a Android or iPhone launcher. I can separate all my programs into different categories and easily find anything that I am looking for. Though I personally did that before with Stardock's Fences.

I agree that Microsoft should have eased into it, but it was going to happen either way. With the introduction of the Window's 7 taskbar there was really no more practical use for the start-menu (just my opinion). Every professional tool I use is pinned there.

Tablet's are still, relatively, new to the playing field. Well, at least android tablets. There are people who would upgrade their tablets every year, but there are people who would do the same to a laptop. However, older tablets like the HP Touchpad & B&N Nook are still around and being used regularly.

 

My Android tablet is two years old and I have no plans to replace it. In fact I am using to type this message. So it still works great for email and browsing the web, which is what most users want a computer for. My tablet doesn't have a start menu either...

 

I too think tablets will have a better than 2 year average life but not too much better. The main reason being, like phones, they are becoming more capable rapidly. This unlike PC's that are not in need of further capability just for the programing currently available that consumers regularly use.

I got a Nexus 10 last year and with the new iterations will probably not change out. With the next generation though that may change. Again it lies in whether there are new capabilities that I just have to have ...........................