
Microsoft Will Soon Bring Back The Start Menu In Windows 8.1 - zastrowm
http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/02/microsoft-will-soon-bring-back-the-start-menu-in-windows-8-1/
======
Crito
It's always nice to see UI/UX people respond to user input and admit when they
are wrong, rather than berate their users for not understanding the product.
This sort of humbleness seems to be becoming increasingly rare.

In the past Microsoft has done well for themselves by listening to their
business users and prioritizing their concerns about backwards compatibility.
I hope this revert represents a natural continuation of that policy.

~~~
soup10
Except they've added all that metro crap to the already cluttered start menu.
Their UI team is still a long way from acknowledging the failure of
integrating metro with the desktop; and windows 8 will continue to be a mess
until they do.

~~~
bratsche
Metro itself wasn't the problem though, imo. It's the UX of going back and
forth to do simple tasks that is the problem.

Example: how do you restart or shutdown your Windows 8.1 machine when you're
on the desktop? Go to the start screen. Click your name, sign out, click the
screen so it 'opens', click the power button, click restart or shutdown from
the menu.

~~~
TheCoreh
Or just go to the bottom right corner of the screen, wait for the charms bar
to pop up, click the Preferences icon then shutdown. Which still doesn't make
a lot of sense, but is simpler than what you described.

~~~
jsight
Or just press the power button, which actually does make a lot of sense.

There are a lot of things about Metro that I dislike, but killing the "don't
touch the power button on a computer" idiom is one that I do like.

~~~
T-hawk
This has been around forever, since at least Windows 2000. The power button
signals the OS through ACPI to shut down correctly. It wasn't always reliable
on all hardware and BIOSes, and didn't always default to that behavior until
set in Control Panel - Power Options, but soft power-off is supposed to have
been working for a long time and is hardly new.

~~~
yuhong
Yea, Windows has required ACPI to boot since Vista.

------
GrinningFool
The problem isn't the start menu. A fullscreen searchable start menu is
something people have likely gotten used to - except for a vocal minority.

The problem is the context switching. Some apps full screen (even when they
don't make sense or I want them part screen). Some control panel stuff in
'apps' (which requires full screen); some still in the old control panel. Some
in both.

Somewhere along the way someone started thinking the whole 'single task at a
time [or at most two]' was a Good Thing - but then someone else said that we
can't do that, and what we got was the ugly bastard child of both.

I've stopped booting Windows, haven't done so even for gaming in a couple of
months now. It's just too annoying at 8.x.

edit: before someone calls me on it, why no I did not read the article - I've
since gone back and done so, and it sounds like they'll be offering windowed
mode for metro apps as well.

So I take it back, this has the potential to make it far less annoying (if
they consistently make it available for all metro apps).

~~~
DerpDerpDerp
I mostly agree with your opinion about why Windows 8 was bad.

A full screen, searchable start menu isn't the worst thing - though it does
mean I can't be read a webpage while looking for something (which is a slight
loss on usability). This is just a special case of your point about only being
able to do one (or two) things at a time, when on a desktop, I really want to
be able to 4 or 5. It seems like an interface designed for a tablet stapled
(badly) to a completely different interface.

Another problem is that they spread settings across 2 or 3 different places,
hid things like shut down commands (because, you know, I'm never going to be
shutting down my desktop!), and generally broke any consistency/sensibility to
how the controls interface with the system.

~~~
bunderbunder
> A full screen, searchable start menu isn't the worst thing

No, but it's a symptom of the worst thing. The worst thing is that Microsoft's
UX team failed to realize that "The user's actually only interacting with this
one thing right now" does not necessarily imply "This one thing is the only
thing that deserves to even be visible right now."

------
tdicola
I'm fascinated that they still keep the Building Windows 8 blog up these days.
You can go back and read their justifications on why they made the major
changes that are now being backed out of win 8, for example start menu:
[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-
on-...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-your-
comments-on-the-start-screen.aspx) and
[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/03/evolving-
the-s...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/03/evolving-the-start-
menu.aspx) I would love to see an analysis of how with so much data and
insight they built something people didn't want. Was it all just confirmation
bias causing them to see what they wanted in the data?

~~~
unreal37
I actually read through one of those links, and wow, they really really went
through great pains to explain every single decision with data and tracking.
This really puts today's announcement into a new light. How DID they so
blindly ignore the voices of users and trick themselves into believing the
metro UI was better using all that data? There's so much of it that
purportedly supports their old view.

I'm one who's never adapted to the new Windows 8, and prefer Windows 7 any
time I have a choice. I actually feel that I use my laptop a lot less because
it has Windows 8 on it.

~~~
diydsp
From what I remember, they were pointing out an overwhelming majority of their
users were only pressing the same 8 or so buttons at the bottom of the taskbar
to start apps.

And I'm on board with that.

It's just that one needs the Start Menu to get those 8 or so buttons into the
taskbar in the first place!!!!

"Yes, Mrs. Bathwater? Your baby is...thataway!"

~~~
nazgulnarsil
haha just looked at my taskbar. 8 apps.

------
Pxtl
This seems like the wrong solution to the problem. Merging the start menu with
the desktop as a full-screen launcher was a great idea - the start menu is
effectively a modal interface so it only makes sense to make it fullscreen,
and the old "icons on the desktop" thing in Windows has always been a
misfeature.

My problem is its terrible integration with old Windows apps, drawing a hard
line between "Metro" applications and "Windows Desktop" applications.

The other stuff is just mechanical problems with pretending that an 11" screen
is the same as a desktop monitor. Give me an always-visible taskbar, one that
uses _words_ instead of pictograms. I've got 2 23" monitors - I've got the
space to dedicate some of that room to a taskbar. Also showing multiple
applications at a time.

~~~
acqq
Full screen swap for some short term action is never a good idea on the 24
inch screen. I understand you only if you assume the use of 7 inch device.

------
adamwong246
Never understood the fixation with the start menu. You start up metro and you
are greeted with all those tiles- _that is the new Start Menu._ Why is that so
confusing?

~~~
overgard
Its not so much confusing as it is useless and annoying. It's just a really
inefficient and wasteful design for a desktop OS. Basically, most windows
users really liked the windows 7 start menu, and they replaced it with
something that has no tangible upside and a lot of downsides.

~~~
gagaga
Actually it's a terribly efficient design. The usability studies that involved
eye-tracking showed that when the start menu is open, users gaze is purely
focused on the start menu, not other objects on the desktop. If this is the
case, then why not use the whole screen as your start menu? Now you can show
many more apps, search results, and allow users to spatially group apps and
folders to their liking.

The backlash came from the fact that it was a change from 20+ years of
ingrained behavior, not that it was an inherently poor design. However, you
could argue breaking the previous mental model of users will definitely create
issues and therefore is a bad design.

~~~
derekp7
So with the old start menu, users were looking at the start menu when they
opened it. That makes perfect sense -- why else would you open the start menu
if you didn't want to look at it? However, it also took up a smaller section
of the screen, so you could more readily find what you are looking at. With
the Metro screen, I have to play Where's Waldo whenever I want to find an app
(I have the same problem with Gnome 3 shell, trying to find an app icon in
that massive wasteland).

But that's just me -- I also didn't like the sliding start menu design either
(Windows 7, KDE 4), where submenus open in the same space as the folder icons
-- I'd rather, when clicking on a submenu, have it open into new screen real
estate like any of the traditional menus.

~~~
sp332
How can you more readily find something in a smaller space? And the new start
menu is _much_ easier to organize then the old start menu.

~~~
pessimizer
>How can you more readily find something in a smaller space?

Is this a serious question?

~~~
sp332
Yeah. By default, the Win7 start menu shows 10 most recent apps, then if you
click "all programs" it shows a couple dozen little icons (about 1/3 of my
menu) at once. If you have to scroll around to find little things, it takes
longer than just looking at a single static page of larger icons.

~~~
conradfr
Well I use the start menu quit often, but almost never the "all programs",
maybe I'm not the one.

Also I think the "start menu" argument encompass in reality the whole concept
of Metro against traditional desktop UI.

------
darrenkopp
After using Windows 8 since release, I kind of prefer the current start menu
to the old school one, but I guess I'm in the minority.

~~~
ryanoshea
I agree. There's no lost functionality with the new screen, except not being
able to see your desktop while you're in the Start screen. Let's think about
what you can do in the traditional start menu:

\- search for and browse for applications and settings (you can do this in the
start screen)

\- have quick access to favorite programs (this is what tiles are for)

\- have quick access to settings shortcuts, like "Devices and Printers" (you
can search for these)

\- shut down/standby/power commands (these have been moved to a charm, but
will return in 8.1 Update 1)

The only thing that has been changed, that people might not like, is the
design, the layout, and possibly the change in UX getting from the start
screen to a given action. But as far as I can see, every action you'd want to
do on the start screen is just as accessible as it was in Windows 7.

To me, pressing the Start key on my keyboard and typing the first few letters
of literally anything I want to do on my system is the most important UX
component of Windows 8 & 8.1. Windows Vista introduced it, Windows 7 improved
it, and now 8 and 8.1 made it shinier and faster. It's amazing to me how many
people I see trying to use their computers without taking advantage of this
functionality.

Of course, I might have just forgotten something. But it seems like people are
mostly just complaining because it's different, regardless of whether it's
actually worse.

~~~
flavor8
> To me, pressing the Start key on my keyboard and typing the first few
> letters of literally anything I want to do on my system is the most
> important UX component of Windows 8 & 8.1. Windows Vista introduced it,
> Windows 7 improved it, and now 8 and 8.1 made it shinier and faster. It's
> amazing to me how many people I see trying to use their computers without
> taking advantage of this functionality.

This is a great feature. I think it actually was introduced by quicksilver on
mac, though - and has been around for a long time in various linux
environments also. Gnome 3 and Unity (much reviled in the 'nix world) suffered
similar criticism to Windows 8 in part because they got rid of the traditional
start menu.

~~~
ryanoshea
Exactly. It's not new. It's just well done. Spotlight, Quicksilver, and Unity
Lenses all had that functionality too.

------
DigitalSea
The start menu should never have been removed. Microsoft lost their way
temporarily with Windows 8, in their minds everyone was using Windows 8 on
Surface tablets and Windows Phone's, not on the desktop where 95% of their
market probably is using Windows with a keyboard and mouse.

My first purchase after buying Windows 8 was Stardock's Star8 which gave you
back the start menu in Windows 8 and it only cost like $5. The fact I had to
buy a separate application to bring back crucial functionality did irk we for
a while, but it's good to see it's coming back eventually in its original
form.

Don't get me start on the atrocious context switching. There is nothing more
annoying then downloading a video, double clicking to play it only to have it
load in the full-screen Metro Windows Media Player, then once you're done to
be dumped back at the Metro tile interface again where you have to click on
the Desktop tile to get back to point A.

I hope Windows 9 doesn't try and force new conventions that don't work on non-
touch-screen devices again. Something tells me after the less than ideal
Windows 8 sales figures, they won't make that same mistake twice.

------
r00fus
Good news, but why did it take so long for MS to grok this?

So far every single piece of news since Ballmer's abdication has shown clue.

~~~
RandallBrown
Microsoft has nearly 100,000 employees. The company moves at a glacial pace,
so changes like this that might seem small to you, will actually take quite
some time.

~~~
clauretano
and nearly 100,000 additional "dash trash" workers.

------
daigoba66
It's interesting how similar it is to some of the concepts from this often
linked write-up: [http://jaymachalani.com/blog/2013/12/12/fixing-
windows-8](http://jaymachalani.com/blog/2013/12/12/fixing-windows-8)

~~~
zastrowm
I'd hope they take more influence from the write-up, however. I like that
they'll allow Windowed apps, but their current implementation now looks like
they crammed together Metro and Windows 7 without any polish. The write-up,
however, has a nice cohesive experience. Of course, Microsoft's startup menu
is probably early alpha, so it's a moot point.

------
wambotron
I don't really think adding in the start menu is the answer. I've been using
Win 8 since release candidate and, although I was annoyed at first, I soon
grew to enjoy the new UX.

When I use Win 7 now, the thing that annoys me the most is that damn start
menu. It's clunky and feels like a chore to navigate through. In Win 8, you
can switch over to the metro screen with the Win key, start typing and BAM. OR
you can win+q and start typing while you're in desktop mode.

I never use metro, so I can't really talk about that. I'm not on a touch
device for my desktop, though.

I think MS just has a reputation for being "slow" and "clunky," despite the
reality that it's a blazing fast OS and, once you adjust to the new UX, a
really nice workflow.

Just my 2¢.

~~~
zaroth
What is there "to navigate through"? In Win7, press start and type. At least
the whole screen doesn't puke on you when you do it. I don't think I've
clicked that 'All Programs' button in years.

But more realistically, all the apps I want to run are always already running.
There's nothing for me to "Start". If not for installing security updates, my
system uptime would be several years.

What I actually want is major improvements to Alt-Tab. The most frustrating
thing is how it frequently screws up the z-order when I'm switching back and
forth between multiple apps. It seems to forget where I came from, and a
single Alt-Tab sends me to the wrong place. The window 'latching' and
Win-<arrow> shortcuts they adding in Win7 does help a bit with this, but
doesn't obviate the need for much better Alt-Tab.

I think the second major flaw is, just because I happen to have 10 different
excel sheets, 10 PPTs, 10 notepads "open", does not mean each one needs its
own blank square in the Alt-Tab view. They figured out how to stack properly
in the taskbar, but it didn't translate to the Alt-Tab view?

The concepts of "open" and "running" seem quite outdated to me. Assume
everything is "open", everything is "running", and I don't need to "Start"
anything. But I do need good tools to context switch and organize multiple
windows across multiple screens. A full screen of identical looking icons is
NOT the best solution, IMO.

~~~
wambotron
I don't think metro itself is very good, and, like I said, I don't use it.

I use Win+Q for searching (much like I use CMD+space on mac) and never even
open the metro interface. I agree with you that the start menu and the idea of
running/open are outdated.

------
ntakasaki
Less blurry screenshot
[https://twitter.com/pouletfou51/status/451417213052809216/ph...](https://twitter.com/pouletfou51/status/451417213052809216/photo/1/large)

~~~
nacs
Hopefully that Fisher-Price mess they have attached to the start menu can be
disabled as well.

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
I doubt it.

As far as I can tell this is "just" another way of pushing Metro. Excuse me:
the interface formerly known as Metro.

"Oh, people complained about us forcing Metro. So let's introduce it more
gradually!"

~~~
derefr
Before W8 was released, Metro may have just been something Microsoft was
pushing. Now, however, developers have released third-party Metro apps, and
people have these apps installed. Do you think Microsoft would unceremoniously
disable access to every Metro-only app?

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
There is a difference between "supporting third-party metro apps if necessary"
and "putting links to metro apps that have desktop-style equivalents all over
the start menu"

------
dm2
It's easy to add features but removing features will usually piss of
consumers.

I understand that they wanted a unified tablet and desktop OS but the way to
do it would be to always use the tablet interface on tablets and offer the
start menu and other traditional features as optional on first boot.

Optional and advanced features are always welcome, but don't replace things I
use daily without offering a way to use the old version.

Maybe the new start menu / metro is better, but I don't have time TODAY to
come to that conclusion myself. So I avoided Windows 8, because Windows 7
works and the time spent learning new things just didn't seem worth the new
features.

Good job Microsoft, thank you for fixing this.

Windows 9 will be an important one. I personally think that they should look
at what made Windows 2000, XP, and 7 so popular and focus on those features
first. Look at what made Vista, ME, and 8 unpopular and avoid doing those
things. That seems easy, good luck!

------
frik
Finally, it took Redmond two Windows releases.

It's good that the "metro" apps now run in window-mode too next to Win32 apps.

Though, I wonder if Metro apps will be around in Win9. They could shut it down
like Silverlight and the Vista/7 desktop gadgets. Instead of metro apps,
saving websites to desktop (links) like in Win7 and FirefoxOS would make a lot
more sense (IMHO).

------
morbius
Completely OT, but I just realized how pleasant Nadella was at BUILD, and how
much he stressed the importance of MS' relevance in the coming years. It's so
refreshing seeing Microsoft establish a really solid brand identity; they've
now got an in-house phone development program, and apart from that terrible
Scroogled thing, their branding and marketing is fantastic.

It's an aura I never got from Ballmer, who verged on either hostility or
outright silliness. I'm extremely excited for the future of Microsoft, and
backtracking on the Start Menu helps prove that they know what they're doing.

Okay, NOW they know what they're doing.

------
skreech
When using a touchscreen on a 13" ultrabook, the Win 8 start menu actually
makes a lot of sense.

~~~
matt_heimer
But forcing a touchscreen UI on everybody that doesn't have one is dumb. I
don't see why they are trying to combine the two. Simply detect the form-
factor, default to either the Metro or Win7 UI based on that and given people
the option to switch.

~~~
teamonkey
I reckon, and I'm sure Microsoft and Apple do too, that screens without touch
input will die out pretty quickly. Certainly within the lifespan of Win8 touch
will be the norm.

And the Windows desktop in its current form is awful for touch screens, so it
too will die out. Expect similar updates from Apple soon.

~~~
userbinator
And we'll be expected to stretch our arms up to touch ever-larger-growing
screens all day long?

At the moment I'm sitting in front of a pair of 27" monitors. Trying to use a
touchscreen that big for extended periods of time is just going to be
fatiguing.

~~~
teamonkey
I'm not saying it's going to replace mouse and keyboard but a screen that
_doesn 't_ support touch at all will soon feel archaic. Even now I often find
myself absent-mindedly trying to close windows with my finger on my dual-
screen setup.

Remember that the ergonomics of a traditional workstation are driven by
decades of mouse and keyboard input. As touch becomes more popular the layout
will change to support that.

------
amercade
Why not use windows 7 instead of 8? What can I get from 8.1 that 7 doesn't
have? Other than a UI that I don't like very much.

------
ape4
Windows 8 - no start button or menu

Windows 8.1 - added the start button but has Metro menu

Windows 8.2 - merges old start menu and Metro menu

Windows 8.3 - Same as Windows 7 (hopefully)

~~~
frik
Windows 9 - coexistence of Win32 and HTML5 web apps; abandon metro WinRT API
(like done before with Vista/7 desktop gadgets, Silverlight, etc.)

------
mrschwabe
Dunno how any self-respecting nerd can accept Windows 8 knowing the direction
that MS is taking the OS.

No matter how many band-aids they slap on it, IMO the 'new direction' (or
metro, or tablet UI or whatever you wanna call it) is and will always be
Microsoft's way of controlling the UX on Windows to maximize the efficiency of
their app store sales funnel. The end goal is obvious, a commission on every
software transaction on the Windows platform ala Mac app store.

If Microsoft was instead focused on the strengths of their OS rather than
clamping down and being an Apple copy-cat I would have no problems continuing
my support for Windows, a platform I've used since 3.1

Clearly though, they are going the other way. This sentiment is shared by Gabe
Newell and it's no secret that Windows 8 was the catalyst for Valve's decision
to shift efforts to Linux. I hope anyone else with Windows software will do
the same.

~~~
untaken
When I tried the public preview, my heart sank when I saw that "Store" icon in
the start screen.

The new UI I can deal with or customise - I've been developing since DOS, I'm
sure I can get used to it. But please don't remove the very reason Windows
became so popular: a relatively open ecosystem.

As a result of that (and the destruction of VS), my personal projects are no
longer under Windows, and my career is also shifting away from it.

I'm not anti-MS - I was once their biggest cheerleader. I just don't like
their direction.

~~~
bobbles
If having a store inside windows that becomes popular enough, there would be
_potential_ for windows to become free to install/use.. (hey pigs could fly)
Would that alleviate concerns about it?

~~~
jenscow
The licence cost for Windows isn't exactly prohibitive (for the home user).

That's an excellent point, however.

------
praseodym
The Verge thinks this will be part of Windows 9 instead:
[http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/2/5574830/windows-9-start-
men...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/2/5574830/windows-9-start-menu-new-
desktop-experience)

~~~
acqq
The Verge link doesn't mention Windows 9 anymore. And the screenshot actually
contains the "Windows 8.1 Enterprise Build 9600" string (check the right
corner).

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkPBkEXCcAEIbN4.png:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkPBkEXCcAEIbN4.png:large)

------
hnriot
Who still uses Windows!?! Linux at work, OSX in my bag. I couldn't bring
myself to use Windows after all these years. 3.1 was great, since then it got
worse every year. I gave up on Windows years ago.

It's like still using Hadoop now we have Spark.

------
joshbert
I'm all for flat design should the context call for it. I don't feel like
Windows 8 calls for it. I feel like that start menu looks infantile and
cluttered.

Yes Microsoft, we get it, you invented metro. Stop trying to push it on us on
the desktop.

------
rayiner
Microsoft just needs to copy Apple here. Have a desktop, but let Metro apps
run in either a window or full screen in another desktop. Voila: integration
of Metro and the desktop in a way that doesn't suck.

~~~
antonioevans
I don't agree. Metro doesn't make sense if you have a desktop with apps on it.
It's redundant. I have no access to the numbers but in my office no one uses
the Apps except weather. Trying to create a ubiquitous system for
tablets/phones/desktop ignores how people use each device.

~~~
kabdib
It's worse than redundant, it gets in the way.

I upgraded to 8.1 from Win7 last week. My first experience trying to compare a
PDF document with text file in another editor was quite unpleasant (Metro
essentially makes apps modal, which is _nuts_ ).

~~~
Too
This is the biggest issue with window management on all new/mobile platforms,
they can run multiple apps simultaneously but they can not run multiple
instances of the same app! Compare the weather in two cities using the weather
app, forget it. Compare two PDF documents with the office app, forget it.
Compare two bus routes with your local public transport app, forget it. Why
are we creating systems that are worse than what we already have.

~~~
bztzt
Windows 8.1 can run multiple instances/windows of the same app, although the
app needs to opt-in to implement support (which the built-in PDF reader, IE
and mail client all do).

------
Havoc
Until they fix the retarded search I'm not interested. We've got powerful
computers...wtf do you mean it can't search applications, control panel and
docs in one go? It could under Win7...

------
romanovcode
It's funny to see how people were crying for MS to bring back the Start menu
right here, on HN some time ago.

Yet now I see plenty of posts with "that is not a solution..". Can you ever be
satisfied?

~~~
slavik81
Have you considered that they might not be the same people? If they are,
perhaps you should address them individually.

------
druidsbane
I think this is a great move, but why not enhance the run dialog so it works
like Spotlight does on OSX: minimal, you type and it automatically searches. I
like the start menu because its smaller than the start screen, but I prefer my
launcher to be as tiny and powerful as possible without fullscreen flashing.
Also, it lets me use the launcher to type in things that I can see from other
windows, eg: calculations, paths, etc...

------
tericho
All I want is to be able to open the calculator or preview a photo without it
taking up my whole 24" screen and forcing me to ALT+F4.

------
kijin
This will probably get buried, but I've been saying for months: _I want Metro
to be the default wallpaper on my desktop!_

(Anyone wish to turn Conky into a Metro app?)

Add the usual wishlist item of allowing Metro apps to open in their own
windows (perhaps only when you're in desktop mode), and that's as close to
perfect integration as it gets between the two UI paradigms.

------
bratsche
I know naming is tough, but couldn't they have called this something else?
Windows 8.2? Windows 8.1.1 even?

------
MCarusi
So it took them a year and a half to do what they did back in 1995. Well
that's...really sad.

------
afhsfsfdsss88
Leave it to Microsoft to do the right thing once it has exhausted all other
alternatives.

------
atmosx
I've written about this[1] some time ago. When I used windows 8, was the first
time that I had to read a tutorial online on how to perform every day tasks
after ... maybe 10 years.

I mean it's hilarious how bad the user experience of windows 8 in laptops with
no touch screen is.

[1] [http://www.convalesco.org/blog/2014/03/24/microsoft-
windows-...](http://www.convalesco.org/blog/2014/03/24/microsoft-windows-8/)

------
dustinupdyke
I wonder how much this is driven by true user feedback and by pack mentality
by mass media. I use it, and for the life of me, can't see all the fuss.

------
marknutter
Might as well never change anything, ever. Sigh..

~~~
fournm
The Microsoft conundrum: Every UI, interaction, and functionality must always
stay the exact same and never change or be iterated upon/refined, but why
aren't they trying anything to meet X demand or Y new thing.

~~~
vertex-four
There's plenty of new non-Metro-related functionality in Windows 8 that nobody
ever complains about. Especially on the management side of things. Of course,
people who'd actually use that functionality don't use Windows 8 because of
Metro.

------
drivingmenuts
Metro is pretty good on a tablet.

It's horrible on a desktop.

Here's hoping they don't fsck up the tablet (which they probably will).

------
gulfie
Yet another stunning advancement in the computer sciences. I wonder how Knuth
will respond to being one upped.

------
ssmoot
8 years ago I left behind .NET development and gaming PCs as a hobby for Ruby
development on a Mac.

I got into crypto-currency mining last year. As that became less profitable I
decided to sell most of my mining hardware, keep one R290, and build a gaming
rig.

"Metro" (aside from forced full-screen) is the clean break Windows needed IMO.
There were/are definitely usability issues with it, but mostly on the
feature/app level IMO (it's difficult to know how to find the tool you're
looking for in the new "Control Panel", it should not take minutes to figure
out how to turn the computer off, etc).

The biggest problem with it was that it was inconsistent. Steam is a "Desktop"
app. For no reason besides MS apparently didn't force developers to go Metro.
That results in a really awful experience for users.

So this... bowing to the same crowd that said they'd never leave DOS for
Windows '95\. Or '95 for XP, or XP for Vista, and on and on... this is a huge
mistake IMO. MS recommitting to a UX that's never really worked all that well,
and at this point extremely dated.

~~~
zanny
> MS recommitting to a UX that's never really worked all that well, and at
> this point extremely dated.

At least a billion people have used and are experienced with the UX you claim
as not working.

I'd say that is probably the best metric _of_ a working UX. And the lack of
Windows 8 adoption is another testament to that.

It doesn't matter if _you_ think your next generation UI is an improvement,
because there is one thing you can guarantee - if you are making radical UX
changes, your userbase will _not_ think it is an improvement. Change pisses
people off, especially when they perceive it as unnecessary, and the Windows 8
UI mess came off to the vast majority of their userbase as unnecessary
breakage of a 15 year UX their users came to expect.

~~~
ssmoot
More people have used and experienced CRTs. That doesn't make them superior.
Just the state of the art for their time.

You're right. It doesn't matter that I think that. It matters that OSX can get
people to convert because Windows is stale and it's desktop doesn't work
_well_.

I didn't say "doesn't work". I said "well". Which is pretty subjective I
guess, but I did qualify that it was an opinion so...

OSX has made changes. Some successes, some failures. The only real constant is
that it does tend to change (at least to a greater degree than Windows IME).

Sure, MS may have the GM of operating systems on their hands. And there are a
lot of GM fans with little Calvin & Hobbes stickers on their vehicles.

That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, and I'd be a lot happier
as a PC user who only uses it for gaming if I never had to see the Windows
Desktop experience again.

But I guess I'll be waiting for SteamOS for that to happen.

I mean, how many Xbox users want their much more Metro-like experience
replaced with a standard Windows desktop?

I never argued it wasn't disruptive to goto Metro. As someone who uses BSD
(OpenBSD load balancers), Unix (SmartOS VM hosts), OSX, Ubuntu (VMs) and
Windows routinely, I just place good, intuitive UX above familiarity. It's the
reason why Ubuntu is one of my least favorite distros with their alternative
user-space tools and /etc design, and why the Windows Desktop is easily my
least favorite GUI environment.

------
yiedyie
This seems like the forty years in the desert, back and forth, it is not
efficient(actually is deficient) but it makes a good story.

I wonder why they dumped it for good in the first place why not make an option
to chose when installing between the two interfaces.

------
throwwit
They could've simply slowly transitioned to the 'metro' UI.

Step 1. Make advanced window positioning integrated with OS.

Step 2. Allow windows to fade into background (possibly live wallpaper).

Step 3. Make the changes more efficient to overall usage. Driving Adoption.

------
jon_black
I'm seeing an increasing gap between what I need and what most people need. I
haven't used a start menu for months since switching to i3wm and its dmenu,
which is also making the mouse seem redundant for most tasks.

------
tonyblundell
I still think that a lot of the fuss is because people don't realise you can
just hit the windows key and start typing to search in Win8. It's much quicker
than using a menu.

------
quattrofan
Be nice also to have an intuitive way to close a metro app you've accidently
opened when in the desktop. I end up using task manager to get rid of them,
escape maybe?

~~~
tonyblundell
Drag from top of screen.

------
frozenport
Slurm Queen: "Yes. Which is why we'll market it as New Slurm. Then, when
everyone hates it, we'll bring back Slurm Classic and make billions!"

------
namlem
Honestly, I've grown to hate the start menu. I just want the launcher to be
accessible with one gesture instead of two.

------
grn
Why did they remove the menu at all? If removing it was such a bad idea then
it would have come out in user research.

------
momentarily
Metro should have been device-aware (and still, toggleable) from the very
beginning.

You can't impose a touch interface on desktop devices any more than you can
impose a desktop interface on touch devices. Microsoft tried that, too, with
Windows CE. It didn't work so well.

