Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Won't Bring Back the Start Menu Until 2015

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the coming-soon dept.

Microsoft 516

DroidJason1 (3589319) writes "Microsoft recently announced plans to reintroduce the Start Menu to Windows in an upcoming version of the operating system. While the plan was to roll out an update to Windows 8.1 and offer the Start menu later this year, it seems like this is no longer the case. Now Microsoft is reportedly looking to release the Start Menu with Windows 9, which is expected in April of 2015. Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 have faced a boat load of criticism and hatred, partly due to the removal of the Start button and Start menu. The restoration of a visible Start button on the taskbar was one of the key features of the Windows 8.1 update, released back in October of 2013."

cancel ×

516 comments

Many users won't be back (4, Insightful)

postmortem (906676) | about 2 months ago | (#47148171)

to "latest and greatest" version of Windows in 2014 either.

MS may as well start selling retail copies of Win 7 again

Re:Many users won't be back (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148273)

When the start menu comes back, Microsoft will be giving Windows nine away for FREE. The difference is that they will have changed their business model, to one where you have so sign on the their own cloud computing in order to use it -for a monthly fee. Look at Nokia. Those phones will only be able to access the Microsoft cloud. So any organization that still uses windows will require all its staff to be issued with windows phones. A Win-win from Microsoft's point of view.

Re:Many users won't be back (2)

Lisandro (799651) | about 2 months ago | (#47148537)

Look at Nokia. Those phones will only be able to access the Microsoft cloud.

That nicely explains Nokia sales figures lately. Something like 30% down this last year.

Why bother? (4, Informative)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | about 2 months ago | (#47148191)

Why would anyone want to start anything on Windows 8?

Any idea what's the motivation to remove START? (2, Interesting)

androidph (3631653) | about 2 months ago | (#47148193)

I was forced to use Windows 8 because it's packaged in my new laptop, and a change in OS means I need to spend more money. So I gave it a try but I never liked it. I think, I might get used to it, if all the PCs I use (home/office/remote) are all Windows 8. If MS wants everybody to like Windows 8, they should have killed all other versions that uses the START button. i.e. Windows Update that automatically disables the start menu for Windows XP to Windows 7. Then everybody will be forced to grow accustomed to it.

Re:Any idea what's the motivation to remove START? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148261)

Not all my PCs are windows 8, but I still got used to it... it's not THAT bad

Re:Any idea what's the motivation to remove START? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148467)

What bothers me is when I go to an app like Reader that's only in Metro (as far as I can tell), and then I can't easily switch back to the desktop apps, because the onscreen keyboard puts the tab on another screen behind the qwerty keyboard. Sometimes I can't figure out how to exit the Metro app either, or get options, except by moving the mouse around randomly into corners and such. Also in Windows Media Player, how can I keep the time bar up all the time so I can see it without moving the mouse over that area every few seconds? Metro is really unusable for me, I want to get to the desktop as soon as possible whenever I find myself in it. Like one way of getting out of reader is to swipe in and press start, but that takes me to Metro, and I can't press the desktop square fast enough. Metro is very very annoying with the moving ads and crap. I wish I never had to go into it.

Re:Any idea what's the motivation to remove START? (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 months ago | (#47148283)

i.e. Windows Update that automatically disables the start menu for Windows XP to Windows 7. Then everybody will be forced to grow accustomed to it.

Wow, force adoption of an un-popular version of your software by crippling the other versions.

Brilliant strategy! What could possibly go wrong? Just piss off everybody, and then they won't be pissed off about Windows 8.

You, sir, have a brilliant future in PR ahead of you.

What next, brick all of the XBox 360s so people have to buy an XBone?

Re:Any idea what's the motivation to remove START? (4, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 months ago | (#47148377)

For reasons known only to them, they wanted phones, tablets, notebooks and desktops to all use the same interface. Since a start menu doesn't work well on a phone, they opted to remove it.

Re:Any idea what's the motivation to remove START? (1, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 2 months ago | (#47148431)

For reasons known only to them, they wanted phones, tablets, notebooks and desktops to all use the same interface. Since a start menu doesn't work well on a phone, they opted to remove it.

Hmm... Sounds like Firefox 29...

Re:Any idea what's the motivation to remove START? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148501)

Programming also doesn't work well on a phone. So they're making it so it's hard to program on their tablets? Thankfully they haven't gotten rid of the command terminal yet.

Every Other OS (4, Interesting)

meerling (1487879) | about 2 months ago | (#47148195)

Microsoft seems to be intentionally upholding the old meme about 'every other OS released by Microsoft sucking'.

After a while, you really have to wonder why they keep doing this.

Re:Every Other OS (1)

djdanlib (732853) | about 2 months ago | (#47148219)

Publicists usually say that any kind of buzz is good for business.

And they know people are going to buy it. When J. Random User with $400 walks into a store and wants to buy a laptop, does (s)he have any other choice?

Re:Every Other OS (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 months ago | (#47148357)

When J. Random User with $400 walks into a store and wants to buy a laptop, does (s)he have any other choice?

Well, how much is a Chromebook?

Re:Every Other OS (2)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 2 months ago | (#47148497)

How much to run most software on it?

$0, because you can't.

Re:Every Other OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148511)

Well, how much is a Chromebook?

The price is irrelevant since the Chomebook doesn't run any of their Windows software.

Re:Every Other OS (1, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 months ago | (#47148389)

Publicists usually say that any kind of buzz is good for business.

And they know people are going to buy it. When J. Random User with $400 walks into a store and wants to buy a laptop, does (s)he have any other choice?

Sure. Buy a mac. And I'm saying that as someone who thinks macs are overpriced trendy hipster-ware. Besides all the shiny marketing, they are admittedly designed with usability in mind, which Microsoft seems to have forgotten how to do.

I'm still using Windows 7, but if M$ hasn't gotten their act together by the time it reaches EOL, I'm actively considering jumping ship. Apple runs the apps I need. (If Linux did, I'd use that instead, but they don't yet.)

Re:Every Other OS (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 months ago | (#47148477)

Sure. Buy a mac. And I'm saying that as someone who thinks macs are overpriced trendy hipster-ware.

Are there any $400 Mac laptops? Because, that was the specific example you replied to.

If there aren't, then the choices of someone with $400 to spend on a machine are much more limited.

Re:Every Other OS (0)

LDAPMAN (930041) | about 2 months ago | (#47148531)

Then buy a used Mac...you'll still be better off.

Re:Every Other OS (5, Informative)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47148237)

Because those lists are not true. They always conveniently forget a release in between, or describe a release as good/bad even if it actually was the opposite.

Re:Every Other OS (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 months ago | (#47148267)

Well good/bad is an opinion. Many people look at those the list and agree, some will not.

Re:Every Other OS (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 months ago | (#47148315)

So, the list is neither good nor bad, but fundamentally useless?

Re:Every Other OS (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47148339)

That's what also makes it so easy to tweak those lists to make the good/bad pattern appear.

Re:Every Other OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148305)

Maybe they keep doing this so we'll have to buy the aging Windows 7? Current EOL for that is just 6 years off. Win8 adds 3 years on that, doubling the time until you have to migrate...

Re:Every Other OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148453)

It is easier to alternate between making something terrible and then non terrible, then it is to continually make a new OS exciting and familiar.

Re:Every Other OS (3, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 2 months ago | (#47148539)

After a while, you really have to wonder why they keep doing this.

Yeah, they should only release odd-numbered OS's!

Re:Every Other OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148551)

This is going on so long it must be called intention.

Maybe they use the OEM to finance the development of a new version and then cash in on every other release with OEM and retails of people who then upgrade the hardware/software. The step to the "new" (and now good) version is big enough to the from two generations ago that they still have.

Furthermore, having a "celebrated version" and a "sucky version" as successor has the advantage that the NEXT version is going to be celebrated as long as it does not suck as the current one. You never have "Well, new but... ok", you always get "So much better than the last version! You need to upgrade!!!"
This seems like a scheme to get awesome press for an already financed release at the price of some bad press in between (which MS can afford as the OEM-masses buy the thing anyway with their new machine-of-the-shelf).

The alternative explanation that the MS marketing department sucks, presses ideas in and is so powerful that it requires a major screwup to reel them in. The next, reeled in version, is a success which empoers the marketing drones again for the next release. And the cycle repeats.

Yeah, I brought it back in 2014 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148203)

I installed Windows 7.

Why believe them now? (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 months ago | (#47148205)

Microsoft has lied about this in the past, why should anyone believe them now?

The dummy stick shift (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148317)

Indeed. They didn't bring back the start menu. What they brought back is a button that says "start". To paraphrase a classic slashdot car analogy (wasn't mine), it's like ordering a brand new car with manual transmission, but when the car finally arrives, it has an automatic. An obvious mistake. The car dealer says no problem, we'll make it right. But when they call you back in, nothing has changed, except they have glued a dummy stick shift to your center console.

Re:Why believe them now? (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 months ago | (#47148347)

Microsoft has lied about this in the past, why should anyone believe them now?

That's actually a good point. The start menu is easy to add -- third party developers have proven this. It's possible their strategy is to keep people using Windows 8 sans start menu, in the vain hope that M$ will fix it some day, and eventually just say to hell with it and use Win8 as it is now. And maybe that strategy will work.

Re:Why believe them now? (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | about 2 months ago | (#47148555)

Also, everybody I know who wanted Start Menu in Windows 8 just use ClassicShell.

They believe it too (1)

J-1000 (869558) | about 2 months ago | (#47148209)

MS is apparently buying into the whole "every other release is good" thing too. They sure seem to be in a hurry to iterate the version number.

Start Menu Classic (1)

ClownPenis (1315157) | about 2 months ago | (#47148217)

Coca-Cola paved the way. Redmond 'Nailed It'!!!

Re:Start Menu Classic (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 months ago | (#47148331)

...except they're taking too long, and probably losing further market share as a result.

Re:Start Menu Classic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148483)

Losing further market share? When you buy a reasonably priced desktop or laptop, it comes with Windows pre-installed.
There is no competition in this market.

flame away, but... (5, Informative)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 2 months ago | (#47148227)

I received a windows 8 machine at work to fix some compatibility issues with my product. I bitched and moaned about how awful it was for a month. Then i let out a stream of periodic muffled profanities every time some weird unrequested interface took over my laptop from out of nowhere. Then months went by and i realized something:

Windows 8 is not really that bad. I know how to find all the stuffs now. I know how to shut it down. I know how to avoid having intrusive metro apps popping up. I no longer care if the start menu comes back or not. It's all still there. It actually seems to perform quite well. start up and shutdown times are decent. sleep when i close the lid seems to work. I'm through bitching and i just want to get on with my work. At this point, i'd rather it just stay the way it is.

Re:flame away, but... (2, Informative)

ClownPenis (1315157) | about 2 months ago | (#47148271)

You know. You are actually right. Interface aside the rest of the "shit behind the scenes", seems pretty good.

With an SSD in a new laptop it boots in about 3-4 seconds.

Re:flame away, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148277)

I received a windows 8 machine at work to fix some compatibility issues with my product. I bitched and moaned about how awful it was for a month. Then i let out a stream of periodic muffled profanities every time some weird unrequested interface took over my laptop from out of nowhere. Then months went by and i realized something:

Windows 8 is not really that bad. I know how to find all the stuffs now. I know how to shut it down. I know how to avoid having intrusive metro apps popping up. I no longer care if the start menu comes back or not. It's all still there. It actually seems to perform quite well. start up and shutdown times are decent. sleep when i close the lid seems to work. I'm through bitching and i just want to get on with my work. At this point, i'd rather it just stay the way it is.

Delusion, just as an addict is deluded in thinking his daily dose is good for him.
Windows 8 is shit, from top to bottom. There is no redeeming this pile of shit. Microsoft knows it. the rest of its userbase is just deluded in thinking it's good. After all if you're given shit to eat for months at a time, you'll end rationalising how good it is.

Re:flame away, but... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148307)

Windows 8 is shit, from top to bottom.

Then how come the only criticism ever levied against it is the UI? Performance? Better than 7. Stability? Better than 7. Security? Better than 7. System requirements? Better than 7. The only thing you can legitimately criticize are subjective components like the interface, which some people like myself actually *prefer* to the start menu.

Re:flame away, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148353)

Except for the system requirement of having a touch screen... if you try using Win 8 without a touch screen for long enough you'll smash the screen anyway.

Re:flame away, but... (1)

ohieaux (2860669) | about 2 months ago | (#47148491)

...if you try using Win 8 without a touch screen for long enough you'll smash the screen anyway.

I'm not sure about that. I have a Windows 8.1 laptop with a touch screen. I never use the touch screen.

Once I got a Start Menu replacement (Classic Shell) and disabled all but the most hidden ways to launch some Windows 8 full screen apps, I can use it quite productively as a real computer. Otherwise, it's a shiny tablet for watching videos and fumbling at fake screen keyboards with.

Besides, my Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 is a much better tablet.

Re:flame away, but... (1)

Rafael Jaimes III (3430609) | about 2 months ago | (#47148435)

Not true. It was also criticized for not having the same way to get into safe mode as previous versions and for having watered down BSODs. Regardless, "only interface criticism" is a pretty big one considering you can't use win8 without some apps hijacking the fullscreen or the stupid start screen hiding your desktop. For me it was easy to close stuff and shutdown with ALT+F4, but for those not as familiar with shortcuts it is pretty annoying to even shut windows 8 down. I never did find the power/restart button, I don't remember having this problem since even before windows 3.1.

Re:flame away, but... (3, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 months ago | (#47148319)

No flames here. For any new OS Microsoft craps out, there will be people forced for various reasons to try to live with it. That you managed to do so is more a credit to you than to Microsoft.

That said, the solution for me was a system restore to Windows 7, and Windows 8 goes back on the shelf until... 2015 I guess. But I can see where there are some cases where that isn't possible.

(And yes, I know there's third party solutions to many of Windows 8's issues... but like you, I have to get work done.)

Re:flame away, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148397)

If you have to "beat the UI into submission", it's not a good design.

And this much is obvious with windows 8...

Re:flame away, but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148433)

Stockholm Syndrome [wikipedia.org]

Re:flame away, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148557)

Stockholm Syndrome [wikipedia.org]

Exactly this. the only reason anyone likes the start menu is they're so used to it that they don't want to lean a new interface.

Windows 8 isn't objectively worse than Windows 7. It's UI is better on tablets, but it's largely a lateral move overall (they changed a bunch of stuff that as in arbitrary unintuitive places to new arbitrary unintuitive places).

Re:flame away, but... (0)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 2 months ago | (#47148459)

I made a post like this last year, but got modded down to hell for it. I agree though. Anyway, what gets me is it seems like a lot of people reflexively insist on a start menu like a toddler insists on his blanky. You have six year old's walking around clutching a blanket that they don't even use for anything other than its familiarity. The start menu thing feels the same. I work in IT and 95% of the people just open things from their desktop or taskbar. They use the start menu to log off, and that's it. And then they bitch about it being missing from Win 8. The thing is, Microsoft did actually research the start menu thing years ago, and found that most people truly don't use it much at all.

Re:flame away, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148509)

I know how to avoid having intrusive metro apps popping up.

You shouldn't have to learn how to avoid one of the main new "features" of an OS though. Other than that, I agree with you. Windows 8 is a really good OS under the hood that suffers from an absolutely horrible UI decision. Windows 8 with Start8 is a great combination, and I think MS could have avoided almost all of the criticism that they've received if they had given you the option of disabling the start screen and full screen Metro UI apps.

Re:flame away, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148547)

Stockholm Syndrome

Re:flame away, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148549)

I just got a new Surface Pro with windows 8 still on it. I have to update everything before I can get 8.1. But the darn thing won't update, it keeps finding errors and reverting the changes ('Don't turn off your computer.") which takes hours. Windows 8 without the things 8.1 added is really unusable. And I can't update! How much sense does that make? Maybe I'll just return this tablet.

Ah ah ah ah this is comedy gold... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148231)

I pity all those suckers that bought into the Windows 8 narrative. Yeah yeah Microsoft did a mistake and they'll give their customers the start menu back. Ooops they forgot to tell their customers they have to spend more money to get Windows 9 and who know maybe Microsoft will fuck another thing up to make Windows 10 a best seller ?
The world is full of suckers, and most of them are on Windows.

Cancel Christmas (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 months ago | (#47148241)

HP and Dell announce revised Q4 revenue projections.

FTFY.... (3, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 months ago | (#47148249)

"Microsoft will not have a new desktop-appropriate operating system until 2015." Fixed that for you.

I'm not sure why they're doing this -- third party developers have proven it's easy to do.

Re:FTFY.... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47148327)

Maybe they realized that they were already making too much UI changes in Windows 8 and wanted to cool things down to not confuse people anymore.

Re:FTFY.... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 months ago | (#47148421)

Maybe they realized that they were already making too much UI changes in Windows 8 and wanted to cool things down to not confuse people anymore.

That's possible, but I'd argue that they stopped at the wrong place.

Re:FTFY.... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47148481)

I have to agree.

8.1 !=Start Menu.. Why Win8 was doomed... (1, Flamebait)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | about 2 months ago | (#47148253)

The Start Menu in 8.1 is crap. Most of the features that were in Win7's start menu don't exist in 8.1. Typical Microsoft, screwed up their "second" OS release:

Windows 3.1x (1992) - Good
Windows 95 (1995) - Mixed bag, at the beginning it sucked
Windows 98 (1998) - Good
Windows ME (2000) - Sucked (hard)
Windows XP (2001) - Good
Windows Vista (2006) - Sucked although not as hard as ME
Windows 7 (2009) - Good
Windows 8.x 2013 - FAIL
Windows 9 - ???

Re:8.1 !=Start Menu.. Why Win8 was doomed... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148279)

Windows XP (2001) - Good

And this is where all these "every other release" lists derail. Windows XP in 2001 was terrible. It wasn't until SP2 and arguable SP3 until it was usable. Prior to that it was a security nightmare. I mean, Slashdot at the time was ground zero for railing against XP and its "Fisherprice" interface. How do you people not remember this?

Re:8.1 !=Start Menu.. Why Win8 was doomed... (1)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | about 2 months ago | (#47148321)

Fair enough.... although from an NSA perspective, every single OS is hugely insecure.

Re:8.1 !=Start Menu.. Why Win8 was doomed... (2)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | about 2 months ago | (#47148299)

Before people say I forgot the server stuff... They did a little better here:

Windows NT 3.5 - Crap
Windows NT 3.51 - Useable
Windows NT 4 -- Good
Windows 2000 --- crap
Windows 2003 --- Good
Windows 2008 -- Good (after R2)
Windows 2012 -- judgement still out

Re:8.1 !=Start Menu.. Why Win8 was doomed... (3, Informative)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47148371)

Windows 2000 is crap? It's one of the golden releases, in my opinion the best one after 7.

Re:8.1 !=Start Menu.. Why Win8 was doomed... (0)

iggymanz (596061) | about 2 months ago | (#47148375)

Windows 2012 beta has the Windows 8 interface, it sucks shitty goat balls with rusty braces.

Re:8.1 !=Start Menu.. Why Win8 was doomed... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148415)

Your lists are terrible anyway. Win2000 came between ME and XP as a desktop release and was not terrible and trying to pigeon hole it in to a "Server" list like it wasn't a regular desktop release as well just makes you look uninformed.

Re:8.1 !=Start Menu.. Why Win8 was doomed... (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 2 months ago | (#47148427)

I used to run WinNT 4.0and Win 2000 (Abit BP6 dual Celeron 266 MHz o/c 550 MHz) as my primary desktop.

Both were good. Us game developers would typically use Win2000 to develop Win95/Win98 games until we switched over to Windows XP. (Some would argue that WinXP sucked until SP3.)

Re:8.1 !=Start Menu.. Why Win8 was doomed... (1)

fnj (64210) | about 2 months ago | (#47148471)

Windows NT and 2000 were NOT "server". 9x and Me literally did not even exist as far as I was concerned. I was happily using NT and 2000. Yeah, on the desktop.

Re:8.1 !=Start Menu.. Why Win8 was doomed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148543)

NT 4 was a backstep from 3.5 and 3.51, since then every release of the server line is only better than the previous, 2012 R2 is the best Windows to date (including the client line) .

Re:8.1 !=Start Menu.. Why Win8 was doomed... (1)

rsborg (111459) | about 2 months ago | (#47148401)

Any list that leaves out Win98SE (the only really decent Win9X) and Win2000 (took me a while to move to XP) isn't valid.

Re:8.1 !=Start Menu.. Why Win8 was doomed... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148411)

The Start Menu in 8.1 is crap. Most of the features that were in Win7's start menu don't exist in 8.1. Typical Microsoft, screwed up their "second" OS release:

Windows 3.1x (1992) - Good
Windows NT 4 RTM - Mixed
Windows 95 RTM (1995) - Mixed bag, at the beginning it sucked
Windows 95a - Crap
Windows 95b - Good
Windows 98 (1998) - BAD
Windows 98 SE - Good
Windows 2000 RTM (1999) - Mixed
Windows 2000 SP2+ - Good
Windows ME (2000) - Sucked (hard)
Windows XP RTM-SP1 (2001) - BAD!!!!
Windows XP SP2+ - Good
Windows Vista (2006) - Sucked although not as hard as ME
Windows 7 (2009) - Good
Windows 8.x 2013 - FAIL
Windows 9 - ???

FTFY

Why your pattern is a load of nonsense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148425)

NT 3.5 - new operating system
NT 4 - ok OS with great new UI. Improved over time with service packs
Windows 2000 - ok OS. Improved with service packs
XP - ok OS with ugly new UI that can be turned off and improved greatly with service packs
Vista - plauged by third party driver issues and sold with inadequate hardware at launch and another ugly UI that can be turned off. Improved with service packs.
7 - good but same ugly UI as before with added "ribbons". All features of old UI can be restored with third party applications.
8 - ok OS ruined by complete paradigm shift in UI. Usable with third party applications

Re:8.1 !=Start Menu.. Why Win8 was doomed... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 months ago | (#47148465)

3.1 wasn't good, people just didn't know what a GUI OS could really do.
Windows 95, stunk too.
Windows 98, Combined the stinkiness of 95, with a web browsers embedded just to kill netscape, however
Windows ME, Failed in some hardware support, made people deal with windows 98 for compatibility.
Windows XP, Got better as it used the NT Kernel. However it did break a lot of compatibility of the old DOS programs, and no one really liked the Phiser Price colors.
Vista, Driver Compatibility problems yet again. Took way too long to release, people got use to XP, saw no reason to upgrade. Too Little Too late.
Windows 7. Finally an OS that has all the features promised in us for Windows 95!
Windows 8. OMG IT IS DIFFERENT! We finally liked Windows 7... However the desktop is a slowing market so it needed a more touch friendly Interface. However I haven't ran into any stability or driver issues yet. It is just the new Interface needs to be cleaned up.

It for the most part isn't about getting a good OS, just that when we get an OS we can normally keep it for 2 versions, after the second version enough is different for you to upgrade.

Re:8.1 !=Start Menu.. Why Win8 was doomed... (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 2 months ago | (#47148499)

Not sure why you are merging Windows NT in that list.

You missed Win95B, and Win98SE, amongst others. A *complete* 16-bit list is:

* Windows 1.0
* Windows 2.0
* Windows 2.1
* Windows 3.0
* Windows 3.1
* Windows 3.11
* Windows for Workgroups 3.1
* Windows for Workgroups 3.11
* Windows 95
* Windows 95B
* Windows 98
* Windows 98SE
* Windows Me

But yeah, every second major release was usually good (or bad.)

Do we need it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148255)

I have always been a person that used the search bar and loved it but by 2015 it will be long gone and forgotten!

I wrote blog like this on my page http://69social.co.uk a months a go and we got a good discussion on their

Re:Do we need it? (1)

ClownPenis (1315157) | about 2 months ago | (#47148343)

I bet you have a good discussion on "their".
DownMod Parent SPAM

who needs the user anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148289)

User interfaces are the battlegrounds in which the bogus microsoft corporate "warriors" do battle with each other to see who can be the captain of the sinking ship

Will not purchase laptop without Start Menu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148293)

Microsoft needs to listen to their customers and bring back the start menu that was removed in Windows 8's beta period.

My was planning to replace my 5-years-old laptop later this year, but it looks I will be waiting until next spring. My current laptop does everything I need, but slower than newer laptops. There really isn't a need for me to replace my laptop other than to get one with USB 3.0 and an IPS screen.

Re:Will not purchase laptop without Start Menu (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47148419)

Microsoft needs to listen to their customers and bring back the start menu that was removed in Windows 8's beta period.

What bothers me is that they extensively gathered user feedback during the two free-to-test Windows 8 preview versions and they still stubbornly went with the clunky Start Screen. I guess the pressure to reinvent things to have something new to sell was so high.

Stop with the fucking Start Button bullshit. (2)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | about 2 months ago | (#47148297)

Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 have faced a boat load of criticism and hatred, partly due to the removal of the Start button and Start menu.

Start Menu. A button is just a fucking button and only necessary to show you where to click. That's how the majority of 8's blatant mistakes with all the hold mouse here, charms bar, and other nonsense.

Re:Stop with the fucking Start Button bullshit. (1, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47148365)

Hey, let's hold off on that negativity. Let's talk about the positives here. Like HIV positive, because windows 8 is AIDS.

mod d0wn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148325)

KNiggeBrs everywhere

Who needs it anyways (3, Informative)

penguinoid (724646) | about 2 months ago | (#47148329)

Who needs the most used button anyways?

I don't understand (5, Interesting)

xfizik (3491039) | about 2 months ago | (#47148333)

One thing about Microsoft that I don't understand is its seeming slowness at doing simple things. OK, everyone agrees there has to be a Start Menu, it is not hard to implement (see lots of 3rd party apps doing just that), it will not break any existing Windows functionality, MS has virtually unlimited highly skilled resources, yet this obvious simple improvement takes months (if not years) to release. Let alone the fact that this problem should never have existed in the first place.

b/c 'Branding'_should have given user option (0)

globaljustin (574257) | about 2 months ago | (#47148493)

yes.

the "start menu" could be a top 5 Microsoft Case Study into Awful Business Choices (clippy, metro, 'automatic updates', Zune, or tell me your favorite)

assuming the use of a button labeled "start" on the desktop, here's what M$ should have done the whole time:

by default, put it where they think is best...where their "vision" tells them

give user option to remove it, or move it, or make it bigger or smaller, or edit the text...

in the standard Control Panel area...of course you can eventually find a way to hack this, but obviously I mean put it in Control Panel

I cannot stress enough that this is ***basic human/computer interaction design***....it's in colloquial language, but everyone who does any design work has heard of Ben Shneiderman's 8 Rules for Interface design [washington.edu]

M$ kept the Start menu because some idiots in marketing were trying to justify their existence

I know that M$ had employees who were/are as apoplectic as I am about design choices like the Start Menu...

So the answer to "how" is this: bad business structure that gives decision power for technical questions to non-technical people and in general is built from the ground up to resist institutional change even if it is change that improves

Re:I don't understand (1)

fnj (64210) | about 2 months ago | (#47148495)

Do you get that they are stupid bastards yet?

You can indeed buff a turd to a high gloss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148349)

But at the end of the day it's still gonna be a turd.

And the longer it sits around being a turd, the less anyone wants to be in a room with it - shiny or not.

Re:You can indeed buff a turd to a high gloss (1)

fnj (64210) | about 2 months ago | (#47148507)

First you have to dry and age it for a long time.

Re:You can indeed buff a turd to a high gloss (1)

chipschap (1444407) | about 2 months ago | (#47148519)

And people actually pay good money for this. Unfortunately if I want a new laptop, I too have to pay for it, even though the first thing I'll do is get rid of it and install Linux.

While we're on the subject... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148359)

While we're recovering options lost...

RESTORE EDLIN!!!

Not just the Start Menu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148373)

They're bringing the BSOD back, too.

I am using Windows 8 (5, Informative)

eieken (635333) | about 2 months ago | (#47148391)

And I can't do it without Classic Shell. Classic Shell [classicshell.net] , making Windows 8 Bearable.

Re:I am using Windows 8 (1)

Akaihiryuu (786040) | about 2 months ago | (#47148535)

Indeed...Classic Shell removes all the suck from Windows 8 and makes it act like Windows 7, while keeping the "under the hood" improvements that Windows 8 has for CPU scheduling.

Re:I am using Windows 8 (1)

ClownPenis (1315157) | about 2 months ago | (#47148559)

Is "Classic Shell" like "Classic Coke"?
Or is that more like Norton Desktop for Windows?


http://toastytech.com/guis/ndwfolder.png [toastytech.com]

Trends (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148403)

Those of us who have been supporting Windows for a long time should recognize the trend by now. Only every other release is targeted to business/power users. Our upgrade path looked like this:

Windows 98 -> SKIP Windows ME -> Windows XP -> SKIP Windows Vista -> Windows 7 -> SKIP Windows 8 -> Windows 9

It works out quite well because we only have to do a major update once every 5 years or so. I expect businesses and IT shops will go straight from 7 to 9 and love it.

third party developers rejoice. (0)

steak (145650) | about 2 months ago | (#47148413)

all those companies selling alternative start menus can continue making money.

Smart business move. (1)

Larry_Dillon (20347) | about 2 months ago | (#47148475)

What a great way to make sure Windows 9 sells like hotcakes!

1. Remove a well-loved feature from a system with sufficient vendor-lock in.
2. Only provide the feature in a paid upgrade
3. Profit!

Is this a patentable business model?

Re:Smart business move. (1)

Nkwe (604125) | about 2 months ago | (#47148515)

Is this a patentable business model?

Prior art: New Coke.

Windows is now like Star Trek (0)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 2 months ago | (#47148485)

Only the odd numbered ones are any good.

Actually, who am I kidding? It's all shit.

Re:Windows is now like Star Trek (3, Funny)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 2 months ago | (#47148527)

Also, only the even Star Trek is good. Fuck it, this analogy is collapsing faster than a... something something.

what about every 2nd windows being garbage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47148505)

If pattern follows we'll all think windows 9 is great.

I really hope it doesn't and this marks the beginning of the fall of the titan

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...