1. Yue Ling's Avatar
    Is the removal of Start menu a Windows 8 UI design flaw? Windows 8 got many criticisms since the release, included the removal of Start menu, this led to the release cottage industry of 3rd party Start menu programs. Microsoft fixed mistakes with Windows 8.1 and brought back the Start menu in Windows 10.
    03-17-2019 08:37 AM
  2. fatclue_98's Avatar
    Removing it was NOT a design flaw and putting it back in 8.1 WAS the mistake. The industry was moving toward touch displays and Windows 7 was not built for that. If there was a mistake it was not giving users the ability to choose which interface they wanted. Even now on W10 using “desktop” on a touch screen is not a desirable experience particularly if you have large fingers.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    03-17-2019 11:43 AM
  3. Yue Ling's Avatar
    Removing it was NOT a design flaw and putting it back in 8.1 WAS the mistake. The industry was moving toward touch displays and Windows 7 was not built for that. If there was a mistake it was not giving users the ability to choose which interface they wanted. Even now on W10 using “desktop” on a touch screen is not a desirable experience particularly if you have large fingers.
    What's wrong with the familiar Start menu that we've seen since Windows 95? Are you a touch user?

    Windows 8 UI is more focused on touchscreen than mouse. Also can't even boot directly to desktop (but you can use SkipMetroSuite to boot directly to desktop). In Windows 8.x era, most of users don't have a touchscreen. Most of users also ended up using 3rd party Start menu programs like Classic Shell. This led to the return of Start button in Windows 8.1. Windows 8.1 Update 1 released in April 2014 added Power and Search buttons next to user account name, direct boot to desktop taskbar can be shown up in Metro, title bar in Metro apps (for users who're not familiar with entire new UI).

    Starting from Windows 8.1, Microsoft trying to bring back anything users familiar.

    Windows 10 also brought back the familiar Start menu as a response to Windows 8 UI flaw, now apps can be windowed.
    03-18-2019 07:24 AM
  4. Yue Ling's Avatar
    Removing it was NOT a design flaw and putting it back in 8.1 WAS the mistake. The industry was moving toward touch displays and Windows 7 was not built for that. If there was a mistake it was not giving users the ability to choose which interface they wanted. Even now on W10 using “desktop” on a touch screen is not a desirable experience particularly if you have large fingers.
    I recommend you to read this article for Windows 8 and 10 UI comparison: https://www.pcgamer.com/windows-10-v...r-differences/
    03-18-2019 07:29 AM
  5. Golfdriver97's Avatar
    There really should have been either a choice upon set up as to whether to utilize a touch interface vs. non touch, or, have 2 different versions of the OS. A non touch on desktops without any kind of touch UI, and on tablets and touch enabled displays a touch version of the OS.
    Yue Ling likes this.
    03-18-2019 09:40 AM
  6. Ryujingt3's Avatar
    Removing it was actually a UI design choice, albeit a poor one.
    03-18-2019 09:43 AM
  7. fatclue_98's Avatar
    There really should have been either a choice upon set up as to whether to utilize a touch interface vs. non touch, or, have 2 different versions of the OS. A non touch on desktops without any kind of touch UI, and on tablets and touch enabled displays a touch version of the OS.
    That would’ve been too easy.
    Golfdriver97 likes this.
    03-18-2019 03:41 PM
  8. Yue Ling's Avatar
    There really should have been either a choice upon set up as to whether to utilize a touch interface vs. non touch, or, have 2 different versions of the OS. A non touch on desktops without any kind of touch UI, and on tablets and touch enabled displays a touch version of the OS.
    Windows 10 has separate desktop and tablet modes.
    03-18-2019 06:40 PM
  9. AgentTheGreat's Avatar
    Yes, it was a mistake. Look at it this way: you are the biggest OS maker in the world, and LITERALLY ZERO number of your 1 BILLION users are equipped with touchscreens. You decide, suddenly, that all the 1 BILLION devices should switch to a UI that is obviously made mostly for touch, downgrading the desktop - again, the only place where all these people are currently working - to an "app" on this touch UI.

    How stupid should one be to make SUCH an idiotic decision? It's not that hard to see why: Apple makes the iPad, you panic because you see people getting interested in touch devices, and make a frantic, stupid decision to destroy the workflow of all those users.

    And then there are those who are such fans of Microsoft that look at this obviously moronic decision and say "people don't like change". Fortunately Windows 8 - although a great OS for tablets - failed so hard that Microsoft had to give users back parts of Windows 7, even though they didn't manage to fully remedy the schism between touch and desktop UI's.

    I actually have suggestions on how Windows 10 can improve.
    Yue Ling likes this.
    03-19-2019 07:06 AM
  10. Golfdriver97's Avatar
    Windows 10 has separate desktop and tablet modes.
    True, but you were asking about 8. 8 was an all in touch UI environment.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    03-19-2019 08:21 AM
  11. sd4f's Avatar
    Windows 8 was adapting to the trends, and going in the direction that MS saw the future of computing.

    The big mistake it did was force it on the large swathes of users that didn't have hardware to capitalise on it. The simple fact that a lot of people had to google how to shut down the computer proved that point.

    It may have just been too early, but I think more importantly didn't allow people to keep on using the OS how they always had been used to. These sorts of changes are really annoying to people who couldn't care less about the OS, insofar as it just needed to allow them to do what they wanted to do.
    Yue Ling likes this.
    03-19-2019 09:00 AM
  12. AgentTheGreat's Avatar
    It may have just been too early...
    I keep hearing "people are change averse" and Windows 8 was "too early". That's not the case. There is no time frame in which desktop computers are entirely phased out into oblivion, and that makes Windows 8 purely and simply bad for its target audience and devices. With Windows 8 it wasn't a matter of time; it was a matter of a bad OS for the devices it was intended to run on.

    In other words there will never be a good time for Windows 8 on a desktop computer.
    03-19-2019 10:13 AM
  13. fatclue_98's Avatar
    I keep hearing "people are change averse" and Windows 8 was "too early". That's not the case. There is no time frame in which desktop computers are entirely phased out into oblivion, and that makes Windows 8 purely and simply bad for its target audience and devices. With Windows 8 it wasn't a matter of time; it was a matter of a bad OS for the devices it was intended to run on.

    In other words there will never be a good time for Windows 8 on a desktop computer.
    Wouldn’t a Surface tablet qualify as a desktop computer? It seems to me that a well designed touch interface would enhance the smaller screen of a Surface especially if users were to eschew the Type Cover. That was the intent of Windows 8, especially RT which came first.

    Not all Windows users are tied down to a monitor, keyboard and mouse. Windows 10 works great for that segment of the market, but there is a vast market share of people that would’ve preferred a touch-friendly UI. These boards are chock full of those types and they were quite vocal about it here a few years ago. We just quit b******g about it because it was to no avail. I’m in my mid-50s and I’m very open to change unlike what others view my age group as.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    03-19-2019 05:50 PM
  14. AgentTheGreat's Avatar
    Wouldn’t a Surface tablet qualify as a desktop computer? It seems to me that a well designed touch interface would enhance the smaller screen of a Surface especially if users were to eschew the Type Cover. That was the intent of Windows 8, especially RT which came first.

    Not all Windows users are tied down to a monitor, keyboard and mouse. Windows 10 works great for that segment of the market, but there is a vast market share of people that would’ve preferred a touch-friendly UI. These boards are chock full of those types and they were quite vocal about it here a few years ago. We just quit b******g about it because it was to no avail. I’m in my mid-50s and I’m very open to change unlike what others view my age group as.
    No, a Surface would be a 2-in-1. To say Windows 8 was intended to run on Surface is to ignore the 1 billion unequivocally desktop devices that got the update to Windows 8, and focus on a then nonexistent device category that later became the well known Surface line.
    Instead of thinking about how cool a handheld PC is, think about the hospital staff that rely on Windows to do their job. If Microsoft created a separate OS for those people they what you say would have been true, but that was not the case. Microsoft designated that the hospital staff have to use Windows 8 on their desktops.

    Also recognize that you were among a very small yet vocal minority who kept b****ng about it. The ratio of those who liked Windows 8 to those who didn't was whatever Surface managed to sell, to the whole planet of people using Windows to get work done.
    Yue Ling likes this.
    03-19-2019 06:17 PM
  15. fatclue_98's Avatar
    No, a Surface would be a 2-in-1. To say Windows 8 was intended to run on Surface is to ignore the 1 billion unequivocally desktop devices that got the update to Windows 8, and focus on a then nonexistent device category that later became the well known Surface line.
    Instead of thinking about how cool a handheld PC is, think about the hospital staff that rely on Windows to do their job. If Microsoft created a separate OS for those people they what you say would have been true, but that was not the case. Microsoft designated that the hospital staff have to use Windows 8 on their desktops.

    Also recognize that you were among a very small yet vocal minority who kept b****ng about it. The ratio of those who liked Windows 8 to those who didn't was whatever Surface managed to sell, to the whole planet of people using Windows to get work done.
    A 2-in-1 what? Vacuum cleaner, coffee maker, microwave? No, it’s a full-fledged x86-based computer running a desktop-class OS. It’s not an iPad and it’s not a Chromebook.

    I don’t know how well you know the medical field and the vertical environment within hospitals but many of them use Windows 2000 Professional with a heavy dose of fortification. Some larger organizations run Windows 7. Bad example for any modern OS.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    03-19-2019 06:57 PM
  16. Laura Knotek's Avatar
    A 2-in-1 what? Vacuum cleaner, coffee maker, microwave? No, it’s a full-fledged x86-based computer running a desktop-class OS. It’s not an iPad and it’s not a Chromebook.

    I don’t know how well you know the medical field and the vertical environment within hospitals but many of them use Windows 2000 Professional with a heavy dose of fortification. Some larger organizations run Windows 7. Bad example for any modern OS.
    This is spot on. I helped a doctor with some backup software for his medical records. He had Windows 2000.
    03-19-2019 09:39 PM
  17. AgentTheGreat's Avatar
    A 2-in-1 what? Vacuum cleaner, coffee maker, microwave? No, it’s a full-fledged x86-based computer running a desktop-class OS. It’s not an iPad and it’s not a Chromebook.

    I don’t know how well you know the medical field and the vertical environment within hospitals but many of them use Windows 2000 Professional with a heavy dose of fortification. Some larger organizations run Windows 7. Bad example for any modern OS.
    Surface is a 2-in-1 or a "hybrid" computer. Just like a laptop is a laptop computer, and is distinct from a desktop computer and a hybrid computer. The category is literally about where people physically put these devices and how they interact with them: "on top of a desk" or "on top of your lap". And the software needs to conform to that. The whole point of this question goes back to how people interact with the device and not its software architecture.
    This is so very obvious, isn't it? "X86" doesn't define "desktop". That's simply an internal hardware and software architecture and has nothing to do with the category of the device. You might as well call Atom-based phones "desktops" because they might have run some version of Windows and were based on the x86 architecture. I don't think I need to defend this point against anyone who knows device classes.

    The fact that hospitals don't use up-to-date software isn't an excuse. Microsoft clearly meant for those guys to upgrade to Windows 8. They expected people with serious jobs to get a disrupted workflow, and since the question here is whether that approach was wrong the answer is clearly yes. That was wrong.
    And hospitals were an example of a serious job. Almost all of the world is using Windows, and almost all of the world is on a desktop class device or a laptop running Windows, and in comparison almost none of them are using a 2-in-1 hybrid - which is another class of hardware.
    Last edited by AgentTheGreat; Yesterday at 11:18 AM.
    Yue Ling likes this.
    Yesterday 04:07 AM
  18. Ryujingt3's Avatar
    This is spot on. I helped a doctor with some backup software for his medical records. He had Windows 2000.
    It's scary how many mission or business critical systems still run seriously outdated versions of Windows. Hospitals are especially guilty of this.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    Yesterday 09:29 AM
  19. Yue Ling's Avatar
    Windows 8 was adapting to the trends, and going in the direction that MS saw the future of computing.

    The big mistake it did was force it on the large swathes of users that didn't have hardware to capitalise on it. The simple fact that a lot of people had to google how to shut down the computer proved that point.

    It may have just been too early, but I think more importantly didn't allow people to keep on using the OS how they always had been used to. These sorts of changes are really annoying to people who couldn't care less about the OS, insofar as it just needed to allow them to do what they wanted to do.
    A lot of people also ended up using 3rd party Start menu programs like Classic Shell and StartIsBack.

    Microsoft seems to think touchscreen is the future of PCs. But with Windows 8.1 update 1, Microsoft realized most of users don't have a touchscreen, you can see in
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    Yesterday 10:02 AM
  20. Ryujingt3's Avatar
    I got used to not having a Start menu pretty quick. It wasn't the be-all-and-end-all for me. I quite liked Windows 8 overall too.
    Today 09:40 AM

Similar Threads

  1. Clean up after your pets with $100 off the Eufy RoboVac 11C robot vacuum
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-17-2019, 08:20 AM
  2. Windows 10 UI tweaks and redesign
    By AgentTheGreat in forum Windows 10
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-17-2019, 03:58 AM
  3. We remember Atta Elayyan of MetroTube for Windows Phone
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-16-2019, 03:20 PM
  4. List of The Division 2’s bugs and launch issues
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-16-2019, 12:11 PM
  5. Rethink fashion with a refurbished Echo Look camera at the low price of $25
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-16-2019, 11:50 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD