Microsoft Explains Why the Start Menu Needed to Die(pcmag.com)
pcmag.com
Microsoft Explains Why the Start Menu Needed to Die
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2394101,00.asp#fbid=STAXx2f_Lig
16 comments
I don't know about you guys but what I took out of that article is that Microsoft is secretly/stealthily tracking its users? How do they know if someone is using the start bar "11 percent less than before"? Not only that, it goes on to even say:
Instead of navigating through the nested menus within Start, or even searching for apps and documents through the live search function, users began to pin apps to the Start menu or the taskbar for even quicker access. Microsoft data found that most users (above 40 percent) didn't pin a single app to the Start menu, with steadily declining numbers pinning 1 (20 percent), 2 (15 percent), and so on.
It doesn't say anywhere in the article that it was a focus/user group and it sounds like it was generalized to refer to every Windows user so how did they collate all of those data? Shouldn't someone be raising some privacy concerns?
Disclaimer: I've not used Windows since XP. I'm a *nix user.
Instead of navigating through the nested menus within Start, or even searching for apps and documents through the live search function, users began to pin apps to the Start menu or the taskbar for even quicker access. Microsoft data found that most users (above 40 percent) didn't pin a single app to the Start menu, with steadily declining numbers pinning 1 (20 percent), 2 (15 percent), and so on.
It doesn't say anywhere in the article that it was a focus/user group and it sounds like it was generalized to refer to every Windows user so how did they collate all of those data? Shouldn't someone be raising some privacy concerns?
Disclaimer: I've not used Windows since XP. I'm a *nix user.
Windows has opt-in telemetry data. Many of their product do too. So there is some bias to those that opt-in, but I've heard that they still get tens of millions of user data.
Ok, makes sense. thanks for that ken.
I feel old when I say this, but: most Microsoft changes make me angry. I don't understand why my desktop path needs to be changed 3 times between ME -> XP -> 7 (for example).
With that being said, I found W7 to be pretty intuitive. I don't use the start menu for much other than quick access to programs that I don't want to clutter. The start menu is on the corner, and easy to click. It's easy to de-click if I need to, and I don't need to minimize anything to access it. This will be a sad day.
With that being said, I found W7 to be pretty intuitive. I don't use the start menu for much other than quick access to programs that I don't want to clutter. The start menu is on the corner, and easy to click. It's easy to de-click if I need to, and I don't need to minimize anything to access it. This will be a sad day.
I hear you: the UI is shuffled each time, but it still seems to run slow and complicated, and programming windows is ... more work than I care to take on, if there is an alternative. (this from somebody who had been using DOS / Novell / Windows / Borland dev stuff for about 10 years before ever picking up Linux -- MS totally lost me just before the underwhelming release of '95)
I'm a bit scared and annoyed of this new interface. I use the start menu such an incredible amount that having it bring up an entire new screen would undoubtedly interrupt a lot of the workflows I'm used to.
It seems everyone is converging on mobile, as if it's going to replace the desktop. It's not. Desktop will always be here, and to pretend it's going away and force tablet interfaces down everyone's throat is a pretty bold/stupid move in my opinion. Then again, I'm biased because I'm not a complete moron when it comes to computers. Maybe 99% of the market will LOVE not having a start menu.
Is my monitor a touch screen? No. So let's not pretend it is. I don't care about pretty interfaces or big video buttons that play when I hover over them. I want something I can launch programs with. Is it really hard to do something like
if(is_computer) { show_useful_start_menu(); } else if (is_tablet) { show_retarded_start_menu(); }
I understand I'm the minority, but if they do away with the start menu, I'll probably stay on windows 7 forever.
It seems everyone is converging on mobile, as if it's going to replace the desktop. It's not. Desktop will always be here, and to pretend it's going away and force tablet interfaces down everyone's throat is a pretty bold/stupid move in my opinion. Then again, I'm biased because I'm not a complete moron when it comes to computers. Maybe 99% of the market will LOVE not having a start menu.
Is my monitor a touch screen? No. So let's not pretend it is. I don't care about pretty interfaces or big video buttons that play when I hover over them. I want something I can launch programs with. Is it really hard to do something like
if(is_computer) { show_useful_start_menu(); } else if (is_tablet) { show_retarded_start_menu(); }
I understand I'm the minority, but if they do away with the start menu, I'll probably stay on windows 7 forever.
I've been using the Windows 8 Developer Preview for a while now as the primary OS on my laptop, and I've been primarily working on the desktop view (well, given that there's essentially not many Metro apps available).
Once I got used to the Start screen I've found it okay to use. I had initial concerns that the constant transition away might be jarring but turns out it's a non-issue. I've also found that the Start menu search in Windows 7 was quite slow, and that in W8 it's actually responsive!
Have you given the new interface a chance?
Once I got used to the Start screen I've found it okay to use. I had initial concerns that the constant transition away might be jarring but turns out it's a non-issue. I've also found that the Start menu search in Windows 7 was quite slow, and that in W8 it's actually responsive!
Have you given the new interface a chance?
Doesn't it matter what they ultimately replace it with? To me the Start menu seems like a clumsy catchall from a bygone era when people were still transitioning from DOS. It's grown bloated over the years and it's original design purpose is long gone. Yes, you use it all the time, because there's so much essential stuff crammed in there, but can't you imagine something better?
Sadly, "Program Manager" was better.
Desktop will always be here
If Microsoft and Apple have their way, desktops will only be for developers and "professionals". The mobile transition allows them to fix the bug that users can install software that interferes with their business plans, and without giving them a cut.
If Microsoft and Apple have their way, desktops will only be for developers and "professionals". The mobile transition allows them to fix the bug that users can install software that interferes with their business plans, and without giving them a cut.
Well goody for them. As a professional developer I'd like my OS without a start menu that takes up the entire screen, thanks.
Oh who am I kidding, my Windows OS is a games launcher and web browser these days, and nothing more. I don't mind how retarded Microsoft and Apple want to get, what concerns me is Canonical and their "me too" attitude with regard to stupid design decisions.
Oh who am I kidding, my Windows OS is a games launcher and web browser these days, and nothing more. I don't mind how retarded Microsoft and Apple want to get, what concerns me is Canonical and their "me too" attitude with regard to stupid design decisions.
Oh dear. I remember using Winders 3.0/3.1. They had this thing call "Pogrom Manager" (or something like that). In it, you could make a bunch of little boxes, each of which held several things you could click on and run. It was actually fairly useful, when you weren't just using winders to switch between mess-doss apps. (and frankly, Dr. Dos did a good enough job app switching if you weren't actually running any gooey apps)
Then, out came winders 95 with its fancy pants "start" menu, and some Rolling Stones song about making a grown man cry, or at least some part of that song. I didn't really like the start menu, too much chasing things down multiple levels of moving targets.
So now, start menu will die. Die, start menu, die. Only to be replaced with something that looks much like Pogrom Manager, only with more pixels and bits per pixel to dress it up nice. Just goes to show you the MicroSlop can admit a mistake, even if the mistake is old enough to get a driver's license.
Then, out came winders 95 with its fancy pants "start" menu, and some Rolling Stones song about making a grown man cry, or at least some part of that song. I didn't really like the start menu, too much chasing things down multiple levels of moving targets.
So now, start menu will die. Die, start menu, die. Only to be replaced with something that looks much like Pogrom Manager, only with more pixels and bits per pixel to dress it up nice. Just goes to show you the MicroSlop can admit a mistake, even if the mistake is old enough to get a driver's license.
I somewhat agree with Microsoft, but if, and only if, they provide another easy way to run commands and see all other applications...
Either way, I think Windows 7 is too different from Windows 98 to ever go mainstream. People just want a better looking Windows 98.
EDIT: Meant Windows 8, not 7
EDIT: Meant Windows 8, not 7
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses". (Not) Henry Ford. The sentiment still applies.
Or are you saying that already?
Or are you saying that already?
The problem with catering to the market that wants a better looking Windows 98 is there is no growth potential. Sure Microsoft would still make a lot of money, like they have with Windows 7, but the the entire PC market has weak growth forecasts so they cannot rely on x% growth in PCs to grow their sales.
I actually found one change to the Start Menu the enabling change for me: Typing the name of something and (often) just getting the application that I wanted to start. Just saying what I want and let the machine to the finding for me just feels like the way things should be done to me.
I'm finding it hard to believe that people are actually pinning infrequently used things like the Control Panel to the task bar or is there another way to access it that I don't know of? Isn't that leading to visual clutter? Users never cease to amaze me.
I'm finding it hard to believe that people are actually pinning infrequently used things like the Control Panel to the task bar or is there another way to access it that I don't know of? Isn't that leading to visual clutter? Users never cease to amaze me.
I actually found one change to the Start Menu the enabling change for me: Typing the name of something and (often) just getting the application that I wanted to start. Just saying what I want and let the machine to the finding for me just feels like the way things should be done to me.
> So they ripped off OSX Spotlight (which stole it from Quicksilver/etc) - I've used spotlight to launch apps with 3-4 keyclicks since forever:
OSX: CMD+space,Fir<return> = Launch Firefox and Win7: WINkey, Fir <return> = Launch Firefox
> So they ripped off OSX Spotlight (which stole it from Quicksilver/etc) - I've used spotlight to launch apps with 3-4 keyclicks since forever:
OSX: CMD+space,Fir<return> = Launch Firefox and Win7: WINkey, Fir <return> = Launch Firefox
Control panel has the Display widget embedded within it. I seem to frequently need to adjust that on laptops with various external monitors.
What I will be missing if the start menu goes away is the usability of it being there een if I am running something in full screen. I know that I can take my mouse to lower right corner and minimize everything and start typing to find what I want but its just the visual feedback I get from the start menu is very reassuring.
How would it work if I don't remember the nname of that new program that I installed 3 months ago and never really used it since.
How would it work if I don't remember the nname of that new program that I installed 3 months ago and never really used it since.
I actually found the Start menu incredibly useful in Windows 7. Admittedly it was a usage pattern they indicated: I would pin commonly used apps to the Start Menu and would rarely if ever open up beyond that.
I would also use the auto-complete to find things as a second (distant) use case.
One thing that always annoyed me about the Start Menu was how companies would use it. For example, shortcuts notwithstanding I would have to go:
Start > Programs > Firaxis > Civilization IV > Civilization IV Beyond the Sword
The part that really annoyed me was putting the company name in there. I don't care. In fact it may not even be obvious who the company is that makes something you want to use.
I actually bought a copy of Windows 7 retail version for the explicit purpose of using it from computer to computer for years to come, probably in XP-like time frames (ie 5-10 years).
Microsoft needs to realize that these infrequent expensive upgrades (largely for features nobody cares about) are a decade out of date.
Honestly, there's still nothing wrong with XP. Microsoft just went out of their way to kill it by deliberately not supporting it with things they definitely could've. One of the great things about XP was the low resource requirements (minimum 128M of RAM). IIRC 64-bit Windows 7 is at 2GB minimum now. For what exactly?
I would also use the auto-complete to find things as a second (distant) use case.
One thing that always annoyed me about the Start Menu was how companies would use it. For example, shortcuts notwithstanding I would have to go:
Start > Programs > Firaxis > Civilization IV > Civilization IV Beyond the Sword
The part that really annoyed me was putting the company name in there. I don't care. In fact it may not even be obvious who the company is that makes something you want to use.
I actually bought a copy of Windows 7 retail version for the explicit purpose of using it from computer to computer for years to come, probably in XP-like time frames (ie 5-10 years).
Microsoft needs to realize that these infrequent expensive upgrades (largely for features nobody cares about) are a decade out of date.
Honestly, there's still nothing wrong with XP. Microsoft just went out of their way to kill it by deliberately not supporting it with things they definitely could've. One of the great things about XP was the low resource requirements (minimum 128M of RAM). IIRC 64-bit Windows 7 is at 2GB minimum now. For what exactly?
When Windows XP was released, the newest Mac computers were the Power Mac G4, the PowerBook G4, and the white iBook G3. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh#History)
The iBook shipped in only one model, with 128MB of RAM. The PowerBook G4 started at 128MB of RAM and topped out at 256MB of RAM. The Power Mac G4 started at 128MB of RAM and topped out at 512MB of RAM.
The smallest amount of memory you can get on a Mac nowadays is 2GB, and you would've had to buy an entirely new computer at least once to get Lion running in the intervening time.
(Whereas, if you didn't buy a new computer since Windows XP came out, you could run the 32-bit version just fine with 1GB of RAM.)
Methinks you doth protest too much about expensive upgrades.
The iBook shipped in only one model, with 128MB of RAM. The PowerBook G4 started at 128MB of RAM and topped out at 256MB of RAM. The Power Mac G4 started at 128MB of RAM and topped out at 512MB of RAM.
The smallest amount of memory you can get on a Mac nowadays is 2GB, and you would've had to buy an entirely new computer at least once to get Lion running in the intervening time.
(Whereas, if you didn't buy a new computer since Windows XP came out, you could run the 32-bit version just fine with 1GB of RAM.)
Methinks you doth protest too much about expensive upgrades.
Incidentally, the total upgrade price from Windows XP to Windows 7 Home Premium is $109 at Amazon right now, and to Windows 7 Ultimate it's $171.(http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dap...)
By comparison, OS X 10.1 was the latest version of OS X available at XP RTM. OS X 10.2 would've set you back $129, 10.4 another $129, 10.6 another $30, and 10.7 another $30. (I don't believe that you can skip OS X release-level updates, but I'm not a Mac user, so I don't know; if you can, feel free to correct me.) Even if you magically bought a computer in 2001 which would still run Lion today, you would've spent $310 on OS upgrades, for a period of time for which upgrading Windows cost less than half as much.
By comparison, OS X 10.1 was the latest version of OS X available at XP RTM. OS X 10.2 would've set you back $129, 10.4 another $129, 10.6 another $30, and 10.7 another $30. (I don't believe that you can skip OS X release-level updates, but I'm not a Mac user, so I don't know; if you can, feel free to correct me.) Even if you magically bought a computer in 2001 which would still run Lion today, you would've spent $310 on OS upgrades, for a period of time for which upgrading Windows cost less than half as much.
You can skip OS X release-level updates (they mostly aren't updates, just full installs), so it doesn't make sense to compare a leap from XP to 7 against upgrading a Mac to every release along the way.
hm, OK. in that case, I'll give Apple the benefit of the doubt and say that if 10.1 and 10.7 could possibly run on the same computer (since 10.1 was PPC-only, and 10.6 and 10.7 are x86-only), they'd let you upgrade directly for $30. thanks for the clarification. :)
(though, I'd still argue, an extra $70 per decade is not exactly breaking the bank.)
(though, I'd still argue, an extra $70 per decade is not exactly breaking the bank.)
I don't know about the overall upgrade pricing for OSX, but if you wanted to go from 10.4 to 10.6, they required you to buy the full suite with iLife and all for $129 or whatever it was. $30 upgrades are only supported if you upgrade every time.
Although not officially supported - it works - I upgraded straight from 10.4 - 10.6 last month.
This is only true if you want to have iLife. I personally don't use iLife, didn't when I was on 10.4, and upgraded to 10.6 from 10.4 for $30.
The point is that Apple has made the switch to lower cost OS upgrades while Microsoft has not.
But then again, Apple has the benefit of being in control of the hardware, which makes up the lion's (haha) share of their revenue.
But then again, Apple has the benefit of being in control of the hardware, which makes up the lion's (haha) share of their revenue.
yeah, Microsoft's main competitive shortcoming against Apple in desktop strategy is twofold:
- Apple can let OS X be its loss leader, whereas Microsoft doesn't have a thing to let Windows be a loss leader for (the Windows Store, maybe, post-8?)
- breaking backward compatibility hurts Microsoft's sales, since there's no single source of application updates, and since so many Windows licenses are in the enterprise; it doesn't affect Apple's sales (maybe even helps them) because it sells shiny new Macs for shiny new features and because Apple doesn't live or die on OS X revenue.
its saving grace is that retail sales of Windows licenses are probably dominated by people refreshing their computers.
- Apple can let OS X be its loss leader, whereas Microsoft doesn't have a thing to let Windows be a loss leader for (the Windows Store, maybe, post-8?)
- breaking backward compatibility hurts Microsoft's sales, since there's no single source of application updates, and since so many Windows licenses are in the enterprise; it doesn't affect Apple's sales (maybe even helps them) because it sells shiny new Macs for shiny new features and because Apple doesn't live or die on OS X revenue.
its saving grace is that retail sales of Windows licenses are probably dominated by people refreshing their computers.
Microsoft provides free updates in the form of service packs rather than calling it a new version.
That's a charitable interpretation of their inability to ship for most of the 00s.
Service packs have been there before and even after 00s.
OS X has free sub-point releases. What's your point?
I actually found the Windows 7 Start Menu killed a primary bit of usability that I'd been relying on: The ability to have folders of links in the start menu.
I use nearly 20 programs on a regular basis, and another 20 I use occasionally and would like the be able to find without digging through the Program Files menu, and I don't want to clutter the task bar with all of them. The way I have it set up in six folders on the top of the Start Menu (NOT inside "Programs", but above Programs), I can pull any of them up with a Ctrl-Esc and few hits of the arrow keys.
The text search feature works great when you can remember the name of the app you're looking for. My brain doesn't always work that way, though. Since I have the various apps sorted by category, I don't have to look through more than about 6 at a time to find the one I need.
I'm actually using a "Classic Windows Start Menu" app that replaces the new Windows 7 Start Menu with one that behaves the way I've come to depend on.
Until I found the Classic Start Menu app, I was getting stuck on the search line a lot, trying to remember what some tool was called. No fun.
I use nearly 20 programs on a regular basis, and another 20 I use occasionally and would like the be able to find without digging through the Program Files menu, and I don't want to clutter the task bar with all of them. The way I have it set up in six folders on the top of the Start Menu (NOT inside "Programs", but above Programs), I can pull any of them up with a Ctrl-Esc and few hits of the arrow keys.
The text search feature works great when you can remember the name of the app you're looking for. My brain doesn't always work that way, though. Since I have the various apps sorted by category, I don't have to look through more than about 6 at a time to find the one I need.
I'm actually using a "Classic Windows Start Menu" app that replaces the new Windows 7 Start Menu with one that behaves the way I've come to depend on.
Until I found the Classic Start Menu app, I was getting stuck on the search line a lot, trying to remember what some tool was called. No fun.
Just an FYI. You can create a folder and place multiple folders of links into that folder. Then create a toolbar on the taskbar pointing to that folder. Then reduce the toolbar to the smallest possible size. You will find that you can now traverse the multiple folders of links by highlighting them. No need for any extra apps.
Did that. That was my first attempt at fixing this problem.
Doesn't work for me, since I can't get to it from the keyboard. If there's a keyboard shortcut to open it, then I never found it.
Doesn't work for me, since I can't get to it from the keyboard. If there's a keyboard shortcut to open it, then I never found it.
Exactly. I think Windows will have to do an awesome job at finding the tool for me. Because my mom and dad won't remember that the program that they use to view pictures is called irfanview.
you don't type "irfanview" into the start menu, you type "xmas pictures 1999" and click on the result.
> I would also use the auto-complete to find things as a second (distant) use case.
I launch programs and find files like this every day. I find it one of the most useful features of 7 vs earlier versions (though I skipped Vista so maybe it was there too).
I launch programs and find files like this every day. I find it one of the most useful features of 7 vs earlier versions (though I skipped Vista so maybe it was there too).
<i>Honestly, there's still nothing wrong with XP.</i>
There are a number of ways in which XP is objectively less secure than successor versions of Windows.
There are a number of ways in which XP is objectively less secure than successor versions of Windows.
That and a usability nightmare. Does anyone have a pleasant experience with the Wireless Connection manager in 2000/XP? I thought it was me until me less-than-super techy friend informed me that it plagued her and her mother and my technical father told me that he hated it with a passion as well.
To be fair, back then hardly anyone had WiFi.
> Windows 7 is at 2GB minimum now. For what exactly?
Multiple user logins is a big part of it. All editions of Windows 7 above Starter let an additional user log in when the machine is locked without disrupting the locked session. It's an expected usage pattern that a family of 4 to 6 users will often be all logged in at the same time.
The windowing environment for each user takes on the order of 50 to 100 MB, plus figure 200 - 400 MB for the programs each user is likely to run, and you can get to 2 GB pretty quick.
Multiple user logins is a big part of it. All editions of Windows 7 above Starter let an additional user log in when the machine is locked without disrupting the locked session. It's an expected usage pattern that a family of 4 to 6 users will often be all logged in at the same time.
The windowing environment for each user takes on the order of 50 to 100 MB, plus figure 200 - 400 MB for the programs each user is likely to run, and you can get to 2 GB pretty quick.
Would it be a crime to send the "background" login sessions to swap?
(I suspect that might be what's happening when the wife and kids swap between 3 or 4 sessions on one of the Ubuntu machines at home -- but Linux isn't dumping actual running programs out to swap as fast as possible to make room for the 500 MB Word doc you might open, either)
(I suspect that might be what's happening when the wife and kids swap between 3 or 4 sessions on one of the Ubuntu machines at home -- but Linux isn't dumping actual running programs out to swap as fast as possible to make room for the 500 MB Word doc you might open, either)
As far as windows and ram requirements, it is possible to install windows 7 on very low-end systems (even 128mb of ram) with some tricks. But aside from the novelty the utility is questionable. A 512mb stick of PC133 (the functional minimum for a Windows 7 32-bit installation) costs a mere $10 or less, which is a tiny fraction of the cost of buying Windows 7 itself. Setting the minimum requirement that "high" saves a good amount on testing, and it also ensures that customers don't end up with extremely underpowered machines (a problem that plagued the Windows Vista launch and led to law suits).
It's not entirely difficult to shoehorn Windows 7 onto such systems either, I suspect it's sort of designed that way, to ensure that the only people who do it are the people who know what they're doing and won't be disappointed by the results.
It's not entirely difficult to shoehorn Windows 7 onto such systems either, I suspect it's sort of designed that way, to ensure that the only people who do it are the people who know what they're doing and won't be disappointed by the results.
Deliberatly not supporting it? It takes developer time and thus money to continue supporting old software- and the older it gets the more it costs to support.
The developers were probably happy to see it go after working on it for 10 years, too.
The developers were probably happy to see it go after working on it for 10 years, too.
After getting hooked on a keyboard-based launcher like Launchy (http://launchy.net), I pretty much stopped using the Start menu entirely.
I can sort of see why they do it, and it might be good enough for many people, but it makes me think what happens to the rest of the programs. For example I have maybe 5-7 programs I use daily, but every now and then I might need another program. Do I need to clutter my desktop or go search the program files?
I'm not suprised startmenu lost usage in win7.
It is because in windows 7 they kindof made it less user friendly you must operate startmenu in small box in bottom left corner and not like before where you can expand menu on whole screen. and you can't change it to classic start menu.
Now will they kill the registry?
This makes sense to me. Many people, including myself, just dump icons on the desktop. Every time I open the start menu it seems like I am digging forever to find what I want.
I love that MSFT is building a UI in response to actual data, but something about these posts and the resulting UI seems cold and methodical.
Maybe it's just the writing style that's throwing me but the leap forward in a consumer facing OS that iOS delivered felt like a more organic process.
Reminds me of that quote from Jobs : "It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them."
As a result I wonder how much of Apple's process was reactionary from data / focus groups vs. from Steve / Ives "gut"
Maybe it's just the writing style that's throwing me but the leap forward in a consumer facing OS that iOS delivered felt like a more organic process.
Reminds me of that quote from Jobs : "It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them."
As a result I wonder how much of Apple's process was reactionary from data / focus groups vs. from Steve / Ives "gut"
And yet, to me at least, the Metro UI itself doesn't feel at all like the sort of result you would expect from a product designed by focus groups. As with the ribbon (which I'm also a fan of), it feels like they worked with focus groups to identify pain points, used genuine inspiration to come up with a design solution, then used more user testing to refine that solution.
Honestly, it feels like Apple has been playing it too safe with their UI work the last few years, while Microsoft is doing real innovation. (Hardware, of course, is an entirely different matter.)
Honestly, it feels like Apple has been playing it too safe with their UI work the last few years, while Microsoft is doing real innovation. (Hardware, of course, is an entirely different matter.)
I agree with your hardware comment, I wish PCs wouldn't look like Macs. So cold and austere. I hope with the ultra-lights, PC manufacturers start experimenting with alternative materials, like Asus did with their bamboo line.
I've also always wondered why the CPU isn't stuck on the back of the monitor where it can be provided with better airflow.
As far as the ribbon, I have to disagree, it seems such a hodgepodge to me, and though I like WP7, I don't think it has a warm inviting feel, it's just cool.
iOS always felt boring and cold to me.
I've also always wondered why the CPU isn't stuck on the back of the monitor where it can be provided with better airflow.
As far as the ribbon, I have to disagree, it seems such a hodgepodge to me, and though I like WP7, I don't think it has a warm inviting feel, it's just cool.
iOS always felt boring and cold to me.
> I've also always wondered why the CPU isn't stuck on the back of the monitor where it can be provided with better airflow.
That would result in increased latency between the CPU and the rest of the system. Put the the motherboard and memory on the laptop's monitor and it would start getting too top-heavy.
That would result in increased latency between the CPU and the rest of the system. Put the the motherboard and memory on the laptop's monitor and it would start getting too top-heavy.
I was suspecting something like that, though with the weight of laptops these days, I suspect the top heavy will become less of an issue. I'd guess HD,keyboard,trackpad and ports are the majority of the weight in the lower half.
the best feature of win7's start menu (desktop search) is still there in the win8 start screen, but I have to admit that accessing it with any frequency starts to feel a bit too alt-tabby
Yeah, it's like they have 2 OSes in there. I love the new "tablet UI", but it's jarring to have to switch "home" from one application to start another. They need to include have a search box in the traditional "desktop" somewhere.
Hit the Windows key, start typing - just like in Windows 7. The UI is different, but the results are the same.
For years, Microsoft jammed the Start Menu where it didn't belong (Windows CE), now they're stuffing a tablet interface where it doesn't belong.
I'm extremely suspicious of their interpretation of usage statistics. As a "power user" I habitually decline any offer to track my behavior. Also, as discussed in the previous article about Explorer changes, do the statistics speak to the number of people who choose other methods, or to the lack of UI discoverability? Clutter up the desktop of your freshly-bought PC with enough partner icons, and the Start Menu gets lost in a sea of visual information.
The new interface reminds me of the old app-launchers/menus in the pre-Windows days.
I'm extremely suspicious of their interpretation of usage statistics. As a "power user" I habitually decline any offer to track my behavior. Also, as discussed in the previous article about Explorer changes, do the statistics speak to the number of people who choose other methods, or to the lack of UI discoverability? Clutter up the desktop of your freshly-bought PC with enough partner icons, and the Start Menu gets lost in a sea of visual information.
The new interface reminds me of the old app-launchers/menus in the pre-Windows days.
They are looking at the change in usage, not the total usage. Your complaints would be more apt if they were just looking at data for a single release, rather than a trend across releases. If users are switching to another method, regardless of what it is, you can argue that this is a failing of the Start menu.
Are you sure that's the data they're basing all this on? Terribly unscientific for them, if so.
No, not at all. But that's the problem: to my knowledge, they haven't disclosed much about their methods of collecting data, nor how they've come up with their percentage numbers. Since Microsoft seems to be ruled by politics and pet projects, I'm extremely suspect of the objectivity of their statistical analysis.
Very similar to the New Explorer thing: most people don't use 80% of explorer menu features, so put them in the ribbon where they take up even more space.
I don't get this line of reasoning.