Why would I want to start typing program names when I can just click on something?
People keep saying this and it makes no freaking sense whatsoever.
There is a reason we went from character based UI’s to graphical UI’s.
Maybe you can help us understand what the improvements are?
Note: typing in programs names is not one of them
The more programs you have installed the damned harder it is to find them in the start menu. If you are diligent about keeping your programs menu organized, sure it’s probably easier to click something. But I’m guessing most people don’t keep their program menu organized. It’s sooooo hard to find stuff by clicking through the menu. It really is.
The new start menu is pretty great - Pin the stuff you use the most, have a list of “most recently accessed” apps, and everything else is a very quick and reliable text search away.
Much easier than trying to tame the unwieldy programs menu of yore.
What was unwieldy about it?
Having multiple methods to organize/access programs makes sense and if someone wants to key in program names then great. But to remove one method in favor of keying in program names isn’t an improvement.
You could manage it to be nice and neat: Make folders for types of programs (photo editing, music, Internet…) then make sure that all programs went in to the right folders when you installed them. Change program folder names to match the program’s name and not the developer’s name. Delete extra items that programs felt the need to install in your menu.
This is usually how a clean install starts out.
After that, other users on your machine install programs that go every-which-where. You stop organizing things in to start menu folders. You don’t delete the extra weird stuff. While looking for a good free AVI splitter, you get 42 new entries in your start menu, none of which you really know what they are because they are names of little software companies you never heard of.
And then you stop letting apps add to your start menu because of the above nonsense, so when you want an app you have to find the program files folder (or is it the (x86) folder?) and remember the name of the company that wrote it so you can find the exe and run it.
The old menu was a clickable tree but it was pretty useless in the hands of the typical user who didn’t take careful steps to keep the tree manageable and useable.
Heck I consider myself an a-typical user with above-average skills and never in my time as a user have I ever been able to keep a start menu tidy. It’s just too much.
I love being able to forget about it now, and just type in some letters and find what I was looking for. It’s also easier to help someone else find an app when you can just tell them to type it in instead of guessing where the shortcut may have landed.
I’m sure your start menu was impeccably pruned but I’m pretty sure your experience was not the norm.
The fallacy you are making is that there is no reason it has to be one or the other. I absolutely agree with you that the start screen is a good idea. Once you go above a small number of programs pinned to the old start menu, it becomes easier to use the start screen.
But what you are missing is that the start screen doesn’t do everything. A few examples:
-Easier shutting down, restarting, etc.
-More space efficient recently opened docs/programs lists
-Start menu pinning still faster for the very few programs/folders you use most often, and can be used simultaneously with a program
-Jump lists
-More efficient for the (likely few) programs with complicated nesting structures
-Quick non-full-screen searches (so the searches can interact with other programs)
-Easier access to non-full-screen system work following a guide
Now the kicker: Microsoft retained taskbar pinning and desktop shortcuts. And they added a horrendous unblockable pop-up system that pops up on you even in non-Metro apps (something I believe they added late in development).
So it was never a question of “start screen” vs “start menu”. It was a question of “start screen AND start menu” vs “Stupid, archaic taskbar reliance, desktop shortcuts, and pop-ups.”
In short: Start screen good. Start menu good. Both together better. Killing the start menu in favor of strictly inferior taskbar options and pop ups bad.
I’d be surprised if most users used more than 10 programs or so on a regular basis. I know I don’t.
Neither do I. But I have more than 10 installed, which is why the tree menu is such a pain when you want to find that one random program you downloaded 4 years ago and last used in several months back. Nice and easy to type it in the app search thingy and have it pop right up instead of digging through a menu or the file system.
ZipperJJ:
Well, it’s even harder when the start screen is all “Bing” shortcuts, and you can’t find a single application (other than Internet Explorer) without right-clicking for a list of “All Apps” and then finding them in a big list that displays everything.
Mangetout, I see your point; but I’m not saying that you should embrace change just because it’s a change. However, you can’t hope to improve the product without changing it. I personally don’t think shirts need to be improved; but one made of pancakes might be fun. 
I’m just trying to argue that people don’t seem to have the concept of “let me try this, and see if I grow to like it better.” It’s like they don’t give it a fair chance. I don’t think you can use Win 8 for 15 minutes and fairly portray it as an abomination.
Why would I move my hand over to my mouse when my hands are already on my keyboard? The idea is to move away from physical input devices. The improvement IMHO is that the mouse brought the GUI to life. Using hand gestures is more intuitive than using a mouse. It’s the next step in GUI development. Think Minority Report where Tom Cruise was doing all that “cool” computer screen manipulation with his hands. That wouldn’t have looked nearly as cool if he was flipping things around with a mouse. Eventually the mouse will go away. Plus the reality is that I primarily use, let’s say 4 or 5 programs with daily regularity. I can have those easily set up on metro start screen so I can click them at will if necessary.
In that case it could be a benefit to type a program name.
In the case where your hand is on the mouse, just the opposite.
As I said, multiple methods is good, different people work differently. But removing one of those valid methods is not an improvement, it’s a loss of functionality.
Moving away from a physical input device is fine IF the replacement meets or exceeds the capabilities of the previous methods for all conditions. Touch interfaces do not currently even meet the capabilities of keyboards and mice in all cases, therefore it’s a little early to throw out the old.
Regarding the mouse going away: whether the pointer is your finger or a mouse it’s still a pointer. In a desktop/office environment, what advantages do you see to switching to your finger as a pointer?
Ok. But you do realize that the fact it works ok for you doesn’t actually say anything about how well it works for other people with other circumstances, right?
If you think Microsoft is going to return emphasis to the desktop, I think that you do not understand Microsoft’s strategy. They are doing all they can get away with in Win8 to push people away from the desktop. I suspect the desktop will be gone completely in Win9 (or whatever they call their next iteration), if they think they can force it on people through their OEM manipulation.
My take is that they’ve hitched their wagon to the WinRT approach. Their long-term goal is to require all software that runs on Windows to pass through their hands. They’ve seen Apple’s walled garden, and they wants it, precioussss.
I believe that is something called VAIO Gate. The link below explains how to disable it.
I don’t wish to set myself up as some kind of stick-in-the-mud Luddite - and it’s always important to recognise that the process that brought us to the place where we are currently comfortable was also called ‘change’.
However, I think history will record Windows 8 as one of Microsoft’s ‘bad’ releases.
Windows 98 was solid
Windows ME was rushed out of the door with a bunch of exciting new features, but the implementation was badly flawed
Windows XP was solid, and showed us how those new features could work in a stable OS
Windows Vista was rushed out the door with a new UI, security model and other great technical promises, but again, suffered badly in the real world
Windows 7 was solid, basically fulfilling all of the promises Vista made, then broke
Windows 8, IMO. is another get-this-OS-to-the-market-right-now release - containing an exciting new UI, software deployment model, etc, but I think it’s going to be the next version release where a refined, bedded-down and less painful to use implementation of these new features finds a proper home.
This isn’t just because it’s changed - it’s because it’s not mature yet.
<shrug> Maybe you’re right. In that case, though, it seems like they’ll alienate a large number of business users, where desktops - and desks are bread and butter.
Not everyone needs or wants a touch-focused UI, not everyone wants to work in a single, maximised window at a time, or to be interrupted by toolbars and panels that slide out unbeckoned.
I work in the IT department of an organisation with several thousand desktop users - it was hard enough coaxing them through the (comparatively smaller) changes from:
[ul]
[li]XP to Win7[/li][li]Office 2003 or 2000 to Office 2010[/li][/ul]
My (highly competent, I might add) colleagues are evaluating the impact Win8 would have in our workplace and at the moment, the plan looks like one or the other of:
[ul]
[li]Wait and see what Win9 looks like[/li][li]Virtualise our application environment as far as possible, and make the business desktop platform independent[/li][/ul]
I’m sure MS will do OK in the home consumer market with Win8 - through simple sales inertia if nothing else, but businesses still use a lot of arcane applications and systems - I don’t see these migrating to an app store any time soon.
I didn’t say that it was a good idea. In fact, I consider most ideas that come crawling out of Microsoft to fall somewhere in the terrible-to-outright-evil range. I think they’re seeing the lock-in they’ve held so comfortably for so many years erode as other companies crush them in mobile space, and are making a panicky attempt to fight it.
Got it - and I think I agree. I actually think Win8/Metro is quite nice for a phone or tablet - but I reckon they’re stiking too soon to expect people to abandon WIMP desktops, or to expect software vendors to adapt non-media-related business applications to fit into an arty, touchy-feely format.
I agree that it was a bad idea to try to force everyone on to a touch-oriented interface.
There will be a time (and we’re not far away from it IMO), where everyone will expect every display to respond to touch input. But that doesn’t mean in all contexts touch input will be primary.
Windows 8 on desktops should be much more keyboard and mouse friendly than it is. And of course it should be more multi-window friendly.
That said I don’t think it’s the turkey some here seem to suggest. The faster load times are noticeable.
And the layout has already become iconic: whenever you see an ad for a PC or laptop they’ll always show the Win8 start view now rather than a particular app or a wallpaper. So MS have got +1 style points for a change.
Also Win7 was overrated IMO. All the niggles that reviewers complained about with Vista are basically still there in Win7. But somehow in that latter OS they were forgiven.
(e.g. I’ve had just the same permissions problems in Win7 as Vista. I can be an Administrator, and the Owner (with Full Control) of the whole C drive and all subfolders, yet still get blocked from doing stuff because I’m not the admin).
I honestly don’t understand the hate for Vista. It’s what came with my laptop about five years ago, and I’ve never really had a problem with it.
UAC has been somewhat modified after Vista for W7 - not a massive change technically, but a lot of tweaks to make the experience better - there’s not a massive difference between the two OSes - it’s just that Windows 7 is what Vista was trying to be.