Microsoft Confirms the Windows 10 Start Menu Is Getting New Features

I believe they were better too just a crazy default that couldn't be changed,

With the awesome sells of 8-8.1 that would be my first guess as to why no options = Dismal sells
Not everyone wants to gather all of the third party crap to make a os bearable and allot are not free,
So where's the incentive to upgrading when you like where your at without any third party crap to fill the void ? just because it's free
Nope.

lehnerus2000 said:

The Start Menu in versions prior to b9926 were better than the current one (IMO).

totally agree with you there

I still believe they just should have added the Start screen to Windows 7 for Metro and updated Explorer and we probably wouldn't even be talking about Windows 10.

I also doubt that much will happen to the Start Menu, it always seems Microsoft's talks a lot and does very little. I suspect 3rd party apps like ClassicMenu and Start8 (or is it Start10) will still be usuable and a welcome work-around for some.

I hope they put Cortana and Search at the bottom of the menu (as in 7) and take it off the taskbar.

ThrashZone said:

I believe they were better too just a crazy default that couldn't be changed,

With the awesome sells of 8-8.1 that would be my first guess as to why no options = Dismal sells
Not everyone wants to gather all of the third party crap to make a os bearable and allot are not free,
So where's the incentive to upgrading when you like where your at without any third party crap to fill the void ? just because it's free
Nope.

Oh, poor babies might have to fork out some monies. .OMG. . .don't you mean you. . .. . .It really doesn't bother me if it is something I like. . .oh I forgot all you folks really like the free Classic Shell. . .Whatever.

badrobot said:

MS is just making things complicated when it comes to start menu. All they need to add is a toggle button to switch between classic and modern start menu if they want to make everyone happy.

I agree and that's exactly what I fed them - keep it simple, keep the two GUIs separate - desktop users will use the desktop, and modern users will use the modern side. I like the ability to switch between the two, but they don't have to merge.

Modern apps don't have to be windowed, Start menu doesn't have to be modern - the only place this is an 'issue' is the desktop. Phone and tablet users won't use the older desktop GUI and many people have become accustomed to the modern side on desktop and laptop machines.

Does this present a maintenance headache for MS. I don't think so - it's not as if they were trying to merge DOS and NT into a single kernel.

The user chooses which GUI they want to use - how hard is that? I think you're right - someone at MS is saying "The GUIs must converge for the Universal Interface to work".

Isn't that the idea of a Universal Interface? It sits on top of the OS and can be anything a developer wants it to be.
Windows as a Service! - It is a service, always has been, it provided a graphical user interface to the operating system.

Bill
.

Hi there

probably too late now - but had Windows developed the GUI separately from the Video server as per Linux (used to be called the X-Server) then it's a simple matter to design any number of GUI's that would simply be called by the X-Server video service.

There are zillion quite common GUI's for Linux such as KDE, GNOME, MATE, etc etc. You can install one or ALL of them - or even NONE if you just want a cmd line type of machine.

Windows GUI's could then easily be "modularized" for people's differing requirements.

The main problem with full screen only operation on modern apps is then you would need a desktop version and a modern version if you want to use the same app on both platforms. Actually even on a tablet (surface pro 3) I like having Windowed applications - especially if you are using things like office where you need to cut and paste contents from say an EXCEL spreadsheet into a word doc or power point presentation --and what about translating a document from one language into another one -- not easy to do if you can only have one screen open and viewable at a time.

Some items like watching video are essentially single tasks and lend themselves to full screen operation - but even web surfing becomes a pain if you can't display several pages simultaneously.

Cheers
jimbo

f14tomcat said:

Microsoft Confirms the Windows 10 Start Menu Is Getting New Features - Softpedia

This might be worth trying to read if I could get Google to translate from Russian! Softpedia strikes again!

In perfect English in IE.

jimbo45 said:

probably too late now - but had Windows developed the GUI separately from the Video server as per Linux (used to be called the X-Server) then it's a simple matter to design any number of GUI's that would simply be called by the X-Server video service.

There are zillion quite common GUI's for Linux such as KDE, GNOME, MATE, etc etc. You can install one or ALL of them - or even NONE if you just want a cmd line type of machine.

Windows GUI's could then easily be "modularized" for people's differing requirements.

First, the X-Server model, while it has some advantages, also has a ton of disadvantages. For example, apps cannot control their own "chrome" so to speak, can't move themselves around, or do a lot of things that are important. Some people might think this is a good thing, and in some cases that would be true, in others not so much... think about Kiosks and other environments where you don't want the users to control the environment.

Second, KDE, Gnome, etc.. are largely just a suite of applications with a set of UI controls. That's something that could be (and has been) done on Windows before. The "Window Manager" is the one thing that Windows can't easily do (although there are ways to simulate it).

This multiple UI concept has been the bane of the Unix worlds existence though, particularly when it comes to usability and consistency. A user can't go from one machine to another and know how to use it. You think going from XP to 7 to 8 is bad? It's nothing compared to the various environments that may be configured for any given Unix/Linux. Hell, you can't even be sure how the mouse will operate.