Hell Freezes Over: Users Now Want the Start Screen in...

whs said:

I guess as usual, we'll get used to it. Remember the uproar when the Windows 8 start screen came out - and now a lot of people love it (including myself).

Yep! I'm good with all of it. A few minor annoyances here and there but nothing a can't live with. :)

Petey7 said:

Clam said:

Petey7 said:

Having used the start screen in Windows 8.1, and the start menu in Windows 10, I definitely prefer the 8.1 start screen, hands down. I know plenty of other people who prefer the start screen by far once they had a little time to get used to it. Some of them are tech geniuses, and some barely know what they're doing, but they came to the same conclusion. Start screen is easier. There are some things about the UI that still need fixing, but now isn't the time to abandon the start screen. If MS does, I'll be upgrading my Windows 7 PC to 8.1 instead of 10 next year.

Can you explain how exactly is it easier?

As Swarfega said, its much faster to find what you're looking for, and you have so many options with how the apps are arranged. Lets say I want to open the desktop calculator program. With the start menu, I have to open it, click all programs, scroll down, click accessories, scroll down, click Calculator. With the start screen, I press the windows key and click on calculator. If I have it set to show pinned tiles first, I hit the windows key, scroll down, click calculator. That's it. Now, which is more efficient, a 6 step process or 2-3 step process? The other thing is, the start menu is limited to a corner of the screen. The start screen uses the middle of the screen. It may be subtle, but there is an increase in efficiency with that as well.

If you had the Calculator pinned to the Start Menu, it would take fewer clicks (two). If you pinned it to the task bar, that would take still fewer clicks (one). Or you could press the Windows key and start typing Calculator.

I have over a hundred programs installed on my desktop machine and I use every one of them although most are rather infrequently. Since there is no way I'm going to remember the names of all of them, having a menu is essential for me. Scanning an alphabetical vertical list is one heck of a lot easier and faster than scrolling horizontally through over a hundred tiles.

Lady Fitzgerald said:

Petey7 said:

Clam said:

Petey7 said:

Having used the start screen in Windows 8.1, and the start menu in Windows 10, I definitely prefer the 8.1 start screen, hands down. I know plenty of other people who prefer the start screen by far once they had a little time to get used to it. Some of them are tech geniuses, and some barely know what they're doing, but they came to the same conclusion. Start screen is easier. There are some things about the UI that still need fixing, but now isn't the time to abandon the start screen. If MS does, I'll be upgrading my Windows 7 PC to 8.1 instead of 10 next year.

Can you explain how exactly is it easier?

As Swarfega said, its much faster to find what you're looking for, and you have so many options with how the apps are arranged. Lets say I want to open the desktop calculator program. With the start menu, I have to open it, click all programs, scroll down, click accessories, scroll down, click Calculator. With the start screen, I press the windows key and click on calculator. If I have it set to show pinned tiles first, I hit the windows key, scroll down, click calculator. That's it. Now, which is more efficient, a 6 step process or 2-3 step process? The other thing is, the start menu is limited to a corner of the screen. The start screen uses the middle of the screen. It may be subtle, but there is an increase in efficiency with that as well.

If you had the Calculator pinned to the Start Menu, it would take fewer clicks (two). If you pinned it to the task bar, that would take still fewer clicks (one). Or you could press the Windows key and start typing Calculator.

I have over a hundred programs installed on my desktop machine and I use every one of them although most are rather infrequently. Since there is no way I'm going to remember the names of all of them, having a menu is essential for me. Scanning an alphabetical vertical list is one heck of a lot easier and faster than scrolling horizontally through over a hundred tiles.

You obviously have your preferences, but others can see the benefits in both the APPS Screen and the desktop menu.

In the APPS Screen everything is in alphabetical order, the same as the desktop menu even grouping each manufacturers apps together, you also have other options, including the most used apps thereby shortening the list to choose from. Again a useful aide memoire for those with memory problems.
Hopefully both options will be included in the final W10 release to the public which should then satisfy everyone.

Lady Fitzgerald said:

Scanning an alphabetical vertical list is one heck of a lot easier and faster than scrolling horizontally through over a hundred tiles.

Well of course it is. There is absolutely no question whatsoever, and I can't see how anyone could ever say otherwise. To claim the opposite seems preposterous...

dencal said:

...Hopefully both options will be included in the final W10 release to the public which should then satisfy everyone.

And there is the key to it all: give people choices.

Lady Fitzgerald said:

If you had the Calculator pinned to the Start Menu, it would take fewer clicks (two). If you pinned it to the task bar, that would take still fewer clicks (one). Or you could press the Windows key and start typing Calculator.

I have over a hundred programs installed on my desktop machine and I use every one of them although most are rather infrequently. Since there is no way I'm going to remember the names of all of them, having a menu is essential for me. Scanning an alphabetical vertical list is one heck of a lot easier and faster than scrolling horizontally through over a hundred tiles.

Sorry, Lady Fitzgerald, but I don’t follow the logic. One needs to know the name of the app to find it in an alphabetized menu. If not the name of the child app, at least know the parent program for the folder. As with the Start menu, each program will have its own folder created for the Apps view screen, which is by default open. There are a few ways to accomplish less scrolling. One is to press any letter, Ctrl/Minus key, or by pressing/clicking the minus sign on the bottom right of the Apps view screen, therefore less scrolling. Simply tap/click on the tile to open it.


Attachment 9792



Another is semantic zoom by pressing/clicking the minus sign on the bottom right of Start screen or Ctrl/Minus key, therefore less scroll. This all works great with either keyboard or mouse as well as touch.


Attachment 9793



Yes, if it were a sole desktop system as in the past we could/would, of course, stick with the old menu systems, but it’s limited with navigation and that’s not what MS is trying to accomplish. According to their data in the blog post below, most users used the Taskbar, Quick Launch, and/or placing shortcuts on their desktop. As time went on MS saw that less and less were using the Start menu. When they did, they were using it for infrequently-used programs. So they took the opportunity to port the Start screen over from the phone. This also gives users familiarity across devices, MS writes a unified OS across devices, and gives them opportunity to infiltrate the mobile market. Yes, MS’s sole motive is to sell products to make a profit. That’s called free enterprise and all companies exercise it.

As time goes on, I see more and more members switching over to the Start screen.

As we wrote about in our post on evolving the Start menu, after studying real world usage of the Start menu through a variety of techniques, we realized that it was serving mainly as the launcher for programs you rarely use. As more and more launching takes place from the task bar, the Start menu looks like a lot of user interface for programs you don't use very frequently. And the Start menu is not well-optimized for this purpose. It affords limited customization, provides virtually no useful information, and offers only a small space for search results. We found that people “in the know” who valued efficiency were moving away from the Start menu, and pinning their frequently used programs to the taskbar so that they could access them instantly in one click. We see this quite a bit on professional workstations where there are set of tools that all fit on the taskbar and are all used regularly—machines used by engineers, designers, developers, information workers, etc.

So, as evidence mounts that the menu hasn’t kept up with the modern way in which we use our PCs today, we've seen a growing interest in replacements for the Start menu (whether for touch, or mouse and keyboard). At the same time, we’ve seen an ever-increasing use of cumbersome notification tray icons (with ever-increasing menus and actions), and a continued interest in desktop gadgets that have yet to realize their potential.

In light of these realizations, we stepped back and reimagined the role of Start in Windows 8. We knew that we already had a powerful launcher for desktop programs in the taskbar. The Start screen is not just a replacement for the Start menu—it is designed to be a great launcher and switcher of apps, a place that is alive with notifications, customizable, powerful, and efficient. It brings together a set of solutions that today are disparate and poorly integrated.

Designing the Start screen - Building Windows 8 - Site Home - MSDN Blogs

Lady Fitzgerald said:

dencal said:

...Hopefully both options will be included in the final W10 release to the public which should then satisfy everyone.

And there is the key to it all: give people choices.

Yes and 10 seems to be accomplishing it.

Rickkins said:

Lady Fitzgerald said:

Scanning an alphabetical vertical list is one heck of a lot easier and faster than scrolling horizontally through over a hundred tiles.

Well of course it is. There is absolutely no question whatsoever, and I can't see how anyone could ever say otherwise. To claim the opposite seems preposterous...

Many find it easier, there is question, many did say it otherwise, and many don't find it preposterous.

Rickkins said:

Lady Fitzgerald said:

Scanning an alphabetical vertical list is one heck of a lot easier and faster than scrolling horizontally through over a hundred tiles.

Well of course it is. There is absolutely no question whatsoever, and I can't see how anyone could ever say otherwise. To claim the opposite seems preposterous...

Only "preposterous" to someone conceited enough to believe his is the only opinion worth consideration.