Microsoft: Start Menu Returns, Windows Free For Small Device OEMs, Cortana Beta
At Microsoft's BUILD conference today, the company announced that the Start Menu will officially be returning to Windows 8.1. It will combine the Windows 7 Start Menu with a handful of Metro-style tiles. They're also making it so Windows 8 apps can run in windows using the normal desktop environment. In addition to the desktop announcements, Microsoft also talked about big changes for Windows on mobile devices and Internet-of-Things devices. The company will be giving Windows away for free to OEMs making phones and tablets (9" screens and smaller), and for IoT devices that can run it. Microsoft also finally unveiled Cortana, their digital assistant software that's similar to Siri.
So it only took about a year of screaming from the users and slashdotters before Microsquishy paid attention and brought back the MENU instead of that god damned useless start screen. Who knows -- by 9.x maybe it'll even be as usable as 7 again.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Microsoft listens to end users?!
Wow, this just smacks of all kinds of desperation. It's amazing how badly Microsoft fails when they're not allowed to stack the deck in their favour.
Although I'm curious about Cortana. If they make her/him/it sound like GladOS, I would have to seriously reconsider my position. :3
"Microsoft also finally unveiled Cortana, their digital assistant software that's similar to Siri."
As opposed to Clippy, their digital assistant software that's similar to Jar Jar Binks.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
PLEASE PLEASE TAKE THE DAMN TILE INTERFACE AWAY FROM YOUR SERVER OS!!!!
It's useless! it's painful! I curse myself whenever I hit the start button!
Seriously why would you use something as bloated as Windows
Because we know that the current iteration of Android is svelte, lean and mean...
I've heard people saying that Linux is something that nobody wants even for free. It's nice to see that Linux has finally caught up with Windows! Or the other way around. Whatever.
Ezekiel 23:20
Seriously why would you use something as bloated as Windows for a mobile or embedded device?
So that the device can do double duty. It can act as a tablet by itself, or it can be docked to an external keyboard and monitor and act as a basic desktop computer. At least this is what Canonical promised for "Ubuntu for Android".
Windows on a phone works pretty well -- I picked up a Nokia 520 because it was $40 and why not, and it's actually quite decent.
The tiles based interface works quite well for a small device like that. I certainly don't like it on a PC with a big screen (or two), but for a little screen it works quite well.
In fact, the only real problem I had with the OS is that there aren't many apps available compared to iOS and Android.
Cortana was Master Chief's AI companion (the big space marine carrier's AI computer) in the original Halo game. I still hate that Microsoft bought Bungie, and now they're going to milk the shit out of that IP by naming the rip-off of Siri Cortana. I grew up playing the Marathon series on Mac, and when I first played Halo I saw that all the same stuff was there, just fleshed out into awesome 3D so I was like "yay Bungie" and then Microshit shit all over Halo 2 with their Vista "DirectX 10 required" lies etc. Halo 2 worked well on XP with the Vista checks removed. /ramble
What about all us fools who installed server 2012, and can't upgrade to 2012 R2 without paying another 1400 bucks? Are we going to get screwed without even a start button for the next 5 years that we run these servers?
Because desktop operating systems aren't much bigger than they were 10 years ago, yet modern mobile devices are pretty much as powerful as a large proportion of PCs were five years ago. The major issue with running Windows 7 on the Atom-based notebooks I've seen was screensize, not speed.
Yes, Apple and Google have both released mobile operating systems with substantially different userlands to their desktop cousins, but in Google's case that appears to be because of a different, non-Unix, vision they have for mobile devices, and Apple, of course, was stuck originally with a very poorly powered phone that was, in some ways, the Mac 128k to their desktop's Lisa. Both systems were developed when phones were considerably underpowered compared to how they are today. It's not clear to be that Apple or Google would have followed the path they took if they were to design a phone operating system today.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Now, could they get rid of the flat, huge, ugly UI elements (window borders, buttons, etc.) and go back to the reasonable look of Vista or 7? Sheesh, honestly the hideous ugliness of it was the most irritating thing about 8 for me, as the tile interface and start menu problems could be fixed with a few add-ons.
Same thing goes on my Surface2. The Windows 8 interface really shines on a touch screen device. It's also worth pointing out that you don't need as many apps on Surface as you would on an iPad, because it has a lot of functionality built in. Getting videos to play off my shared folder on the main PC was a piece of cake with Surface. With iPad, it was a royal pain, and it still doesn't work well with certain videos.
If you could get a 9 inch tablet for that ran full windows, you could have a very portable computer that you could just plug into full size monitor, keyboard and mouse, and use it as a full desktop. You wouldn't need any cloud services like drop box because you could literally bring your whole desktop computer with you wherever you go. This is the main point of the Surface Pro that most people seem to forget. You have this ultraportable machine about the same size as an ipad, but that you can hook up standard peripherals to and make it work as a full fledged desktop. The Surface Pro is a little outside most people's budgets, but the ASUS Transformer Book T100 is a little cheaper, and can still run most desktop apps.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
This should have been part of 8.1 from the beginning. I just got used to the start screen and now it's going back?
This should be 8.2 or 9.0 instead of a patch against 8.1.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
I've heard people saying that Linux is something that nobody wants even for free. It's nice to see that Linux has finally caught up with Windows! Or the other way around. Whatever.
I don't think you really understand the irony...Microsoft *partners* are prepared to *pay* Microsoft to run Linux instead of windows.
“It’s not like Android’s free,” said Steve Ballmer, Microsoft’s chief executive. “You do have to license patents.”
FYI Apple is doing quite nicely too
It's interesting,because my opinion on those two is the exact opposite.
I couldn't care less about boot to desktop. That's a single button click when I boot the machine.
However, I use the start menu quite often. It provides a hierarchically sorted list of every program I have installed on the system. I use that about once a week to once a month. It also provides a list of my most recently used programs. I could move those to the taskbar (and sometimes do) but sometimes these change and I don't want them semi-permanently taking up space on the taskbar.
There are three things that are really bad about windows 8. I've ordered them from worst to least bad.
1.) The charms bar is torture on a desktop. You have to go to the top right of the screen, then go halfway down the screen in a narrow strip to actually click on something. If your mouse moves outside that narrow strip for even a moment, the charms bar disappears and you have to do it again. "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"
2.) The start menu was removed, because it is rarely used. This was just not thinking. The start menu has become big and clunky... that's also become it's purpose. We have new and better methods to access frequently used programs, but the start menu continues to be useful for those infrequently used programs. A hierarchical list is certainly better than displaying them all in a flat grid of live tiles.
3.) Metro programs can't run in a window. This makes them inconvenient for multitasking, which is common for desktop users but not for tablet users.
Stop trying to make the "internet of things" happen.
Fuck your shitty marketing terms. Fuck them from "1 MB = 1,000,000 bytes" to "* as a Service" to "Cloud" to "Business Solutions" to "Internet of Things" to the next shitty fucking thing you come up with and decide to market, require job applicants to have experience with, etc.
If you can't describe a service or product with concrete terminology then you're selling a bag of marketing fluff and I will not be giving you money for it. Until you can actually tell me what you're selling and why it's useful please SHUT THE FUCK UP.
2) Allow users to load different "skins" like you can on Linux or Android. Metro interface for tablets/phones, Win 7 for desktops. Don't like the one you have? Restart, choose new skin, done. 3) Open source the GUI and allow others to create their own GUI's and sell them in the MS App store. Or give them away. Whatever..just give people choices.
These last two have been possible since at least Windows XP. Windows allows you to replace the shell with whatever you want. This is the whole idea behind Classic Shell: http://classicshell.net/
This still creates a coverage gap for XP users. If 8.1 had a sane UI today, I'd go XP-to-8.1. It's just an announcement though. With XP support going tits up in just a few days, there's no way to fill the gap without doing something transitional that you might want to throw away in a few months.
Just upgrade to Windows 7. It's a proven solution and it has extended support (security patches) up until mid-2020.
Windows 9 looks like it's going to fix the worst suckage of Win8, but I don't see it as being a "must-have" any time soon.
Metro should show some intelligence in how it open apps.
Ideally, if the user opens a metro app from the Desktop, it should be windowed. If it's opened from the Metro Screen it should be full screen.
Metro is a fine interface for touch devices. It looks good and works well. However it fails miserably when you're trying to use it in conjunction with the desktop. MS should go whole hog and create a Metro only tablet.
A lot of the blame for Win8 can be shouldered on Steven Sinofsky, who by all accounts thought himself as a cross between Steve Jobs and Napoleon. He was given free reign over Win8 due to his perceived success with MS Office (and the ribbon interface).
If you follow the MS news, you'll find constant suggestions that he treated the windows division as his fiefdom (and windows phone as a competitor, refusing even the most basic coordination) and that not only did he refuse to include a start menu in Win8 as a transitional step (up to that point, MS has usually offered a way to go back to the old behavior for at least one windows version) he intentionally introduced architectural changes to make it harder for MS to implement one in the future. You'll notice he was fired shortly after without much remorse by anyone.
Unfortunately, it looks like they crammed the start menu full of those blasted tiles instead of the useful things users will be expecting. I have used this interface on Windows 8 and Server 2012 and I have tried to give it a chance, I really have; but at the end of the day it is just a nuisance that squirrels away the things I need to get to into the most awkward places. Hopefully by Windows 9 they will finally stop forcing fisher price tablet bullcrap on desktop users altogether. I would be happy if they just got rid of that worthless "charms bar".
1) What do you *need* "charms" for on the desktop? You are, I presume, using desktop apps (which don't interact with the Charms bar at all). For things like Settings - even the "Metro" Settings, if for some reason you want those - you can reach them using Start (more on that in a sec). Oh, and FYI, Win+C will display the Charms bar without any stupid mouse shenanigans. I believe you can turn off the hot corner entirely, if you want to.
2) Wrong, the Start menu was removed because they wanted to present the Live Tiles interface and the menu didn't have enough room for that (interesting that Win8 update 2 or Win9 or whatever they end up calling it will have a Windows Phone-like width of tiles as an option on an actual menu...). As for "better methods" that would primarily be Start search, which is much faster than using the mouse. It also generally works a lot *better* with rarely-used programs (or settings, or files, or direct links to settings pages you didn't even know were possible to link directly to...) than hierarchical menus do. Start search has been built into Windows since Vista (2006). They fucked it up a bit in Win8 (still worked for programs, but extra keypresses were needed for files or settings) but fixed it in Win8.1.
3) Assuming you use "Metro" programs at all (eww...) then yes, this is a problem (and is being fixed in an upcoming version). If you're like me, and prefer to just use Win8 as a more efficient Win7 with better multi-monitor support and the ability to run Hyper-V, this isn't really a problem. Aside from games (which I'd want to have running full-screen anyhow), the Win8 apps are worthless on a desktop.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Background from a UI designer at MS: http://www.reddit.com/r/micros...
Metro was designed for, paraphrasing pwnies, your mom so she could watch her favourite cat videos without getting bogged down in the OS. So ... it's really good at single- and double-tasking, less good if you juggle multiple windows, and kinda' confusing if you run a mix of Metro and standard desktop apps. Metro's downright nasty to use with a mouse, but works great with touch (at least once you grok that swiping from the edges makes stuff happen) and keyboard shortcuts (type to search is nice).
But what kills me is how hard it is to just use one UI or the other, even after significant tweaking. Win8, as far as I can tell, always defaults to Metro apps, even if launched from the desktop and there's an equivalent (or more powerful) desktop app available. Many settings are only found in Metro. File associations, even for file types that casual users are unlikely to use, like .CR2 (a RAW image type) are associated with Metro apps. And the default programs app doesn't even list all of the file types that the desktop pic viewer can handle; you have to set image types like .CR2 through Explorer. Seriously? Weird choice, that.
The flip side, of course, is that if you want to do something other than media consumption you get bumped into the desktop. Somehow, I think it's telling that Office 365 is not a suite of applications for Metro. And that most of the apps in the store seem more ... well ... tablet- and phone-oriented than desktop-oriented. MS doesn't want people to work in Metro, but never really had the stones to say it bluntly.
For my part, I got so pissed off at Metro on my desktop PC that I installed Start8 and another app that opens Metro apps in a desktop window so that, if Windows decides once again that a 22", full screen, four function calculator is really what I need when I'm trying to double-check some math for an email ... I won't have to deal with Metro.
And, hell, if I want to kick back and surf or play a stupid game, I'm going to grab a tablet or smart phone ... not use my PC.
And ... you know what? I set up a new PC for my mom a few months ago. I didn't want to deal with tech support for Metro on her PC (no touch screen, and didn't want to bother with teaching her keyboard shortcuts or deal with her chucking her mouse through her monitor when she can't find the hot spot to switch apps). But ... she's like ... the target audience for Metro. There is a giant bullseye on her head. She is the casual PC user defined and distilled down to its most basic. And I couldn't face down the prospect of explaining charms to turn off her PC (or how to open the charms bar). Or how to switch apps with a mouse.
On the other hand, I do like the idea of MS finally adding some new functionality to the desktop. Even if I'm unlikely to give 2 shits about live tiles in the start menu (seriously, given how much MS knows about me from 20+ years' worth of product registrations, configurations, IP addresses, and that MSDN sub a few years ago, you'd figure they could get at least the country right for the default locations for the weather, sports and news apps -- I deleted them because I couldn't be bothered to configure them).
And yet ... Win8 is fast. Stable. Runs on the same hardware Vista did.
It's kinda' weird, ya' know?
"Windows on a phone works pretty well"
Windows on a phone is crap - did you ever try the Compaq iPaq?
You do realize you are comparing completely different operating systems with different core and UI and completely different hardware with over a decade between them and different input mechanisms don't you? I don't see how you expect to draw any meaningful conclusion comparing a 14 year old iPaq to a 1 year old Nokia 520 when they have virtually nothing in common apart from the word "Windows" being part of the title of their operating system.
There will be stipulations in those deals that they create desktops/laptops with Windows only. Whether those companies will get to create "Linux" only machines is something I am curious to see.
This isn't the 90s anymore, the biggest Windows licensees already create Linux laptops, desktops and smartphones in the form of ChromeOS, Android and (a lot less commonly) Ubuntu. Though many have tried desktop Linux distributions they have been given a massive "Do Not Want" by consumers but on the other hand they do want Android which is why they produce a lot of Android devices. If Microsoft had the power you fantasize about them having then Android tablets and ChromeOS laptops would not come from any of the big players.
If the Linux community can get it sh** together and stop the inner fighting they have an opportunity to finally take hold, and take off, it seems anytime they have that chance they sabotage it, killing any progress.
That won't happen, what DE should they use? What audio system? What compositor? etc. Even though it is easy to circumvent the issues that create all the criticism for Windows 8 we have seen consumers (and the geeks on this site) demonstrate that they dont want to have to customize anything and that is why linux wont take hold in a desktop capacity but why it has succeeded on smartphones.
Desktop Linux never exploits those opportunities properly.