I've probably asked this before but, do you ever feel like you're just beating your head against a wall when discussing Windows8?

Yes. The issue is that the majority of the arguments against it are based on personal preference. I could list 40 things that Windows 8 does better than 7 and people will just say "Yeah that's great but it looks like ****" or "yeah that's cool but start screen sucks thus it sucks". They write off the entire OS as garbage based on some minor personal preference. And like that's fine except most people's opinions are based like the 4 computers they installed. Or some other limited view of computing. Like the entire "change for change sake argument" that spawned when it first came out. I hated arguing it because i literally felt like my IQ was dropping with every post. I could literally mathematically prove that 8 is 1012x than Windows 7 for tablets and people would respond "NO! CHANGE FOR CHANGE SAKE!" "NO **** OS, NO BENEFITS" uh ok. Then the absolute best is basically what you said earlier (or in another thread, i forget) "MICROSOFT NEVER CHANGES ANYTHING" (Windows 8 launches) "WHY DID THEY CHANGE SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN IN THERE FOREVER". At least it's kinda moved from that to people wanting things that are somewhat reasonable. Like options for start menu, I could kind of see. I mean from a design perspective it's a bad philosophy to give people options. For starters you create a schism in the userbase. Then second you create all kinds of problems moving forward with design for backwards compatibility because you need to support both implementations. This creates app design compatibility issues, desktop design issues, all kinds of problems. But whatever, like I don't expect most people to understand that or care. The Aero argument is preference, obviously. I dislike the design of 7. I thought it looked ok aesthetically but from a design perspective it was terrible. There were all kinds of inconsistencies between Windows apps. Even apps designed by Microsoft didn't adhere to their own standards. Windows 8 kind of improved things in that regard. It now has the modern design language so apps using that generally behave and follow the same rules which is nice. But Microsoft is still dropping the ball, I mean their are Windows 98 era icons found randomly throughout the OS. They seem to be fixing a lot of those issues in 10 though. For the same argument as start, I don't think it should be an option. It's easily supported through mods so go download one if you want transparency and aero glass effects.

Once people get used to something, they fear change. Doesn't matter if it's good change, or bad, it's perceived as bad if it requires any learning. Everyone believed it when they were told that technology would make life better, but too many people think technology should be implemented in such a way that learning is unnecessary. They don't want to accept the fact that for technology to advance, there has to be a learning curve.

That's just the thing, though. It doesn't require any learning, really. And if that's the case, Windows 10 will be no different, since the Start Menu is hardly any different than the Start Screen is.... only they seem to have put the stuff you could get to by right clicking the Start button in Win8 into the Start Menu in Win10. And did anyone else have to chuckle a little with Cyrus mentioning iOS not looking like it's "straight from the past" like he seems to feel Windows 8 does? As if iOS has made some sort of breakthrough in the looks department in what little they've really ever changed in the last what... 7 years of iOS? But maybe that's the secret. Maybe Apple actually has to catch up to what the "future" was before they can start to look like their design is from the past....

iOS is "material design" just like Android L will be and Windows is going towards.

Neo Cyrus: Really? You say that the ONE MAJOR REASON why Win8 was a failure, even though it's regarded as a success yet don't want to see those links (denial/self-contradiction much?) is the AESTHETICS?!? Dude.... face it.... the ONLY thing that the "Overwhelming majority" (by that, i'm assuming you mean everybody on forums (probably yourself included) who have probably only ever even used Win8/8.1 for 2 minutes) think makes it suck is the Start Screen. Hell, i'll admit, when it was still in Release Preview, I installed it in a dual-boot config several times, yet almost never touched it because of the Start Screen. Was a bit jarring. But they had the $40 upgrade, and i thought "what the hell?". Do i miss Windows 7? Not in the least. It's remarkable how LITTLE I ever really needed the Start Menu. And the Start Screen is much more configurable than the Start Menu ever was.

One of the major reasons* Stop freaking out. Obviously being annoying to use overshadows the fact that it looks like crap, outdated crap. Regarded as a success by whom? Every business report I ever saw showed abysmal sales and pointed to nearly all sales being to OEMs. I know anecdotal evidence tends to be lame and usually worthless as Denial pointed out but I have yet to ever see anyone in real life say that they like Win 8. They all say it's ugly and annoying to use. The last time I was getting a system for someone she said verbatim: "Do I have to use Windows 8? It's so ugly and annoying." My laptop has Windows 8, it looks stupid, it's annoying to use. I will never like it or get used to it. I'm waiting to see if that free upgrade to Windows 10 is coming. The reasons I didn't install Windows 7 on it already are because I'm not sure about driver compatibility and I don't use it nearly as much as my desktop anyway. That and I was attempting to get used to it. It never happened. Personally I use the start menu almost every day combined with Rocket Dock. I simply prefer having some things out of sight yet easily accessible without switching to an entirely different screen of boxes.

A screen of boxes that makes things hard to find. Sure you can sort then just like the start menu, but vertical lists are easier to read. The metro screen is basically the equivalent of dumping your entire start menu on your desktop.

.... in what way? You only have to have the programs you routinely use pinned to the start screen. You can categorize them into any kind of group you want, and label those groups at the top. And for the stuff you don't want to pin since you rarely use it, there's the "All Apps" page. Last i checked, you could only sort a couple apps on the Windows 7 start menu. Neo Cyrus: Frankly... i'm not even sure why you're still here trying to argue. You're providing nothing more than what has already been spouted thousands of times before you.... along with one particular tidbit that's just plain strange.... constantly contradicting yourself. "Regarded as a success by whom"? Well... you obviously didn't want Denial to post links to thousands of articles saying it's a success... so apparently you know whom. Regardless... I personally never said it was a success... just paraphrasing what you said in your previous post. Do I care whether it succeeded or not? No. I got it for $40, and personally feel it's FAR better than Windows 7 (And I know i'm not alone). You probably don't see anyone "in real life" that likes Windows 8 because either you don't interact with many people, or you do the same thing you seem to be trying to do here in order to get them to sway to your feelings on the matter. B*tch and moan about how it doesn't meet your standards, hoping Windows 10 will somehow be better since it has a Start Menu which is a TINY START SCREEN! If you can't realize that, then i don't see how you can make accusations about Windows 8's visual appeal. And yet again i have to say it... you prefer things out of sight yet easily accessible without switching to a different screen? Please.... enlighten me.... exactly how much of a benefit is it to be able to have a tiny window or menu or ANYTHING come up with programs that you can then open, if you can't do a damn thing on the desktop while that's open anyway? That's the thing that confuses the sh*t out of me. All the morons who keep complaining "EEW, it takes up the whole screen! Why would i want that, when i can still see what's happening on my desktop with the classic Start Menu?!?!" can never seem to explain that one to me. If you're going into the Start Menu, or using Rocket Dock, you can't interact with what's going on with an app on the desktop anyway. So what's the difference if you take 2 seconds away from what you were doing to open a program using the Start Menu/Rocket Dock, or take the same 2 seconds to open the same program using the Start Screen? Please... enlighten us.

I didn't see any links, I haven't read this entire thread. Contradicting myself? You keep saying that, and even if I did, I don't care. Win 8 is a pile crap to me and everyone I've ever met. I don't know why you're so hell bent on defending it. I shall enlighten you, 2 instant clicks get me what I want from the start menu in a fraction of a second. In Win 8 I'd have to switch screens to an abomination, it's irritating. Yes ewww it takes the whole screen. Abomination. The desktop interaction is optional and it's nice having a background instead of a screen of retro flat boxes. Not to mention it's far more comfortable being able to just have multiple Windows instantly opened on the desktop as opposed to having to switch screens again. If I wanted an ugly interface that inconveniences me I'd use some Linux distro with no GUI.

Two clicks is all you need in win8. It is just how you set up the damn thing. Same goes for w7 I never cared to set up the start menu cause it looked horrible and was horrible with it's limited space. I would just tap windows button write what I wanted to launch. Or pin the programs I use to taskbar as I do still. Only gripe people have with windows 8 is the fullscreen start menu which is whole a lot better as it gives you way more fast clicks if you have many programs you use. That is if you really do click with mouse. I might push windows key and then click with mouse but never twice. Flat and simplistic looks pleasing vs aerocrap 😀 that is an opinion tho.

I wounder if there will be windows 10 updates released with patch tuesday.

I didn't see any links, I haven't read this entire thread. Contradicting myself? You keep saying that, and even if I did, I don't care. Win 8 is a pile crap to me and everyone I've ever met. I don't know why you're so hell bent on defending it. I shall enlighten you, 2 instant clicks get me what I want from the start menu in a fraction of a second. In Win 8 I'd have to switch screens to an abomination, it's irritating. Yes ewww it takes the whole screen. Abomination. The desktop interaction is optional and it's nice having a background instead of a screen of retro flat boxes. Not to mention it's far more comfortable being able to just have multiple Windows instantly opened on the desktop as opposed to having to switch screens again. If I wanted an ugly interface that inconveniences me I'd use some Linux distro with no GUI.

As Ryu said.... same 2 quick clicks with the Windows 8 start screen. Again, the only argument you have is that it takes up the whole screen. It's not ugly. It's not detrimental to productivity. It's actually BENEFICIAL to productivity, again as Ryu said, based on how you set it up since you have FAR more space to put everything you use the most. Nothing in Windows 8, nor the Start Screen, takes more clicks than what you'd need in Windows 7 or prior. I'm not "hell bent on defending it". I'm just tired of people being completely unobservant to the truth of the matter, and just spouting the same pointless crap over and over again. It's been going on for (in 12 days) 2 years now. You've already said you hate it on your laptop... that it's annoying... and i'm guessing you probably rarely use that laptop, too. Or are you just so focused on rage that intellect goes out the window?

I don't see how it's productive and saying it's not ugly is all opinion. It's definitely not far more space the way the layout is even if you modify everything into being small squares. Maybe you've forgotten just how many things fit in that start menu, something like 34+ on my screen. Everything that needs to be done is slowed down, or has something crammed between, usually switching screens. What rage? Intellect out the window? You seem to be the who's not thinking clearly. You seem so focused on defending this that you seem to want to ignore its obvious flaws and gratuitous BS like having to switch your screen 14 times to get anything done. Any point I make you're just saying nope nope nope nope. Guess what, a lot of people will never use that interface for the reasons I've said. The full screen nonsense only slows things down, it's an abomination, abomination. If it were as popular as you think it is, Microsoft wouldn't be handing out the upgrade to Win 10 for free along with returning the start menu.

I don't see how it's productive and saying it's not ugly is all opinion. It's definitely not far more space the way the layout is even if you modify everything into being small squares. Maybe you've forgotten just how many things fit in that start menu, something like 34+ on my screen. Everything that needs to be done is slowed down, or has something crammed between, usually switching screens. What rage? Intellect out the window? You seem to be the who's not thinking clearly. You seem so focused on defending this that you seem to want to ignore its obvious flaws and gratuitous BS like having to switch your screen 14 times to get anything done. Any point I make you're just saying nope nope nope nope. Guess what, a lot of people will never use that interface for the reasons I've said. The full screen nonsense only slows things down, it's an abomination, abomination. If it were as popular as you think it is, Microsoft wouldn't be handing out the upgrade to Win 10 for free along with returning the start menu.

Wow, you sure seem hell bent on defending the Start Menu. What is with all these absolutes in the negative? Is that all you can see? It seems clear you do not really enjoy computers and the computing field. Perhaps going outside might help and seeing things as others may see them? No? Ok, enjoy. :banana::infinity:

I don't see how it's productive and saying it's not ugly is all opinion. It's definitely not far more space the way the layout is even if you modify everything into being small squares. Maybe you've forgotten just how many things fit in that start menu, something like 34+ on my screen. Everything that needs to be done is slowed down, or has something crammed between, usually switching screens. What rage? Intellect out the window? You seem to be the who's not thinking clearly. You seem so focused on defending this that you seem to want to ignore its obvious flaws and gratuitous BS like having to switch your screen 14 times to get anything done. Any point I make you're just saying nope nope nope nope. Guess what, a lot of people will never use that interface for the reasons I've said. The full screen nonsense only slows things down, it's an abomination, abomination. If it were as popular as you think it is, Microsoft wouldn't be handing out the upgrade to Win 10 for free along with returning the start menu.

No... i'm pretty sure if people didn't get all pissy because of the lack of a Start Menu, we probably still wouldn't see it. But people like you are apparently technologically literate, but can't do a damn thing without the Start menu. And i don't recall there ever being an official announcement on the pricing of Windows 10, let alone being "Handed out for free". But hey... at least they're fixing things for the people who can't comprehend the similarities between the Screen and the Menu instead of going all Apple on it. So let me get this straight.... using Windows 8 and downloading something like Start8 to get your beloved menu back is absurd.... but downloading something to fit 30+ items on your start menu is perfectly fine? I must be missing something here.... screenshot of that would be nice. Full screen nonsense slows things down? What, you mean the half second that it takes for the Start Screen to appear? In which time, if you're able to remember exactly where the program you're looking for is located on it, you can basically already have your cursor exactly where it needs to be. And again with the BS about "14 clicks to get anything done"? The MOST clicks it has ever taken me to get anything done, with the few things i've ever really even had to go into the Start Screen for? 3. Again... i must seriously be missing something for this 14 click nonsense. I'm only saying "nope nope nope" to the "points" you're making because you're not making points... you're not providing examples... you're not proving anything. You're just spouting BS as if it's fact.

I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish other than to argue and try to make Windows 8 sound like anything but what it is. You didn't even read what I wrote clearly, so no you're not getting it straight. You're not convincing anyone, not even yourself it seems. You're giving opinions and calling facts BS, coming up with a bunch of nitpicking and strawman arguments. Your entire last argument was a strawman, practically false dilemma after false dilemma pretending that's what I'm arguing then attempting to refute that with more BS bait. Can't do anything without a Start Menu - false dilemma and bait, the line after, same thing, etc. You're spewing BS then waiting for a reply so you can say HA SEE I HAVE ANOTHER STRAWMAN REPLY TO THAT. You're just arguing your weak opinion and getting angry about it when it's refuted with actual facts, such as having to repeatedly switch screens to get the same tasks done. Windows 8 was a bunch of pointless stupid changes, slow-downs in productivity and a butt fugly interface to match. Anyone who fanatically defends it, or ANY product for that matter, has some serious issues unless it's their job. Enjoy your switching screen game that will be handed out for free according to current reports. There is no argument, you have no argument, you have a bunch of straw men. Even if you did have one I don't care, you're annoying and continuing is pointless. We're done here.

Seriously. Give me an example of something that takes anywhere CLOSE to 14 clicks. Hell... 5 clicks to accomplish in Windows 8. I've been using Windows 8 since it came out. Not even since 8.1. I've never had issues getting the same things done in 8 that i did in 7, especially not to the insanely over-exaggerated extent that you claim is what makes up the entirety of Win8. I'm not the one spouting BS. And i'm pretty sure every other person in this thread sees it the same way. But yea... if that's how you feel, have fun spreading the hate, Neo.

Can we please lock this thread already, Neo Cyrus alone seems to have proven that this topic can never be civil. Thanks.

Can we please lock this thread already, Neo Cyrus alone seems to have proven that this topic can never be civil. Thanks.

You say I'm not the civil one because you're angry about my opinion, as you stated before. Even when I wasn't the one being aggressive at all. So yeah, you're not being civil, you're being snide and trying to project on someone else. I wasn't the one in this topic getting angry about anything, two people were, you and Element, that's it. Amazing how insincerity can leak through even words on a screen.

@Neo Cyrus - Here's a nice little example for you. Which is more efficient? Opening an e-mail application and waiting for it to sync with your e-mail service, or simply looking at a live tile that's sync'd to your e-mail at regularly intervals? When I need to check my e-mail, I simply hit the Windows key and look at the Mail tile. There's no need for me to open the mail app to see if I have e-mail because it's displayed right on the tile. That's the most efficient way possible to check your e-mail. It can take Windows Live Mail upwards of 60 seconds to sync my e-mail whereas the Mail "metro" app syncs at regular intervals and displays a count of new e-mails directly on the live tile.

Efficiency is really about how it's setup. Using your voice and telling the computer what to do and it responding appropriately would be more ideal than any interface. W8 can be quite efficient but you have to set it up that way. Perhaps having those tiles on your desktop without the need to press start button would perhaps be even more so...I wish they just instead allowed the option to have the start screen as your desktop itself with the start bar at the bottom and do away with the idea of clicking a start button of any kind. The next problem would be too many tiles. Perhaps a tile tree of sorts would help organize it where 1 tile opens a subset of specific type of tiles. Another would be the use of tabs...like a browser where each tab is a desktop that contains specific types of tiles and folders....Moblin OS comes to mind I still don't think W10 will help productivity or add anything new for people to do what they couldn't before, rather just make it easier for heavy mouse users.

Sounds like you're describing Windows1.x-3.x.....which, personally, I'd welcome a return to.

Which is more efficient? Opening an e-mail application and waiting for it to sync with your e-mail service, or simply looking at a live tile that's sync'd to your e-mail at regularly intervals? When I need to check my e-mail, I simply hit the Windows key and look at the Mail tile. There's no need for me to open the mail app to see if I have e-mail because it's displayed right on the tile. That's the most efficient way possible to check your e-mail. It can take Windows Live Mail upwards of 60 seconds to sync my e-mail whereas the Mail "metro" app syncs at regular intervals and displays a count of new e-mails directly on the live tile.

I have the habit of not using a mail client, I usually just have a browser open and switch tabs as gmail auto refreshes whenever there is a new email anyway. Most average users don't have mail clients, but yes I get your point that it can be useful with auto updating tiles like for weather etc. The thing is even if I wanted that, depending on what it is those can be had on a desktop environment in many ways as well like with the old gadgets/widgets. Those two seem to think I'm out here trying to hate on some product and want it to fail. What sort of craziness would that be, personally it's inefficient to me as far as I've experienced and I don't like what it looks and feels like. Using it for a long period of time hasn't changed my opinion on it. I still stand by what I said from the very start that Win 8 would have been tremendously more popular and adopted if they just left the start menu leaving users with the option of using whatever they want. The moment it returns to Windows their sales will increase and I would bet the reports will show that.

Every PC needs something like kinect, that would make it pretty efficient assuming it could function for all the apps correctly. All the pretty eye candy, wallpaper...etc is rather pointless outside of being pretty shiny stuff for girly girls.

Shiny stuff sells, entire companies are based around that. Hell even I'd like the relatively pointless bloat for aesthetics if it didn't interfere with functionality.