Discussion on:

You don't really need a Start Menu in Windows 8

.

A well-run office needs to keep upgrading to remain relevent. It shouldn't have to hold back because one or two employees are uncomfortable with new tools. IT personnel should neither be nostalgic nor regressive when it comes to the office's tech infrastructure. Actually said personnel should understand that there's almost always a better way to do something when it comes to computers. When I work on someone's ancient tech I wonder to myself how I ever got used to that. Every nerd should wonder the same thing from time to time.

Of course, I'm not a techno-evangelist. If you don't want Win8 you don't have to get Win8. Just don't get all Taliban on us when others want Win8.

but on a limited budget, would you rather spend the money upgrading the hardware and software, or the peripherals? I'd rather upgrade the system AND monitor for those CAD users; if that means the factory floor users who just clock in and out may have to put up with CRTs until hand-me-down flat panels become available.

You can easily replace the start button by placing quicklaunch and desktop toolbars on the taskbar on the desktop and managing them. Once set up you don't need to go near the Start window at all. Much better than the Start button.

Many people will look at that post as if you're talking Star Trek at them.

Also, removal of the feature means developers no longer have to support it. And we finally got them all to understand how to organize their shortcuts!

Oh well. At least, this paves the way for Microsoft UI scientists to invent a spectacular new interface in which shortcuts can be stored in hierarchies so you don't have to see all of them all the time, in Windows 10.

can u believe MS actually sells 2012 server with this UI, I hate it already.

That's fine, but the start menu was an infinitely better solution.

We've already had long quick launch bars, and over sized task bars, we gave them up for the start menu.

But in truth, the lack of the start menu doesn't piss me off as much as the lack of customization options for Metro and the new start menu. I can't even figure out how to change a fricken Icon, it insists on using the generic white window main metro screen.

It's nice to see someone not bashing Windows 8 because it's different for once.

The one thing I would have added and the first thing I would recommend to anyone moving to Windows 8 for the first time.

Pin to Start
Clear all the icons you don't want out of the Start Screen and pin the ones you want. This can include all your desktop apps. Then re-arrange them into whatever order you like best. Then just press the windows key or click the bottom left and all the programs you need are right there.

The old start menu was very limited in its ability to customize. If you just deleted all the shortcuts you didn't want it would probably prove troublesome somewhere down the line. Of course you could back them up into a folder somewhere but that sounds like a lot of hassle and beyond the regular user.

The new start screen is there to shape into whatever you want but people seem to miss this. If you were so inclined you could remove every metro app and create an all Desktop app only version of the Start Screen. Later if you change your mind you can just pin stuff back again. All my top 8 or 9 progs are in the first left hand column of my Start Screen and I know exactly where to find them. It's actually made things quicker as I no longer need to drill down three folders to get to things or create a gruesome looking start menu with too many things pinned to the top level.

The problem is that if you had a lot of applications installed then the hierarchical nature of the start menu meant you could find what you wanted without having to hunt as long as you could remember what sub-group it was in. With the start screen you lose that and are left with essentially what I saw many poor users have, a desktop, now start screen, that has so much stuff it you can't find anything.

And you will find everything

I set up the following catgories of programs and apps on my start screen.
(in order left to right / with left most = most frequently used)
Home: Desktop, Google, IE, The Time, Calendar Store
Communication: Outlook, Mail, People, Messaging
Office: Office suite, Evernote, Adobe Acrobat, PDF Touch, SkyDrive
Tools: Remote Desktop, Metro Commander, Control Panel
Entertainment: Multimedia 8, Tunein, & Magazines
This works for me.
What I wish Windows 8 could do is search by category & change the focus to that category. My categories are manageble - spanning two screens but if you have many many programs, it would be helpful to search for categories.
Nested categories would be useful too.
Also, zooming in on the start screen minimizes the icons and you can select a category this way.
All that being said, I usually know at least part of the name of the program I am looking for so typing it in to open it is very quick.

Windows + Q, instead of Windows + x + s + Esc

yes I have used wee eight without the start menu, but apparently if you launch Chrome or Firefox, they use the old desktop, you know........so we put the Startw8 back.
I'm still learning to use the new way of windows, so it will come to me in time...

http://www.redmondpie.com/this-extensive-list-of-windows-8-keyboard-shortcuts-will-help-you-adapt-to-the-new-interface/

I for one do not miss the Start menu at all. I just use Windows+Q and start typing, your application will be found immediately. I don't know what all the fuss is about.

But some people don't want to move their hands to the key board and start typing. I would guess you used to start most of your apps on Win 7 by start/search/ type the name. That is fine if that is the way you like to do it, but not everyone did/does. So what would you say if instead of getting rid of the start menu MS had removed the search capability you like? Would you still say "I don't know what all the fuss is about."?

Because they didn't remove it, did they? It really is very simple:
The Start MENU has gone. Instead of clicking the bottom left corner of the screen, press the Windows key and the Start SCREEN appears. From here you can launch you apps/programs or whatever you want to call them. Alternatively Press Windows+Q or move the mouse to the right-hand corner to bring up the Search charm and type it in there. It honestly isn't hard, it isn't even slower, it's FASTER. If you don't like it, fine, you probably didn't like it when the motor car was invented because you were used to riding your horse and carriage everywhere. It's not coming back. Deal with it. Eventually you will wonder why you ever bothered with it. I adjusted to it immediately and I was fully expecting to hate it.

to appear to find something when I could simply click a button and open it. I don't want my applications I have open to be overcast by a whole screen when that's not what I need. And I'm not typing "math" or "figures" or whatever I might think of to open Calculator, when I could simply click my shortcut to it from the start buttons menu, or from my Quickstart floating toolbar (I do the same thing on Linux by the way) from an easy list I've created, or failing that, I KNOW that it's in start/programs/accessories/calculator, just a few moves of the mouse away, without eclipsing the screen, OR typing ANYthing. Makes no sense to do it any other way.

The calculator shortcut is still in Start Menu > Programs > Windows Accessories.
If you don't want to type "Calc" on the Start screen, don't do it. You can continue accessing it the way you know.
Personally, I get to my calculator program by pressing the calculator button on my keyboard which also still works.

I think that simpy using a mouse to open the Quick Launch bar pop-up menu and selecting the favourite program you want sounds a lot quicker and easier than hitting the Windows key + Q on the keyboard and then typing in the first few letters of an app!

Chances are your fingers are already on the keyboard and it is quicker to press Windows+Q, then type 'w' + hit than to move your hand to the mouse and then do several clicks. Try it.

I'd even venture that you're a touch typist. My 200 or so 'hunt and peck' users reach for the mouse before the keyboard, using the keyboard only when they have to enter data.

I'll get done showing a user something using the keyboard and say "here, now you try it..." The almost always grab the mouse and sit there thinking for a lengthy pause, before realizing the mouse isn't involved.

The computer is an extension of the right hand to most people. (of course left, if a lefty, but I find most lefties are a tad smarter than average)

You could say, "Here, if you want that program, touch this tile." (touches tile)
"Now you do it."
It would certainly be easier for a user to follow your finger.

If your comment is strictly in regards to small devices, I agree. But monitors are often out of reach, especially when using multiple ones. Even if they are in reach, you're looking at some serious repetitive stress problems. In Basic Training, one punishment was simply to hold your arms out for extended periods.

Where we keep our monitors today.

Maybe instead of standing up vertically at the back of our desks, they should be closer to us and at an angle more parallel to the surface of the desk - you know, in the kind of orientation you hold a textbook when reading it... at about desk-height, with the top of the book angled a little bit higher than the back of the book. The keyboard might be on a shelf beneath and just slightly in front of the monitor.

And then when people come to your desk, the desk surface would be clean, as opposed to having them sit on the opposite side of a wall of monitors.

Things are in a period of drastic change right now - and your argument against touch-screen desktop systems isn't very visionary. If touch is superior enough, maybe the paradigm for desktop PCs needs to evolve completely. The monitor on our desk is the artificial barrier that limits productivity - not our inability to hold our harms straight out for extended periods of time.

I can't help but think if people found it comfortable having monitors positioned anywhere other than directly in front and vertical, someone would have already positioned them at an alternate angle and position. Arranging them otherwise may even require semi-circular desks.

I'll admit I can't abide fingerprints on my screen; I'd spend more time cleaning it than using it. (Aw geez, would I have to turn the dumb thing off before cleaning to avoid the wiping being inpreted as input?) I also question the use in gaming, where your forearm may be obscuring a vital portion of the screen. That's a class of software that may require major overhauls, but I'm specualting as a non-gamer.

Is mostly a tradition. You had a keyboard, you had a CPU on your desk (a "desktop"), and your green screen CRT sat on top of it. The tower moved off the desk, and the monitor grew bigger. That is why the Horseless Carriage became a carriage without a horse before it became simply a "car". Someone said, "Hey, this thing goes faster, and goggles are a pain. Let's invent a WINDSHIELD. Someone went, going that fast at night is dangerous. Let's invent headlights. Someone went, Now we've got this big windshield in front of us, and it sucks getting wet. Let's put a roof over it. Someone else went, what if you had windows on all sides you could roll up. Someone else said, "steering with a stick is kind of awkward... let's use a WHEEL"... The forum started to follow the function.

It certainly isn't ergonomics.

I bet technology itself plays into it. With CRTs, it wasn't a practical viewing angle. You had the big old flyback transistor sticking out of the back of the CRT... making it go downward would have lifted the CRT from the desk awkwardly compared to the face of the screen. When we moved to LCD, the problem was initially viewing angle. By the time we got those both figured out, *custom* was so ingrained that no one has *thought* about it yet... Here is another million dollar idea I'm giving away on Tech Republic.

It is also a matter of it will feel *weird* at first. I really think I'm onto something. All these companies making "All In One" touch-screen desktop units that haven't caught on... make the monitor tilt radically from the bottom toward the user, raise it just a bit, give it good viewing at that angle, and have the keyboard on a tray that slides out a little but mostly has your hands *under* the display. I can imagine it right now, and it would be *awesome* sauce... *especially* as touch-screen.

When you go into a library and they've got a big, unmovable book that sits on a pedastal, what kind of orientation is it in? When you lay out a cookbook in the kitchen, or you're transcribing papers onto your screen, what orientation are they in?

Basically the one I am describing. A little elevated at the top, with the end nearer to you and closer to the working surface, on some sort of stand designed just for this purpose. "Propped up". Most ATMs or other touch Kiosks, is the panel FLAT and facing you, or slightly inclined? When use the automated ticket kiosk at the movie theater?

The problem isn't that touch-screen is uncomfortable on a desktop - it is that a desktop is poorly oriented for a touch experience.

Huh? Did I just fix that problem? I think I did. I am so much wasted talent and potential. I should be designing things for Apple, not managing unruly IT workers and writing Tech Blogs.

I'm not sure about putting the keyboard under the leading edge of the monitor. Most people I know look at the keyboard while using it. This may change as schools put more emphasis on teaching keyboarding but I doubt many 'Millennials' can touch type. I know few Boomers and Xers can.

I hear you on fat reference books and kiosks, but few people use those eight hours a day.

I don't see it quite *under* the display, just recessed enough under it that you would be able to see it the keys but it would minimize the space between the keyboard and the display - because reaching OUT and forward is part of the problem. You want the display as close to you as possible, like a book - so you can reach it with your arms bent at the elbows - if that makes sense.

Maybe make the bottom of the bezel on the display clear, so you could see through that part - figure a bezel is going to be an inch or more thick... you could make that less of an obstacle.

Most keyboard trays that slide under the work area are designed to facilitate this kind of thing already, so you can have a book or papers laid out on the workspace, the monitor upright at the back of the desk, and the keyboard is on a tray slight recessed under the workspace. This will probably get me flagged for SPAM, but check out this link:

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Computer-Workstation-with-Storage/dp/B003FSTNAM/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1354756786&sr=8-5&keywords=workstation+desk

Those designs work GREAT...

I spend most of my time with my hands on the keyboard. If I had a touch screen, I would angle it differently than a traditional monitor and use my fingers to slide screens, choose tiles, and draw with a stylus. That's about 15% of what I do as far as computer input. The other 85% is keyboarding.
(I am having a real feeling of Deja vu here. We discussed this before.)

@myangeldust, your post has been removed because it was offensive.

You are entitled ti your opinions. You are entitled to express those opinions. You are entitled to disagree with the opinions of others.

You are NOT entitled to attack others because you disagree with their opinions.

What Microsoft used to call their Surface Project where the desk was the monitor and input device and everything was built into the desk.

That would work with Touch Screen though to be perfectly honest just Touch isn't enough we need to make sure that the Monitors used in things like that also have some way to separate the different users and not just rely on being touched.

When you look at something like that used to control some device it needs more than what Touch by itself can supply. Imagine a Computer Input/Display device in say a Nuclear Power Station being able to accept any input that was put in through the Touch Screen.

Way too dangerous and the chances of something going wrong because the wrong person used it or some other reason are way too high.

At least with a Keyboard and Conventional display a Password is better but when you move the Control Elements into the Desk itself you need much more than just touch.

However just using a conventional type Monitor as a Touch Screen in a Desktop for business is going to fail the Occupational Health & Safety Test every time.

Col

If changing the angle of a monitor to accomodate touch input was not ergonomically sound then the OSHA should be coming down on drafting tables.
The ideal set up for me would be a touch screen with a stylus and traditional keyboard. The screen would be at an adjustable angle of between 30 and 45 degrees directly in front of a standard pull out from under the monitor keyboard. My second and third monitors would be on adjustable arms that I could pull in or push back as needed. (I can dream. Can't I?) It's actually a similar configuration to what I have now (minus the touch and the drafting table style monitor).
I don't see this set up being harmful or ergonomically unsound.

Doesn't anybody remember Tron?

I honestly think that's what Microsoft is aiming for: the display and keyboard embedded in the touch-enabled desktop. It would truly suck for touch-typists, who would lose all feedback, tactile or otherwise, but it would be great for the hunt-and-peck typists.

they take up screen real estate.
Who wants 1/4 to 1/3 of the screen taken up by a virtual keyboard?

what I said was

However just using a conventional type Monitor as a Touch Screen in a Desktop for business is going to fail the Occupational Health & Safety Test every time.

The point being Conventional Monitors can not currently be placed in such a position and that is why they will fail Occupational Health & Safety.

I'm not implying that at some time in the future that things will not be different but now it's a different story.

As for not liking Keyboards on Monitors I'm very much the same but and it's a Big But if you are talking up Touch Screen UI's then you have to accept that they are designed and work at their best on Touch Screens and besides the current obvious things like dirty Screens that need constant cleaning so that they are readable and them currently being at the wrong orientation they will eventually come and be the sole and considered Best Input method till Unique Speech Recognition or something better comes along to replace the keyboard.

As a Control Device a Touch Screen may not actually require a QWERTY style keyboard and just be a series of Tiles to press to do something. Just like Metro as it was called was you pressed that Tile to open that App and this other tile to open that App. To go all Star Trek on you you could press that Tile to Arm the Phasers and this Tile to fire them.

However in reality it's more likely to be on something that produces a series of predefined objects from a 3D printer or the like when we first see things like that as the Input Devices for things.

I also am not a great Fan of Virtual Keyboards but they are endless better than the small keyboards that used to be available on the Older Generation Smart Phones which are what prevented me from ever being interested in them. Something like the Apple iPhone or the Nasty Samsung Galaxy which Apple finds so reprehensible are a different kettle of fish and if I really needed Internet while being Mobile I would get one. Currently I only need a phone to allow clients to ring me when I'm out and occasionally make a phone call when something goes wrong. Maybe latter I could justify a Smart Phone but currently I'm flat out running up a $30.00 Phone Bill over a 6 month period so I really don't have any use for one.

Besides while I do carry at least 1 NB with me when I'm out at clients, as they all have an Internet Connection if absolutely necessary I can connect one of my NB's through their ISP and get what is required but even that doesn't happen often. Mostly only when they ask for a Solid Price on some hardware and that to be perfectly honest isn't that often.

I do however have very Fat Fingers and without using a Stylus I find it impossible to use the older generation Smart Phones.

OK I've now officially forgotten what it was I was replying to as it's getting difficult to go back up a level and not being able to read the post. So I hope this makes some sort of sense, I'm sure that I've missed something though.

Col

"...a Touch Screen may not actually require a QWERTY style keyboard..."

The introduction of touch keyboards might have been a great opportunity to switch to the Dvorak keyboard. It's probably too late for that now.

You said, "However just using a conventional type Monitor as a Touch Screen in a Desktop for business is going to fail the Occupational Health & Safety Test every time."

I agree. Using a touch screen monitor in the conventional 90 degree angle with respect to the desktop could put a strain a user's arms and shoulders.
BUT
A touch screen monitor should inspire us to use it in new ways. Maybe the conventional orientation is wrong for a touch screen.
Using a touch screen monitor closer to the keyboard and at a 30 - 40 degree angle with respect to the desktop would be quite confortable. I also think it would also be easier to use for people who are not touch typists as the monitor would be much closer to the keyboard and at a more complementary angle.
For example: The Acer T232HL is a ten point touch screen monitor that can be adjusted to 178 degrees.
If it only accepted stylus input. (sigh)

We're already seeing them announced for smart-phones. Maybe our monitors will run horizontal to the desk top then transition into a 90 degree vertical display at the back seamlessly in the near future. Think of a skateboard half-pipe - or even a half bowl. Interfaces and displays are going to get revolutionarily different in the next 20 years. I'm sure of it.

I don't want to touch my screen, I hate finger prints on my screen.

Now if the screen was on a touch pad, or a mouse pad, that always showed the metro tiles screen so you always had 1 press access to applications, that would be sweet.
I would love it if it were by my hand, always displayed so I could quickly tap applications. The tiles would never disappear, the win32 apps would show on another screen, I could then fire off multiple programs in quick succession.

I can't really help you use a touch screen without touching it.
Keep your hands clean and dry? Wear e-tip gloves? Get one that accepts stylus input.

You raise an interesting idea with the touchpad with tiles display. This could be achieved with a Windows 8 tablet or tablet convertible. Lay it flat on your table, connect keyboard and a secondary non-touch screen monitor to it. Use the tablet screen as a touch pad.
The only problem I see is, depending on what you want to do, the Windows 8 tablet may be underpowered and / or overpriced.

Personally, I would just lay off the meatball subs and cheetos while I was working on the touch screen and keep a micro fiber cloth handy to occassionally wipe the screen.

I can't abide fingerprints on my screen.

My skin is so oily i leave cheekprints on Blackberrys when I'm configuring them for our BES. I make a point to clean them before I distribute them, but after dialing the activation number I can't read through my own secretions.

Though Dirty screens do drive me crazy personably, but what I do worry about is what is going to happen to these screens when they are effectively lying on the desktop and the End Users drop their Coffee or Coke onto them as they have to drink while working. I'm also not so sure what will happen to the crumbs that get dropped onto the screens from the food that they eat as well.

Old habits die hard and I'm parotid about seeing liquards and food around current generation NB's let alone when the Touch Screen is nearly horizontal on the desk.

However on the finger print thing I'm constantly asked how to prevent the Cel Phones screens getting covered with finger prints by their users and I suppose when Tablets get more commonly used I'll be asked the same thing.

Col

Actually, I am thinking of one system

Pretend your using a desktop, the desktop monitors always show the desktop and win32 apps. Metro apps are possible but not by default, not while the device is plugged in.
A device that is essentially a thin screen, is attached via USB and sits next to your mouse, (or under it, if it can). This screen always displays the metro tiles and metro apps and win32 app launchers(as they show in the same list).
So this would be like having the start menu always open. You could tap the program you want, and if it is a metro app, it launches on that screen (unless otherwise configured) and if its win32, it launches the program on your desktop monitors.

This solves the inefficiency of the new start screen when using a mouse. And its not a big deal to arch my head and use a touch screen for a moment to launch a program.
Bonus points if it can function like a giant laptop touch pad or as a drawing pad to draw into a win32 app. Where moving my finger on the screen, moves my mouse pointer on the desktop. (again, for drawing, or people that hate mice and like touch pads)