Discussion on:

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

I was afraid I might have lost my mojo, mellowed my style, be getting soft in my old age.

We'll have none of that.

It's another example of dumb-ass. It's not the only reason 8 is a hard sell. I guess if it comes on a new machine I'll probably use it but until my apps won't run on 7 I'll stay with that.

.

Pretty much what's going on. There's no reason the home screen means you have to remove the start menu.

This isn't an academic debate - the rules of logical fallacies don't exactly apply here.

It is about design aesthetics. Having a Start Screen and a start menu is messy and redundant, subjectively speaking.

It is about forward progress. Leaving the Start Menu encourages people to rely on a method they are comfortable with and reject adopting a new direction that may be superior, but unfamiliar and threatening.

It is about efficiency. Certainly having a Start Screen and a Start Menu would consume additional resources on the device at a time when Microsoft is trying to make the platform more efficient and lightweight.

I don't see any false dilemma here.

"Start Screen" OFF and put the start button BACK ON if it's redundant to have both? Start button works better, is more flexible, and doesn't take up THE WHOLE SCREEN!

I seem to recall the same kinds of whining when MS got rid of pull down menus in favor of the ribbon bar. Please recognize that MS spends millions on UI design and doesn't make changes to frustrate users or make them less productive. Learn where MS is taking the interface and you'll become more productive in the end.

in our office is with the Ubit add-on that restores the old menu structure, although sadly as only a ribbon tab. Even staff who have tried the ribbon lament the lack of the old menu structure. It's like having to use search to find a program: it makes what historically was very easy difficult.

"Learn where MS is taking the interface and you'll become more productive in the end."

Okay, where is it going and how will it make users of desktops and laptops more productive in the end? Avoid discussing the benefits to users of other devices; those benefits are obvious. What's in it of me?

"Learn where MS is taking the interface and you'll become more productive in the end."

Nothing is in it for you or me. It's all 'in it' for Microsoft and their goal is not productivity.

Couldn't agree more eaglewolf! It is glaringly obvious to me that their goal is less to do with making their OS more productive and much more to do with trying to get everyone to believe that newer always = better! Because if they can get them to believe that and they will upgrade to Windows 8 and will then be much more likely to take the next step and also invest in a tablet! Improved Productivity v Profit? Obviously profit will always win hands down because MS are a business whose sole aim (naturally) is to make as much money as possible.

Apple pushes novel new ways of doing things and billions of users gush over how "innovative" they are as a company. Even when it is clear that those items could have been included in the last revision and were only left out for the sake of having something new to throw in. How many people who bought a 1st G iPad mini are going to be upset in 18 months when the Retina version is released?

But when Microsoft pushes a product that is innovative, the innovation is solely motivated by profit, not in enhancing the user experience.

But here is the thing - if an innovation is not also an enhancement - you can't convince people it is superior. So there is a drive to find *enhancing* innovation to drive profit because otherwise, clearly, you're falling behind other innovators.

You've put Microsoft in a can't-win situation here. They don't innovate, they die - they do innovate, they're doing it just to drive profits.

Maybe they are innovating, and maybe it does enhance productivity, once you learn how to leverage the new tools that have been provided.

What a concept.

Entertainment use vs. productivity use makes a big difference in peoples' reaction to new interface. A long time after its introduction I still have a great deal of difficulty finding things on the ribbon. Re-training myself on office apps after having spent years becoming an expert isn't an attractive thing to me.

Is actually something that people are catching onto and I'm now getting positive feedback from users on.

That is the problem with business innovation. People *hate* change, but change is necessary. If your org doesn't embrace change and your competitor does, and that increases their efficiency... suddenly you find yourself falling behind and you're not sure why. It turns out, they're closing more orders quicker because a little change like the Ribbon was embraced and that shaved 15% off the time to complete a process.

I would get used to it just fine, just like anyone would who uses something all day all the time, no matter how disorganized the interface.

Myself, I don't "get" what criteria MS had in mind when they grouped things together, and I don't use it all the time any more. So, for new versions of Office, I go from expert status with high productivity to noob status with low productivity, until I buckle down and just spend a few days figuring Office out all over again. I have better things to do with my time, so I now just avoid Office when I can, and use an alternative app that has not taken a grandoise departure from the familiar menu set shared by all apps across all platforms for the past two decades.

The net loss of business productivity for staying static versus the net loss of casual use caused by being dynamic in their design is what drives these changes. You may not like it as a casual user, and I'm sure Microsoft would like to keep you "in the fold" as a casual user, but the numbers say that if they maintain a dominant presence as a corporate productivity tool - that is where the larger market and profits are for this particular software segment.

I think in the past it followed that by maintaining market dominance in business, education and casual use followed for the sake of interoperability and familiarity. Today we're seeing more casual Office Suite alternatives on all platforms that are far less expensive and meet almost all of the needs of less professional users while still maintaining a high degree of interoperability with MS Office. Microsoft will probably continue to lose portions of that secondary segment of Office user. It is kind of a weird paradox, because Microsoft Works has always been around and is roundly rejected - although it meets or exceeds the capabilities of most other Office alternatives. People will either buy a version of the Office suite because Microsoft is important to them, or balk at the price of Office and go straight to a non-Microsoft alternative for some reason. Maybe because Office is such a de-facto standard that people forget that Microsoft has a less powerful solution also. It comes down to Office being seen as an "all or nothing" option.

But I won't touch a mac anything either. I have NO NEED for an iMaxipad, or an iTampon, or any of their other devices. Sure I use XP, it worked, it still works. No need to change it. I also use Linux, it works, keeps working, and I can set it up the way I WANT without someone telling me, OH YOU HAVE TO USE UNITY (nope) as Microsoft's start screen with the Unity (metro) interface.
I'll do as I please, thank you.

You don't need a tablet or touchscreen to use Win8. A touch mouse will do just fine. Swip your fingers on it in different directions and make the Start screen or any touch-preferred app do what you need it to do. The more apps become touchable the more the touch mouse becomes useful.

Here's the thing: you guys think that everyone has a computer. There are still people without cable... EGADs! When they go buy their first computer, that machine will be the norm for them. So if it has a touchscreen they will expect that everywhere. Those newbies will look at your non-touch monitor and wonder how you manage to get anything done.

If that's the necessary tool, MS should include one with boxed copies of the OS, and hardware vendors should include one with new systems instead of traditional mice. Indeed, mandate vendors bundle the system with a touch screen.

Windows 3.11 did not come with a mouse, and computers did not come with mice. You bought your PC, you bought your OS, and you bought the hardware that you wanted to support it.

Why should it be any different with Windows 8?

Early laptops didn't have touchpads or joysticks. Plenty of other items started out as additional purchases but are now obligatory.

If I'm expected to change with the times, I don't think it's asking too much to expect the vendors to do the same. I can let Microsoft slide, but hardware vendors have been including mice for decades. If the mouse is no longer the best general purpose cursor control device for this new paradigm, as has been suggested, then stop putting it in the boxes and replace it with a better tool. They replaced the two-button rollerball mouse with a two-buttton-scroll-wheel-optical model; what's the difference?

And what's Fry's?

They sell everything from CDs to electronic components. http://www.frys.com/

Yup... we live in a changing industry. At some point, all devices *will* come with some sort of multi-touch enabled input. Until then, early adopters will have to pay the additional cost. Speaking of which.... find my latest post on this at the end of the forum.

"Mandate..." You are hilarious. You don't need a touch screen to run Windows 8 so why "mandate"? Only Apple mandates (see iPhone 5 sync cable).

What's the difference, other than the degree of expense?

I believe one of the older versions of MS Word came with a mouse.

Here is the problem with bundling hardware with a software innovation.

1: If it is at all proprietary, it'll limit the usefullness of the innovation. There are countless examples of a "paired" hardware-software solution where the hardware has a limited scope and the software needs that hardware. This is expensive and inflexible and tends to fail.

2: Bundled hardware tends to drive up the cost of the software, and frequently the best SOFTWARE innovation doesn't come from the same company best suited to make the best HARDWARE to leverage that innovation. So you end up paying more, you're forced to buy a component that is less than ideal, and you end up going out and buying an aftermarket product anyhow.

I mean - there are all kinds of examples of this going on even right now. The Wii U comes in a basic set that is less expensive and has NOTHING bundled in it. You pick your game, you pick your accessories, you go out and spend on the aftermarket devices you want. It'll probably cost MORE or you'll have LESS satisfaction out of the box... but it is an option.

Or you can get the deluxe version. It comes with a cradle for the tablet portion, a stand that charges, a bundled game, and some other accessories. It costs a little more, but it has everything you need right out of the box - but you probably could get better accessories from a 3rd party vendor once they're available.

Pick your poison. This is all marketing.

In the case of a retail Windows 8 upgrade - the idea is that you're pretty technically savvy if you're doing this. You don't want it to come bundled with a touch-mouse or a touch-monitor... you want to pick among your well researched and favorite solutions from multiple vendors.

For example: Buy Windows 8 and get a $20 discount on the purchase of a touch mouse.
That being said, I do not miss anything when using my scroll wheel mouse versus a touch mouse.
I'm sure there are others out there who prefer using a trackball over the scroll wheel.

M$ quite happily said that with UAC it was designed to Annoy Users.

What makes you think that their User Interface of Choice is any different? M$ was told by so many people that they wanted a UAC Type step in the process but instead of making something that worked and enhanced Security they made it so it was more of a Hindrance than a Help and then allowed End Users to turn it off. In other words they supplied what they had been asked to but made it in such a fashion that it didn't work as it was asked for.

Microsoft remind me of Ferrari F1 where when they make a decision on anything through the Committee System it's got to be used even when it proves itself to be counterproductive to performance. Instead of trying something that may or may not work they insist on attempting to make it work come what may and never accept that they have made a mistake.

Don't get me wrong I don't see an issue with whatever Metro is now called on a Mobile Small Screen Device but I simply do not see any advantage on a single/multi-screen desktop with a large easily read display area.

Not to mention what Occupational Health & Safety would say about constantly having to press a screen at the desk.

Col

I'm sure MS was using it as an excuse to get software certified through them, and collect the fees. They figured wrongly that the public would blame the software developers - just more Ballmer stupidity!

The purpose of the UAC is to ease both end-users and developers into doing some things right, which prior to Vista and UAC were predominantly done very very wrong. MS was catching flak about security because of the users and developers who were doing these things wrong, and was probably somewhat tired of it.

Goals of UAC were:
1: Get people to use a non-privileged user unless they are making system changes.
2: Get developers to program their apps correctly for a multi-user system, so that their users can use a non-privileged account and still do everything they want without issues.
3: Provide relatively non-intrusive permissions escalation so that people will continue to operate as a non-privileged user instead of just turning UAC off.

And, it mostly worked. App developers who were saving the user's documents in Program Files or the root of the C: drive finally had to stop doing that and learn to use the user's profile directory. Developers who were writing code that blindly attempted to open secure locations with write permissions all the time (because the dev was too lazy and just put 'write' permission on every file open statement) had to stop doing that. People who did not turn off UAC now find that after they're done installing all their stuff, they only get UAC notices on occasion when it's relevant. People who have used Unix, Linux or Mac know that the Windows UAC prompt is less intrusive than the prompts on those systems, which require entering their password or even switching to an administrative user entirely.

And now, Windows is more secure because an app can't randomly modify system areas without the user knowing. It's already caught one trojan before it could execute on my machine.

It has saved my bacon many times - but I'm not naive about MS intentions either. My clients regularly abandon what would have been fairly good software, because the UAC goes off all the time. I must admit, that most of the time these apps access administrative rights way too much!

I won't let them turn it off - I threaten to abandon support if they do!

that they are not a good app developer.

The programmers are using bad practices that cause security holes. (If not in of themselves, by forcing users to disable UAC, so this is a true statement.) Their testers are obviously testing with UAC off, which is a significant deviation from the expected use case. A good app developer would not do both of these things at the same time.

Maybe that will be enough to get them to fix it. If it's not, that's a third reason they're not a good developer.

Really? I'm sure MS does spend millions on designing new UI's but that doesn't automatically mean that they always get it right, does it? As for ribbons versus pull-down menus, I'm still not sure which I prefer! Ribbons might well be better - if only you could shift tasks to an order that made more sense to you, but as far as I know, you can't can you?

The fax machine was invented in the 1860s and demonstrated to bankers as a way to transmit documents faster than courier. The bankers didn't get it. Translation: the customers sometimes don't get it.

At times you make things that are useless. Other times you make things that look useless now. So you drop it.

It wasn't until the 1960s that fax machines became a part of the business environment. The guy who brought it back from obscurity was lauded as a genius. The dangers of making something ahead of the times.

And, never was useful. By the time people adopted it, e-mail existed, where you could send a READABLE copy to someone, without paper needing to be involved! What a concept. 100 year old technology that wasn't used, turned into horrible technology that shouldn't have been used, and is not outmoded. I STILL cringe when someone says "send me a fax."

and set it to email the fax as a PDF to you.
Maintaining a fax machine is so last decade.

Until everybody has an electronic signature, the fax will still be useful in business because it provides a fast and inexpensive hard copy when an "original" signature is required. Today's plain paper business faxes all use electro-optical (laser) printing, so the output is usually as clean as the original.

And sometimes, the rules require its use. Every pharmacy I support has a fax machine so doctors can fax in prescriptions. They will maintain those faxes in place until the FDA finally says that an electronic copy is just as good as a hard copy or until every medical practice adopts e-fax.

I'm not holding my breath for that day.

The FDA had an intiative last year to move away from faxes and to emails. You are correct, the issue is the signature. How do you verify the source? Fax is usually point to point so that was pretty easy.
We had to set up a certificate between our exchange servers in order to replace the fax. Their email service pings us back to verify that it was really us who sent the email.

Until the LAW recognizes E Mail as a Legal Document that was positively sent by the assumed sender in a Legal Context any E Mail has no Legal Standing.

As things currently stand if a Problem E Mail is found you have to prove that you did not sent it but for any Legal Reason yet a E Mail is not sufficient Proof of anything so Fax will remain for a very long time to come.

Col

nt

For instance Courts Here will not accept a E Mail as Proof of anything let alone an acceptable way to lodge anything.

Even a Fax is only acceptable to get things in within a short time limit and they are held as Delivered till the Courier Hand Delivers the real documents.

Here the same applies to Medical Records and Bills there is currently no Medical Insurance Company who will pay out on a Bill/Receipt e mailed to them. At best they may accept the E Mail as proof that you are submitting something but most times it ends in the Bit Bucket and nothing more is thought about it till the Hard Copy arrives.

Just 2 industries that will not accept e mail for anything but jokes realistically.

Col

for the government to trust a fax over an email because a fax is easily faked.
Spoof the caller ID and no one would be the wiser.
There are obviously contradictions within the government.
The request to switch from fax to email correspondence came from the FDA. We had to work with their IT folks to ensure that the email ping back worked before we went online.
It cumbersome project for every hospital or pharmacy wanted to set up this system with every doctor and insurance company.
The best way to do it would be through a "trusted" (in the IT sense)central email processing 3rd party.

By 'tasks', do you mean icons? I don't know about the ribbon itself is customizeable, but you can fully customize the 'Quick Access Toolbar'. That's the little toolbar on the left side of the title bar, next to the application logo. Like the Ribbon, the QAT is 'intelligent', changing with each different type of window an application opens; it's different for an Outlook e-mail than an appointment or task.

Right-click the ribbon and select 'Customize Quick Access Toolbar'.

MS does spend millions doing UI research. I would question whether they are approaching that correctly though. It seems to be focused on where a completely untrained user looks for things, on the assumption that the place they look is the "intuitive" location choice. I think that's false, and I think the fact that MS keeps moving UI items around release after release because new research shows people look there, is an indication that they are dealing with more randomness than intuition.

This entire discussion is centered around a giant false-dilemma fallacy. There are three choices going on here, and people are only discussing two of them.

A: Switch to the Ribbon
B: Keep the old, cross-app and cross-platform standard menu set
*C*: Have an option for both.

A: Switch to the Home Screen and remove the Start Menu.
B: Keep the Start Menu and ditch the Home Screen.
*C*: Have the Home Screen, but allow the Start Menu to be turned back on when in desktop mode.

If *C* wasn't such an easy option and such an obvious miss, a bunch of people wouldn't feel so confused and annoyed by these decisions.

"Please recognize that MS spends millions on UI design and doesn't make changes to frustrate users or make them less productive."

To what can you point that suggests this as true? Can't wait to see the fallout that ensues here once business gets ahold of this.