It's always nice to see UI/UX people respond to user input and admit when they are wrong, rather than berate their users for not understanding the product. This sort of humbleness seems to be becoming increasingly rare.<p>In the past Microsoft has done well for themselves by listening to their business users and prioritizing their concerns about backwards compatibility. I hope this revert represents a natural continuation of that policy.
The problem isn't the start menu. A fullscreen searchable start menu is something people have likely gotten used to - except for a vocal minority.<p>The problem is the context switching. Some apps full screen (even when they don't make sense or I want them part screen). Some control panel stuff in 'apps' (which requires full screen); some still in the old control panel. Some in both.<p>Somewhere along the way someone started thinking the whole 'single task at a time [or at most two]' was a Good Thing - but then someone else said that we can't do that, and what we got was the ugly bastard child of both.<p>I've stopped booting Windows, haven't done so even for gaming in a couple of months now. It's just too annoying at 8.x.<p>edit: before someone calls me on it, why no I did not read the article - I've since gone back and done so, and it sounds like they'll be offering windowed mode for metro apps as well.<p>So I take it back, this has the potential to make it far less annoying (if they consistently make it available for all metro apps).
I'm fascinated that they still keep the Building Windows 8 blog up these days. You can go back and read their justifications on why they made the major changes that are now being backed out of win 8, for example start menu: <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-your-comments-on-the-start-screen.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-...</a> and <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/03/evolving-the-start-menu.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/03/evolving-the-s...</a> I would love to see an analysis of how with so much data and insight they built something people didn't want. Was it all just confirmation bias causing them to see what they wanted in the data?
This seems like the wrong solution to the problem. Merging the start menu with the desktop as a full-screen launcher was a great idea - the start menu is effectively a modal interface so it only makes sense to make it fullscreen, and the old "icons on the desktop" thing in Windows has always been a misfeature.<p>My problem is its terrible integration with old Windows apps, drawing a hard line between "Metro" applications and "Windows Desktop" applications.<p>The other stuff is just mechanical problems with pretending that an 11" screen is the same as a desktop monitor. Give me an always-visible taskbar, one that uses <i>words</i> instead of pictograms. I've got 2 23" monitors - I've got the space to dedicate some of that room to a taskbar. Also showing multiple applications at a time.
Never understood the fixation with the start menu. You start up metro and you are greeted with all those tiles- <i>that is the new Start Menu.</i> Why is that so confusing?
The start menu should never have been removed. Microsoft lost their way temporarily with Windows 8, in their minds everyone was using Windows 8 on Surface tablets and Windows Phone's, not on the desktop where 95% of their market probably is using Windows with a keyboard and mouse.<p>My first purchase after buying Windows 8 was Stardock's Star8 which gave you back the start menu in Windows 8 and it only cost like $5. The fact I had to buy a separate application to bring back crucial functionality did irk we for a while, but it's good to see it's coming back eventually in its original form.<p>Don't get me start on the atrocious context switching. There is nothing more annoying then downloading a video, double clicking to play it only to have it load in the full-screen Metro Windows Media Player, then once you're done to be dumped back at the Metro tile interface again where you have to click on the Desktop tile to get back to point A.<p>I hope Windows 9 doesn't try and force new conventions that don't work on non-touch-screen devices again. Something tells me after the less than ideal Windows 8 sales figures, they won't make that same mistake twice.
It's interesting how similar it is to some of the concepts from this often linked write-up: <a href="http://jaymachalani.com/blog/2013/12/12/fixing-windows-8" rel="nofollow">http://jaymachalani.com/blog/2013/12/12/fixing-windows-8</a>
I don't really think adding in the start menu is the answer. I've been using Win 8 since release candidate and, although I was annoyed at first, I soon grew to enjoy the new UX.<p>When I use Win 7 now, the thing that annoys me the most is that damn start menu. It's clunky and feels like a chore to navigate through. In Win 8, you can switch over to the metro screen with the Win key, start typing and BAM. OR you can win+q and start typing while you're in desktop mode.<p>I never use metro, so I can't really talk about that. I'm not on a touch device for my desktop, though.<p>I think MS just has a reputation for being "slow" and "clunky," despite the reality that it's a blazing fast OS and, once you adjust to the new UX, a really nice workflow.<p>Just my 2¢.
It's easy to add features but removing features will usually piss of consumers.<p>I understand that they wanted a unified tablet and desktop OS but the way to do it would be to always use the tablet interface on tablets and offer the start menu and other traditional features as optional on first boot.<p>Optional and advanced features are always welcome, but don't replace things I use daily without offering a way to use the old version.<p>Maybe the new start menu / metro is better, but I don't have time TODAY to come to that conclusion myself. So I avoided Windows 8, because Windows 7 works and the time spent learning new things just didn't seem worth the new features.<p>Good job Microsoft, thank you for fixing this.<p>Windows 9 will be an important one. I personally think that they should look at what made Windows 2000, XP, and 7 so popular and focus on those features first. Look at what made Vista, ME, and 8 unpopular and avoid doing those things. That seems easy, good luck!
Finally, it took Redmond two Windows releases.<p>It's good that the "metro" apps now run in window-mode too next to Win32 apps.<p>Though, I wonder if Metro apps will be around in Win9. They could shut it down like Silverlight and the Vista/7 desktop gadgets. Instead of metro apps, saving websites to desktop (links) like in Win7 and FirefoxOS would make a lot more sense (IMHO).
Completely OT, but I just realized how pleasant Nadella was at BUILD, and how much he stressed the importance of MS' relevance in the coming years. It's so refreshing seeing Microsoft establish a really solid brand identity; they've now got an in-house phone development program, and apart from that terrible Scroogled thing, their branding and marketing is fantastic.<p>It's an aura I never got from Ballmer, who verged on either hostility or outright silliness. I'm extremely excited for the future of Microsoft, and backtracking on the Start Menu helps prove that they know what they're doing.<p>Okay, NOW they know what they're doing.
Windows 8 - no start button or menu<p>Windows 8.1 - added the start button but has Metro menu<p>Windows 8.2 - merges old start menu and Metro menu<p>Windows 8.3 - Same as Windows 7 (hopefully)
Dunno how any self-respecting nerd can accept Windows 8 knowing the direction that MS is taking the OS.<p>No matter how many band-aids they slap on it, IMO the 'new direction' (or metro, or tablet UI or whatever you wanna call it) is and will always be Microsoft's way of controlling the UX on Windows to maximize the efficiency of their app store sales funnel. The end goal is obvious, a commission on every software transaction on the Windows platform ala Mac app store.<p>If Microsoft was instead focused on the strengths of their OS rather than clamping down and being an Apple copy-cat I would have no problems continuing my support for Windows, a platform I've used since 3.1<p>Clearly though, they are going the other way. This sentiment is shared by Gabe Newell and it's no secret that Windows 8 was the catalyst for Valve's decision to shift efforts to Linux. I hope anyone else with Windows software will do the same.
The Verge thinks this will be part of Windows 9 instead: <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/2/5574830/windows-9-start-menu-new-desktop-experience" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/2/5574830/windows-9-start-men...</a>
Who still uses Windows!?! Linux at work, OSX in my bag. I couldn't bring myself to use Windows after all these years. 3.1 was great, since then it got worse every year. I gave up on Windows years ago.<p>It's like still using Hadoop now we have Spark.
I'm all for flat design should the context call for it. I don't feel like Windows 8 calls for it. I feel like that start menu looks infantile and cluttered.<p>Yes Microsoft, we get it, you invented metro. Stop trying to push it on us on the desktop.
Microsoft just needs to copy Apple here. Have a desktop, but let Metro apps run in either a window or full screen in another desktop. Voila: integration of Metro and the desktop in a way that doesn't suck.
Until they fix the retarded search I'm not interested. We've got powerful computers...wtf do you mean it can't search applications, control panel and docs in one go? It could under Win7...
It's funny to see how people were crying for MS to bring back the Start menu right here, on HN some time ago.<p>Yet now I see plenty of posts with "that is not a solution..". Can you ever be satisfied?
I think this is a great move, but why not enhance the run dialog so it works like Spotlight does on OSX: minimal, you type and it automatically searches. I like the start menu because its smaller than the start screen, but I prefer my launcher to be as tiny and powerful as possible without fullscreen flashing. Also, it lets me use the launcher to type in things that I can see from other windows, eg: calculations, paths, etc...
This will probably get buried, but I've been saying for months: <i>I want Metro to be the default wallpaper on my desktop!</i><p>(Anyone wish to turn Conky into a Metro app?)<p>Add the usual wishlist item of allowing Metro apps to open in their own windows (perhaps only when you're in desktop mode), and that's as close to perfect integration as it gets between the two UI paradigms.
I've written about this[1] some time ago. When I used windows 8, was the first time that I had to read a tutorial online on how to perform every day tasks after ... maybe 10 years.<p>I mean it's hilarious how bad the user experience of windows 8 in laptops with no touch screen is.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.convalesco.org/blog/2014/03/24/microsoft-windows-8/" rel="nofollow">http://www.convalesco.org/blog/2014/03/24/microsoft-windows-...</a>
I wonder how much this is driven by true user feedback and by pack mentality by mass media. I use it, and for the life of me, can't see all the fuss.
Metro is pretty good on a tablet.<p>It's horrible on a desktop.<p>Here's hoping they don't fsck up the tablet (which they probably will).
8 years ago I left behind .NET development and gaming PCs as a hobby for Ruby development on a Mac.<p>I got into crypto-currency mining last year. As that became less profitable I decided to sell most of my mining hardware, keep one R290, and build a gaming rig.<p>"Metro" (aside from forced full-screen) is the clean break Windows needed IMO. There were/are definitely usability issues with it, but mostly on the feature/app level IMO (it's difficult to know how to find the tool you're looking for in the new "Control Panel", it should not take minutes to figure out how to turn the computer off, etc).<p>The biggest problem with it was that it was inconsistent. Steam is a "Desktop" app. For no reason besides MS apparently didn't force developers to go Metro. That results in a really awful experience for users.<p>So this... bowing to the same crowd that said they'd never leave DOS for Windows '95. Or '95 for XP, or XP for Vista, and on and on... this is a huge mistake IMO. MS recommitting to a UX that's never really worked all that well, and at this point extremely dated.
This seems like the forty years in the desert, back and forth, it is not efficient(actually is deficient) but it makes a good story.<p>I wonder why they dumped it for good in the first place why not make an option to chose when installing between the two interfaces.
They could've simply slowly transitioned to the 'metro' UI.<p>Step 1. Make advanced window positioning integrated with OS.<p>Step 2. Allow windows to fade into background (possibly live wallpaper).<p>Step 3. Make the changes more efficient to overall usage. Driving Adoption.
I'm seeing an increasing gap between what I need and what most people need. I haven't used a start menu for months since switching to i3wm and its dmenu, which is also making the mouse seem redundant for most tasks.
I still think that a lot of the fuss is because people don't realise you can just hit the windows key and start typing to search in Win8. It's much quicker than using a menu.
Be nice also to have an intuitive way to close a metro app you've accidently opened when in the desktop. I end up using task manager to get rid of them, escape maybe?
Slurm Queen: "Yes. Which is why we'll market it as New Slurm. Then, when everyone hates it, we'll bring back Slurm Classic and make billions!"
Metro should have been device-aware (and still, toggleable) from the very beginning.<p>You can't impose a touch interface on desktop devices any more than you can impose a desktop interface on touch devices. Microsoft tried that, too, with Windows CE. It didn't work so well.