backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by random2.. on Jun 15 at 4:15 PM

Microsoft's reenvisioning of the classic Desktop Mode Start Menu may be taking longer than expected

Top Windows blogger Mary Jo Foley wrote a post last week seeking to clarify exactly when Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) was planning on releasing its revived, reimagined version of the Windows Desktop Start Menu.
 
While slightly overhauled to feature a flatter, more graphical rich Modern UI style, the new Start Menu will be available in Desktop Mode and is expected to function much like the old Start Menu you knew and loved from Windows XP/Vista/7.
 
The bad news, according to Ms. Foley, is that the new Start Menu likely won't be finished until the launch of Windows 9 in April 2015.  We already know that Windows 9 is expected to be a pivotal release, unifying the APIs and app marketplaces of Windows, Windows RT, Windows Phone, and Xbox.
 
According to Ms. Foley's sources -- sources that have a "good track records on Windows information" -- Microsoft had initially hoped to offer the Start Menu revival with its Windows 8.1 Update 2, which is expected to launch later this year.  However, it wasn't satisfied with the results, so it decided to push that item on towards Windows "Threshold" -- a codename that is believed to stand for the next major version of Windows, Windows 9.

Windows 8 Start Menu
[Image Source: Redmond Pie]

The ability to run Modern UI (Metro) apps in a windows form in Desktop Mode has also reportedly been punted until Windows 9.
 
So what's Windows 8.1 Update 2 going to include, since the two big-ticket items (Start Menu, windowed Metro apps) are gone?  Ms. Foley says she's not sure, writing:
 
So now what's going to be in Windows 8.1 Update 2? Will there be any user-interface changes or will it be more a vehicle for under-the-covers programming interface and reliability improvements? I don't know at this point.
 
If true, this is rather disappointing news for many Windows fans, but it is not altogether unexpected.  At BUILD 2014 in April, Ms. Foley asked Microsoft's Windows executive vice president Terry Myerson why the Start Menu wasn't included in Windows 8.1 Update 1.  He explained at the time:
 
The reason we (showed) that work is we thought it was important to share with developers. When do I deliver it? I really don't have anything to share there. We're just not ready yet.
 
If Ms. Foley's sources are to be believed, it sounds like Microsoft is still feeling the same way, hence it has opted to make an already major release (Windows 9) even more of a leap.  For now Windows 8 users will have to make due with less tightly integrated third party alternatives, such as Start8 from Stardock and the Pokki Windows 8 Start Menu, if they want a Start Menu on their Windows 8 desktop.

Source: ZDNet



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Report...
By retrospooty on 6/9/2014 12:17:57 PM , Rating: 5
Many users next OS upgrade is now delayed until Windows 9.

No problem MS, take your time. My money stays mine until you fix this. We had thought it was coming free in 8.2 liek you said, but the longer you wait, the longer you lose and the longer it is until the enterprise market adopts your next OS as well.




RE: Report...
By Manch on 6/9/2014 12:58:49 PM , Rating: 5
And we just talked about this in the XBONE article. Seriously?! How effin hard is it to re-implement the fricken start menu?! It was still there in the Win 8 Alpha and Betas. 3rd parties have re-implemented it no problem. Mind boggling stupidity on MS's part!


RE: Report...
By retrospooty on 6/9/2014 1:02:34 PM , Rating: 3
"It was still there in the Win 8 Alpha and Betas. 3rd parties have re-implemented it no problem."

Exactly... It was there and removed on purpose and re-enabling it is so easy, it's freeware. But... To be fair, the hybrid menu is different, it's live tiles on the small non-full screen menu - Still, I cant help but think it was to generate more hype for 9 than "its not ready". Oh well MS, it's your business.


RE: Report...
By Solandri on 6/9/2014 3:10:24 PM , Rating: 5
You're all assuming it's a technical reason why they're not implementing it. It's not.

Like I've explained before, this is about how software is bought and sold. The desktop and Start menu represent the original model (buy software in retail store, install it on your computer, access it via desktop and start menu). Metro and the Microsoft Store represent the "App Store" model (All software sold through one OS-locked store where the store owner happens to take a 30% cut). As each side gains the upper hand in that battle within Microsoft, we hear that the Start menu is coming back, or that it's being delayed.

Metro apps can only be bought and installed via the Microsoft Store, and Microsoft gets a 30% cut of anything sold through the Store. That 30% cut is the huge carrot driving Microsoft's behavior. The techies and engineers at Microsoft probably just want to make software and are pushing for a return to the desktop and Start menu. But the accountants' and executives' eyes are probably glazed over at the prospect of a 30% cut of all software sold for Windows.

As each side of this struggle within Microsoft gains the upper hand, we get announcements that the Start menu is coming back, or is being delayed.


RE: Report...
By retrospooty on 6/9/2014 3:14:13 PM , Rating: 1
"You're all assuming it's a technical reason why they're not implementing it. It's not"

I know it's not... That is why I said "It was there and removed on purpose and re-enabling it is so easy"

You may be right as far as why it seems to keep going back and forth tough... But lets also keep in mind, this was an unconfirmed rumor. The last I saw, when MS released that screenshots is that they were looking to the Win 8.1 Update2 in August (but not guaranteeing it).


RE: Report...
By Labotomizer on 6/9/2014 3:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think they let us read too much into the entire thing. They said Update 2 would continue to improve support for desktop and mouse users and they showed the above screenshot. Same presentation, different times. Perhaps they were hoping to have it ready for Update 2. I don't think getting the start menu back is the hard part though, even with the live tiles. I think getting Metro apps to run in a window is probably what's taking up the bulk of their time. And in their mind those two are tied at the hip and I agree. If you have the start menu then suddenly throw someone to a full screen app it will be less than pleasant.

If they do it right then April of next year will be well worth it. And shy of Windows tablets, enterprise wasn't going to deploy Windows 8 no matter how good it was. Windows 7 rollouts are still going on and, in major enterprise, has been being planned since prior to Windows 8's release. Windows 9 may gain desktop enterprise traction but it won't be until 2017 at the rate those rollouts go.


RE: Report...
By Samus on 6/9/2014 11:44:57 PM , Rating: 3
Lift the shell code from Windows 7, drop into Windows 8. Forget about the Metro integration until Windows 9.

In the words of Jeremy Clarkson "How hard can it be?"


RE: Report...
By Labotomizer on 6/10/2014 9:29:30 AM , Rating: 5
Why half ass it? They would rather implement it correctly. And I'm okay with that.

As has been pointed out by other posters, Windows 8 is written off by the consumer and industry at large. Just like Vista. Vista with SP1 or SP2 and current drivers was quite good. But at the point everyone was regurgitating hate for Vista that it didn't matter. Windows 8 is dealing with the same thing. No matter what MS does, it's still "Windows 8 sucks". The smart thing to do is bring the new start menu back with Windows 9 and get a fresh start in the consumer and enterprise mindshare.


RE: Report...
By FaaR on 6/10/2014 6:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
The start menu from windows 7 is half-assed?

I think about a quarter billion win7 users disagree with you there, but even so, considering how dismal a failure win8 has been for MS so far (even Vista sold better over time I seem to recall reading somewhere some while ago, which should tell you something), that ANY help this OS can get should have been a top priority for MS.

They just don't get it though, those fking suits over in Redmond. It's a prestige dickwagging thing, they just can't stand having to admit they were wrong about metro and the start screen. MS ran the software world for so many years, and it went to their heads. Now that they're no longer the center of everything and all their mobile efforts turn to muck instantly after being released they become headstrong and stuck in their ways, preferring to pretend they're still almighty, dominant and the center of everything.

"We're the leaders - wait for us!" is their constant call these days.


RE: Report...
By Labotomizer on 6/11/2014 9:56:43 AM , Rating: 4
Reading your post it's fairly clear you have no idea how consumer and business minds work. Windows 8 has been written off. What they do to Windows 8 now will not help. They're better off releasing an improved start menu and windowed metro apps for Windows 9.

Metro apps are important because they can run on different architecture and on Windows, Xbox and WP. Is it really that difficult to understand? Do you really think you know more about the market than the executives at Microsoft? That's laughable at best. If you did, you'd be working somewhere making those kinds of decisions instead of posting on a forum.


RE: Report...
By DT_Reader on 6/9/2014 7:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
My employer makes software for the health care industry. Consequently, our products are FDA regulated medical devices. There is no way we would sell them through the Microsoft store. The sole reason we're on Windows 8 tablets and not on Android or iPad is because with Windows 8 we can sell to our customers, who then install the software per FDA certified procedures (including configuring our software to work with their other FDA approved software). This isn't something that the general public should be allowed to just buy off an app store, nor is it something that our customers are allowed to just install and use, let alone the idea of giving Microsoft or Apple or Google a 30% cut. If our customers are not allowed to load the software directly then we're out of the tablet market.


RE: Report...
By marvdmartian on 6/11/2014 10:29:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the accountants' and executives' eyes are probably glazed over at the prospect of a 30% cut of all software sold for Windows.


On the other hand, when they tick off the users who DON'T require Windows-only (or limited) software for their home computers, like MS Office, they might just be losing long-time users of Windows to their competitors. I'm sure that Google appreciates all the new Android users they're likely inheriting, while Microsoft continues to stumble along, trying desperately to play catch up.


RE: Report...
By piroroadkill on 6/10/2014 9:45:36 AM , Rating: 3
Small menu with live tiles instead of full screen? Yeah, Start8 can already do that.

Microsoft don't have a particular reason to delay it, but that's fine, it means people sensible enough not to buy into Windows 8/8.1/8.1U1 will get a more polished OS with 9.


RE: Report...
By retrospooty on 6/10/2014 10:37:44 AM , Rating: 2
"Small menu with live tiles instead of full screen? Yeah, Start8 can already do that"

Start8 has live tiles? When did that happen? I used it a while back and it didnt. It did put (pretty much) the old start menu back, but not live tiles.


RE: Report...
By Motoman on 6/10/2014 12:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I don't think so...although Stardock has other utilities that let you run Metro apps in the normal desktop.

I've been using Pokki regularly for a long time now for everyone...it's free and people seem to like it. The customizable Favorites screens are nice, and otherwise it works like a normal Start menu.

It's not perfect...on occasion it loses icons for example. But it's free...and pretty good.


RE: Report...
By Murloc on 6/9/2014 1:55:23 PM , Rating: 3
the point is that they're not going back, they're making a start menu that should be different, and they want to make sure to get it right.


RE: Report...
By mackx on 6/9/2014 2:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
the only way they'll "get it right" is by doing something microsoft won't do - give users a choice. i want the vista/win7 start menu but others like metro. why should they lose out?

let us choose and we can all be happy. if they had done that in the 1st place then MS might not have to be rushing to get the bad taste out of peoples mouths.


RE: Report...
By inighthawki on 6/9/2014 2:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
Right, but at this point they missed that ball, and their option now is to go reimplement it. My guess is that what's taking so long is that it works very differently (considering the right side is now live tiles) and they want to make sure its good and polished off. They may also have to align to release schedules now, and so it could also be an artificial delay. Maybe they're also doing user testing to make sure it's what people like, who knows.

Either way, there are plenty of free start menu replacements for Windows 8, and Windows 7 works fine as well, so in the meantime, I'd rather they do it right than half-*ss it. If you're a power user who needs the start menu and your reason for not upgrading is because it's not an officially included Microsoft made implementation then I think you have bigger things to worry about than when it gets released.


RE: Report...
By gamerk2 on 6/9/2014 3:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
Come on guys, we all knew MSFT follows "Good Release/Bad Release" scheduling, so is this any surprise? Win9 is looking to be good if the trend continues at least...


RE: Report...
By Labotomizer on 6/9/2014 3:28:48 PM , Rating: 3
I prefer to look at it as major release/refining release. Windows Vista and Windows 7 aren't all that much different. Vista paved the way for new driver and security models, Windows 7 benefited from that combined with further refinements. Windows 8 was the first attempt at a single OS that can run across multiple form factors. Windows 9 will refine that experience.

Enterprise prefers to upgrade on alternating cycles. This matches Microsoft's clients. Not all that much different than Ubuntu LTS releases.


RE: Report...
By Motoman on 6/9/2014 3:18:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The bad news, according to Ms. Foley, is that the new Start Menu likely won't be finished until the launch of Windows 9 in April 2015.


The Start menu was "done" in Vista. Or Win7. Take your pick. It's also been "done" in Win8 essentially from the start...see: Stardock, Pokki, et al.

There's nothing to be "done." As usual, MS is just a batch of idiots.


RE: Report...
By KonradK on 6/9/2014 3:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No problem MS, take your time. My money stays mine until you fix this.

Sadly: maybe it is just a reason for which this fix will not be present in free update?


RE: Report...
By kickstnd on 6/9/2014 7:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
All I know is I have 13 PCs at home and I am going to quit giving any money to Microsoft. I will not do any operating system upgrades until the product is for a Desktop instead of for a Tablet or Phone. See if your stock go up if we quit buying your products.

Just the typical bait and switch.


RE: Report...
By LRonaldHubbs on 6/11/2014 7:59:03 PM , Rating: 3
Most of the enterprise market just finalized the move to Windows 7; they aren't switching again any time soon. Anyone who thought Windows 8 was ever going to see large-scale enterprise adoption has been kidding themselves.


No start menu good or bad?
By rocky12345 on 6/9/2014 12:44:57 PM , Rating: 5
I think the main reason if it is true is that MS feels that like Vista it won't matter what they do to Win 8 everyone or at least almost everyone has made up their minds that Windows 8 is crap & don't like it whether they have tried it or not. I find that these days a lot of people will talked crap about a product even if they have never tried it but only have read online articles or comments sections of web sites. I like Windows 8 but I have a third party start menu installed because that is the way I want to use win 8. I find win 8 a lot faster than win 7 in a lot of tasks & also it's boot up times crush win 7.

Anyways back on track if MS was to release the start menu for win 8 it would be over shadowed by all the negative artcles already on the internet about win 8 so why release such a huge feature in a OS that is already been crapped on by almost every website on the internet. It makes sense to release it in Windows 9 & make it a big selling feature & makes them look like they actually care about their customers by giving back a feature that everyone on the planet used to want put back into Windows. I find that there are a lot of people that actually like the start screen & this can also be bad for MS if they wait to long to add the start menu back into windows because at some point we will have enough converts to the start screen that these same people will be the ones crapping on Windows 9 when it is released but at the same time forgetting that MS did not take the start screen away but made it so both user camps get what they want from their Windows experience & after all that is what makes a OS user friendly is making it so people actually want to use it.




RE: No start menu good or bad?
By Manch on 6/9/2014 1:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
Restoring a disabled function is not a feature.


RE: No start menu good or bad?
By rocky12345 on 6/9/2014 1:21:02 PM , Rating: 4
Yea but MS will spin it off as a Big feature in Windows 9 & everyone will eat it up of coarse & make MS look like hero's
Which will promote Windows 9 sales so it is a win win for both the consumer & more so for MS because most of us get what we want & they get a bigger bank account so a win win.


RE: No start menu good or bad?
By xti on 6/9/2014 2:24:19 PM , Rating: 1
overdramatic.


RE: No start menu good or bad?
By Nekrik on 6/9/2014 1:40:08 PM , Rating: 3
For the group responsible it sure is a feature. It still requires the same dev/test/pm resources to introduce it into the current code, then test/verify functionality, fix bugs, etc...

Point being, it's far from a freebie for them to bring it back. If they see limited return on implementing it for Win8 when there are already third party solutions out there they may have decided to push it till Win9.


RE: No start menu good or bad?
By inighthawki on 6/9/2014 2:40:46 PM , Rating: 1
Microsoft, like every other software company, has a source repository. If they REALLY wanted to, they could theoretically, nearly freely, go back through and undo delete commits on the old start menu code and have what existed in Windows 7.

The issue, I imagine, is the old start menu may have simply been implemented with legacy technologies, so they are probably rewriting it to also integrate with things like the start screen's live tiles, etc.

So arguably yes, it could be a freebie to just resurrect the old code (and thus wouldn't really be a feature), but they probably just decided to make it a bit more modernized.


RE: No start menu good or bad?
By Nekrik on 6/9/2014 5:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
I usually follow and agree with many of your comments, but to think this would be a freebie, and that they could simply undo some code changes, not perform full blown test pass, and then send out the worlds most popular operating system is insane.


By inighthawki on 6/9/2014 6:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I didn't really mean "freebie" in that they could just click revert and send it out, but rather they'd have to write very little code. All that would really be needed would be to make sure the start button loaded it, and a lot of regression testing.


Interesting tactic..
By teng029 on 6/9/2014 12:47:42 PM , Rating: 5
So Microsoft decided that the lack of a Start bar was a selling point for Windows 8 when they released it, but now they're going to bring it back and use it as a selling point for upgrading to Windows 9?




RE: Interesting tactic..
By Ammohunt on 6/9/2014 2:02:00 PM , Rating: 3
Yes and that’s good thing! it means they are listening to their users and they give a damn about their loyalty to the brand unlike companies like Apple and Oracle(the worst).


RE: Interesting tactic..
By Manch on 6/9/2014 4:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
Didnt EA do this with Madden? Took features away and re-intro'd them later as a new feature?


Holding out
By villageidiotintern on 6/9/2014 12:54:20 PM , Rating: 4
I'm still holding out for Windows 9.8 SE.




RE: Holding out
By Gungel on 6/9/2014 10:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not touching it until Windows 9 ME is available.


By Nyanyanya on 6/9/2014 2:57:04 PM , Rating: 5
Start menu isn't such an issue (Class Shell is very good to replace it), but the overall flat-square-1980's-UI look breaks it for me. I love the glassy/rounded look of Aero in my w7, that actually looks like a "Modern UI" and not the garbage they did on W8. If W9 is gonna follow same UI path they can forget about my wallet.




By zero2dash on 6/9/2014 12:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
They're waiting to put it in 9, which is a new SKU.
Just like they do with their DirectX updates; wait 'til the new SKU to put a new DX out there.

Too bad for them Classic Shell DOES give it away - for free.




lame
By p05esto on 6/9/2014 9:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
really, it takes teams of developers and months and months of time to bring back a tiny feature they used to have? Oh, and there are about 50 other companies that made start menu replacements in about 3 months.... but MS can't figure it out? lololol shoot me.




I'm waiting for a reason
By Morg72 on 6/10/2014 12:26:53 AM , Rating: 2
This isn't a big deal for me, I never intended to buy Windows 8 in any form.

As for Windows 9, I am waiting for MS to mention a compelling reason for me to change out from Windows 7. Being new is not reason enough for me. Windows 7 has been rock solid and does everything I need it to. Adding back the Start Menu is correcting an error in their judgment, not adding a feature. As for the "new" implementation shown in the pic here, it looks like they just moved the Windows 7 gadget bar onto the menu.

I haven't seen enough about Windows 9 to make a judgment about whether I might change over to it, but from what I have seen, there is not a compelling reason to change.




Not a big deal.
By random2 on 6/15/2014 4:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure what the big deal is.

http://www.classicshell.net/




By XZerg on 6/9/2014 2:54:01 PM , Rating: 1
I barely use the Start Menu, especially with having put most of the relevant programs in Quick Launch. The Metro UI tried to create start menu but as a flat out model and it fails miserably as it is not as easy to customize/re-arrange icons and group them properly. Add to that the fact that it is an extra button/click press away compared to Quick Launch. Their App Screen would have been a great alternative to Start Menu and Quick Launch had it allowed custom sorting by drag and drop instead of hacking it by creating fake folders and what not.

But the biggest underlying issue I found with W8/W8.1 and W8.1.1 is that it presumes all computers are based on tablet/touch screen. So a power user like me was getting annoyed daily with:
1) losing mouse control as some "gesture" triggered touch KB
2) charms somehow popping up randomly even when my mouse is no where near the sides
3) unable to disable any of this "natural/born with" issues that a non-touch computer user does not need
4) No Classic/no theme available that makes current window and current taskbar icon easy to determine.
5) having to "hack"/hack too many little things to work

I really gave W8.1 and W8.1.1 a try but these issues just had me reformat my computer after W8.1.1 not delivering these "basic" options.




Business
By Argon18 on 6/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: Business
By EasyC on 6/9/2014 12:02:02 PM , Rating: 5
Vista was good if you had a machine that wasn't entry level.

From a power user standpoint, it was WORLDS more reliable than XP. XP had to be reinstalled every so often due to performance degradation. It wasn't very good at keeping itself clean.

That said, chalk this up to another failure on part of MS. I only use windows 8 on machines I don't have to interact with a lot (My home server, for example). Anything that I have to actually get stuff done on, is done on Windows 7.

Sigh.... I had hopes MS would fix this.


RE: Business
By Flunk on 6/9/2014 12:08:10 PM , Rating: 3
It almost seems to be an attempt to convince people that skipping every other version of Windows is the thing to do. You know that thing you wanted Windows 8 to do? Well do we have a Windows for you! Windows 9!

I have Windows 8 on my desktop at home, I don't have a problem using it. I have all my stuff I use all the time on the Start Screen and otherwise I just use search like I did in Windows 7. But I get that some people are rigid and inflexible, why hasn't Microsoft figured that out yet?


RE: Business
By Warren21 on 6/9/2014 12:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
I too get the impression that MS is doing this specifically so they can boost the sales of Windows 9. It's going to be a very important release for them, so they might as well cram all the "I want that" features into it.

It's a shame though, 8.2 with these features would've silenced a lot of the critics.


RE: Business
By dashrendar on 6/9/2014 12:21:01 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I find myself more efficient with the new Start Screen than the Start Menu. The Start Menu is a hierarchy of executable links most of which I don't care about. With the Start Menu, I can at least customize what needs to be prominent on the screen and what doesn't. Plus, the task bar pinning option kind of negated the Start Menu for me for years.

If Microsoft adds a Start Menu that is similar to that of Windows 7, I might actually disable it or start looking for a third party tool that does disable it.


RE: Business
By sadsteve on 6/10/2014 1:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Start Menu is a hierarchy of executable links most of which I don't care about. With the Start Menu, I can at least customize what needs to be prominent on the screen and what doesn't.


You can configure the start menu too. You do not have to live with the layout the application installer chose. I always made my own layout to work the way I wanted, removing or adding start menu folders and shortcuts.

If you have a limited number of applications, the non-hierarchical layout is ok. If you you've got tons of programs you're going to have quite a few pages of applications to scroll through.

I'd actually be more likely to use the Start Screen if it had a hierarchy. Have tiles that open a subwindow with more tiles on it. I could define my own categories like 'browsers', 'file utilites', 'programming', etc. But since it doesn't, I'll just stick with StartIsBack.


RE: Business
By retrospooty on 6/9/2014 12:22:01 PM , Rating: 2
"It almost seems to be an attempt to convince people that skipping every other version of Windows is the thing to do. You know that thing you wanted Windows 8 to do? Well do we have a Windows for you! Windows 9"

It does appear that way. MS could teach a class on broken marketing.


RE: Business
By Mitch101 on 6/9/2014 12:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
I think Microsoft has figured it out. Since the CEO change a large number of mediocre/poor decisions have been reversed.

If this was applied to Windows 8.2 it would probably slow sales of Windows 9 which is not far off. I can only guess that Microsoft is using this as a carrot to get Windows 9 to have a successful launch with big numbers.

I have Windows 8.1 just being able to drop to desktop instead of the full screen start was the item that made me happy with Windows 8. I also uninstalled all the apps that I'm not interested in. Windows 9 adding the hybrid start I can see this as being the Windows 7 replacement people wanted. Cant imagine what people will complain about next but Im sure something will be labeled as the new disaster.


RE: Business
By inighthawki on 6/9/2014 2:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
This started long before the CEO change.


RE: Business
By retrospooty on 6/9/2014 12:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
"Vista was good if you had a machine that wasn't entry level."

Not really true at release. It was buggy and had massive driver issues - MS's direct fault or not the driver issues were indirectly due to poor communication and poor OEM direction... AS for the majority of bugs, SP1 was pretty decent and by then the drivers issues were mostly resolved.

"Vista SP1 was good if you had a machine that wasn't entry level and OEM supported hardware" would be a more fair statement.


RE: Business
By Mitch101 on 6/9/2014 12:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed Vista had several big issues.

1 - Memory was duplicated which was a performance hit and required you had twice as much ram. It was later fixed but the damage was already done. Vista is really Windows 7 at this point.

2 - Drivers but not from Microsoft. Horribly written drivers especially from NVIDIA. Since NVIDIA was probably the majority back then Nvidia is mostly to blame for getting a horrible reputation.

NVIDIA drivers responsible for nearly 30% of Vista crashes in 2007
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/nvidia-drivers-...

On top of that many companies never released drivers for Vista. I had a new scanner just 3 months old that never got drivers for Vista. That didn't stop the company from releasing new Scanners that did support vista. They screwed the consumer hoping to double dip you into buying a new scanner. Many companies hoped to dupe the consumer into well you need to buy new hardware for Vista to boost sales.


RE: Business
By Nutzo on 6/9/2014 12:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
I had several high end laptops at work (dual core, 4GB ram) that came with Vista, and after struggling with them for several months we finally gave up and loaded XP. Much faster more reliable, and no driver problems.

Few years later, I loaded Windows 7 (64 bit) on the same laptops, and they ran better with Windows 7 than they did with XP. Allowed us to use then for a couple more years. Now they have been moved to the loaner pool, for the ocasional person who needs a laptop for light use out of the office.


RE: Business
By villageidiotintern on 6/9/2014 12:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
I built a machine specifically for Vista x86 on its release. I had no drivers for anything. Within weeks I was able to find a printer and a scanner with adequate drivers from Canon. nVidia did not work. I used an ATI card with minimal problems. As the months passed and the vendors caught up to where they should have been, problems ceased to exist. I still use this machine daily although it is for secondary uses.


RE: Business
By kmmatney on 6/9/2014 12:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
We have several XP machines that have been running fine for many years (10 years or so). I run CCleaner on some of them, but on others the built-in disk clean-up is good enough. The main reason that XP machines slow down over time is due to hard drive fragmentation, and that fact that they have older hard drives to begin with. We have a few XP machines with SSDs, and they fly. Reliability has never been an issue with XP, at least for us. Obviously it wouldn't be around this long if it wasn't reliable.

I run a lot of virtual machines within my Windows 8 laptop (running from an SSD), and the Windows XP machines always start the quickest.


RE: Business
By Manch on 6/9/2014 2:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
Once you installed the service packs too it was almost indistinguishable from 7. "7" only came out to get away from the Vista name.


RE: Business
By tamalero on 6/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: Business
By momorere on 6/9/2014 12:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
Along with Linux. Or is this finally the year of Linux desktop ? I'm still waiting for it 20 years now.


RE: Business
By retrospooty on 6/9/2014 12:28:57 PM , Rating: 3
Nope... LOL.

It will just stay the year of Windows 7 until 9 comes out. Win 7 is still growing (sorry Argon). http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-m...


RE: Business
By kmmatney on 6/9/2014 12:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
I can believe that Window 7 is growing. It makes sense - a lot of businesses are finally migrating from their Windows XP machines, and going to Windows 7, not Windows 8.


RE: Business
By retrospooty on 6/9/2014 12:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
The scary part of that is that almost 21 months after 8's release, 8 and 8.1 combined are under 13%. Win7 was at this same point in only 7 months.


RE: Business
By Mitch101 on 6/9/2014 12:39:43 PM , Rating: 4
They should have timed Windows 9 with the death of support for Windows XP. I think they would have had a record sales movement.


RE: Business
By peterrushkin on 6/9/2014 12:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, I don't think it will ever be the year of Linux on the desktop.

I went from Xp to Ubuntu desktop and then to a mac. I havent looked back.

I'm a developer and sys-admin. My mac does everything I need it to do and more. Never had any issues with XP/Win7 and no issues on the mac.

Besides, my productivity has increased so much so, that the work I have done has paid for the mac more than 30 times now. Can anyone else say that about their Windows machine?


RE: Business
By Ahnilated on 6/9/2014 1:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well then you must be making $300K/yr because if you figure in the average cost of a PC compared to a Mac which costs a lot more then you must be making bank.


RE: Business
By Argon18 on 6/9/2014 4:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
"Along with Linux. Or is this finally the year of Linux desktop ? I'm still waiting for it 20 years now."

You've been looking in all the wrong places. Linux haa already taken over the world:
1. The Web : Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, the biggest of the big all run entirely on Linux.
2. The Internet : All Cisco switches, routers, and appliances, the backbone of the internet, all running Linux.
3. Mobile Devices : The #1 phone platform, Android, is Linux.
4. Gaming Consoles : The PS4 console is FreeBSD, loaded with open source bits, plus new consoles like OUYA that are built on Linux. Don't forget Valve's SteamBox console, running Linux of course.

Basically everything around you, every computing resource you interact with is already on Linux. Oh right, that boring desktop peecee running your Excel spreadsheets, that one is still stuck on Microsoft.


RE: Business
By hpglow on 6/9/2014 7:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
He said Linux on the Desktop. None of what you have listed is a desktop device.


RE: Business
By DiscoWade on 6/9/2014 12:30:18 PM , Rating: 1
8.1 is really not that bad. The start screen is miles better than regular 8.0. Although I still hate the "metro" start screen, I can tolerate it in the 8.1 version.

There are other things in Windows 8/8.1 that I cannot tolerate. The biggest is the lack of Aero and the general ugliness of the UI. For some reason, my eyes have a hard time with the UI of Windows 8. The square corners and the lack of color just bother me.

The second is how hard Microsoft tries to get you to use a Microsoft ID to log in. A common problem with Windows 8 is when it the wireless settings and password settings become corrupted. When you boot your computer, sometimes it is not connected to the internet and so Windows 8 tells you to use the last password you used, but that is also corrupted. You'll have to find a wired connection to fix the problem. But what if you really did forget your password? You will need another computer to log in. My problem with the whole system is that I should not have to check-in with Microsoft to use my OS, ever, and it is much more difficult to clear a bad password.

The third is I do not ever ever EVER want to be forced to go through a Microsoft store to purchase my programs.


RE: Business
By retrospooty on 6/9/2014 12:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
"8.1 is really not that bad"

Yup. It's really not. This should be MS's new slogan. " Windows 8.1 , it's really not that bad"

LOL...

I personally really like the hybrid tart menu and was looking forward to it in Win8.1 update2. Bummer.


RE: Business
By haukionkannel on 6/12/2014 5:37:03 AM , Rating: 2
It would have been nice to have those features...
I am quite happy with win8.1, but I have heavily pimped version of it. Start8 (start menu), modernmix (windowed metro apps), windowsblind (better looking ui), object dock (some more eye candy), rain meter (even more eye candy...

Those first two are most important and those features were supposed to be in win 8.2. But I can understand why those make better sense in win9 from economical point of view.
But MS tendency of big leap, refine, big leap, refine... will lead to this kind of situation. Automatically this mean that the second version is almost always better, because most hard parts have been tinkered out. Is it wise... that is harder to say.
But as I said win8 is fine os, is just is too much different than previous one. It has been very stable and with some eye candy suitable also to my kind of user who likes his UI to look good, even at the expense of speed.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki