Rumor: Microsoft Bringing Back the Start Button With Windows Blue

Rumor: Microsoft Bringing Back the Start Button With Windows Blue

Thanks Donald. I hope it's true!

***Beware of Windows Blue***

Part of the rumor is that Microsoft will also allow you to boot to the desktop too. That's just one opinion... There are many who love the tiled Start page and find it far superior to the old style "list." I can see where it's better on a touch enabled device, but I'm sort of neutral on it for mouse and keyboard. I do disagree with the part of the quote that opines that it's dumb and clumsy. I don't find it to be either even with keyboard and mouse. Once I got mine set up the way I want it, it's simple and very intuitive. My 6 year-old granddaughter sat down with it and was flying around in less than 5 minutes exploring everything.

If Microsoft wants to do something smart with the OS though, they will bring back the Start button at the very least. Booting into the desktop is not that big of a deal because if you place a desktop tile in the upper left, a simple press of the enter key takes you there. If they allow people the options they are used to, they can discover and take advantage of the underpinnings of Windows 8 which are it's real strength.

This is encouraging news. Does Windows 7 also offer a "Classic View" option? I never opted for the XP view since it released and have always used the older "Classic View" It would be nice for the option to choose what you want to see in an Operating System instead of forcing something down ones throat. But even with a Classic View don't we still have the problem with Windows 8 and Classic gaming or am I wrong with this?

Many people were horrified by the so-called "Fisher-Price" interface of XP and opted to stay with the old Classic View. Personally, I RAN away from the old Classic View as it was just clunky in my opinion. Today, those views are almost 20 years old and I much prefer the way the new operating systems look and work.

There are some tweaks you can make to Windows 7 such as eliminating the Aero and Glass features. There are 3rd party apps out there that will allow you to customize the appearance, but I "think" - with the operative word being think - that they will only go back to the look of XP. Classic Shell is one of them that I'm aware of.

Read our Windows 8 and Games thread stickied at the top of the Glitches forum for a feel how games are working Windows 8. I've been pretty pleasantly surprised by how many of the old games are playing. I've included the year the games were released for reference.

Well for my 2 cents (a buck and a quarter for inflation) it took me a while to get used to the Windows 8 interface but now that I am, I prefer it.

I never really used the start menu in previous versions anyway because it was always to clutered and it was too much of a hassle to weed it out. Therefore, I just used the task bar and icons on the desktop to list the programs that I used on a regular basis. So, if given the choice I would opt to keep what I have now become used to.

Being able to switch to the desktop and the icons on the windows 8 startup is, for me, the best of both worlds and since I've finally become familiar with it, the windows 8 startup works for me.

Me too, oldman. I still really need to get some of the keyboard shortcuts in my head though. Windows key + Print Screen for a screenshot saved as a .jpg file is my favorite so far!

So...the keyboard Print Screen key doesn't work all by itself for a screen shot? If not, does it still copy the screen to be pasted in a program like PSP?

Just curious,

Gil.

My experience with Windows 8 has been very brief but very intense. My aunt bought a new laptop with Windows 8 on it and asked for my help as she was having problems. I'm not crazy about the tile screens replacing the start button but I can live with it. The one issue I have is that it appears that a given program is designed to run either from the tile screen or from the desktop and that you can't choose where to run it. This is annoying to me as I would probably prefer to work mostly from the desktop but it looks like I would severely limit what I could do if I stayed always in the desktop.

Am I missing something or is this really how it works?

Gil, the plain Print Screen works the same way. A screenshot is placed on the clipboard. Then you open up Paint (or PSP or whatever) and paste it in there to edit or save as a .jpg. In Windows 8, if you press Windows key + Printscreen, the screenshot is automatically saved as a .jpg file in your Pictures folder in a file called Screenshots. No pasting into Paint or PSP or anything. One step screenshots...

BobH, your annoyance is also mine. What is going on is you are still able to install and run legacy programs on the desktop side. So, if you open up one of those programs, you are flipped over to the desktop. If you are strictly running apps from the Start menu, you stay in the Start menu. If you had a Surface tablet with Windows RT (run time) on it, then you would stay in the tiled Start page all the time because Windows RT cannot run any legacy programs. You can tell the difference between a Start page app and a simple link (in the shape of a tile). If you right click on an app, you have several options to make it larger or smaller or make it a live tile etc. If it's simply a link to something, those options are not there... because all it is, is a link, not an app.

The problem for me is that I have the things I use the most on my operating system in tiles on the Start page - such as Computer or Control Panel or Downloads. These also flip you over to the desktop which I find very annoying. I've heard that these are going to be integrated into the Start page with one of the upgrades.

Good to know, Draclvr. If I ever have Win 8, I'd like to know I can copy and paste from Print Screen since I never leave a screen shot the size I found it and generally crop to what I want from it.

Thanks!

Gil.

I use the Snipping Tool for screenshots that are just the exact part of the screen I want. Much easier than all the copying and pasting and cropping in another program. I just grab what I want with the Snipping Tool and it's saved as a .jpg or .png or whatever file format I want.

Someone told me about the Snipping Tool a short time ago and now that's all I ever use. It is a big improvement over Print Screen and Paint. It can be found in the Start Menu under Accessories.

By the way, about using the Start Menu, I do use it. I don't tend to start programs from desktop shortcuts so I put my most often used ones on the task bar and pin the less often used ones to the start menu. Very clean for me as it only amounts to about 10 icons pinned to the start menu and 8 to the task bar. I have the Snipping Tool pinned to the Start Menu for easy access.

And moving between the Start page and the desktop is as simple as pressing the Windows key or clicking in the lower left corner.

I've never used Win 8, and I don't see using it until MS no longer supports Win 7. So I have a couple of questions. When Win 8 starts, instead of the desktop screen we're used to seeing, Win 8 starts in a tile screen, is that correct?

But if you want to go to the "normal" desktop screen you can select to do that manually. Is that correct?

When Win 8 is first installed, are there any settings presented that allow the user to set the program to run on desktop, tablet, smartphone, etc.? I realize some devices have limits and things must be set to certain settings to work properly, but it seems to me the user should have the option to set the type of main screen they prefer as default when its used on a PC.

Yes


Yes, but when you boot the OS, it will not start with the desktop by default.


Windows 8 doesn't run on tablet or smartphone.
Windows RT does run on tablet or smartphone, and it looks very much like Windows 8, but it's different underneath.


You have to use 3rd party software if you want the default screen to be the desktop.

Correct to all of the above. Now, yes, you can get to the desktop with a press of the enter key if you have your desktop tile on the upper left. Or you can switch with a press of the Windows key. But why not allow people the option to boot into whichever interface they choose? I've been called lazy in one forum when told the desktop is only one key away, but my point is that I/ME/I should have the choice!

Classic Shell is a free 3rd party program that lets you make Windows 7 or Windows 8 look and behave just like you want it to.

I'm telling people there is no earthly reason to switch to Windows 8 if they are running Windows 7.

Next to simple screenshots, one of my other favorite features is NO REBOOTS after updates and other changes. Plus, when Windows 8 DOES need to reboot, it gives you a message about it 2 days ahead of time rather than annoying you about it every few minutes.

People who design software don't seem to believe users should have as much control over the display as they'd like. I should be able to configure a display any way I choose, and not have someone who doesn't know my preferences force me into something I stick my tongue at.

Software designers, and developers, are trying to create something computer users, of any kind, will buy. So why limit the users' options for how their product will be displayed. If I want tiles littering my display, I should be able to have tiles littering my display. If I want only certain things on the screen, I should be able to do that as well.

It won't happen because too many users just have to have the latest and greatest, but if computer users would stop buying a program because it's the latest and greatest, designers and developers would start to give the buyers exactly what they want. Not what the designers and developers believe they should have. This is a contention I've had from the first day I started my first computer, and it hasn't changed.

I couldn't agree more, Homer. Our computers - at home anyway - are very personal expressions to most of us. I/ME/I want to have control over how it looks and works for me. I believe we will be holding our collective breaths a long time before anything changes.

It seems to me, that most people forget, that MS is designing it in this simple way, so even monkeys can make it work.

For one reason only - cut down on all the "stupid" calls to support from people, who don't know how to do this or that.
They are tired of the "average" user not being able to figure out even how to get online (just an example)

In my opinion, they are dumbing down windows.
And you know, that would be all fine by me, if they would leave it alone for the rest of us or maybe give us an "enhanced" version - not dumb version.

Sorry for all the "" seems I "like" to use that a lot lol

On the other hand, and speaking for the monkeys, Microsoft isn't designing 8 for PC users, IMO, but for everyone else with their iPads and laptops and I have no idea what since I have none of them, just my PC. Homer6 has the right idea.

It does seem it wouldn't take much for them to tailor a version of Windows 8 for the desktop PC...no dumb touch screen, for instance, which makes zero sense if you're sitting at a desk. A lot of people still do, despite all that talk about desktop computers going the way of the dodo. They are supposed to be the brains, they should use them to keep us happy and quite possibly less averse to change as a result.

Cranky

I'm not going to hold my breath on restoring the Start Button, it's not been mentioned in the TechNet forums, and my subscription level doesn't list it as available.

I run Android on my tablets, I don't have a need for Windows on those devices.

IMHO this is going down as one of the biggest business blunders in history

I agree with all of the above. It seems to me that MS in their haste to "catch up" to the tablet and phone market did a disservice to their PC market. I have two laptops for work loaded with Windows 7. I am having a hard time seeing the two companies that supplied me with these laptops go with Windows 8 as it is currently being sold.

But I try to stay away from solid predictions for the PC market. I remember clearly when the IBM PC was introduced. There was a smallish but very active PC market at the time with companies getting in their entries. The IBM PC was many times the price of the competitors and I boldly claimed that it would never catch on as it had priced itself right out of the market.

I've been saying we should have choices in all this electronic tech junk all along, but nobody listens to me! You are forced to go with what they want you to go with.

Yeah well - I can choose not to spend money on this dumb thing and show my dissatisfaction that way

Gads, why don't we all say what we're thinking? Or maybe we've all been looking into our crystal balls.

I think too many companies try and be all for everything that's on the electronic market, instead of doing what they've done best for so many years.

The way many buy the latest and greatest, regardless if it's needed or not, many companies can see there are huge profits to be made. They also see that it doesn't take much to improve something for most people to jump on the bandwagon and obtain that something before anyone else.

Because of this, those companies who shouldn't get into a certain sector of the market do, and usually at the expense of the one thing that made them the best at what they do.

As a result of these and other factors, we don't get what we want or even need, but what's been seen that sells. And whoa unto those who don't subscribe to what's been forced upon them. For they will be seen as stagnant, behind the times, a waste of time for any company to provide a service they once were heralded.

Give thanks for all those who believe, thanks to cunning advertisements, they can't live without the latest and greatest. For they are the ones who helped delete those things that, while not the latest and greatest, did a bang up job at what they were intended.

Change is good. However, this storm of new technology that has come is way to fast for me. I'm retired and comfortable with the simplicity of my old desktop computer. Too much change over a short period of time can be overwhelming. You barely have time to get use to Win 7 and along comes Win8 an shortly another new OS!
Sorry but I'm still using XP. Maybe the old adage will prove to be true - What comes around goes around - and we will go back to XP!

If there is one thing I don't EVER want to have to do, it's go back to XP! I love Windows 7 and it's the best OS they've ever developed. With the speed of the shift to portable devices, I understand why Microsoft went they way they did with Windows 8 and I've embraced it as much as I'm able. I am a bit of a Luddite in that they will have to pry my desktop, keyboard and mouse out of my cold dead hands!

I disagree with that.
When change reduces productivity in the office and usefulness at home, it is bad.
Change for the sake of change is a waste of time and money for the consumer.

Good you said "for the consumer" Jenny, because it isn't for the developer or seller. And this is the root of the problem.

I don't begrudge businesses for needing to make a profit in order to keep their doors open, they have, after all, a need to pay all of their bills. But it's when profits become the sole reason for keeping the doors open that is the crux of the problem.

I'm not so sure this is seen in small businesses, but know for sure it can, and does, happen in corporations. It's not good enough any longer for share holders to recoup only a small portion of their investments over a long period of time. They want to recoup their investments now, immediately, if not sooner. In short, they've seen one good size gain, so they want an even larger one. Now.

And the only way to do that is to force corporations into areas they aren't prepared to enter, or have no interest in.

Then comes one other factor in this whole "got to have it now" system, the consumer. Or those who have been harpooned into believing they can't live without out it; the only thing they can't live without are food, air, shelter, and water.

Clever advertising houses learned early on that if they play to the vanity of the consumer, some more than others, they could persuade many to keep buying something when a new something was released onto the market. It didn't matter their old something still worked like it should, it didn't matter nothing had really changed with the newer model, it was solely because it was the newer model and they were going to be the first, hopefully, to have it. They'd be the envy of their circle of other "got to have it" friends, and would obtain the status of leader of the pack until someone beat them in the next rounds of "who bought it first."

Greed, excess profits, and vanity are three things which cause many to enter into an area that didn't have their name on it. It blinds many into thinking if they did well in this area, they can do well in that area. It also blinds many to forget how they got where they were, before following the rest of the pack to the precipice. But at what price?

Change occurs and it cannot be altered. Days change, weeks change, years change, we change, and those things are unalterable. What is alterable is how we react to technology by asking ourselves a simple question--do I really need it, and why? If you need it because it's the latest and greatest, or really cool, then you need to rethink your priorities. If you need it because it's part of your job, then that's reason enough.

Technology, like the weather, will change, has changed, but it's up to the consumer how fast it will occur. And whether or not it will be a boon or a bane. And the only way consumers can control the speed of change is with their wallets, and a careful inspection of themselves to find out "do I really NEED this."

The "consumer" isn't always a home user. Consumers include the employees that have to use whatever version of Office (or whatever software) their companies are using and have installed on their computers. If a new interface causes an employee to require an hour to complete the work he could previously accomplish in 6 minutes, it's not beneficial to the company. That's something intelligent company managers consider before upgrading to newer software -- how many production hours are wasted while employees struggle with trying to do their jobs while learning an unfamiliar interface?

People still complain about the "ribbon" interface in MS Office products, even after they've been forced to use it for years. They claim it "looks pretty" for inexperienced users who only use a few capabilities, but it takes many more clicks and gyrations to get to the advanced settings they need for their work. It wasn't an improvement over the old interface, but Microsoft still doesn't give users the choice of buying updated versions of Office products with the original interface.

While companies do buy software, I don't lump them in with home computer users. They're in a class all their own.

Many times they aren't given a choice which software to buy, they're told. And it doesn't matter if an intelligent office manager tells the higher ups what they're buying is a piece of garbage, they're told use it, period.

And it gets even worse when it's a corporation, snail pace worse. There were times in my 34 years with a corporation, we thought someone up high had stock in this or that company. Because we'd get word a new software was being placed on our computers, and we'd end up spending more time trying to figure out how to make it work for our application. And screaming about the problems did no good. Call tech support.

To me, a consumer is one who can make whatever choices they want in the type of computer or software they want to use. They have no board of directors, stockholders, or manager telling them who, what, when or how.

Tech support usually knows full well the problems that can come with newer software. But not all tech support people are able to explain to management all the ways the company will lose money by upgrading. That's assuming that management doesn't have a stake in upgrading (like stock in the company that's selling the new software).

I like the way you think Kaki' Sister!

That's assuming upper management whats to listen. When upper management gets a wild hair, tech support doesn't tell them the troubles using this or that software, upper management tells tech support to make it work. Upper management usually cause more problems than they know when they refuse to listen to 1) tech support and 2) THOSE WHO WILL ACTUALLY USE THE SOFTWARE. Because software is being forced to do something it wasn't designed to do, those actually using the software spend more time trying to use it in order to follow guidelines send from upper management. As a result, upper management, when reviewing the numbers, wonder why peoples' production numbers are low and refuse to believe it's from any decision they made.

Thanks oldbroad!

That's true, Homer6. And those are the companies that lose money. At the other extreme you have companies that use software that is no longer getting security updates and is using lower encryption standards -- and is therefore vulnerable to having passwords and financial information of their clients stolen. But upgrading can be hugely expensive if a company is using custom software that does not work on newer operating systems.