Home > Windows > Windows 9’s new Start menu demonstrated on video

Windows 9’s new Start menu demonstrated on video

  Submitted by Orichalcum Windows 85 Comments

Microsoft may have demonstrated its new Start menu earlier this year, but thanks to a recent “Windows 9” leak we’re now seeing every single part of the company’s plans for bringing back this popular feature. German site WinFuture has posted a two-minute video that demonstrates how the Start menu works in the next major release of Windows. As you’d expect, it’s very similar to what Microsoft demonstrated with traditional apps mixing with modern apps (and their Live Tiles) into a familiar Start menu.

It boggles my mind why Microsoft doesn’t just remove Metro from the desktop altogether. Is there anyone who wants to run those comically large touch-optimised applications in windows on their desktop? Why not restrict Metro to where it belongs, i.e., mobile? Why all this extra work?

It just doesn’t seem to make any sense.

About The Author

Thom Holwerda

Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]

85 Comments

  1. 2014-09-12 10:33 pm
    Hiev

    Is there anyone who wants to run those comically large thouch-optimised applications in windows on their desktop?

    What is wrong with windowed metro apps?

    And I bet this start menu will be cloned by Linux Desktops, I guarantee it.

    Edited 2014-09-12 22:48 UTC

    • 2014-09-12 11:46 pm
      Z_God

      Yeah, it actually looks nice to me. I have never used Windows 8 though, so maybe there’s something I miss, but it seems like a neat way to quickly look up the temperature or other info like exchange rates.

    • 2014-09-13 12:24 am
      ssokolow (Hey, OSAlert, U2F/WebAuthn is broken on Firefox!)

      And I bet this start menu will be cloned by Linux Desktops, I guarantee it.

      No contest. Linux desktops clone everything (inherent side-effect of an open-source platform that attracts people looking for “choice” who know how to program) and, if I were already experienced in writing KDE Plasma widgets, I could probably implement that in an afternoon by mashing together the existing application launcher and widget container codebases.

      The only question is whether it’ll be a narrowly-scoped “Look granny, it’s what you’re familiar with” clone or a broadly-useful “Look, we’re flexible enough for you to clone the Windows 9 start menu if you want” clone.

      Edited 2014-09-13 00:26 UTC

    • 2014-09-13 1:44 am
      Lorin

      They did, Ubuntu and that Unity mess, most abandoned it for Mint or other distro

      • 2014-09-13 5:24 am
        moondevil

        Every GNU/Linux user I know, still uses Ubuntu.

        Edited 2014-09-13 05:25 UTC

        • 2014-09-13 6:32 am
          Alfman verbose=1

          moondevil,

          Every GNU/Linux user I know, still uses Ubuntu.

          Many users didn’t switch, however many, including myself, did. Ubuntu wasn’t bad but they fumbled and their actions were arrogant and contrary to Linux ideals. Mint managed to establish itself by actually doing a good job listening to users rather than making decisions on our behalf, like we’ve come to expect from proprietary OS counterparts. Anyone happy with ubuntu would almost certainly be happy with mint.

          I actually switched to mint debian edition because the rolling releases were so appealing to me, but debian does have rough edges and that shows in the debian edition of mint. Mint’s website warns users of this.

          • 2014-09-17 12:39 am
            zima

            Many users didn’t switch, however many, including myself, did. Ubuntu wasn’t bad but they fumbled and their actions were arrogant and contrary to Linux ideals. Mint managed to establish itself

            A very small minority switched – Mint barely managed to establish itself in comparison to Ubuntu, look at Wikimedia page hits (by far the bast stats on the subject we have):

            http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2014-08/SquidRepor…

            Ubuntu 914M, Mint 7.3M

            …Ubuntu has two orders of magnitude more.

            But, what about trends, you may ask? Let’s check a year ago…

            http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2013-08/SquidRepor…

            Ubuntu 921M, Mint 9M …yeah.

            (and Ubuntu will “grow” massively in the coming month due to back-to-school)

        • 2014-09-13 6:49 am
          shotsman

          Perhaps you should make a wider circle of friends?

          Most of mine (and one was a former Canonical employee) have moved to Debian, Mint or CentOS/Fedora.

          They just got fed up with the constant break feature with release/fix/break again with next release cycle that was going on.

        • 2014-09-13 6:20 pm
          Kivada

          Most of us just changed the desktop as there are plenty to choose from in the repos or moved to an Ubuntu based distro like Mint.

          I was using Ubuntu with XFCE and LXDE up till Mint 13 came out with a fully integrated Mate/Gnome2.32 desktop and have been using that ever since.

          I may go back to Ubuntu this fall if it’s true that Matebuntu will be an official spin.

          Edited 2014-09-13 18:21 UTC

        • 2014-09-14 5:36 am
          cb88

          Heh… get with the program! Use funtoo!

          I’ve migrated though my fair share of distros. Mean Pup (50Mb distro)\Puppylinux -> Slackware/VectorLinux -> Debian\Ubuntu -> Gentoo\Funtoo

          Its been an interesting journey ;)

          • 2014-09-14 5:53 pm
            PieterGen

            Count me in! For longer or shorter periods I have used Debian (stable, unstable), Ubuntu, Mint, Arch, openSuse, Bodhi, Salix, Sabayon, Chakra, Fedora….Settled on Arch for some time now. But actually all these distros are fine Next up the list is a source based distro !

        • 2014-09-15 7:28 am
          bitwelder

          Add me to the lists of those GNU/Linux users who left Ubuntu (and don’t plan to return it until management changes) because of: Unity, Mir, Ubuntu Edge phone, and the way how they responded to the community.

      • 2014-09-19 11:47 pm
        zima

        “Most” (two orders of magnitude more) are very much still using using Ubuntu: http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2014-08/SquidRepor…

    • 2014-09-13 8:06 am
      testadura

      The start menu?

      Luckily GNOME 3 had abondoned this concept in favor of something superior.

      But integrating desktop widgets into the start menu really makes relevant again ;) How is this different from the widget frameworks or Apple dashboard?

      • 2014-09-15 5:44 pm
        grat

        Personally, I’d rather they just imported the Windows 7 start menu, and let me put the tiles (of my choosing) on the desktop to replace Ye Olde Gadgets.

    • 2014-09-13 8:59 am
      Carewolf

      And I bet this start menu will be cloned by Linux Desktops, I guarantee it.

      Well, the linux desktops did manage to copy the old start menu screen years before Microsoft “invented” it.

      Edited 2014-09-13 09:01 UTC

      • 2014-09-13 4:16 pm
        Hiev

        Citation needed, I haven’t found any evidence of your claim, this is the story of the start menu in Wikipedia.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start_menu

        There is no mention that is a copy or is based in something else, actually, it mentions how the Linux desktops copied it.

        Edited 2014-09-13 16:16 UTC

        • 2014-09-13 10:26 pm
          shulai

          Unix interfaces had menus similar to the Start Menu.

          I had a hard time finding an example, until I found this page with SunOS 4.1 (1994) screenshots:

          http://toastytech.com/guis/ow3.html

          Of course, they didn’t say “Start”, and pop up when clicking on the desktop, but the concept is there.

          • 2014-09-14 1:29 am
            Hiev

            There is nothing in that page that looks like a start menu, more like context menues, and MS used those since the ms-dos days, so, no evidence till now, just a bunch of wishful emotions.

          • 2014-09-15 11:54 am
            henderson101

            http://toastytech.com/guis/ow3default.png

            That is probably what the OP was referring to. It certainly looks like a similar concept, but is fairly far removed.

          • 2014-09-15 3:12 pm
            Hiev

            I consider these 3 properties to be a fundamental for a start menu:

            1.- Is triggered by a button, not as a context menu.

            2.- The trigger button is always visible, the problem with the screnshot you show is that you have to right click in the desktop and that means to minimize the windows.

            3.- It is part of a task bar.

            Windows 95 was the one that has these 3 properties before the Linux Desktops who just copied the concept.

          • 2014-09-14 7:56 am
            moondevil

            Windows 95 was released on 24th August 1995 and I have magazines from 1993 with preview screenshots when it was called Chicago still.

            EDIT: typo

            Edited 2014-09-14 07:57 UTC

          • 2014-09-14 10:43 pm
            NaGERST

            OS/2 Warp 4 (released in 1994) has a start menu patented by IBM.

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/OS-2_W4.png

            The Worplace Shell with the start button and task bar was available long before Warp4 for testing purposes as well, running fine on warp3.

          • 2014-09-14 11:56 pm
            Hiev

            Accorging to wikipedia, os2 warp was released in 1996:

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2

          • 2014-09-15 3:37 am
            judgen

            You are correct, but the testing version for Warp3 was available much earlier though.

          • 2014-09-17 12:53 am
            zima

            Just as testing versions of Win95?… ;)

      • 2014-09-13 9:14 pm
        moondevil

        I wonder how old you are, as I clearly remember it was copied by GNU/Linux distros.

        Back then most users were on xwt, the original fvwm, Open Look and a few other ones.

        fvwm95 fork from fvwm even appeared before GNOME and KDE projects were born.

        • 2014-09-14 10:10 am
          Carewolf

          I remember seeing the start menu equivalent in anything from top screen menu to my own pre-KDE favorite; in the desktop context menu.

          • 2014-09-14 12:08 pm
            moondevil

            When Chicago was being discussed in the press, there was hardly any GNU/Linux X-Windows environment to speak of.

            As for a menu with a list of available programs, there were lots of options already available in GEM, Geo Works, Workbench, Windows 3.x extenders, OS/2, …

            This was hardly a GNU/Linux feature in any way.

    • 2014-09-13 9:36 am
      silviucc

      We already have better “start” menus, you folks can keep it. But I do like how Windows 9 rips off the way GNOME 3 does virtual desktops.

      Redmond, start your photocopiers!

    • 2014-09-14 11:24 am
      Z_God

      And I bet this start menu will be cloned by Linux Desktops, I guarantee it.

      http://rootgamer.tweakblogs.net/blog/10812/verkracht-ubuntu-in-3-st…

  2. 2014-09-12 10:55 pm
    project_2501

    This is what happens – enterprise think.

    A smaller hungrier zealously user-focused software company would not be in the disastrous state.

    There is no way a company of sensible financial size would ever let such bloat, contradictions and vanity-political features out – never mind actually expend development effort on them.

    It’s not just Microsoft – any huge almost-monopoly complacent company falls victim to “enterprise” behaviour. Infighting becomes prime, inertia becomes insurmountable. Refinement, efficiency, user-focus become casualties.

    10 years ago MS had no threat – Apple was on life support, and Linux was struggling with font rendering and guru graphics driver hacking.

    The world is different now, and Microsoft can’t afford this. Their only hope is to break up.

    • 2014-09-13 11:48 am
      kurkosdr

      10 years ago MS had no threat – Apple was on life support, and Linux was struggling with font rendering and guru graphics driver hacking.

      Nowadays, Apple Macs are Veblen goods for the few and Linux is struggling with backwards compatibility issues with proprietrary apps and proprietary drivers every time a new version/LTS of your favorite distro comes out (if you are on a rolling release, it’s even worse, because compat breakages happen more often)

      Linux distros not only are incompatible with win32 and win64, they are not even compatible with previous versions of themselves.

      The world is different now, and Microsoft can’t afford this. Their only hope is to break up.

      The world is different now, but MS still has their position in desktops and laptops secured. They know most desktop/laptop users want back compat (to protect their investments in proprietary software and drivers), they know they want win32/64 compatibility, and that’s why MS has no problem to use desktop and laptop users as pawns to crack themselves in the tablet and smartphone market. Hence the force-feeding of a nasty touchscreen-mouse hybrid interface.

      So, to answer Thom’s question: There is no usability sense in this, but there is business sense in this.

      Edited 2014-09-13 11:54 UTC

      • 2014-09-13 12:26 pm
        No it isnt

        What proprietary apps are Linux struggling with? Word Perfect 8?

        • 2014-09-14 7:35 am
          malxau

          What proprietary apps are Linux struggling with? Word Perfect 8?

          What proprietary apps have worked flawlessly on Linux for an extended period (say 10 years?)

          I’m still scarred from getting a copy of VMware in 2001 that was broken by a glibc change in 2002 (the change affected the return value of the nice() function.) I ran a hacked up glibc for a while to keep that thing working, but I can’t imagine enterprises would jump at the prospect.

          • 2014-09-14 8:18 am
            iswrong

            I’m still scarred from getting a copy of VMware in 2001 that was broken by a glibc change in 2002 (the change affected the return value of the nice() function.) I ran a hacked up glibc for a while to keep that thing working, but I can’t imagine enterprises would jump at the prospect.

            Even worse, usually kernel modules couldn’t be compiled all the time because of kernel upgrades. Judging from the following, this is still the case:

            https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/VMware#3.14_kernels_and_up

          • 2014-09-14 9:09 am
            No it isnt

            Quake 3 still works. Enterprises don’t run rolling releases, and use virtualisation to run old and outdated platforms for old and outdated software.

          • 2014-09-14 8:06 pm
            malxau

            Quake 3 still works.

            On my machine, quake3 runs without audio; it was designed for OSS, so my distribution is now two audio frameworks ahead (ALSA then Pulse.) The OSS shim things that work with other binaries don’t appear to work correctly with Quake 3. Fortunately ioquake3 works, but that’s not binary compatibility.

          • 2014-09-14 9:46 pm
            No it isnt

            Tried it right now, and while it takes a bit of effort, it does — more or less — work: http://www.gentoo-wiki.info/TIP_ALSA_with_Quake3/Enemy_Territory

            Try running 15 years old software on the Mac.

          • 2014-09-15 12:02 pm
            henderson101

            Runs fine on my G3 running Tiger

          • 2014-09-14 5:59 pm
            darknexus

            I’m still scarred from getting a copy of VMware in 2001 that was broken by a glibc change in 2002

            It’s even more fun now, as VMWare needs kernel modules to work properly. We know what that means, and I’ve yet to see a system that compiles these modules cleanly without some hacking in VMWare’s module source code.

        • 2014-09-14 7:59 am
          moondevil

          Not all GNU/Linux users are freetards.

      • 2014-09-14 12:48 pm
        shotsman

        Are you really being serious?

        My linux distro is RHEL. 10years of support with drivers for new hardware being added in the interim. I have far less problems with that than Windows.

        There are bits of very expensive software that just won’t install on anything but Windows Server 2008. Not the R2 version, not Server 2003 and as for Server 2012, forget it.

        The versions of that same software install and run on RHEL 4,5,6 and with a minor tweak to an OS file, RHEL 7.

  3. 2014-09-12 10:59 pm
    GrapeGraphics

    Well, that was exciting… I felt like it was 1995 all over again.

    • 2014-09-12 11:02 pm
      Hiev

      Really?

      Interesting, what would you recomment then.

      • 2014-09-12 11:35 pm
        GrapeGraphics

        A bit better design, more thought put into using BOTH curser and touch. They’ve got tons of engineers and designers at their beck-n-call, ya think they could do something ‘different.’

        • 2014-09-14 8:00 am
          moondevil

          Yes, but like in any organization they get to do what management says.

  4. 2014-09-12 11:12 pm
    Jbso

    I don’t know if the tiles are really needed in the start menu, but they wouldn’t especially bother me either. My problem with the implementation in Windows 8 is that taking over the fullscreen disrupts my workflow and leaves me feeling disoreinted for a few moments. As long as I can still see what I was working on before, I’ll be fine.

    In fact, I had the same problem with Gnome 3 as Windows 8, but not with Ubuntu’s Unity, despite the bashing it got. The difference was that Unity, at least when I tried it, was transparent so it preserved a feeling of continuity with what I had been doing before. Perhaps simply adding transparency to Windows 8’s start screen could have helped a lot of people.

    As for banishing Metro to mobile, I don’t see why that’s necessary. I like to have the option of using Metro apps regardless of whether or not I actually would. I’d assume people who don’t want them (probably including me) would just not use them – no harm done as long as they’re not being pushed on you. It’s like how I was always far more bothered by Google+ than by the much-lamented Samsung gimmicks (like Smart Stay and such). I may not have found Samsung’s features useful, but I didn’t have to think about them either. G+ use to pop-up in my face all the time, annyoing me needlessly.

  5. 2014-09-12 11:19 pm
    grable

    And here i thought they messed it up going to Vista and 7 by making it too large!

  6. 2014-09-12 11:30 pm
    WorknMan

    Is there anyone who wants to run those comically large touch-optimised applications in windows on their desktop?

    Let me answer that with a question:

    Is there anyone who wants to run those comically large touch-optimised Android applications on their Chromebooks?

    I’m sure Chromebook users don’t want to be stuck with a bunch of shitty, web-based apps, and I can assure you that some of us desktop users don’t either. I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but there are a LOT of phone/tablet apps being made that don’t have desktop equivalents, because devs just assume (and probably rightfully so) that if you’re on a desktop, you’re probably using a web browser.

    The result of this is that we’ve spent decades building up these stable, multi-tasking operating systems, while we run 90% of our apps in a f-king web browser. It’s just ridiculous. Tablet apps aren’t the optimal solution obviously, but they’re certainly a HELL of a lot better than most web/html apps. If that weren’t the case, there wouldn’t be native tablet/phone apps for anything.

    Edited 2014-09-12 23:33 UTC

  7. 2014-09-12 11:55 pm
    tomchr

    Clean aesthetics has never been Microsoft’s strong suit.

    The elegance of monocromatic elements combined with a purposeful and sophisticated use of colors to enhance usability and manage complexity has so far eluded the Windows interface.

    Granted, this is no easy feat by any means. Maybe even an art…

    Unfortunately, Microsoft still seems to take their design queues from toy manufacturers such as Fisher-Price, sticking with infantile color schemes and convoluted and poor usability choices.

    Edited 2014-09-12 23:56 UTC

    • 2014-09-13 12:29 am
      ConceptJunkie

      I agree. I think every version of Windows since Windows 2000 has been uglier and uglier, except Vista to 7 which was a mild improvement. Fortunately, you could always switch to the “classic” Windows 2000 look, until Windows 8 came along and that option sadly disappeared.

      I guess Windows 8 is too sophisticated to make itself look different.

      • 2014-09-13 3:57 am
        WorknMan

        I agree. I think every version of Windows since Windows 2000 has been uglier and uglier, except Vista to 7 which was a mild improvement. Fortunately, you could always switch to the “classic” Windows 2000 look, until Windows 8 came along and that option sadly disappeared.

        Trust me when I say I agree with you. I hated every UI other than the ‘Win32 Classic’ look, including everything I’ve seen on Mac and Linux (except the themes that intentionally copy Win32). I just couldn’t get used to anything else. (Funnily enough, when I’m on mobile, I can pretty much happily use whatever UI you throw at me.)

        Somehow though, I’ve learned to live with the Windows 8 UI. Not that I like it, but it’s gotten to the point that it’s not so bad that it’s distracting anymore. And I guess that’s progress ;) Also, AFAIK, you can download a ‘classic’ theme for Win8, but… I suppose we have to learn to let go at some point. *sigh*

        Edited 2014-09-13 03:59 UTC

    • 2014-09-19 11:37 pm
      zima

      The elegance of monocromatic elements combined with a purposeful and sophisticated use of colors to enhance usability and manage complexity has so far eluded the Windows interface.

      You might be interested in…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzzword_bingo

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIxcxfL5jas

  8. 2014-09-13 12:55 am
    Drumhellar Silver Supporter

    Is there anyone who wants to run those comically large touch-optimised applications in windows on their desktop?

    Using the Netflix app is much better than the web browser.

    I also prefer the Metro Remote Desktop and Skype apps over their desktop counterparts, too.

    I’d hate to install Windows 9 and find out I have to manually install other components to get my these Metro apps installed.

    Edited 2014-09-13 01:01 UTC

  9. 2014-09-13 2:31 am
    Kver

    It’s an improvment, and the tiles on the Start menu seems to work pretty well, but…

    …

    What an atrocious looking design. I mean, it’s just straight-up ugly. I don’t know how, but even context menus are still fugly. I mean, if it was beaten with the ugly stick it would imply that it looked good at some point.

    IMHO I think a hybrid glass/’modern’ UI would be drop-dead gorgeous; Use glass on anything core-system or on a window-managment level, then use flat ‘modern’ on anything app related. I mean, to this day I still think Glass was the closest MS came to giving the OSX UI a run for its money. And Metro Could look *really* slick when used in moderation – but it’s no good when not being used as a tiling window manager.

    Edited 2014-09-13 02:33 UTC

  10. 2014-09-13 2:31 am
    defdog99

    Look at that start menu scroll unsmooth. Even amiga OS 1.3 could scroll smoother than that.

  11. 2014-09-13 5:26 am
    Priest

    At least with Windows 8 I could just ignore the Metro portion of the OS (aside form as a start menu) and use purely classic apps. The shortcut never mattered to me because I used the windows key to get there anyway.

    Now with Windows 9 windowed metro applications will be forced on my classic windows experience. I still feel like something I don’t want is being shoved down my throat.

    • 2014-09-13 1:23 pm
      Chrispynutt

      I get the feeling that you can still ignore them.

      It looks a little less bad to my eyes. For you or me, I think taming Windows 8 is pretty doable. So maybe Windows 9 is a slight step back. However for people like my parents at least I know there next laptop won’t be utterly horrific to support.

      Still its like they really did believe in Metro for the desktop or that they are too prideful to give it up.

      Bah, I am equally bad, I wish flat design would go away and the kids get off my lawn.

  12. 2014-09-13 1:41 pm
    mikeanderson

    So I’ve used Win8 for 1 year and never used a metro app yet.

    Please give me the Win7 UI back, because Win8 has a slightly better kernel, but Win7’s UI is superior in every single way.

  13. 2014-09-13 4:18 pm
    Treza

    I had the impression that Microsoft’s goals where to get rid of the traditional desktop and use Metro for everything. They almost succeeded with Windows RT.

    Metro offers resolution independent applications and the integration into an application store model.

    Of course, entreprise customers killed that.

  14. 2014-09-13 7:10 pm
    Drumhellar Silver Supporter

    Well, now that I’ve got the Start Screen organized the way I like it, I don’t wan to go back to the classic Start Menu. Looks like there will be a choice, though, which is just fine and dandy.

  15. 2014-09-13 9:17 pm
    Hiev

    Words are cheap, show me the evidence.

  16. 2014-09-13 10:56 pm
    cmost

    I actually like what Microsoft is doing with Windows 9. They’re giving users choice and they’re (for once) making decisions that make sense. While Thom doesn’t think Metro’s large, over sized tiles make any sense on a desktop, I disagree. The elderly, I’ve found love the large live tiles, even if they’re using a keyboard and mouse. (What people didn’t like was trying to figure out how to escape the window-less full screen Metro apps or trying to figure out how to make the Charms bar appear at will.) It makes sense to have the tiles available for those who like them and to keep them tucked safely out of sight for those who don’t. The good news is that users can now have it the way they want: pure Windows 7 style desktop to pure Windows 8.x style Metro or anything in between. It reminds me of Linux.

    Edited 2014-09-13 22:57 UTC

  17. 2014-09-13 11:36 pm
    thegman

    I think it does make sense, not because it’s a good idea, but because of the reality of the Windows software market. Windows has no shortage of big, good, powerful applications, I’m talking productivity applications. It has a great shortage of quick, easy, throwaway apps for small tasks. Pizza Hut is never going to make a Windows desktop application for ordering pizza, but Metro style tablet app, quite possibly.

    I use Windows 8 on desktop, laptop, and tablet, and honestly, it’s probably best on the desktop. The Start Screen is just that, a starter/launcher, it’s not that invasive, and it’s fast and easy to use. On the tablet it’s all finger gestures and kind of a pain in the ass to use compared to Android (and I don’t even like Android). I think Metro/Modern applications do sort of make a little sense.

    I think if they sort out the sideloading issue too it’ll be probably the best stack available for making custom apps for business i.e. POS, machinery control, warehouse stocktaking etc. but without the ability to freely load applications, small businesses like ones I work for just won’t use it, it’s too much piddling about about licensing and certificates. It’s not so much the money, as the hassle.

    • 2014-09-14 3:35 am
      Alfman verbose=1

      thegman,

      I think if they sort out the sideloading issue too it’ll be probably the best stack available for making custom apps for business i.e. POS, machinery control, warehouse stocktaking etc. but without the ability to freely load applications, small businesses like ones I work for just won’t use it, it’s too much piddling about about licensing and certificates. It’s not so much the money, as the hassle.

      I am also completely against MS having this level of control over SMB/enterprise software (and at home for that matter). I find it extremely dangerous & careless for businesses access to be cryptographically controlled by microsoft. For a price, windows 8 sideloading licenses are available for pro/enterprise editions. Home users are locked into the metro store.

      http://www.cdw.ca/shop/products/Windows-8-Enterprise-Sideloading-li…

      http://www.frontierpc.com/software-services/software-licensing/soft…

      So ~ $4k buys your enterprise the right to side load on 100 windows 8 pro/server editions. Ironically it’s under the “MS open license” program, despite the fact that it’s anything but open.

      Alternatively, one can apply for a free developer license (only for windows 8 enterprise/pro though). It needs to be renewed every 30 days, making it completely unsuitable for long term (and even short term) projects. The license prohibits software distribution this way and MS warns they’ll revoke your license if you try.

      http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh974578.aspx

      Even if we want to use a non-MS toolchain to develop our own metro applications, we are still at the whim of microsoft to provide us with installation certificates – metro gives MS unprecedented control over software, I find this tremendously scary. And you are right it’s not just the money, it is a hassle. But more importantly there should be lots of red flags when handing over control keys to a corporation with a history of abuse and doesn’t have our interests at heart.

      I doubt the average consumer has considered any of these concerns. However I’m still glad they’ve mostly rejected the metro platform, even if for reasons other than software freedom. I wonder what battles lie ahead with windows 9.

      Edited 2014-09-14 03:50 UTC

      • 2014-09-17 12:51 am
        zima

        I doubt the average consumer has considered any of these concerns. However I’m still glad they’ve mostly rejected the metro platform, even if for reasons other than software freedom.

        One of the platforms they chose isn’t really any better…

  18. 2014-09-14 7:46 am
    spiderman

    I thought they promised they would bring the start menu back in a Windows 8.1 update, for free. I hope Windows 9 update will be free for Windows 8 users. If they don’t give this update for free, it feels like a scam. Just after being cheated with Windows 8, how can I be sure I won’t be cheated again with Windows 9? I can read the reviews but all the reviewers are bought. I remember the praise Windows 8 received from the press when it was released and they can’t be trusted.

    • 2014-09-14 7:51 am
      WereCatf

      I thought they promised they would bring the start menu back in a Windows 8.1 update, for free.

      They promised to bring the Start-button back. They did; there is now by default a button on the taskbar. The thing is, the button still takes you to the Start Screen, it is nothing more than a shortcut to Windows-key.

      • 2014-09-14 8:37 pm
        tylerdurden

        To be fair, the right click behavior on that “new” windows button in 8.1 now shows some useful info to the desktop context. It is still a massive kludge, makes little sense, and it’s a its core a really hackish solution (i.e. a true Microsoft feature) but it has made 8.1 a rather usable desktop environment.

        User interfaces are really arbitrary and subjective. At some point I also found counter intuitive having to use the “start” menu to “stop” the machine.

        • 2014-09-14 8:57 pm
          WereCatf

          User interfaces are really arbitrary and subjective. At some point I also found counter intuitive having to use the “start” menu to “stop” the machine.

          I’ve heard several people say the same thing. I’m not sure if I’m an outlier or something, but I always figured it as a starting-point for all actions on the desktop, not just for starting apps. They could’ve named it better, I guess, but I don’t know what term that could’ve been?

          • 2014-09-14 10:23 pm
            tylerdurden

            Indeed. I sort of figured out similarly, eventually. It also highlights the subjective/arbitrary nature of the interfaces we use.

            IMO even if interfaces are more “friendly”** at the end of the day we have to adapt to how the system works. Computing is still far from being “personal.”

            Edited 2014-09-14 22:30 UTC

      • 2014-09-15 7:14 am
        spiderman

        This ain’t the start menu.

        I was talking about start of August when they were talking about an update 3 to Windows 8.1 that has became Windows 9, apparently. So far so good, unless the upgrade is not free. Then I feel cheated.

        • 2014-09-15 8:19 am
          REM2000

          http://www.extremetech.com/computing/179756-microsoft-finally-admit…

          Youre correct they did say they were going to bring it back in an Update to Windows 8.1 however it made sense for them to roll it up into Windows 9 providing a further driver to upgrade.

          • 2014-09-15 9:57 am
            spiderman

            That’s ok, as long as the upgrade is free. There are rumors that it will indeed be free for 8.1 to 9 upgrade. I hope that is indeed the case. If it’s not then Windows 8 was a scam. People paid for Windows 8.1 believing the start menu would be back, as promised. If they push it to Windows 9 they should give the update for free to them. More generally, you should get x years of free updates when you buy a Windows OS because people are not supposed to know the future when they buy it. People who bought Windows 8 certainly didn’t know it was sub-release between 7 and 9.

      • 2014-09-15 8:18 am
        REM2000

        They did also promise to bring back the start menu in Build 2014, however this was pushed back and eventually packaged into Windows 9

        http://www.extremetech.com/computing/179756-microsoft-finally-admit…

  19. 2014-09-14 11:12 am
    arkeo

    Thom, you’re spot-on as usual.

    The very concept of one single OS “to rule them all” is ridiculous at best.

    I’m currently on Win 8.1, works great, but the Metro crap simply gets in

    the way FAR too often.

    Ciao from Italy,

    Mat

    PS: your older email address doesn’t seem to work any longer?

  20. 2014-09-15 9:02 am
    AndyB

    Has anyone else noticed that suddenly everything is an app? What happened to Programs like they have been called, well forever?

    • 2014-09-15 9:52 am
      WereCatf

      Someone asked the same thing last year, too. My answer is: me and plenty of others already called them apps back before Win’95 was released. You’ve just not been hanging around in the right groups if you didn’t ;)

  21. 2014-09-15 11:23 am
    wigry

    Windows 7 is good – very good. It works and nothing is broken. Windows 8 had an issue with Start screen and as a highly visible component, it did put people off to hold out for it. Now comes Windows 9 with its Start menu. OK, the Start screen issue is apparently fixed, but is there really a reason to jump to 9? I mean the Windows 7 works very well and it does not have problems taking advantage of current hardware as XP had? Why should anybody upgrade intentionally from 7 to 8 or 9? No performance reasons, no security reasons, nothing? Just a new UI which is not actually as pleasant as in 7. So I guess that Windows 7 remains king even after windows 9 becomes available because people start to realize that Microsoft haven’t invented anything groundbreaking for while now – they just play around with the UI and that is certainly no reason to upgrade.

    Edited 2014-09-15 11:24 UTC

    • 2014-09-15 6:14 pm
      moondevil

      So I guess that Windows 7 remains king even after windows 9 becomes available because people start to realize that Microsoft haven’t invented anything groundbreaking for while now – they just play around with the UI and that is certainly no reason to upgrade.

      Making the kernel compile under C++.

      Having the guts to be the first company to state C is legacy, and everything can be done with C++ instead.

      Creating the foundations of an OO ABI built on top of COM. So that we can slowly say goodbye to Win32.

      Having .NET compile to directly to native code (MDIL) binaries instead of using AOT/JIT with MSIL. As well as, adding the option for static native compilation.

      Lots of goodies for developers.

      Edited 2014-09-15 18:15 UTC

      • 2014-09-16 1:51 pm
        wigry

        Lots of goodies for _DEVELOPERS_

        But why should average Joe Sixpack care about that? From the consumer side of things, nothing has changed during last 5 years. No new groundbreaking technology has been introduced that Windows 7 would have difficulty handling. In fact first time in history, we are in a deep deep stagnation of technology. The software bits are cool for geeks (who care about C++ kernel) but for general population, there is nothing but shifting the buttons around the screen and changing the borders of the windows. Quite boring times we live right now and that shows – no reason to upgrade anything.

        Edited 2014-09-16 13:53 UTC

      • 2014-09-17 12:55 am
        zima

        Lots of goodies for developers.

        Anything relevant to users? ;)

  22. 2014-09-17 12:13 pm
    hoak

    Is there anyone who wants to run those comically large touch-optimised applications in windows on their desktop?

    Leading with this sort of informal fallacy that in turn includes an ad hominem attack really isn’t to the sort of journalistic standard you used to keep to here Tom. Or are you now intending OSAlert to be some agenda driven blog, where you want comments that are in accord with your ‘boggled’ mind?

    Yes, there are in fact roles and applications where work flow is aided via some of the TWM features offered by the ‘Modern’ interface, and the elements are far from ‘comically large’ if resized or used on a high resolution display. In fact, on some laptops with smaller very high resolution displays the Modern interface can more usable then the ‘Desktop’.

    Why not restrict Metro to where it belongs, i.e., mobile? Why all this extra work?

    Another obtuse, narrow context leading question, that again is more editorial then journalism and analysis. Why do you require one size fits all ‘restriction’? How is this ‘extra work’ if the code is substantially done and is reporuposed across multiple platforms? What’s so questionable about cross-platform versatility?