Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Start Menu Could Return to Windows in Spring 2014

Last response: in News comments
Share
December 15, 2013 6:05:06 AM

How about the bring back the unbloated OS? Notice how fast 95/98/XP are, and then you try out Vista or Win7, even on a multicore machine and it lags behind, not nearly as snappy.

Just spend time to give us a quick and unbloated operating system, with a classic interface. Even XP loaded with updates and patches is so much responsive than the newer versions of windoze.

Let have a smarter, quicker, classic OS, not a bloated, dumbed down, limited OS.
December 15, 2013 6:17:35 AM

Please deadmeow tell me more stories!! I want to hear about running Win95/98 on a modern machine. Sing praises of XP!! Sing sing sing a laud to Linux, that is what's next on your calendar, no?
Related resources
December 15, 2013 6:22:23 AM

Yes, stripping out the Start Menu was a blunder. I am uninterested in Sinofsky styled rationalizations about how the start menu was used or how some people filled their desktop full of shortcuts.

Nor do I want to engage those Windows 8 people who claim that anyone who is interested in a old style Start Menu is stupid and do not know how to use their PC. I am running Windows 8.1 and am uninterested in other people's opinion on how I prefer to organize my PC.
December 15, 2013 6:41:53 AM

tech-backtrack of the year. :lol: 
i wish microsoft made metro optional and regular desktops. at least give users to choose instead of forcing metro on them.
December 15, 2013 6:59:20 AM

de5_Roy said:
tech-backtrack of the year. :lol: 
i wish microsoft made metro optional and regular desktops. at least give users to choose instead of forcing metro on them.


It's not going to happen nor should it. I spend 98% percent of my time on the desktop, yet I see no reason why MS would reinforce the idea of a wholly non-Metro PC.

I view Metro/Modern UI on the PC as the keystone of the shared Market/Store push. MS has every reason to stay the course and look towards acclimatizing people over time to using Metro applications, especially as a shared Market across platforms comes to fruition.
December 15, 2013 7:37:48 AM

My stance on this is this. I admire innovation however we should have the freedom of choice. Its not the lord of the rings here one ring to rule them all. I get the concept of the metro ui and the desire to do away with desk top short cuts plus the user friendly tablet and touch interface. to make a cleaner more organized look but some people have their own sense of organization. They do things in their own way and some people just think differently.
December 15, 2013 7:48:37 AM

Fortunately win8.1 uses more power than win7 ! Which makes win7 like XP but 10X better, not to mention a hassle free start button.
Besides M$ are too stupid to get people to adopt win8 because of one reason & one reason only. Give up ? Its that win8 is toooooooo expensive. M$ should revert back to $29.99 for a full stand alone OS not a watered down upgrade, before I reconsider.
For the idiots who like win8 it appears that you are to few for anyone to care. And to think M$ made windows more compatible with Intel is a never ending list of disasters this company has brought on the public !!!
December 15, 2013 7:53:35 AM

Our entire IT department with the exception of one of them is running windows 7, Linux or OS X because of windows 8's start screen.

The switch to an optional metro interface and gadets would actually make it an option for us to migrate workstations to windows 8 due to no training needed for our users. We have better things to do than respond to trouble tickets of people that don't know how to use the interface because it is different from what they're used to.

This is a huge win for Microsoft if they pull it off and if they had this from the beginning then windows 8 would've been a huge success.
December 15, 2013 8:01:38 AM

I have a nokia lumia 1520 and on it I love windows 8 on it and tablets. on desktops I can see its uses but find the start menu a cleaner and faster approach to get what I need. where I see metro ui good for some older or less experienced folks to not be afraid of their computers
December 15, 2013 8:06:39 AM

I was against Windows 8 since the beta release.... up until I actually started sing it with Classic Shell for a start button. Even though I don't like Metro, it does have its good points. I personally think it is a very good built OS, since it was designed for MULTIPLE different devices <PC, Phones, tables> It actually runs VERY well on my PC, but then again, I am sure I have an above average PC, but most PC's will have SSD's by next year as a boot drive, or they should.
December 15, 2013 8:11:34 AM

deadmeow said:
How about the bring back the unbloated OS? Notice how fast 95/98/XP are, and then you try out Vista or Win7, even on a multicore machine and it lags behind, not nearly as snappy.

Just spend time to give us a quick and unbloated operating system, with a classic interface. Even XP loaded with updates and patches is so much responsive than the newer versions of windoze.

Let have a smarter, quicker, classic OS, not a bloated, dumbed down, limited OS.


I got a 4 year old PC and it's awesomely quick with win7 x64, and I'm developer which writes native multithreaded apps that some of them handles run time data of more than 4GB of RAM, so I AM pushing it to the limits. I don't know what you're talking about. Your bottleneck is in your HW, believe it or not.
FYI - I got an i7 920, 4 year old entry level Radeon card and 3X2GB of standard RAM.
OS installed on a 4 year old Intel X25M 80GB SSD.
It's still blazing fast.
December 15, 2013 8:17:32 AM

I don't even know why they're going to take that long. Buy one of the "start menu" replacements(or fork the code) and post it as a store update in a couple of months.
December 15, 2013 8:28:14 AM

I have no hardware bottleneck with Win7, with a hexacore CPU and GTX 260. H264 encoding uses 100% of all 6 cores on XP, only 92-93% on Win7. Any OS will run fairly fast on modern hardware, but bloated operating systems lose their snap, that remains in XP. XP is also good for using more than 4 gigs or ram as is Vista, or Win7, or any other 64 bit OS.

I use Win7/XP/Linux Mint, but XP is still my favorite. I understand fan bois like to re-buy their old software if it is packaged in a new shiny box with a new year added to it. Enjoying microsoft office 2014? Just wait you can spend another 200 dollars on microsoft office 2015 in a few months, with new features such as increased loading time, and hard drive bloat.
December 15, 2013 8:29:22 AM

If you like your Start menu, you can keep your Start menu. Period.
December 15, 2013 8:52:46 AM

deadmeow said:
I have no hardware bottleneck with Win7, with a hexacore CPU and GTX 260. H264 encoding uses 100% of all 6 cores on XP, only 92-93% on Win7. Any OS will run fairly fast on modern hardware, but bloated operating systems lose their snap, that remains in XP. XP is also good for using more than 4 gigs or ram as is Vista, or Win7, or any other 64 bit OS.

I use Win7/XP/Linux Mint, but XP is still my favorite. I understand fan bois like to re-buy their old software if it is packaged in a new shiny box with a new year added to it. Enjoying microsoft office 2014? Just wait you can spend another 200 dollars on microsoft office 2015 in a few months, with new features such as increased loading time, and hard drive bloat.


If you ain't got an SSD than it would explain why your PC is lagging.
Using a PC like yours without an SSD is like buying a Ferreri with a cube shaped concrete wheels.
December 15, 2013 8:54:00 AM

Metro is so.......retro. Next interface: Retro! Geez.......what a paradox.
December 15, 2013 9:00:22 AM

Honestly..i don't give a sh*t if they bring back that start menu again or not..M$ time is over..They' ve Lost their credibility since they force us(profesional user,gamers n enterprise) to use that ugly cripple Tablet OS on our powerful Desktop..Adios M$
December 15, 2013 9:07:56 AM

bring back aero glass too windows flat taskbar and window frames are an eye sore to look at it's like I'm looking at windows 3.11 all over again.
December 15, 2013 9:18:44 AM

Nothing bloated about Windows 7. I can keep my computer running for days and it seems to run as if it was just booted in most cases. Everything opens in a snap. I loved XP when I first used it. I was reluctant to switch at first to 7, but I never looked back. Now when I try to use XP I cringe. I have tried Windows 8. It is even snappier than 7. Windows 8 is far superior in handling hardware and other things compared to 7. It only gets called a bad OS due to its GUI. Which is sad. I don't consider it a bad OS, but I'm not ready to change.
December 15, 2013 9:21:59 AM

Start Menu = Coca Cola Classic

Metro = New Coke

December 15, 2013 9:50:48 AM

The reality is simple. Offer the user a choice of interface's and let them choose. For those who like tile/touch or those who want the traditional.

MSFT is to friggin stupid the only way to get their attention is with a 2x4 across the head.
December 15, 2013 9:53:53 AM

I got a solution guys!!! Install Windows 7!!!!
December 15, 2013 9:55:15 AM

"If you ain't got an SSD than it would explain why your PC is lagging.
Using a PC like yours without an SSD is like buying a Ferreri with a cube shaped concrete wheels."

I agree, which is why I have an SSD.
December 15, 2013 10:04:32 AM

App store is a new way to distribute software. It enable more developers to enter the market. Less packaging. Cheaper software. Faster development-> distribution cycle. No inventory problem. No shipping delay. Customer could purchase right from their computer.
December 15, 2013 10:22:20 AM

While windows is clearly an inferior os to the modern linux distro as a gamer I am still stuck with it and while I really use the start screen as a secondary method of launching programs after launchy I do believe that its much better then those full screen things they put into windows 8 as such I always install classic shell wherever I install windows 8 and really it works pretty well with that.
December 15, 2013 10:59:12 AM

Well tbh I had just about convinced myself that it is unnecessary some time before I upgraded to win8 a while back, but I miss it sooo much. I just wish there was a place where everything that used to go in the start menu could go that I can access with one left-click. I'm sick of pinning every little app I use more than 1 a month to my taskbar. It's a bit messy. And this talk of floating the modern apps... When using Win8 it does not actually take all that long to realise with a sinking feeling that tiles and full screen interfaces are not windows. Windows are little blocks off functionality floating around on your desktop. A little sad but true.
December 15, 2013 12:15:52 PM

Four things need to be implemented:

Chose your Experience:
Metro UI - Use this if you have a touch screen
Classic Windows - Includes the Start Button. For those using a keyboard/mouse.

Customize your Start Menu: Allows you to move icons, create folders and organize your Start Menu's All Programs menu with ease.

Right-Click on the Task bar to Show/Hide Quick Launch

If the user chooses the Classic Start Menu experience, get rid of all of those menus that appear on the side by swiping or moving your mouse on either side or top. I haven't used Windows 8, so I can't say for certain that I know such a feature does currently exist.

But hey, if they go as far as putting the Start Menu back the way it should be, I'll upgrade my computer and kiss Windows 7 goodbye.
December 15, 2013 12:20:37 PM

"If you ain't got an SSD than it would explain why your PC is lagging.
Using a PC like yours without an SSD is like buying a Ferreri with a cube shaped concrete wheels."

Vista and later OS's lack 2D GDI acceleration support so the whole UI itself lags a bit by comparison. They also run substantially more processes in the background and use more system memory and storage.
December 15, 2013 12:37:59 PM

Oh please can developers make all their games run on openGL!? Please! I would never look at Windows again.
a b * Windows 8
December 15, 2013 12:53:46 PM

deadmeow said:
How about the bring back the unbloated OS? Notice how fast 95/98/XP are, and then you try out Vista or Win7, even on a multicore machine and it lags behind, not nearly as snappy.

Just spend time to give us a quick and unbloated operating system, with a classic interface. Even XP loaded with updates and patches is so much responsive than the newer versions of windoze.

Let have a smarter, quicker, classic OS, not a bloated, dumbed down, limited OS.


No thanks. I would rather have an OS that can utilize my quad core and 16GB of RAM, not a OS that was designed on archaic hardware.

And 8.1 loads faster on my current system than XP and is snappier. XP is old. It's been time to move on from that OS for years.

JOSHSKORN said:
Four things need to be implemented:

Chose your Experience:
Metro UI - Use this if you have a touch screen
Classic Windows - Includes the Start Button. For those using a keyboard/mouse.

Customize your Start Menu: Allows you to move icons, create folders and organize your Start Menu's All Programs menu with ease.

Right-Click on the Task bar to Show/Hide Quick Launch

If the user chooses the Classic Start Menu experience, get rid of all of those menus that appear on the side by swiping or moving your mouse on either side or top. I haven't used Windows 8, so I can't say for certain that I know such a feature does currently exist.

But hey, if they go as far as putting the Start Menu back the way it should be, I'll upgrade my computer and kiss Windows 7 goodbye.


8.1 allows for you to tell it to boot right to desktop and change the Start Screen to show All Apps instead of the Metro style. You have always been able to add in the hid/show desktop you just need to enable it.

As well you can disable all of the hot corners as well.

knowom said:
"If you ain't got an SSD than it would explain why your PC is lagging.
Using a PC like yours without an SSD is like buying a Ferreri with a cube shaped concrete wheels."

Vista and later OS's lack 2D GDI acceleration support so the whole UI itself lags a bit by comparison. They also run substantially more processes in the background and use more system memory and storage.


Yes and now we have quad core CPUs being very standard, 4GB being the default memory amount and IGPs that can now play decent games on decent settings.

Of course its better to have a OS that cannot properly utilize any of that and rather a OS, like XP, that was designed when single cores was tops, 1GB of RAM was considered a ton and 64bit was just a wee infant.

xaephod said:
Oh please can developers make all their games run on openGL!? Please! I would never look at Windows again.


The problem with OGL is there is no support backbone which means it may get new features or it may not.

It is sad but Microsoft actively supports and develops DirectX while OGL sometimes gets the support and sometimes does not. Add in the fact that the consoles are the ones that push games the most and the XB1 is DX based, its going to be a while before OGL takes over.
December 15, 2013 1:10:13 PM

The argument is moot as Windows 7 (Pro Ultimate) have XP mode in vT. As well the performance differences in Windows 7 vs Windows XP are situational at best. Frankly SSD native support trumps all claims that Windows XP has ground to stand on. As SSD's in my opinion are the biggest change to PC performance since the math co-processor.
December 15, 2013 1:13:37 PM

deadmeow's comments are amusing. The biggest complaint about XP for years was that it was bloated and slow on contemporary mainstream h/w. And it was. Anyone who actually lived through those years knew the drill: disable all of the animations, set the page file to a fixed size, disable 15 services, etc.

The other complaints were hauntingly familar: the UI is toylike and useless; the start menu is different/less efficient/I can't find anything; there are few apps written for XP, so why not stick with Win98?

In addition, the nvidia drivers were crap for months. And my mobo drivers kept crashing. In the end, I bought a new mobo so I could run XP. In fact, XP was the most troublesome OS I ever used. That includes WinME, Vista, and Win8, supposedly the biggest disasters of all time.
December 15, 2013 1:21:48 PM

Microsoft just runs around in circles. They need new leadership and they need it badly.

No one here is arguing for a return to XP in the literal sense, they simply think Windows 8 is a bloated monstrosity. Linux supports multi-core CPUs and SSDs just fine yet requires far fewer resources and storage space than Win 8.

Microsoft's problem isn't user interface, it's business model. As free alternatives gain ground in terms of user base and functionality, the paid OS model is going to be defunct and Microsoft doesn't have anything else profitable to fall back on. They need fundamental change and they need it fast.

And the biggest problem with 8 was never really the start menu, it's the lack of flexibility that came along with it. No one wants to be told that they have to use a tablet interface and full screen apps on a 27" non-touch monitor. Microsoft's arrogance for thinking they can dictate what is best for everyone was a huge blunder.
December 15, 2013 1:35:30 PM

The 'Start Screen' of Windows 8 is the 'Start Menu' of Windows 7. It's not just a screen size menu. The real problem is that Metro Apps are horrid on the desktop. To fix this all Windows needs is the ability to run Metro apps in a windows like desktop apps.
December 15, 2013 2:09:26 PM

troutmask said:
deadmeow's comments are amusing. The biggest complaint about XP for years was that it was bloated and slow on contemporary mainstream h/w. And it was. Anyone who actually lived through those years knew the drill: disable all of the animations, set the page file to a fixed size, disable 15 services, etc.

The other complaints were hauntingly familar: the UI is toylike and useless; the start menu is different/less efficient/I can't find anything; there are few apps written for XP, so why not stick with Win98?

In addition, the nvidia drivers were crap for months. And my mobo drivers kept crashing. In the end, I bought a new mobo so I could run XP. In fact, XP was the most troublesome OS I ever used. That includes WinME, Vista, and Win8, supposedly the biggest disasters of all time.


You speak truth. XP was a bloated OS. The red-headed-stepchild of Windows 2000, a clean OS that was had most of the benefits and none of the bloat of XP. XP was a worthless OS until the release of SP2, and wasn't a half decent OS until they fixed the bugs of SP3 (Early releases of SP3 were buggy, and could cause the system to go into an infinite boot loop if you had the wrong CPU).

Windows Vista was ALSO bloated for its time. No more so than XP was in its time. Microsoft expected that you had no less than the top tier hardware when you installed Vista, and most of the time, that assumption was absolutely wrong. With that said, Vista introduced a much improved security model (where XP didn't really have one), introduced a much much better driver model (for hardware that was supported anyways) and much improved system stability, provided you system was beefy enough to run Vista.

Once 7 was released, we saw the first Windows OS that actually addressed user problems and complaints. It had all of the benefits of Vista, more speed than XP (even on netbook-class hardware) and with very very very few exceptions generally improved the Windows GUI experience in every way.

Windows 8 still improved on speed on sub-par hardware. But they started to take a step back in other ways. The license model is a huge step back. Windows Vista and 7, you could use any installation disk, so long as you had a valid activation key, you were ok to go. However, this has been totally undermined in Windows 8, where you basically have no activation key (it is written to the CMOS on OEM computers). There are some odd choices as far as the disjointed desktop/metro areas. The UI, while not optimal for the desktop, is GREAT for tablets compared to any other Windows desktop OS. And Windows 8 has the BEST multimonitor support for the desktop so far. Windows 8 is a mixed bag, but in all, I will take the limitations and take the better OS under the hood...
December 15, 2013 2:09:58 PM

When poor sales strikes MS are forced to listen what the CUSTOMERS want rather than do what THEY want - That is the reason every other windows have poor sales and are garbage!
December 15, 2013 3:16:28 PM

I thought start was coming back with 8.1. I was really looking forward to that as I'm about to upgrade from core2 to i7. I think I'll just stick with win7 until 9.

Your loss MS.
December 15, 2013 5:23:18 PM

I cant wait for MS to just die...

Die and be replaced by a new software manufacturer called MicroMan.

MicroMan will produce a variety of software and hardware products which will revolutionize the way we use computers in a way that everyone will love.

MicroMan will be lead an AI being alien construct from the crab nebula. The company leader will of course be named MicroMan. MicroMan will have come to earth after being exiled from his home galaxy by a being known simply as Big Boss.

Everyone will love the software, and if they don't Microman will open an inter-dimensional portal into their living room and beat the crap out of them until they fork over another $100 dollars.
December 15, 2013 6:01:02 PM

Just make it an option, like "Change or disable Windows Features". That'd be the perfect menu for it and then you could not worry about one or the other. I prefer the start menu. It's simply better. But for touch, perhaps the start screen would be more useful.
December 15, 2013 6:31:27 PM

Here's hoping they do at least something like this! I love a lot of features about win8, and I like a lot of the ideas of Metro, but the whole 'full screen' experience on the desktop is dumb. Allow full screen as an option, allong with the whole snapping idea. But by default apps should run in a window on the desktop side of things.

Also, I absolutely hated the old start menu, and barely found the win7 menu to be useful. But to have a start screen a little bigger than my WP8 phone, with the same general organization features of my phone that pops up where the old start menu use to live would be a great compromise. Live tiles are a good idea. The relatively secure metro app environment and ecosystem is a good idea. The interplay that is possible (though rarely used) between metro apps is a good idea. But there is no need for these good ideas to run outside of the good idea of the desktop paradigm on machines that are capable of it.

I actively don't use metro apps that I like simply because there is no window option. I am not afraid to spend money on metro apps MS. But they are generally useless when they have to take up such a huge swath of the screen.
December 15, 2013 7:04:28 PM

Until there is a official word that the start menu is back in its original form i'm still steering clear of windows 8. They should basically announce Win's 9 with SSD having native support.
December 15, 2013 8:02:46 PM

CaedenV said:
Here's hoping they do at least something like this! I love a lot of features about win8, and I like a lot of the ideas of Metro, but the whole 'full screen' experience on the desktop is dumb. Allow full screen as an option, allong with the whole snapping idea. But by default apps should run in a window on the desktop side of things.

Also, I absolutely hated the old start menu, and barely found the win7 menu to be useful. But to have a start screen a little bigger than my WP8 phone, with the same general organization features of my phone that pops up where the old start menu use to live would be a great compromise. Live tiles are a good idea. The relatively secure metro app environment and ecosystem is a good idea. The interplay that is possible (though rarely used) between metro apps is a good idea. But there is no need for these good ideas to run outside of the good idea of the desktop paradigm on machines that are capable of it.

I actively don't use metro apps that I like simply because there is no window option. I am not afraid to spend money on metro apps MS. But they are generally useless when they have to take up such a huge swath of the screen.


Gotta say, I just fundamentally disagree with that. I hate metro apps with a passion. They should have something more like an Application store for Windows for easy, safe downloads. Metro is worthless on a desktop and I honestly have not had reason to open one of those applications once.

The Start Menu was also more useful - I could see what I had up and didn't have to go to a full screen, obstructive version of it to get the applications I needed open. Not to mention that I also can stick precisely what I want in the Start Menu manually.

It's just really, really simple: Give people the option of the two and uninstalling or removing the other. I just can't stand the Metro interface, because even if I get past the start screen, the fact I have all those useless apps taking up hard disk space drives me mad.
December 15, 2013 8:04:28 PM

CaedenV said:
Here's hoping they do at least something like this! I love a lot of features about win8, and I like a lot of the ideas of Metro, but the whole 'full screen' experience on the desktop is dumb. Allow full screen as an option, allong with the whole snapping idea. But by default apps should run in a window on the desktop side of things.

Also, I absolutely hated the old start menu, and barely found the win7 menu to be useful. But to have a start screen a little bigger than my WP8 phone, with the same general organization features of my phone that pops up where the old start menu use to live would be a great compromise. Live tiles are a good idea. The relatively secure metro app environment and ecosystem is a good idea. The interplay that is possible (though rarely used) between metro apps is a good idea. But there is no need for these good ideas to run outside of the good idea of the desktop paradigm on machines that are capable of it.

I actively don't use metro apps that I like simply because there is no window option. I am not afraid to spend money on metro apps MS. But they are generally useless when they have to take up such a huge swath of the screen.


Gotta say, I just fundamentally disagree with that. I hate metro apps with a passion. They should have something more like an Application store for Windows for easy, safe downloads. Metro is worthless on a desktop and I honestly have not had reason to open one of those applications once.

The Start Menu was also more useful - I could see what I had up and didn't have to go to a full screen, obstructive version of it to get the applications I needed open. Not to mention that I also can stick precisely what I want in the Start Menu manually.

It's just really, really simple: Give people the option of the two and uninstalling or removing the other. I just can't stand the Metro interface, because even if I get past the start screen, the fact I have all those useless apps taking up hard disk space drives me mad.
December 15, 2013 8:12:29 PM

qlum said:
While windows is clearly an inferior os to the modern linux distro as a gamer I am still stuck with it and while I really use the start screen as a secondary method of launching programs after launchy I do believe that its much better then those full screen things they put into windows 8 as such I always install classic shell wherever I install windows 8 and really it works pretty well with that.


December 15, 2013 8:12:29 PM

qlum said:
While windows is clearly an inferior os to the modern linux distro as a gamer I am still stuck with it and while I really use the start screen as a secondary method of launching programs after launchy I do believe that its much better then those full screen things they put into windows 8 as such I always install classic shell wherever I install windows 8 and really it works pretty well with that.


December 15, 2013 8:18:51 PM

You think start menu is better probably because you don't know how to organize the start screen. For me, I only put those I would most likely to use on the start screen, the rest are either left in "All Apps" screen or desktop. For those, I use often, I would made it medium size so that I could spot them right away. The others are all small size. Finally, I put them into 3 groups - Favorites, Productivity and Games.
December 15, 2013 8:26:37 PM

After several years of using windows 8/8.1 that coupled with the fact that I have been a huge MS fanboy.. Even I have to admit that on the desktop the stat screen has been a huge mistake. All MS had to do was offer the option of installing it or keeping the start menu. Simple but they didn't (thanks Sinofsky I'm glad you are gone). Having said that.. I really look forward to the rumoured changes. The start screen is great if you are launching apps quick and they are actually there or if you've actual had the time to clean it up and organise it. organise it being the operative term.. no one can deny that without proper organising and spending time the start screen just start to look like a jumbled mess. then god forbid you have to actually open an icon that's not on the start screen.. you go to the all apps screen and what a disaster that is.. if you have a lot of applications installed it takes twice as long to find what you are looking for. E.G. wanted to find the rescue media build for acronis the other day.. this is an icon I would not have on my start screen or pinned to the taskbar.. it took way to long to actually find it and click it. Not to mention have you ever tried to ping something to the desktop... yeah I get it MS you don't want us to do that.. but sometimes we need that option.. and jumping through your hoops to do it.. well.. I really just want the choice myself... I have a surface RT, Dell Venue Pro 8, Acer W510 Hybrid and multiple desktops in my house. WIndows 8 start screen is great for everything but the desktop. although contrary to the guy in this thread saying windows 95, XP was faster (he's not very bright apparently) Windows 8 is by far their fastest least bloated OS.. Just sort out the start screen thing and your users will be happy.. personally if they merged the start screen with the desktop.. added back the start menu (or found a better way to organise the All Apps screen) I'd be a happy camper.
One last thing.. for all the people saying that the start screen is not good for the enterprise.. well I guess they've never actually worked in an enterprise.. Or at least they are not very good techs.. I find deploying Windows 8 in the enterprise to be exactly the market it is meant for.. I strip everything off.. add only the software load out for each department.. and boom.. they are done.. I can't tell you how many calls I had in the old days where someone wanted something and couldn't grasp the Click start, click all programs (or how many people ask me what's the start menu) But I digress.
December 15, 2013 9:08:15 PM

Metro apps should have been the new gadgets from the beginning of win8. Start Menu should have been replaced with something better than unorganized metro start bullshit screen, something more logical and useful. Microsoft should stop copying everybody, and start innovating.
December 15, 2013 9:25:12 PM

@dimar

I agree. Gadgets were great in Windows Vista and better in Windows 7. But Microsoft did nothing with them. Everything I wanted Gadgets to be was incorporated into Android. Customers of mine have often lamented the fact that they wish their Windows desktops had the functionality of their smartphones, with plentiful inexpensive targeted apps that do exactly what you want them to that is less susceptible to malware (due to being in a central store). Windows 8 almost got it right, except that they shoved it down the throat of desktop users, and the live tiles are decidedly less functional than gadgets/widgets.
!