Start Menu May Arrive in Windows 8.1 Update 3
Tags:
-
Windows 8
-
Microsoft
Last response: in News comments
exfileme
June 25, 2014 7:47:27 AM
There's a third update in the works, sources say.
Start Menu May Arrive in Windows 8.1 Update 3 : Read more
Start Menu May Arrive in Windows 8.1 Update 3 : Read more
More about : start menu arrive windows update
segio526
June 25, 2014 8:08:59 AM
mobrocket
June 25, 2014 8:21:56 AM
Related resources
- Start Menu not working in Windows 8.1 Update 1 - Forum
- Is the windows start button (not the start menu) In windows 8.1? - Forum
- Installed apps not showing on start screen after Windows 8.1 update. - Forum
- ReadyBoot set to start after Windows 8.1 update - Forum
- Windows 8.1 Update WDDM 1.3 issue - Forum
Osmin
June 25, 2014 8:24:51 AM
I found a use for both versions of the start menu and hope Microsoft allows both to be available at the same time. Either have the capability to show 2 start buttons or a single split button to open either version. Bring back the concept of widgets so we may place a calendar or weather widget on the desktop and they can be Windows 9 apps for security. This should bring back most of Windows 7 functionality sans Aero interface.
Score
0
Urzu1000
June 25, 2014 8:31:49 AM
Quote:
I don't get it. If Windows 8.1 was a free update to Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 update 1 was a free update to Windows 8.1 and so on and so forth, exactly who on Windows 8+ is paying for these updates? Couldn't you just update in order and get all the way up to Windows 9 for free?Put simply, that's because there's many many people afraid of change. So many people are still on Windows 7 that will end up paying full price. They're probably also trying to push Windows 8 under the rug because of the horrible reputation it has, so giving the Windows 8 users a little bribe will decrease the negative pressure on the company - which in turn - will increase sales. I personally just use Start8, and everything has been magical.
Score
1
mgilbert
June 25, 2014 8:36:36 AM
Score
5
red77star
June 25, 2014 8:46:29 AM
I believe Microsoft will take different direction with Windows 9 meaning it will be like Office 365, cloud based subscription <Mod Edit>.
I have feeling that MS is about to alienate their user base even further, correct me if i am wrong. People are not afraid of change but they don't want to go to something which sucks in every sense and Windows 8.x sucks. I just hope Microsoft doesn't remove option to have local account but force people to use outlook account in order to install and use Windows 8.1 Update 2/3 otherwise you cannot. They already pulled first step <Mod Edit> in that direction with Windows 8.1 Update 1. When you do fresh install there is no way to install unless you use outlook account as your windows account unless type in some fake email and try it until setup gives up and gives you that option for local account. Not so obvious to average Joe yet forcing people to use cloud bullshit.
With One Drive in Windows 8.1 Update 1, you cannot use it unless you completely switch your local windows account to outlook account. No thanks! Not gonna use your One Drive...i have 8TB NAS which is always there for my image and other backups.
Bullshit Step 2. Microsoft is forcing people to update Windows 8.1 to Windows 8.1 Update 1 otherwise they won't be getting support for Windows 8.1. Speaking of being arrogant...Hey Microsoft people dislike shit you did with Windows 8.1 Update 1, they dislike shit you did even with Windows 8.1 let alone Windows 8.0 which are not upgrading at all...probably switched to Windows 7 or they are not using the device they bought. It is funny that Windows 8.x market share is around 12% which is total flop after couple year and half of that is still on Windows 8.0.
Moral of this story is for people to be aware of what MS is planning to do because as i said i have great feeling they are going to pull more <Mod Edit> on us like Windows 8.x wasn't enough.
<Mod Note: That's three edits for language. Watch your language in the forums>
I have feeling that MS is about to alienate their user base even further, correct me if i am wrong. People are not afraid of change but they don't want to go to something which sucks in every sense and Windows 8.x sucks. I just hope Microsoft doesn't remove option to have local account but force people to use outlook account in order to install and use Windows 8.1 Update 2/3 otherwise you cannot. They already pulled first step <Mod Edit> in that direction with Windows 8.1 Update 1. When you do fresh install there is no way to install unless you use outlook account as your windows account unless type in some fake email and try it until setup gives up and gives you that option for local account. Not so obvious to average Joe yet forcing people to use cloud bullshit.
With One Drive in Windows 8.1 Update 1, you cannot use it unless you completely switch your local windows account to outlook account. No thanks! Not gonna use your One Drive...i have 8TB NAS which is always there for my image and other backups.
Bullshit Step 2. Microsoft is forcing people to update Windows 8.1 to Windows 8.1 Update 1 otherwise they won't be getting support for Windows 8.1. Speaking of being arrogant...Hey Microsoft people dislike shit you did with Windows 8.1 Update 1, they dislike shit you did even with Windows 8.1 let alone Windows 8.0 which are not upgrading at all...probably switched to Windows 7 or they are not using the device they bought. It is funny that Windows 8.x market share is around 12% which is total flop after couple year and half of that is still on Windows 8.0.
Moral of this story is for people to be aware of what MS is planning to do because as i said i have great feeling they are going to pull more <Mod Edit> on us like Windows 8.x wasn't enough.
<Mod Note: That's three edits for language. Watch your language in the forums>
Score
0
segio526
June 25, 2014 8:48:05 AM
Osmin said:
I found a use for both versions of the start menu and hope Microsoft allows both to be available at the same time. Either have the capability to show 2 start buttons or a single split button to open either version. Bring back the concept of widgets so we may place a calendar or weather widget on the desktop and they can be Windows 9 apps for security. This should bring back most of Windows 7 functionality sans Aero interface.I like your idea. Perhaps they can expand the functionality of right-clicking the Start Button that turns it into the old Start Menu and leaving the left-click what it is today!
Score
-1
Ikepuska
June 25, 2014 9:17:19 AM
Quote:
Yeah, but you can't do any serious computing on it. Linux is fine for dedicated tasks, servers, etc. but is severely crippling if you want to do any real work. It's just for playing around.That rather depends on a lot of things, including what you define as "Real Work"TM. The truth is that there are plenty of developers, engineers, and others that use Linux for "Real Work" including a huge number of scientists, that's because linux is well suited to certain tasks, just like windows has software that makes it suited to other tasks.
But to try and claim that you can't do real work on a linux desktop is just silly, and parochial. Just because your work doesn't generally get done on linux (which doesn't mean it can't, I don't know since I don't know your workflow) doesn't mean others can't either.
Score
4
antilycus
June 25, 2014 10:00:23 AM
I gave WIn8 a try on my new laptop. I spent 3 hours updating to WIn 8.1 (typical time). I eventually was so out of my element on Win8 I went back to win7. Metro sucked, programs sucked. now I only use Windows for programs that require it, otherwise it's all linux. I've been in computers since dos 4.0 and never felt more out of place than with Windows 8. BeOS and OS/2 Warp felt more at home than Win 8
Score
-1
red77star said:
I believe Microsoft will take different direction with Windows 9 meaning it will be like Office 365, cloud based subscription <Mod Edit>.I have feeling that MS is about to alienate their user base even further, correct me if i am wrong. People are not afraid of change but they don't want to go to something which sucks in every sense and Windows 8.x sucks. I just hope Microsoft doesn't remove option to have local account but force people to use outlook account in order to install and use Windows 8.1 Update 2/3 otherwise you cannot. They already pulled first step bullshit in that direction with Windows 8.1 Update 1. When you do fresh install there is no way to install unless you use outlook account as your windows account unless type in some fake email and try it until setup gives up and gives you that option for local account. Not so obvious to average Joe yet forcing people to use cloud <Mod Edit>.
With One Drive in Windows 8.1 Update 1, you cannot use it unless you completely switch your local windows account to outlook account. No thanks! Not gonna use your One Drive...i have 8TB NAS which is always there for my image and other backups.
Bullshit Step 2. Microsoft is forcing people to update Windows 8.1 to Windows 8.1 Update 1 otherwise they won't be getting support for Windows 8.1. Speaking of being arrogant...Hey Microsoft people dislike shit you did with Windows 8.1 Update 1, they dislike shit you did even with Windows 8.1 let alone Windows 8.0 which are not upgrading at all...probably switched to Windows 7 or they are not using the device they bought. It is funny that Windows 8.x market share is around 12% which is total flop after couple year and half of that is still on Windows 8.0.
Moral of this story is for people to be aware of what MS is planning to do because as i said i have great feeling they are going to pull more <Mod Edit> on us like Windows 8.x wasn't enough.
Every time Microsoft released a major update they cut the previous versions off. When SP3 was released, SP2 or earlier versions of XP lost support.
As for 8.1, people actually liked 8.1. It added more functionality for desktops and if they ad the classic start menu back in I think people will overall be happier with it as 8 is a more secure, stable and faster OS than 7 ever was.
Of course people are blinded by the hate for Metro too much to see that Windows 8 as an OS is actually better than 7. Reminds me of the die hard Windows 98SE/2K fanboys who hated XP just as much.
Score
0
back_by_demand
June 25, 2014 10:51:30 AM
CaedenV
June 25, 2014 10:55:52 AM
@red77star
You are wrong.
First off, Balmer did toy around with the idea of a subscription based version of Windows, but the idea was shot down because nobody wants to be the person who says 'you can no longer use your computer until you pay up" when people are down on their luck. It is one thing to be locked out of business software like Office which would be a bad day, and quite another issue to be locked out of your computer entirely... nobody want's that kind of bad PR.
I think what we are going to start seeing is that as the Windows Store becomes more profitable it will become more and more important to keep everyone on the same version of Windows, using the same APIs, and keeping the price down to entice a larger and larger audience. I would not be surprised if we start to see cheaper versions of Windows Home in the near future where you either buy into the system once per machine and get free upgrades, or if major revisions will simply drop in price ($40 is really not a bad price for an OS). I imagine that Pro and Enterprise users will still have to pay for revisions as their upgrade cycle is quite different.
As for the cloud... it is time to grow up. Windows 8 and 8.1 work just fine without a Microsoft account, though having an MS account does give you access to the Store and the ability to more easily sync various services and settings across all of your Winodws devices (including Windows Phone, and soon Xbox). If you want Winodws 8.1 and don't want a MS account then you can still go out and purchase a Windows 8.1 disc and use it that way rather than making an MS account and getting it for free in the store.
If you do tie an MS account to your log-in, many of the cloud services can go unused, or be turned off entirely. If you have sensitive documents then you can put them in a folder that is not going to sync with OneDrive. If you do not want things like your background, or user settings, or start menu layout, or apps, or wifi passwords to sync across machines, then you can turn all of that off. In short, you can configure these services any way that you want so that you can take advantage of the features and services that you want, while turning off ones that you believe to be more of a security risk.
A little bit of education on the topic may add a whole lot of convenience to your life while offering very little in the way of added risk.
You are wrong.
First off, Balmer did toy around with the idea of a subscription based version of Windows, but the idea was shot down because nobody wants to be the person who says 'you can no longer use your computer until you pay up" when people are down on their luck. It is one thing to be locked out of business software like Office which would be a bad day, and quite another issue to be locked out of your computer entirely... nobody want's that kind of bad PR.
I think what we are going to start seeing is that as the Windows Store becomes more profitable it will become more and more important to keep everyone on the same version of Windows, using the same APIs, and keeping the price down to entice a larger and larger audience. I would not be surprised if we start to see cheaper versions of Windows Home in the near future where you either buy into the system once per machine and get free upgrades, or if major revisions will simply drop in price ($40 is really not a bad price for an OS). I imagine that Pro and Enterprise users will still have to pay for revisions as their upgrade cycle is quite different.
As for the cloud... it is time to grow up. Windows 8 and 8.1 work just fine without a Microsoft account, though having an MS account does give you access to the Store and the ability to more easily sync various services and settings across all of your Winodws devices (including Windows Phone, and soon Xbox). If you want Winodws 8.1 and don't want a MS account then you can still go out and purchase a Windows 8.1 disc and use it that way rather than making an MS account and getting it for free in the store.
If you do tie an MS account to your log-in, many of the cloud services can go unused, or be turned off entirely. If you have sensitive documents then you can put them in a folder that is not going to sync with OneDrive. If you do not want things like your background, or user settings, or start menu layout, or apps, or wifi passwords to sync across machines, then you can turn all of that off. In short, you can configure these services any way that you want so that you can take advantage of the features and services that you want, while turning off ones that you believe to be more of a security risk.
A little bit of education on the topic may add a whole lot of convenience to your life while offering very little in the way of added risk.
Score
-1
wysir
June 25, 2014 11:06:05 AM
CaedenV
June 25, 2014 11:08:50 AM
Quote:
I found a use for both versions of the start menu and hope Microsoft allows both to be available at the same time. Either have the capability to show 2 start buttons or a single split button to open either version. Bring back the concept of widgets so we may place a calendar or weather widget on the desktop and they can be Windows 9 apps for security. This should bring back most of Windows 7 functionality sans Aero interface.The start menu SHOULD (though not necessarily will) come with floating Metro apps, many of which would/could act like the gadgets of Windows Vista/7. Some of the other neat things they are looking into is the ability to activate a tile without launching a program and having access to a lot more features and opitons much like the old gadgets, but built right into the start screen/menu.
As for the menu itself, the early build shown off at the Build conference looks much like the current start screen, while cutting out a lot of the dead space so that you have something pop up out of the corner, but may be wide enough to fill the entire screen.
Personally I would like to see it look more like a combination between Windows Phone and Windows 7. Like Winodws 7, have a start menu with a predefined size that is split between the application list on the left, and common settings and links on the right. For the list on the left make the default view look more like Windows Phone where you have your tile layout, and can swipe from the right to get to your total program list. This would further unify Windows UI development, while giving power users the quick and easy access to common features that they are accustomed to.
Score
-1
canadianvice
June 25, 2014 11:40:09 AM
I hate to say it, I'm usually a defender of Win8, but with over 7GB of updates, MS very clearly did not release a polished, workable product. I guess it's to the usual refrain of alternating versions; win8 is good mind you, but I think that Win9 will be a lot better, since they'll have fixed the quirks of 8 (an experimental stage from the looks of it).
Score
1
bison88
June 25, 2014 12:00:08 PM
RedJaron
June 25, 2014 12:42:05 PM
Score
-3
CaedenV
June 25, 2014 12:56:48 PM
Quote:
Why does the Start menu need to come back? I don't understand what's so hard about hitting the Windows key and simply typing what you're looking for ( assuming you don't already have it pinned to the start screen. Do people really prefer scrolling through lists of folders for program shortcuts?People just need something to complain about. It is right up there with all of the whining of Windows Vista when MS changed a bit of artwork and had users decide if they liked Windows 7 or the rebranded Vista better and just because the name was changed people didn't have a major preference of one over the other. If MS ever does release a metro style Start Menu then I will be all for using it, but I really don't get what all of the uproar is over the current Start Screen. If anything it is a minor annoyance to deal with on rare occasion while you get to enjoy all of the other additions and features.
Score
-1
dimar
June 25, 2014 1:43:14 PM
warezme
June 25, 2014 2:53:55 PM
Just more MS BS. Stringing people along trying to fool the dumb people that an update equates to they restored the start button back, maybe get a few extra sales out of it. At this stage, nobody cares anymore. Big businesses aren't falling for it and they aren't going to switch to 8 or 9 until the start screen comes back. It's as simple as that.
Score
1
danwat1234
June 25, 2014 4:44:12 PM
Hopefully update 3 will change explorer.exe so it has full support for file paths longer than 255 characters! I hat having to use totalcommander to manipulate deeply nest files and folders. Why can't explorer do this? NTFS supports file paths of something like 16,000 characters.
Also hopefully explorer.exe will get proper units, such as GB and GiB so on a 1TB drive, explore will show it as 1TB not 931GB, it should be labelled as 1TB , 931GiB...
In the meantime I'l live with totalcommander and Start8.
Also hopefully explorer.exe will get proper units, such as GB and GiB so on a 1TB drive, explore will show it as 1TB not 931GB, it should be labelled as 1TB , 931GiB...
In the meantime I'l live with totalcommander and Start8.
Score
1
canadianvice
June 26, 2014 12:28:36 AM
CaedenV said:
Quote:
Why does the Start menu need to come back? I don't understand what's so hard about hitting the Windows key and simply typing what you're looking for ( assuming you don't already have it pinned to the start screen. Do people really prefer scrolling through lists of folders for program shortcuts?People just need something to complain about. It is right up there with all of the whining of Windows Vista when MS changed a bit of artwork and had users decide if they liked Windows 7 or the rebranded Vista better and just because the name was changed people didn't have a major preference of one over the other. If MS ever does release a metro style Start Menu then I will be all for using it, but I really don't get what all of the uproar is over the current Start Screen. If anything it is a minor annoyance to deal with on rare occasion while you get to enjoy all of the other additions and features.
You know, I like to think it's mostly complaints, but having used the OS on a regular basis, I still remain convinced that the Start Menu is the better paradigm. It works better for what I need in a computer, simple as that.
Score
0
SteelCity1981
June 26, 2014 3:45:56 AM
I take these stories with a grain of salt. So if windows update 3 will be released in april of next year then that could have been the soo called threshold update that ms was talking about because of the start menu returning as if to say ok the consumers want the start menu back and we gave in, hence threshold.
if ms was trying to push windows 8 under the rug like some people think they wouldn't be coming out with soo many more updates for it. if anything it sounds like ms wants to keep windows 8 around to convince the consumer that windows 8 is a good os and we are listening to your complaints so we are trying to make it better with each passing update, which it is imo. I didn't like windows 8 at all but after windows 8.1.1 I liked windows 8 a lot better to the point where I switched over from windows 7 to windows 8.x
The start menu is going to help a lot for windows 8. I use start8 and it makes windows 8 so much more user friendly thanks to the start menu. So I really have no reason to go back to Windows 7 because of that.
I'm also getting used to metro at first I didn't care for it but after a while I started to get used to it to the point where now I don't have to click on webpages to see the latest weather, sports and world news, I just go to metro and it pops up right there where I can see everything from those apps. I honestly think windows 8 is getting better and better with each passing update.
if ms was trying to push windows 8 under the rug like some people think they wouldn't be coming out with soo many more updates for it. if anything it sounds like ms wants to keep windows 8 around to convince the consumer that windows 8 is a good os and we are listening to your complaints so we are trying to make it better with each passing update, which it is imo. I didn't like windows 8 at all but after windows 8.1.1 I liked windows 8 a lot better to the point where I switched over from windows 7 to windows 8.x
The start menu is going to help a lot for windows 8. I use start8 and it makes windows 8 so much more user friendly thanks to the start menu. So I really have no reason to go back to Windows 7 because of that.
I'm also getting used to metro at first I didn't care for it but after a while I started to get used to it to the point where now I don't have to click on webpages to see the latest weather, sports and world news, I just go to metro and it pops up right there where I can see everything from those apps. I honestly think windows 8 is getting better and better with each passing update.
Score
0
They promised the start menu ever since the 8.1 update. But instead they called it a start button and it's only an icon which still gets you to the start screen. Yet all the start menu talk has been rumors only.
I'm still glad i am on W7 and on Linux because the update size for W8x are ridiculous. Should not be 3GB to download an update, most i have clocked around 100mb on W7 and with W8x it feels like your installing a new OS, especially when your 'supposed' to do clean installations and not just install the update. Microsoft is making things harder than they really need to be.
I'm still glad i am on W7 and on Linux because the update size for W8x are ridiculous. Should not be 3GB to download an update, most i have clocked around 100mb on W7 and with W8x it feels like your installing a new OS, especially when your 'supposed' to do clean installations and not just install the update. Microsoft is making things harder than they really need to be.
Score
0
ern88
June 26, 2014 8:35:44 AM
AGTDenton
June 26, 2014 9:13:25 AM
Those that have been with Microsoft through the 90's and up until Windows 7 will find the next era of the company very different to what they've been used to. The current CEO is going to take them to the cloud in an aggressive manor. He will be biased towards attaining the cloud of tomorrow. They just couldn't give a real damn about the Start Menu, it's minor in their grand scheme of change.
Score
0
MisterZ
June 26, 2014 9:28:48 AM
Urzu1000
June 26, 2014 9:37:00 AM
Trying new things is fine, but the idea of cloud irks me. It's odd not having my data with me. It feels insecure, oddly enough. I suppose though, we can take this the same way that people from long ago took with currency and banking. As much as you feel nervous trading your pile of gold for someone else to hold while they give you paper, it becomes normal eventually.
I'll stick to storing all my data locally.
As for the start button (got a little off topic), I believe it's a minor thing. I used Windows 8 normally for about a year, and trust me, the Metro interface has strong points if you work with it and take advantage of what it offers. That being said, I like my start button more, and inevitably switched back to it using Start8. That's a personal preference, and I know many who opted to keep Metro.
I'll stick to storing all my data locally.
As for the start button (got a little off topic), I believe it's a minor thing. I used Windows 8 normally for about a year, and trust me, the Metro interface has strong points if you work with it and take advantage of what it offers. That being said, I like my start button more, and inevitably switched back to it using Start8. That's a personal preference, and I know many who opted to keep Metro.
Score
0
Urzu1000
June 26, 2014 9:46:16 AM
MisterZ said:
Huh? People are still using Windows 8? I've been so busy using Windows 7 I forgot (or was that, cared?) that 8 even existed.Huh, you're still using Windows 7? I've been so busy taking advantage of many of the new features provided in Windows 8 that I had forgotten 7 even existed.
Just kidding, but seriously, Windows 8 has a lot of features that improve over Windows 7. It's just silly to pretend the whole operating system is bad just because you prefer the previous one.
Score
0
hannibal
June 26, 2014 12:58:15 PM
The win9 will hopefully bring new disk operating system, so longer path names most propably come then. Maybe they want to try new version of start menu in win 8 and tweak it for win 9 after they see how people like that. Actually that is guite good idea so that when win 9 comes out, the Metro UI is at that level that most people are willing to give up and upgrade to Metro users. It is also possible that they want more time to iron out bugs from win 9 before releasing it, so that the first impression is better than with win8. Because win 8.1 was minor upgrade to win8 they are not in hurry to release win9 until they are sure that it will really be good enough. For that, test running new start menu with win8 is quite logical step.
I am using start8 and modern mix and I can really recommened those two if you would like to have more win7 like experience with win8 improvements, at least until that 8.1 upgrade 3 comes out.
I am using start8 and modern mix and I can really recommened those two if you would like to have more win7 like experience with win8 improvements, at least until that 8.1 upgrade 3 comes out.
Score
0
Urzu1000 said:
Trying new things is fine, but the idea of cloud irks me. It's odd not having my data with me. It feels insecure, oddly enough. I suppose though, we can take this the same way that people from long ago took with currency and banking. As much as you feel nervous trading your pile of gold for someone else to hold while they give you paper, it becomes normal eventually.I'll stick to storing all my data locally.
I don't think MS's cloud OS will have any hold over anyone. Heck MS is still unable to get people off of XP let alone get most people interested in W8x, their idea of a cloud OS might be fine for some people but it's not going to change where we store data. I myself will continue to store my data locally as well. Most people who don't know much about PC's will continue using their PC's the same way they always have. Of course there will always be people trying new things out and some people might think that an OS cloud is simply another futuristic way of doing things all the while i know and most people who have a high enough intelligence will see it as another way of doing things. Hard drives and other methods of storing data locally won't go away. People have said for years that cds are being replaced by dvds and so on. There's still cd players out there, people still buy cds so that is not going away any time soon. People think that the PC form factor will shrink to tablets and cellphones, i still see desktop PC's in stores that carry them.
People say a lot of things but i have yet to see most of them as fact.
Score
0
Urzu1000
June 26, 2014 2:00:52 PM
All valid points. I feel that change for the sake of change usually ends poorly, but at least it gives us more information and foundation for building future technologies that can advance us past the point where we are.
As long as visual progress is being made, I can put up with the road bumps along the way.
As long as visual progress is being made, I can put up with the road bumps along the way.
Score
0
stevejnb
June 26, 2014 7:03:34 PM
warezme said:
Just more MS BS. Stringing people along trying to fool the dumb people that an update equates to they restored the start button back, maybe get a few extra sales out of it. At this stage, nobody cares anymore. Big businesses aren't falling for it and they aren't going to switch to 8 or 9 until the start screen comes back. It's as simple as that.Actually, they wont switch until they absolutely need to. Most businesses will hold off on massive PC and OS upgrades until they absolutely need to. I did some work replacing phone systems for Papa Johns Corporate and they also had their POS systems replaced. They were still using a DOS based POS and just moved to a GUI based system. I am not sure if it was Windows based but it shows how long they are willing to wait.
Once it becomes necessary, they will upgrade to whatever the best, most secure and stable OS is at the time.
Servers however, they update pretty regularly. I have seen plenty of Server 2012 R2 servers in use for big companies.
danwat1234 said:
Hopefully update 3 will change explorer.exe so it has full support for file paths longer than 255 characters! I hat having to use totalcommander to manipulate deeply nest files and folders. Why can't explorer do this? NTFS supports file paths of something like 16,000 characters.Also hopefully explorer.exe will get proper units, such as GB and GiB so on a 1TB drive, explore will show it as 1TB not 931GB, it should be labelled as 1TB , 931GiB...
In the meantime I'l live with totalcommander and Start8.
A 1TB HDD is 1 Trillion Bytes but it is not 1TB/1000GB. It is 931GB due to the fact that it takes 1024 of each step to make one of the next step. This has been pretty common. I wish they would instead stop saying a drive is a 1TB and just say it is 931GB.
hannibal said:
The win9 will hopefully bring new diskoperatuib system, so olenger path names most propably come then. Maybe tey want to try new version of start menu in win 8 and tweak it for win 9 after they see how people like that. Actually that is guite good idea so that when win 9 comes out the Metro UI is at that level that most people are willing to give up and upgrade to Metro users. It i allso possible that they wont more time to iron out bugs from win 9 before releasing it, so that the first impression is better than with win8. Because win 8 us minor upgrade to win8 they are not in hurry to release win9 until they are sure that it will really be good enough For that test runing new start menu with win8 is quite logical step.I am using start8 and modern mix and I can really recommneded those two if you would like to have more win7 experience with win8 improvements, at least until that 8.1 upgrade 3 comes out.
Actually Microsoft already has a new disk operating system, ReFS. It is fully supported in Server 2012 (minus booting to it for now) and is supported in 8.1. They plan to replace NTFS with it eventually.
I imagine it takes some ideas from the file system that was being developed with Vista originally, WinFS while also improving on NTFS features.
Score
0
hannibal
June 27, 2014 10:56:49 AM
jimmysmitty said:
Actually Microsoft already has a new disk operating system, ReFS. It is fully supported in Server 2012 (minus booting to it for now) and is supported in 8.1. They plan to replace NTFS with it eventually.I imagine it takes some ideas from the file system that was being developed with Vista originally, WinFS while also improving on NTFS features.
I did know that server 2012 has it but didn't know that win 8.1 already support it. That is good news. So we are just wainting that computer can boot with that. Thanks for info!
Score
0
EdgeT
June 28, 2014 12:40:38 AM
Yeah, but you can't do any serious computing on it. Linux is fine for dedicated tasks, servers, etc. but is severely crippling if you want to do any real work. It's just for playing around.
[/quote]
Since when? A whole lot of professional programs are also available on Linux. THe ones that aren't could be run in a VM or with something like WINE.
I'm also on Windows, but it's only because I'm a gamer, but I've used Linux for a long time as main OS and still use for a lot of things. It's just more efficient than Windows
Quote:
Quote:
Funny because my home desktop of linux doesnt seem to need to have updates to have a "start menu"Yeah, but you can't do any serious computing on it. Linux is fine for dedicated tasks, servers, etc. but is severely crippling if you want to do any real work. It's just for playing around.
Score
0
Spac3nerd
June 30, 2014 9:54:02 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Funny because my home desktop of linux doesnt seem to need to have updates to have a "start menu"Yeah, but you can't do any serious computing on it. Linux is fine for dedicated tasks, servers, etc. but is severely crippling if you want to do any real work. It's just for playing around.
I do real work on my Linux distro. If anything, doing real work on a Linux distro is faster than doing the same thing on Windows, at least in the context of the software development work that I do.
"It's just for playing around."
What? So running servers, doing high performance research and developing software is "playing around"? SteamOS may be for playing around, but most of us do real work on a daily basis without being hampered by Window's proprietary nature or its inferior update process.
Score
1
MidnightDistort said:
Urzu1000 said:
Trying new things is fine, but the idea of cloud irks me. It's odd not having my data with me. It feels insecure, oddly enough. I suppose though, we can take this the same way that people from long ago took with currency and banking. As much as you feel nervous trading your pile of gold for someone else to hold while they give you paper, it becomes normal eventually.I'll stick to storing all my data locally.
I don't think MS's cloud OS will have any hold over anyone. Heck MS is still unable to get people off of XP let alone get most people interested in W8x, their idea of a cloud OS might be fine for some people but it's not going to change where we store data. I myself will continue to store my data locally as well. Most people who don't know much about PC's will continue using their PC's the same way they always have. Of course there will always be people trying new things out and some people might think that an OS cloud is simply another futuristic way of doing things all the while i know and most people who have a high enough intelligence will see it as another way of doing things. Hard drives and other methods of storing data locally won't go away. People have said for years that cds are being replaced by dvds and so on. There's still cd players out there, people still buy cds so that is not going away any time soon. People think that the PC form factor will shrink to tablets and cellphones, i still see desktop PC's in stores that carry them.
People say a lot of things but i have yet to see most of them as fact.
You can't blame Microsoft for stubborn people. Honestly, I see a pretty normal trend. People who just use PCs instead of die hard enthusiasts/IT people tend to not care about OS. We do but we are special.
As well, I can list plenty of other times where people wanted to hold on as long as they could to a old OS. People don't like to spend money (they could have gotten Windows 8 for $40 bucks, I got it for $15 so win win) and they don't like change. They try to stick with what they know because it is easier.
Honestly I am a bit ashamed at the enthusiast PC builders, even some here. So many claim to be enthusiasts yet hate a new idea behind a OS so they bash it instead of moving forward. The reason a lot of us enjoy this stuff (technology) is because it is always new and changing. We have gone from basic computers that did punch card calculations all the way to a desktop with a GUI yet one comes along after 20 years of the same idea with a new idea and it is hated.
It doesn't matter in the long run though as kids will get used to it, especially since kids seem to start on Android/iOS these days Metro will come naturally to them.
Score
1
Urzu1000
July 2, 2014 1:36:58 PM
jimmysmitty said:
You can't blame Microsoft for stubborn people. Honestly, I see a pretty normal trend. People who just use PCs instead of die hard enthusiasts/IT people tend to not care about OS. We do but we are special.
As well, I can list plenty of other times where people wanted to hold on as long as they could to a old OS. People don't like to spend money (they could have gotten Windows 8 for $40 bucks, I got it for $15 so win win) and they don't like change. They try to stick with what they know because it is easier.
Honestly I am a bit ashamed at the enthusiast PC builders, even some here. So many claim to be enthusiasts yet hate a new idea behind a OS so they bash it instead of moving forward. The reason a lot of us enjoy this stuff (technology) is because it is always new and changing. We have gone from basic computers that did punch card calculations all the way to a desktop with a GUI yet one comes along after 20 years of the same idea with a new idea and it is hated.
It doesn't matter in the long run though as kids will get used to it, especially since kids seem to start on Android/iOS these days Metro will come naturally to them.
Well, MS could do a better job at teaching developers how to build software to work on any Windows, for the most part some programs work fine while others don't. Certain programs must rely on certain versions of MS code and if that version is different then the program won't work (this might not be right but i'm giving an example). That would get a few XP users off.
There is 25% still on XP and while they did have their chance to get W7 they didn't. Windows 8 came along and that's a deterrent. I know things change but just because something is new, doesn't mean it's better. A smartphone is nice to have i can visit the internet with it, but it doesn't replace my desktop or my laptop. It's easier for me to use a keyboard and mouse. Could be that i am just getting old and unable to keep up with new technology but it's also too that i grew up using a keyboard and a mouse. Not only that desktop OS UI's are not as restrictive as touch UI's. I could load some programs in the background while watching a video on W7. With Windows 8 you can't do that without having to find a 3rd party start menu replacement. And now we are talking about the Cloud OS which to me doesn't make a lot of sense other than to be able to access your OS from any machine with all it's settings, software and data storage. Even then that's a technology that i don't really have use for.
I don't store everything off my laptop quite yet or have an external storage device large enough to carry my data around (i do but i don't want to lug my 2TB around) but i work with what i got. When a company releases a new product it's just that they are releasing something new and different. Doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to change things. Such as with W8 when people are saying people don't like change. I don't understand that, what changed? MS put W8 out and it's out in stores. That doesn't prevent you from using W7 or going elsewhere. Actually yes, i myself can deal with changes and if i don't like a certain change, well i guess i won't be dealing with that change.. i'll go elsewhere to get what i need. Getting a smartphone is a change, people are buying smartphones and tablets and possibly more often than desktops or laptops. But the form factor of a PC did not change, they just put out a PC that fits in the palm of your hand. Desktops are still being used and i still have one. I don't know what will happen in the future, but more desktops might be built at home versus going in and buying a machine that meets your needs every 3-7 years.
I myself am using Linux more and i was inspired because of Windows 8. Guess i can't complained that MS changed directions and making Windows more difficult to use because now i got on Linux. Kids might automatically use W8 and not care about the changes but at the same time i don't need a touch UI for my desktop. It's a nice idea, but i don't plan on getting a new monitor to use it and even so it wouldn't feel right. So again i don't really need that functionality anyhow and Linux would be a better fit for me.
Score
0
Urzu1000
July 3, 2014 7:46:44 AM
@MidnightDistort, while I understand what you're saying about a third party start button, I would like to bring up another point. Without a touchscreen monitor, and without a start menu replacement, it is still very much possible to use the Windows 8 Metro interface. I began using windows 8 in the "consumer preview" release before it officially came out. Even before the refinement, it only took me a day or so before the interface felt fine.
You also have some sort of misunderstanding about Windows 8. The start button was simply replaced with a Metro UI for finding things. It doesn't prevent running programs in the background while watching a video. The good old-fashioned Windows desktop is still there, and the OS itself with the exclusion of the Metro UI, is almost identical as Windows 7, with added improvements. Performance enhancement, various nifty features such as being able to mount ISOs just by double clicking, etc. There's a whole plethora of features, and most of them are very useful, especially to people such as ourselves.
While I don't condone anyone for staying on Windows 7, because everyone has preferences, I still feel that you should at least try Windows 8 for a few days before you decide against it. Openly disliking a program you've never fully tried is a disservice to those who read it, and to yourself for potentially missing out on wonderful new things.
You also have some sort of misunderstanding about Windows 8. The start button was simply replaced with a Metro UI for finding things. It doesn't prevent running programs in the background while watching a video. The good old-fashioned Windows desktop is still there, and the OS itself with the exclusion of the Metro UI, is almost identical as Windows 7, with added improvements. Performance enhancement, various nifty features such as being able to mount ISOs just by double clicking, etc. There's a whole plethora of features, and most of them are very useful, especially to people such as ourselves.
While I don't condone anyone for staying on Windows 7, because everyone has preferences, I still feel that you should at least try Windows 8 for a few days before you decide against it. Openly disliking a program you've never fully tried is a disservice to those who read it, and to yourself for potentially missing out on wonderful new things.
Score
1
While it is possible to use Windows 8 it doesn't mean it works for everyone. I didn't say that it was impossible for me to use it, it was just annoying and irritating.
That doesn't make any sense though if you were watching a video and needed to load your instant messenger or whatever using the start screen would be covering the video you were watching. The start menu does not have this issue as you can resize whatever video you are watching so it's still visible. And i don't put every single program i think i will need to have on my desktop because that in itself clutters the desktop or the taskbar. You will have your most common programs on the taskbar whether it's your browser, media player.. whatever it is that you will end up using during every fresh bootup. But to have everything on there or on the desktop to me is tacky. The start menu offers a quick and easy way to store everything on there based on your most recent programs or you can type what you want to use.
It isn't about wanting to stay on W7 or just blindly disliking W8. I gave it a try and i thought it wasn't worth switching to W8. I'm not missing on anything new if i don't need or want it. Or maybe it's something that will work with any OS. Yeah maybe i am missing out on the faster boot times but i leave my PC on standby or on if i am going to need it. And i don't mind waiting for it to boot up because i can be doing something else while that is going on even though it only takes my older desktop a minute or 2 to boot up. It's not like it's an hour difference or anything.
Adding features then removing other features for something else or because 'no one uses it' just doesn't make any sense. If an older version of Windows had something i liked or even something that i found useless i'd still like to see it in the new version of windows because i know that if i ever needed it would be there. It's not that hard.
That doesn't make any sense though if you were watching a video and needed to load your instant messenger or whatever using the start screen would be covering the video you were watching. The start menu does not have this issue as you can resize whatever video you are watching so it's still visible. And i don't put every single program i think i will need to have on my desktop because that in itself clutters the desktop or the taskbar. You will have your most common programs on the taskbar whether it's your browser, media player.. whatever it is that you will end up using during every fresh bootup. But to have everything on there or on the desktop to me is tacky. The start menu offers a quick and easy way to store everything on there based on your most recent programs or you can type what you want to use.
It isn't about wanting to stay on W7 or just blindly disliking W8. I gave it a try and i thought it wasn't worth switching to W8. I'm not missing on anything new if i don't need or want it. Or maybe it's something that will work with any OS. Yeah maybe i am missing out on the faster boot times but i leave my PC on standby or on if i am going to need it. And i don't mind waiting for it to boot up because i can be doing something else while that is going on even though it only takes my older desktop a minute or 2 to boot up. It's not like it's an hour difference or anything.
Adding features then removing other features for something else or because 'no one uses it' just doesn't make any sense. If an older version of Windows had something i liked or even something that i found useless i'd still like to see it in the new version of windows because i know that if i ever needed it would be there. It's not that hard.
Score
0
Urzu1000
July 15, 2014 2:02:03 PM
"If an older version of Windows had something i liked or even something that i found useless i'd still like to see it in the new version of windows because i know that if i ever needed it would be there. It's not that hard. "
I could not agree more with that statement. I think Windows SHOULD have kept the start button as an option. Such a drastic change should have been an optional one at first. From both a consumer perspective, and a business standpoint, it would have worked better.
After reading your last comment though, I can see where you're coming from. I still believe it's easier to get Start8 (third party program) for Windows 8, then it is to get third party programs for the features that Windows 8 has naturally that Windows 7 lacks, but I respect your opinion on the matter. Have you seen the new "leaked" Windows 9 start button?
I could not agree more with that statement. I think Windows SHOULD have kept the start button as an option. Such a drastic change should have been an optional one at first. From both a consumer perspective, and a business standpoint, it would have worked better.
After reading your last comment though, I can see where you're coming from. I still believe it's easier to get Start8 (third party program) for Windows 8, then it is to get third party programs for the features that Windows 8 has naturally that Windows 7 lacks, but I respect your opinion on the matter. Have you seen the new "leaked" Windows 9 start button?
Score
0
Related resources
- Windows 8.1 update 1 NO RIGHT CLICK INSIDE START Forum
- Can't start installed uefi windows 8.1 on Asus Raidr express and P8Z68-V Pro Gen 3. Forum
- How can I get "Windows Update" n my start menu Forum
- Unable to start Crysis 1 on Windows 8.1 with AMD R9 280x 3G Forum
- SolvedRecentally updated BIOS of Asrock Z86 Pro3 Gen3. Ever since Windows 8.1 fails to launch. Forum
- MSI 970A-G46/fx-6300 Black Edition CPU windows 8.1 64Bit updated bios and still limited to usable memory 3.5 gb out of 8 gb. Forum
- how do I get start screen after updating to window 8.1 Forum
- More resources
!