Thank you spoffle. This is spot on, and confirms that I am at least sort of getting my point across.
Last edited:
Windows 10
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
Thank you spoffle. This is spot on, and confirms that I am at least sort of getting my point across.
If you go back there was a video I did showing some of the issues I had - that wasn't me preferring anything it was a mixture of broken or poorly thought out design.
In your opinion
Exactly what I was going to say.
Yes there have been bugs, theres no denying that, but what one person considers to be a poorly thought out design may well be part of a much bigger design phylosophy when you look at the big picture.
Like Rroffs complaints about being restricted on the width of the Start Menu tiles, which I pointed out may well be to do with ensuring it works on small devices with low resolution screens.
Edit: I wonder what the official limit is on Windows 10 screen size..?
Edit 2: Its 800x600, and a minimum of 7" diagonal width to qualify as a 'desktop' device (along with a bunch of other requirements around CPU and RAM and things). So its entirely reasonable to assume Microsoft have designed the Start Menu with restrictions on its size to ensure it works fine on smaller devices, like a 1280x800 tablet for example.
Yes there have been bugs, theres no denying that, but what one person considers to be a poorly thought out design may well be part of a much bigger design phylosophy when you look at the big picture.
Like Rroffs complaints about being restricted on the width of the Start Menu tiles, which I pointed out may well be to do with ensuring it works on small devices with low resolution screens.
Edit: I wonder what the official limit is on Windows 10 screen size..?
Edit 2: Its 800x600, and a minimum of 7" diagonal width to qualify as a 'desktop' device (along with a bunch of other requirements around CPU and RAM and things). So its entirely reasonable to assume Microsoft have designed the Start Menu with restrictions on its size to ensure it works fine on smaller devices, like a 1280x800 tablet for example.
Last edited:
Actually, I've just twigged it. Rroffs complaint is that the columns in the Start Menu can only be 3 'Medium' tiles wide, which makes perfect sense as thats the layout on a Windows 10 Phone screen. The tiles are arranged in columns that mean the layout can be synced across phone, tablet and PC without reordering or rearranging.
That was just one complaint about the inflexible approach they've taken - great if I have a windows phone and want to sync over loads of devices... if I only use a desktop and a reasonable resolution tablet why can't I change it to something that is more optimal for my needs (taking it on my own head it might not be optimal on all platforms)... sure you could say its just a work in progress and that feature might come later but its an assumption and other things I've complained about link into that in that there doesn't seem to be any indication of that being likely in the future and even some indication that its not a route they plan on going.
Which links into my complaint that they seem to be focused on implementing a specific usage model that falls short of what some platforms can achieve due to the limitations of some devices rather than embracing the capabilities of a range of platforms with something that is truly flexible and scalable.
What would you consider more optimal? Mirroring the layout of a Phone screen on the Desktop Start Menu means that app developers only need to develop to a single Tile format.
All tiles will use the same 4 sizes, and interact with each other in the same standard way across all platforms.
What your asking for is unique customised layouts specifically to meet your own requirements. If Microsoft did that then they would never finish an OS as they spend years trying to cater for everyone individual desires.
Again, as spoffle said, your confusing what "you don't like" as poor design choice.
Edit: Its also not new. Windows 8 and 8.1 was limited to a 2 'medium' tile column width, which matched the original design of Windows Phone 8 before they added the "show more tiles" option which opened up a 3rd column. So your complaint is not only rather uninformed, its also 2 versions of Windows late.
Surely with your 20 years experience you would know that trying to cater for a wide range of platforms, layouts and preferences only leads to an un-cohesive, difficult to manage, difficult to develop for mess?
Microsoft are not focused on implementing a 'specific usage model', they are focusing on implementing a standardised design language and format, which is sensible. I will admit they have totally missed that with some of the Settings/Control Panel screens, but in terms of Start Menu/Start Screen/Phone Screen tiles their approach is very logical. Dismissing it as rubbish because you don't like it and only use a single high resolution monitor is rather short sighted.
All tiles will use the same 4 sizes, and interact with each other in the same standard way across all platforms.
What your asking for is unique customised layouts specifically to meet your own requirements. If Microsoft did that then they would never finish an OS as they spend years trying to cater for everyone individual desires.
Again, as spoffle said, your confusing what "you don't like" as poor design choice.
Edit: Its also not new. Windows 8 and 8.1 was limited to a 2 'medium' tile column width, which matched the original design of Windows Phone 8 before they added the "show more tiles" option which opened up a 3rd column. So your complaint is not only rather uninformed, its also 2 versions of Windows late.
Surely with your 20 years experience you would know that trying to cater for a wide range of platforms, layouts and preferences only leads to an un-cohesive, difficult to manage, difficult to develop for mess?
Microsoft are not focused on implementing a 'specific usage model', they are focusing on implementing a standardised design language and format, which is sensible. I will admit they have totally missed that with some of the Settings/Control Panel screens, but in terms of Start Menu/Start Screen/Phone Screen tiles their approach is very logical. Dismissing it as rubbish because you don't like it and only use a single high resolution monitor is rather short sighted.
Last edited:
Windows 8 didn't have a start menu... which is why I'm complaining about it now - sure there are some elements of what I'd like in there but there but it also refers to the wider approach. (On my windows 8 tablets I did a quick and dirty re-purpose of the links toolbar as a rudimentary start menu and use that in my day to day use).
App developers don't really have to concern themselves with the bit I'm talking about other than making sure they support the standard tile sizes which I'm not complaining about.
I don't see it as being that difficult to have a more flexible group management system with a more comprehensive selection of options available - worst comes to worst with my suggestion my groups on a windows phone interface would require a carousal style method of sliding tiles in a group left<>right to show tiles that couldn't be fit on the smaller screen - if people didn't like that they could stick to the standard 3 tiles wide per group layout - personally I'd never be on a device where that was a consideration but that isn't ignoring that some will.
Oh come on that is just being pathetic - everyone knows I was distinguished between the Windows 95-7 start menu and the start screen on Windows 8.
I literally never use the start screen on Windows 8 let alone does it have start menu like functionality of older OSes (or Windows 10) so the issue has never cropped up before.
I literally never use the start screen on Windows 8 let alone does it have start menu like functionality of older OSes (or Windows 10) so the issue has never cropped up before.
That's the weird thing, it arrives, downloads and apparently installs, yet fails ate the very last step and reverts back to 10162... (HP Split)
yet on my HP server, updated via Windows Update, 10162-10166 no problem at all...
You really should reassess the words you choose to use. There's nothing pathetic about what I said;
The point behind what I'm saying is that the "start screen" is still a start menu and it highlights how dramatic people are over it, to the extent that they're happy to insist that it isn't a menu, or that it's so painfully alien that they possibly can't use it.
You seem to think you're simply stating that you wish there was more customisation options, but in reality you're not really saying that, you're instead saying that it's crap and poorly thought out BECAUSE it doesn't do what YOU want it to do.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting more customisation options, but the way you're going about it, well it's strange.
The point behind what I'm saying is that the "start screen" is still a start menu and it highlights how dramatic people are over it, to the extent that they're happy to insist that it isn't a menu, or that it's so painfully alien that they possibly can't use it.
You seem to think you're simply stating that you wish there was more customisation options, but in reality you're not really saying that, you're instead saying that it's crap and poorly thought out BECAUSE it doesn't do what YOU want it to do.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting more customisation options, but the way you're going about it, well it's strange.
I fear the force is strong with this one....Aww come on, its funny. He will get my point eventually... I hope.
Maybe I should write it in code?
and that pickle jar won't be opening any day soon....And isn't that one of the main points of Windows 10?
The fact it will be one OS for all devices?
The same code to be used on tablets, phones, desktops, notebooks and even fridge-freezers 
Ignoring some pitiful attempts to do I dunno what but I pity you even posting it...
I'm saying its crap and poorly thought out because amongst other things it doesn't embrace the capabilities of a range of devices (and usage styles) but generally limits itself to catering for the limitations of the lowest common denominator - somehow we've become focused on one specific example I used as part of a commentary on what I see as a wider issue but whatever. Even that is way off my original complaint in that the UI is generally a mismatch of styles and approaches that at best seem to be a design afterthought though to be fair since my original post they have started to homogenise some of it.
Last edited:
Oh lawd, you're doing your delusional thing again. Yeah, okay.
You focused it on that with the nonsense you decided to come out with in response.
Anyway, as I've said no one is telling you that it's wrong to have gripes and complaints, but you're being a diva with how you're trying to express your complaints or gripes.
haha no please tell me again about the definition of menu...
"The Start screen replaces the Start menu in Windows 8.1 and Windows RT 8.1. Open Start by swiping in from the right edge of the screen and then tapping Start. (Or, if you're using a mouse, point to the lower-left corner of the screen, move your mouse all the way into the corner, and then click Start.)"
As posted by Microsoft - who surely can't be wrong - your not telling me you know better than Microsoft are you?
"The Start screen replaces the Start menu in Windows 8.1 and Windows RT 8.1. Open Start by swiping in from the right edge of the screen and then tapping Start. (Or, if you're using a mouse, point to the lower-left corner of the screen, move your mouse all the way into the corner, and then click Start.)"
As posted by Microsoft - who surely can't be wrong - your not telling me you know better than Microsoft are you?
Last edited:
They're both menus, but I'm not picking up Microsoft on the distinction because they're not the ones foaming at the mouth about how awful the "Start Screen" is like some people around here, so no that's not what I'm saying at all. Also, it's you're, not your. Come on!
I was clearly referring to the difference between the older start menu and the lack of that system in Windows 8 trying to do whatever you were doing with defining menu or whatever was really pathetic...
I've never foamed at the mouth at how bad the start screen is* - I have bemoaned the lack of the traditional start menu in Windows 8 but I've also very clearly stated that I understand not everyone has the same usage style I do and that I acknowledge the start screen is great for some people. Hence I originally had high hopes for Windows 10 in that it seemed to be embracing both and now quite disappointed by the reality which so far falls far short of its potential.
* I might have been critical of some aspects of it I can't remember.
I've never foamed at the mouth at how bad the start screen is* - I have bemoaned the lack of the traditional start menu in Windows 8 but I've also very clearly stated that I understand not everyone has the same usage style I do and that I acknowledge the start screen is great for some people. Hence I originally had high hopes for Windows 10 in that it seemed to be embracing both and now quite disappointed by the reality which so far falls far short of its potential.
* I might have been critical of some aspects of it I can't remember.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 5,756
I getting bored with this thread now! LOL