Quote:
Originally Posted by Brannigans Law
Torque I really wish you'd just accept that a lot of people, and dare I say the majority (I'm willing to concede thats my personal opinion and no where near fact) don't like how the start menu looks and functions on the PCs. It's not intuitive and it's sloppy man.
|
Oh I accept that the opinion exists and that people hold it, but I'm not under any obligation to respect it; a majority of people being set in their ways isn't a good reason for anything. I'm critical of the hesitation to just get over it, and take advantages of efficiencies that have been available for three versions of the OS now. It's not like Microsoft just did this to make people re-learn the interface. They did it because the metrics showed that use of the Start Menu and subsequently the items inside the Start Menu, were being used substantially less over time.
Again, one only had to see how even seasoned IT people were hesitant to move from the Windows 9x-style Start Menu to the Windows XP Start Menu. Or the ribbon bar starting with Office 2007, remember the uproar that caused? I will freely admit I was one of the people who actually bought Classic Menu for Office 2007 because I was too stubborn at the time to use the ribbon. Now when I use Office 2003 (it still exists at some companies), I have to spend more time hunting around stupid menus to find what I'm looking for. This is just more of the same.
The only time I agree that the new Start Menu is a bad idea is when you look at virtual machines and/or Server 2012. That was an annoying change (Windows key isn't normally redirected inside of a remote desktop session unless it's full screen). I suspect the move was made to start selling the idea of using a single tablet interface to administer multiple headless servers inside a rack, for example, but unless you have a physical keyboard available, you're still going to piss off administrators, and how often does one really need to go into a rack to admin a Windows server anymore?