DrJBHL DrJBHL

Start Menu to Return in “Threshold”?

Start Menu to Return in “Threshold”?

Might have a start menu and apps in windows

 

“Threshold” is rumored to be the next in the coming waves of Windows updates…especially since “W8" and “Blue” were welcomed less than enthusiastically.

This upcoming version is rumored – rumored  to have a functional Start Menu, although no one can really verify this. Logically, it would seem to be the smart thing to do…something like Start 8 would be a true blessing.

There are also those who believe it will have ModernMix’s app in a window functionality for users of Windows.Next. Mary Jo Foley who has blogged (ZDNet, c|net, etc.) on MS for…well, forever believes this update will be coming in the spring of 2015 (which in Microsoftese means summer or later). The rumor also has it that the OS will be cross platform (XBox One, phones, tablets, laptops and desktops) – no surprise there.

There will also be a spring “Update 1” to Windows 8.1 in spring, 2014…with the Windows Phone 8.1.

Also rumored to be in that update is a unified set of dev tools and a single unified app store.

So, MS could surprise us yet in a retreat from “full blown” W8/W8.1. That retreat would definitely help a sluggish PC market and help get W8/8.1/Threshold into the home and workplace.

Sources:

http://www.neowin.net/news/start-menu-may-return-with-windows-threshold-update

http://www.neowin.net/news/following-blue-threshold-is-the-next-wave-of-windows-updates

http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-codename-threshold-the-next-major-windows-wave-takes-shape-7000023832/

236,586 views 106 replies
Reply #26 Top

Quoting Raiddinn, reply 22
What I meant is to make everyone upgrade whether they wanted to or not.
End of Raiddinn's quote

Seriously?

First, that would negate freedom of the market, and the freedom to choose to use what one wants. The reaction to that would destroy MS.

Second, the majority of machines aren't touch screen, and their specs couldn't handle W8/8.1.

 

As for XP?

MS chooses not to support it for several reasons, among them profit. There is nothing "wrong" about XP. There are more modern OSs, but just as people have free choice - or not so free if they can't afford to upgrade machines and OSs, MS is free to develop other OSs and sell them, and support what they choose for their own reasons.

Also, read this: http://www.neowin.net/news/china-wants-microsoft-to-extend-windows-xp-support-past-april-8th

There are many computers in China.

What you say about the security of older OSs is true, but it is also a function of browsing habits and the configuration of the policies on that computer, as well as having appropriate security software. Face it, the cost of software/movies/games and the desire to get something for free causes people to resort to unscrupulous behaviors and the infection of their machines (their kids could also be guilty of infecting their machines).

In any case, I enjoy W7 a great deal more than W8.

It is also a fact that MS will most likely bring back the start menu in some form because people want to work in a way they are familiar with and not be forced to adopt someone else's ideas about how they should work.

In the end, the OS is meant to make computing easier and more efficient for the user. 

I'm not the only one who thinks this way: http://www.thewindowsclub.com/windows-8-2-concept

 

 

Reply #27 Top

Quoting Raiddinn, reply 25
Not saying 8 is "secure", but it is more secure than anything else they have released to date.
End of Raiddinn's quote

Not true. Not even close. I would say 8 is less secure since most newbies to 8 have no idea how to install a decent AV program. I would say it goes by a case to case basis. Saying what you said is just plain arrogant.

Reply #28 Top

Quoting Raiddinn, reply 25
Pretty much every software that people still use works on Windows 7 and Windows 8.
End of Raiddinn's quote

Install of IE 10 [in Win 7] broke FSX...so I went back to 9.

Hint.... BOTH IE 10 and FSX are MS programs.

Reply #29 Top

Quoting kona0197, reply 27
Not true. Not even close. I would say 8 is less secure since most newbies to 8 have no idea how to install a decent AV program. I would say it goes by a case to case basis. Saying what you said is just plain arrogant.
End of kona0197's quote

You argue W8 is less secure based off the fact that most people don't know how to install AV...I find this ironic since W8 is the first OS to come with AV out of the box...

Perhaps you meant to imply Windows Defender is crap and most people aren't smart enough to install a different AV on W8...I think installing is hardly the issue when I see computers all the time throwing warnings "Your AV is out of date"....anecdotal evidence, perhaps, though most of this thread is such...

Reply #30 Top

Quoting kona0197, reply 27
Not true. Not even close. I would say 8 is less secure since most newbies to 8 have no idea how to install a decent AV program. I would say it goes by a case to case basis. Saying what you said is just plain arrogant.
End of kona0197's quote

They would have one of those by default if Symantec and other AV makers weren't threatening to sue the @*#( out of them for anti-competitive practices just like the browsers did.  The browsers lost and IE is still part of the core OS, but that doesn't mean the AV makers will lose.  The AV makers should lose and we should have built in AVs (because it is better for the end users), but it is a big enough threat that MSFT hasn't taken that step yet.  Personally, I hope they do.  It is a joke that consumers are not protected because one company is threatening to sue another one.

As for people not having any idea how to install an AV program... How is that different for past OSs?  They didn't know how to do it before and forget now that Windows 8 is out.  In fact, Windows 8 makes it easier than ever before.  Windows 8 reminds you if you don't have an Anti-Virus installed and you can just go into the MS Store and type in "anti virus" and boom there are dozens of choices clicking on them goes straight to their download with instructions page.

In prior OSs you just had to do a web search and hope you randomly picked a good one.  To some extent you have to do that now, but nothing is going to make it into the MS Store listing that actually installs viruses on your PC instead of installing anti-viruses which is a step up from the hope and pray method.  The hope and pray method is still there for those who want to use it as well, so Windows 8 is no worse than anything prior.

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 26


Seriously?

First, that would negate freedom of the market, and the freedom to choose to use what one wants. The reaction to that would destroy MS.

Second, the majority of machines aren't touch screen, and their specs couldn't handle W8/8.1.

 

As for XP?

MS chooses not to support it for several reasons, among them profit. There is nothing "wrong" about XP. There are more modern OSs, but just as people have free choice - or not so free if they can't afford to upgrade machines and OSs, MS is free to develop other OSs and sell them, and support what they choose for their own reasons.

Also, read this: http://www.neowin.net/news/china-wants-microsoft-to-extend-windows-xp-support-past-april-8th

There are many computers in China.

What you say about the security of older OSs is true, but it is also a function of browsing habits and the configuration of the policies on that computer, as well as having appropriate security software. Face it, the cost of software/movies/games and the desire to get something for free causes people to resort to unscrupulous behaviors and the infection of their machines (their kids could also be guilty of infecting their machines).

It is also a fact that MS will most likely bring back the start menu in some form because people want to work in a way they are familiar with and not be forced to adopt someone else's ideas about how they should work.

In the end, the OS is meant to make computing easier and more efficient for the user.

 

 
End of DrJBHL's quote

My PC isn't touch screen either, I don't see what that has to do with it.

Also, making computing easier and more efficient doesn't mean keeping the same UI indefinitely.

I am all for leaving something in if it is better that it is left in, I just don't accept "because that is how I have always done it" as a reason to keep something in.

As for not being forced to adopt someone elses ideas about how we should work, did phones not give us completely new UIs that we accepted without question?  For all the people that bought Apple PCs because it had an apple logo on it, did they not get a new UI because of the way Apple thought they should work?  People get hit with new UIs all the time and it is only a problem when it happens in Windows?

There will always be people doing illegal things, but that doesn't mean Windows 8 isn't more secure than prior OSs.  How many of those China PCs are running illegal copies of XP, btw?  I don't see why MSFT should support their piracy habit.  If they want to then it's cool, but I really don't think they should be focused on China's stance in regards to supporting XP.

I just happen to be against giving consumers a choice when there is a high likelihood they will make a choice that hurts other people.  If they just hurt themselves then I wouldn't care, but that isn't how it works.  I don't want to be hurt because of somebody else's bad decision making.  There is enough of that as it is.

Also, my PC with Windows 8 boots up faster than it did with Windows 7.   If I installed XP it would probably be slower than Windows 8 too. There was hideous amounts of bloat with prior OSs, but the current trend is that newer OSs are faster than the old ones.  A big problem in Windows 8 development was that computers were booting too fast and you couldn't even go into the BIOS anymore because the screen went by so fast you couldn't read the key and press it before the opportunity was gone.

Reply #31 Top

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 29
You argue W8 is less secure based off the fact that most people don't know how to install AV...I find this ironic since W8 is the first OS to come with AV out of the box...
End of Seleuceia's quote

Unfortunately it's called Microsoft Security Essentials, universally rated as not good...as a result of a deal with the AV software companies because OEMs get paid for the AV trial bloatware they put on computers and MS wanted no problems with the OEMs.

 

@Raiddinn: 

Fact: MS will be putting the start menu back. They're doing that because their sales suck.

I like W7 for me. Didn't tell you to adopt it or to roll back. I simply don't want an OS that I'll have to update hardware for, and  then add more software to give it the functionality of W7.

The facts I quote you aren't convincing you, so...let it be. Enjoy W8.1... AGAIN, I have no problem with you enjoying it.

 

I just don't enjoy using it.

Reply #32 Top

Quoting Raiddinn, reply 30
As for people not having any idea how to install an AV program... How is that different for past OSs? They didn't know how to do it before and forget now that Windows 8 is out. In fact, Windows 8 makes it easier than ever before. Windows 8 reminds you if you don't have an Anti-Virus installed and you can just go into the MS Store and type in "anti virus" and boom there are dozens of choices clicking on them goes straight to their download with instructions page.
End of Raiddinn's quote

And that sure beats the hell out of the pre-installed Norton Malware Trialware found on way too many OEM machines.  :thumbsdown:  I spend far too much time uninstalling it for people after it expired and the owner wanted to use somening else.  I'll take MSE out of the box, and then be offered choices later over that any day.

Sure, there are people that don't know how to install an AV properly, or much else for that matter, and what they do install is why they need an AV in the first place. o_O

 

Reply #33 Top

Quoting Raiddinn, reply 30
How many of those China PCs are running illegal copies of XP, btw? I don't see why MSFT should support their piracy habit.
End of Raiddinn's quote

They do because that many computers running old software could pose a risk to the whole internet.

Reply #34 Top

Raiddinn I was going to reply some more but the bottom line is as Doc stated, use which OS you like, just don't expect or want everyone else to use the same OS.  As consumers we all have the right to make our own decisions, that does include you.

Reply #35 Top

Quoting kona0197, reply 27


Not true. Not even close. I would say 8 is less secure since most newbies to 8 have no idea how to install a decent AV program. I would say it goes by a case to case basis. Saying what you said is just plain arrogant.
End of kona0197's quote

Installing an AV program goes to 'babysitting the user' and not so much to whether or not the core OS is or isn't more secure.  That's where you should do some reading as the new OS kernel and newer (much more secure) memory handling etc. DO in fact mean that Win8 is 'more secure than anything else they have released to date'. 

ELAM, secureboot, APP sandboxing and the fact that ASLR (address space layout randomization) has been greatly increased in Windows 8 are just a few ways through which it is in fact more secure........by default!  Of course any user can break an OS, but then that's not the OS's fault now is it?

 

 

Reply #36 Top

I heard the only reason MS insisted on secureboot was to lock out people from switching to Linux.

Reply #37 Top

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Reply #38 Top

 

kona......sometimes I'm not even sure if your comments are serious...... O:)

Reply #39 Top

I was being serious. There was a big deal about it a few months ago. Something about that fact that secureboot locks out BIOS to only letting you boot MS Windows. Several articles were written about it.

https://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/588498-uefi-secure-boot-big-hassle-questionable-benefit

Reply #40 Top

Your statement......

Quoting kona0197, reply 36
I heard the only reason MS insisted on secureboot was to lock out people from switching to Linux.
End of kona0197's quote

....is conjecture and completely ignores the other even more significant features I listed; which as I pointed out......DO in fact mean that Win8 is more secure ...and that by default!

Reply #41 Top

the_Monk: Still haven't done your assignment, eh?

Bad boy!  #:(

Reply #42 Top

Quoting the_Monk, reply 40
DO in fact mean that Win8 is more secure
End of the_Monk's quote

That can't be true. It has to be a case by case basis. after all, I could buy a system with Windows 8 and deliberately install a virus on it. It is no more secure than Windows 7. It all depends on what the user does, his browsing habits, downloads, ect, ect.

Reply #43 Top

Kona logic:

No, a Mercedes is not more expensive than a bicycle.  Perhaps the person who "bought" the Mercedes actually stole it while the person who bought the bicycle got it plated in pure gold...

Reply #44 Top

kona, if you take the time to google "security and Windows 8", you'll find a host of articles which will discuss how W8 is innately more secure than its predecessors.

That isn't to say it's more usable or user friendly than W7. Its security is better and quieter than W7's but without SD software and until "Threshold" comes, it looks like crap.

However , it isn't fool proof. There's no such thing as an OS impervious to all malware.

Reply #45 Top

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 44
That isn't to say it's more usable or user friendly than W7. Its security is better and quieter than W7's but without SD software and until "Threshold" comes, it looks like crap.
End of DrJBHL's quote

All computers look better without SD software.

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 44
However , it isn't fool proof. There's no such thing as an OS impervious to all malware.
End of DrJBHL's quote

EXACTLY my point. There are some that come close, but they aren't named "Windows".

Reply #46 Top

Quoting kona0197, reply 45
All computers look better without SD software.
End of kona0197's quote

Quoting kona0197, reply 45
EXACTLY my point. There are some that come close, but they aren't named "Windows".
End of kona0197's quote

C'mon.. I know you aren't that ignorant. Why do you persist on spewing this kind of crap when you know full well the fallout that will ensue.

Those comments don't even warrant the time it would take to negate them (even though it would take a very short amount of it).

 

Reply #47 Top

Good old Phoon. Same old stuff different day. This forum really could benefit from an ignore feature.

(Phoon you do realize that my statements are opinion and should be treated as such right?)

Reply #48 Top

Kona: A statement that all computers look better WITHOUT Stardock software is likely to be at odds with many people on these forums and is especially odd when posted from the Wincustomize forums.

While you are naturally free to have your own opinion you should consider the location you are in before typing.

Reply #49 Top

Sorry about that Neil. Everyone knows I prefer the default look of Windows. It's been said many times. I see your point. I will be more tactful in the future.

Reply #50 Top

Quoting kona0197, reply 45
EXACTLY my point. There are some that come close, but they aren't named "Windows".
End of kona0197's quote

No.

You were taking issue with Raiddinn's suggestion that Windows 8 was more secure than anything MS had previously released.

Let me refresh your memory.

Quoting kona0197, reply 27
Not true. Not even close. I would say 8 is less secure since most newbies to 8 have no idea how to install a decent AV program. I would say it goes by a case to case basis. Saying what you said is just plain arrogant.
End of kona0197's quote

 

To which I responded with suggestions of a few reasons why Raiddinn's point would in fact be correct.

 

You don't get to jump into a conversation and fire off some opinions (especially ones not based in anything factual) then change your point entirely and expect no additional conversation/discussion.