4 ms·
Perhaps I'm too resistant to change but I don't really see why the Start Menu had to be removed. The new Metro UI is great for touch based interaction but I ca
by 51Cards 14y ago
Perhaps I'm too resistant to change but I don't really see why the Start Menu had to be removed. The new Metro UI is great for touch based interaction but I can't believe it would have been that much work to retain the start menu as well and place the default option in a setting somewhere. If you're primarily a desktop user then you keep the familiar UI and can flip to Metro as desired. If you're a touch user then Metro is a no brainer as the default. In the scope of an operating system I can't imagine that would have been all that much more work?
- molmalo 14y agoIt's not that it was so much work. It's exactly the opposite, in the first leaks, the start menu was there. At the moment, someone from MS explained that if you give people a new and an old way to do something, they prefer the old way. So, to promote learning the new way, they had to remove the old one. It's the same that they did with the Classic Start Menu (win 95 style). There was an option in Vista, but they removed it in Win 7.