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/

236,583 views 106 replies
Reply #1 Top

Microsoft knows how much their sales have dropped off. If they were really smart they would have known this was going to happen.

As long as StarDock has their Start8, Modern mix and the rest of the programs who cares what Microsoft changes as these programs already do the job required. What should be done is all the PC makers should purchase all the win8 programs from SD and include them with the PC purchase. So maybe there are some laws against this but if not they aren't to smart either as they all have to know these programs are available.

So what ever Microsoft decides to do in the future win8 is just fine thanks to SD and their programs.

Reply #2 Top

I doubt there are laws against this- because Microsoft and Stardock have worked together before, (Wasn't it on W7?) and I believe Dell has at one time used a pre-bundle of SD products (At least in some form)

 

Hopefully Microsoft gets it right, but W7 is just fine as an OS, and still avaliable, so W8 isn't necessary , and won't be for a few years.


Microsoft won't make W8 and W9 both stink, that would threaten Microsoft's position- they can afford one mediocre OS, but not two in a row, and Microsoft isn't willing to play with fire that much.

 

Reply #3 Top

They're calling it Windows 8.2. That sounds to me like a service pack and I thought they did away with them. Stardock is a Microsoft partner or that is what I believe. If Microstuff were really smart they'd design the next OS with SD products in mind. That alone would make Windows incomparable and send a message to the Fruit (Apple) that they'd better step up their game.

Reply #4 Top

Apple has no need to step up their game. They are doing just fine.

Reply #5 Top

For me it wasn't the lack of a Start Menu button, it was the absolute garish system of icons they fostered on us. I know with 8.1 they allowed a setup that would take us to something more pleasant but my experience with Win8 has made me cautious about upgrading.

Reply #6 Top

Quoting Ryat, reply 5
I know with 8.1 they allowed a setup that would take us to something more pleasant
End of Ryat's quote

Not really.

Reply #7 Top

Sorry Doc if i go a bit off topic but
I think the sluggish PC market isn’t due to a windows8 release or a missing startmenu or Tiles
It is because people realized that there is no need in upgrading currently and that drop in sales is because Enthusiasts noticed this as well.
Gamers do make a good percentage in sales... in fact enthusiasts have the biggest impact
They buy everything that gives a boost...
Now if you take a look how long gaming stations lived until just recently a new generation reached the market there was no need for a gamer to upgrade and waste money.
If he/she had a mid-range PC they had been able to run every ported game on ULTRA settings.
NOW we have the new generations with specs of a mid-range gaming pc, what would move gamers to upgrade if the new generation has a GPU with 1,84 TFLOPS while a TITAN has 4,5 TFLOPS? And some Gamers run three of them in SLI
The station has 8cores with 1,6ghz and a boost that can boost 4 of the 8cores to 2,75ghz - ( 1,6*8 = 12,8 and 4*2,75= 11ghz) that alone proofs that the cat Jaguar is more of a house cat... a mid-range pc has 3-3.5 GHZ on 4 cores and they still use the virtual cores, high end is currently at 3,9ghz un-multiplied on a K processor  3*4 =12ghz + virtual kernels / 3,5*4= 14ghz + VK, 3,9*4 = 15,6ghz +VK + without boost ( K )

The only thing worth upgrading on a desktop is the hard drive never less what system (and that is what SSD´s did ) SSD´s gave the biggest performance boost in a single upgrade.
People realized that it is cheaper to buy (a new outdated generation game box) to play on, while they keep their desktop or laptop for everything else i think the OS doesn’t matter sine we have 2 good ones to choose from.





Reply #8 Top

Quoting benmanns, reply 7
i think the OS doesn’t matter since we have 2 good ones to choose from.

End of benmanns's quote

Nope.

8/8.1 is crap to work with. That's why SD's apps are popular (Start 8 and ModernMix).

That's why Threshold will be coming, as well as to move towards a more unified OS. W7 will be phased out, though there will be great resistance.

In fact, China is asking MS not to kill XP as most computers there are XP. 

As for the desktops? They won't die because in the work environment, most offices haven't adopted mobile tech except for sales/delivery people. In the office, the desktop is king. That's why "Threshold" will be MS's "make or break".

Reply #9 Top

Windows 8 and 8.1 are/were both fine.

People are just resistant to change, that's all.

It takes a couple days to get used to, just like if you move from Windows to iOS or to Ubuntu Linux, then it's fine.

ME and Vista were both horrible, but everything else in the lineup was fine.

Once I learned to work in a slightly different way everything was fine and perhaps even better than in Windows 7.

No need for Start8 or anything else except for people that refuse to spend 5 minutes to learn a new way to do something.

Reply #10 Top

Quoting Raiddinn, reply 9
No need for Start8 or anything else except for people that refuse to spend 5 minutes to learn a new way to do something.
End of Raiddinn's quote

Well, I have been using Windows 8 and now 8.1 for several months as my main OS.

I still prefer to use Start8, even though I have thoroughly learned the "metro" way to do things.

 

So, I guess I have to disagree. ;)

Reply #11 Top

I have to use both Windows 7 computers and Windows 8 computers on a regular basis and 8 seems to be able to do everything at least as well as 7 can.

I have used the start menu since it was invented and when it was gone I didn't really miss it that much TBH.  Tiles are fine for everything most people want to do with the start menu anyway.

8.1 put a tiles icon in the lower right for people that didn't care to learn the old way to get to it.

Reply #12 Top

Quoting kona0197, reply 4
Apple has no need to step up their game. They are doing just fine.
End of kona0197's quote

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 8
8/8.1 is crap to work with.
End of DrJBHL's quote

 

Opinion,... nothing factual..

Reply #13 Top

Quoting Raiddinn, reply 11
Tiles are fine for everything most people want to do with the start menu anyway.
End of Raiddinn's quote

But they are butt ugly.

Reply #14 Top

Quoting Phoon, reply 12
Opinion,... nothing factual..
End of Phoon's quote

Go look up how Apple is doing on the stock market. Not an opinion. Apple is doing fine.

Reply #15 Top

Windows 8/8.1 is just fine to work with.
If you already have Windows 7, don't bother getting Windows 8 - imo.

But..... I still miss my rock solid Vista. ;)

Reply #16 Top

I must admit you are the only one I have ever heard say that Vista was "rock solid" Snow. :)

Reply #17 Top

Quoting kona0197, reply 16
I must admit you are the only one I have ever heard say that Vista was "rock solid" Snow.
End of kona0197's quote

Law of Averages means even Vista will be rock-solid for at least one person.....

....just so happens it was Snow....;)

Reply #18 Top

The 'Metro' way to do things is utter crap.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply deluded and blindly following MS's [mis]direction.

A decade or so of Windows evolution was logical.  Profound change just for the sake of change is commercial suicide.  MS thoroughly understands that - NOW,

First they developed the wheel....then they [with Metro] knocked the edges off it and made it square...so it wouldn't roll away.....f'wits....;p

Reply #19 Top

Quoting Raiddinn, reply 9
Windows 8 and 8.1 are/were both fine.

People are just resistant to change, that's all.
End of Raiddinn's quote

I'm happy for you and anyone who is ok with those OSs...I tried W8, and really didn't like it even after after 2 weeks.

 

Reply #20 Top

Quoting kona0197, reply 16

I must admit you are the only one I have ever heard say that Vista was "rock solid" Snow.
End of kona0197's quote

I must admit, I have never heard of anyone that thought Vista was good.  I would almost go as far as to say that my worldview has difficulty accomodating someone that says that Vista is good.

Windows 8 is a different matter entirely.

Vista had a really annoying UAC setup, which I can understand because Microsoft has always had OSs that people love to write viruses for and stuff and UAC goes a long way to preventing things like that.  Even though every OS is basically just as vulnerable to attack, Microsoft always got the most flak by way of having the most market share in the OS department.  Vista did a lot to combat that, way more than any other OS, but they went kinda too far in the other direction.

Windows 7 was basically the same thing as Vista with some small enhancements here and there and making the UAC way less annoying.

Windows 8 is kinda just like Windows 7 except that it took away the start menu and added tiles instead, a change which turns a lot of people off but is just fine for everyone else.  No real bugs or complaints other than that.  Seems to be really good in general and most problems come from 3rd party drivers and programs that aren't coded right.

Really, most problems with Windows were always 3rd party stuff not coded right, but Microsoft has just been trying to find ways to deal with that without having the problems crash the whole PC.  They have been doing really good with that, especially in Windows 8.  Now a lot of times the OS will segregate a program and if it crashes then it will only kill that little segregated part of the OS and not affect anything else.  We aren't all the way there, but MSFT has made a lot of progress.

The biggest thing that MSFT has to deal with is that they want to institute change very rapidly and users don't want to experience change that rapidly.  MSFT is underestimating how much people are attached to the old stuff they are used to using.

If it were possible to just force everybody in the world to use Windows 8 and they didn't have an option to stick with the old stuff, then everybody would have gotten over the differences pretty quickly, but instead what you have is companies like Stardock cashing in on the huge number of people who want their old stuff back.

I am not even really against that so much, but I do think everybody would be better off if the entire planet upgraded to Windows 8 and people just installed Start8 if it was really such a big deal to them.  The old OSs really have very little value atm and MSFT could do a lot of more productive things with the resources it is using to support the old OSs. 

Quoting Jafo, reply 18

The 'Metro' way to do things is utter crap.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply deluded and blindly following MS's [mis]direction.

A decade or so of Windows evolution was logical.  Profound change just for the sake of change is commercial suicide.  MS thoroughly understands that - NOW,
End of Jafo's quote

Back in reality, dismissing an opponent's argument out of hand is such a bad debate tactic as to make sure you aren't taken seriously by anyone.

Also in reality, MSFT was making pretty large changes the whole time and had pretty good reasons for most of them.  They weren't actually changing things just so they can say it was changed.  The things they changed were (at least in their mind) improvements.

We can sit here and argue about whether Person A really wants their PC and their Tablet to have the same exact UI and we might come to different conclusions, but MSFT's stance is that they can spend more time/effort on new functionality if they have to support fewer numbers of OSs.

They could have also tried to just make Windows 8 look like the UI that comes standard on stuff like iPads and Android phones where you can gesture to move sideways to additional screens or whatever, but I am not sure I would like that more.  In fact, I wish my Andriod phone didn't have any screens I could get to by gesturing sideways from the home screen.  I either want to be on the home screen or I want to go into my app list, and those screens that show up when I gesture sideways annoy me.

Anyway, I think I would prefer the way that the Metro UI works now as compared to having my Android OS on my PC.  It would kinda be interesting to see what Android would look like on my PC, but I think I would go back to Windows 8 after trying it out and I kinda wish I had Windows 8 on my phone actually.

Reply #21 Top

Quoting Raiddinn, reply 20
If it were possible to just force everybody in the world to use Windows 8 and they didn't have an option to stick with the old stuff, then everybody would have gotten over the differences pretty quickly,
End of Raiddinn's quote

No, people would simply decide NOT to adopt Win 8.  The only thing driving 8 sales is OEM and a few nutters [myself included] curious/eager to check out whatever is 'new'.

Did that....and am still 99.9% of the time still on 7.

Reply #22 Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 21
No, people would simply decide NOT to adopt Win 8.
End of Jafo's quote

What I meant is to make everyone upgrade whether they wanted to or not.

Like if MSFT just decided it wasn't going to get XP users to pay for a new OS anyway and just gave it to them for free, DLd and installed in the background like a service pack.  One day people just wake up and they are using Windows 8 all of a sudden.

Reply #23 Top

Quoting Raiddinn, reply 22

Quoting Jafo, reply 21No, people would simply decide NOT to adopt Win 8.

What I meant is to make everyone upgrade whether they wanted to or not.

Like if MSFT just decided it wasn't going to get XP users to pay for a new OS anyway and just gave it to them for free, DLd and installed in the background like a service pack.  One day people just wake up and they are using Windows 8 all of a sudden.
End of Raiddinn's quote

Sort of takes away the right of the consumer to run what software they wish to. 

Also what does the user do when most of the software they are running is not compatible with the new OS?  I would imagine the user base would not be very happy.

 

Reply #24 Top

Quoting Raiddinn, reply 22
if MSFT just decided it wasn't going to get XP users to pay for a new OS anyway and just gave it to them for free
End of Raiddinn's quote

 

I want some of whatever you're on....tee hee.... :P

Reply #25 Top

Quoting Philly0381, reply 23


Sort of takes away the right of the consumer to run what software they wish to. 

Also what does the user do when most of the software they are running is not compatible with the new OS?  I would imagine the user base would not be very happy.

 
End of Philly0381's quote

They can still choose to run a MSFT OS or not or whatever software they want.  Pretty much every software that people still use works on Windows 7 and Windows 8.

It's just that whole thing about people always wanting what they want and not really considering how what they do affects anyone else.

The older the OS is on a computer, the more likely it's part of a botnet etc.  XP was no sort of secure and 95/98 security was basically zero, in contrast Windows 7/8 generally have reasonable firewalls built in.  All that sort of thing.  Not saying 8 is "secure", but it is more secure than anything else they have released to date.