Matsuda Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 If Microsoft does end up reintroducing a Start Menu to a future release of Windows, as sources are hinting, does it necessarily mean that menu will be identical to what exists now? And if it's not, does that defeat the purpose?Windows SuperSite's Paul Thurrott blogged earlier this week that his sources had indicated Microsoft might be planning to make two key user-interface changes to a coming version of Windows. One of these is the ability to "float" Metro-Style/Windows Store apps on the desktop. The other was to bring back the Start Menu, alongside the recently re-introduced Start Button.I've seen a number of commentors wondering why Microsoft might reintroduce the Start Menu, since the Windows 8.x Start screen (the tiled interface) was designed to be a new representation of the Start Menu. The short answer is to help existing Windows users -- specifically, the more casual, non-power-user types -- figure out how to navigate Windows 8 without tears or fears.Windows 8, even with the positive changes Microsoft made with the 8.1 release, still presents a usability hurdle for some who are familiar with older versions of Windows. Even if it can be mastered relatively quickly, Windows 8 works and looks different enough to keep some from considering the move away from their more familiar and productive Windows variants. And Microsoft wants Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 users to upgrade, not hold back or switch to a totally different platform because they are worried about Windows 8's learning curves and/or retraining costs.A number of third-party tools, including Stardock's Start8, Classic Shell and Pokki, have found success with Start Menu add-ons designed for Windows 8.x.Since Thurrott's initial December 10 report on the return of the Start Menu, I've heard from my own contacts that this is highly likely to happen. Microsoft is, indeed, highly likely to bring back Start Menu. Supposedly it's being called internally "mini-Start," (as it won't be a full-screen Start Menu like in Windows) , one of my contacts said.Microsoft may opt to introduce this new Menu as part of the "Threshold" Windows wave in the spring of 2015 or possibly before that, via some kind of Windows 8.1 update. I've heard there isan "Update 1" coming for Windows 8.1 in the spring of 2014, but no word as to how many subsequent updates may be in the pipeline.Next-to-nothing, my contacts claim, has been determined by the team as to what this new Menu will look like. Will it include the same current category list (Documents, Pictures, Music, etc.) as Microsoft's current Start Menu on Windows 7? Will it be a menu of Metro-Style tiled apps? No tiles? Will it interact with the Start button that's on the Charms Bar in Windows 8 in some way? No word.I'd assume the Start Menu will be a Desktop thing, like the 8.1 Start Button is. Maybe it will simply provide users with a mini version of the list of all the apps installed on their Windows 8.x machines.I'd expect it to be designed to work decently with touch, even though from what both Thurrott and I have heard, the primary target audience for the new Start Menu will be those using Windows 8.x with keyboards and mice.I know haters are gonna keep hating on this idea. But assume it's happening: How do you think Microsoft should design the new Start Menu?Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nIGHT Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 (edited) Wow great idea! MS copied the idea of StarDocks "ModernMix"! Why don't you just hire these people who know how to design pretty well than your own bunch of lemmings and minions?MS is pirating the idea of other companies/person. I smell a lawsuit here!It will be nice if MS will go extreme and prohibits these companies to run their product on Threshold, so it will be another anti trust lawsuit. Just like the browser antitrust lawsuit. :yes: Edited December 12, 2013 by nIGHT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Matt Posted December 12, 2013 Administrator Share Posted December 12, 2013 hummm good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insanedown58 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Wow great idea! MS copied the idea of StarDocks "ModernMix"! Why don't you just hire these people who know how to design pretty well than your own bunch of lemmings and minions?MS is pirating the idea of other companies/person. I smell a lawsuit here!It will be nice if MS will go extreme and prohibits these companies to run their product on Threshold, so it will be another anti trust lawsuit. Just like the browser antitrust lawsuit. :yes:Amen! Up to now, I still have no idea how I'd like a Modern UI mix of the Start Menu to look like. I've been satisfied by few but its just not THAT exact thing I was looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shorty6100 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 It's incredibly simple-a "classic" start menu for desktop users "I'm raising my hand" and their metro-ui for everything else. I still don't understand what all the fuss is all about. I shelled out a whopping 3.50 for a Startisback+ license-no problem. I had little trouble adopting to the new ui-but I have a desktop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurobyn Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 why not just use the start button as before ?why make it difficult if it can be just so easy ?listen to the people and sell youre overprized software.maybe a bit less money per user and earn a lot more money global wise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janedoe Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 (edited) Wow great idea! MS copied the idea of StarDocks "ModernMix"! Why don't you just hire these people who know how to design pretty well than your own bunch of lemmings and minions?MS is pirating the idea of other companies/person. I smell a lawsuit here!It will be nice if MS will go extreme and prohibits these companies to run their product on Threshold, so it will be another anti trust lawsuit. Just like the browser antitrust lawsuit. :yes:Copied, pirated, lawsuit, help! After you calm down a bit why don't you read the article carefully again:Next-to-nothing, my contacts claim, has been determined by the team as to what this new Menu will look like. Will it include the same current category list (Documents, Pictures, Music, etc.) as Microsoft's current Start Menu on Windows 7? Will it be a menu of Metro-Style tiled apps? No tiles? Will it interact with the Start button that's on the Charms Bar in Windows 8 in some way? No word.Let me repeat, anything you hear about the return of the start menu, design of the start menu etc. from so-called "sources" is to be strictly treated as pure speculation or BS until the day we see leaked screenshots, ok? Don't go jumping the gun please and start shouting about things that aren't even true; it doesn't make you look good. Edited December 12, 2013 by janedoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nIGHT Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 (edited) Windows SuperSite's Paul Thurrott blogged earlier this week that his sources had indicated Microsoft might be planning to make two key user-interface changes to a coming version of Windows. One of these is the ability to "float" Metro-Style/Windows Store apps on the desktop. The other was to bring back the Start Menu, alongside the recently re-introduced Start Button. :yes:Startdock Modernmix Edited December 13, 2013 by nIGHT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janedoe Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 (edited) Windows SuperSite's Paul Thurrott blogged earlier this week that his sources had indicated Microsoft might be planning to make two key user-interface changes to a coming version of Windows. One of these is the ability to "float" Metro-Style/Windows Store apps on the desktop. The other was to bring back the Start Menu, alongside the recently re-introduced Start Button.:yes:Let's get one thing clear, what Paul Thurrott is reporting is still just a rumor, not proof of what MS is planning. Second, did you know that Thinix's RetroUI had the ability to do the exact same thing, i.e. run Modem apps on the desktop, at least 4-6 months before the first ModernMix beta was even released? Yeah. So in your own words we can say that "Stardock copied the idea of Thinix's RetroUI" and all the other comments about piracy and stealing ideas and so on. Now I guess Thinix should file a lawsuit against Stardock? Most likely they didn't do it because the idea didn't originate with them (not to mention is so obvious it's quite likely not patentable due to prior art). No offence, I find that accusations are easy to make but one should be sure of one's position before defaming others. :) Edited December 13, 2013 by janedoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nIGHT Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 (edited) Windows SuperSite's Paul Thurrott blogged earlier this week that his sources had indicated Microsoft might be planning to make two key user-interface changes to a coming version of Windows. One of these is the ability to "float" Metro-Style/Windows Store apps on the desktop. The other was to bring back the Start Menu, alongside the recently re-introduced Start Button. :yes:Let's get one thing clear, what Paul Thurrott is reporting is still just a rumor, not proof of what MS is planning. Second, did you know that Thinix's RetroUI had the ability to do the exact same thing, i.e. run Modem apps on the desktop, at least 4-6 months before the first ModernMix beta was even released? Yeah. So in your own words we can say that "Stardock copied the idea of Thinix's RetroUI" and all the other comments about piracy and stealing ideas and so on. Now I guess Thinix should file a lawsuit against Stardock? Most likely they didn't do it because the idea didn't originate with them (not to mention is so obvious it's quite likely not patentable due to prior art). No offence, I find that accusations are easy to make but one should be sure of one's position before defaming others. :)That I didn't know that Thinix is the first one to come up with that idea/product/invention.Good that you bring that up and corrected me, I won't mind as it just made my point even stronger. Then Thinix it is should file a lawsuit against StarDock (later MS after it release Threshold with that feature) if it did has a patent for its concept/idea/invention, as software alone I think cannot be patented.But the concept/idea or what we call invention is patentable. It still does not dismiss the idea that MS will copy that idea/invention from StarDock which also copied it from Thinix. hehehe!Just like Stacker (developer by Stac, Electronics, I love that software! In the old days they were the best. hehehe!) vs MS DRIVESPACE (DOUBLESPACE) case. Stacker did patented the idea to put the code in the .bin file that is linked by the boot code to initialize and start its compression/decompression engine on bootup.Microsoft replicated everything even the .bin extension file. hehehe!They could just rename it to some other extension as it can be executed anyway regardless of its extension. hehehe!Stacker did win the lawsuit against MS. hehehe! :yes:Reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DriveSpaceMicrosoft's decision to develop DoubleSpace and add it to MS-DOS was probably influenced by the fact that DOS-based operating systems from other manufacturers (IBM and Novell) had started including disk compression software in their products.Instead of developing its own product from scratch, Microsoft licensed the technology for the DoubleDisk product developed by Vertisoft and adapted it to become DoubleSpace. For instance, the loading of the driver controlling the compression/decompression (DBLSPACE.BIN) became more deeply integrated into the operating system (being loaded even before the CONFIG.SYS file). Microsoft had originally sought to license the technology from Stac Electronics, which had a similar product called Stacker, but these negotiations had failed. Microsoft was later successfully sued for patent infringement by Stac Electronics for violating some of its compression patents. During the court case Stac Electronics claimed that Microsoft had refused to pay any money when it attempted to license Stacker, offering only the possibility of Stac Electronics to develop enhancement products.About defaming, it's not defaming as my eyes is 20/20 perfect clear color 3D anti-glare vision that it's so clear that the words I read resembles the product of Stardock (and also Thinix as you mentioned it). hehehe! Yeah, it is still rumor but those words were enough to describe how it look like, and it did say it very clearly.Now let's wait til Threshold will arrive and then see if MS produce a different product that is not a replica of the other two products. :yes:Off-topic:You seem to love MS so much.I get this feeling you're like an MS spokeperson. :think:If you are then nice to have you here as a member, at least we have someone from MS to hear our complaints. :tehe:And if you are not, then it's nice to discuss these things with you. Maybe you're right, I hope so, because MS will be in deep trouble again if I am right. hehehe! Anyway, that is not important. ;) Edited December 13, 2013 by nIGHT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beamslider Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Why the hell would I be willing to pay $49 for objectdesktop? The OS should come fully functional at the price MS wants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janedoe Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) That I didn't know that Thinix is the first one to come up with that idea/product/invention.Good that you bring that up and corrected me, I won't mind as it just made my point even stronger. Then Thinix it is should file a lawsuit against StarDock (later MS after it release Threshold with that feature) if it did has a patent for its concept/idea/invention, as software alone I think cannot be patented.But the concept/idea or what we call invention is patentable. It still does not dismiss the idea that MS will copy that idea/invention from StarDock which also copied it from Thinix. hehehe!In America, (overly broad) software patents have been granted for around 4 decades now, a move which many including me think was a grave mistake and has directly resulted in the rise of patent trolls. The Supreme Court is now planning to re-examine the entire validity of software patents in Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank, so maybe there will be some progress. In any case, irrespective of the DoubleSpace lawsuit you just mentioned which has no validity here, IMO what Thinix or Stardock have done is simply non-patentable in light of prior art. Apps that run full-screen or windowed is a concept that's decades old and every OS has them - what's new? Metro apps were made to run full-screen (so far) and desktop apps generally don't run that way (although they can switch modes when required, most often done by games). So now Metro apps have been forced to run in a window - whoop de doo! Doesn't change the fact that there's no essentially new patentable concept when it comes to simple app resizing, and if either Thinix or Stardock are crazy enough to sue MS (or each other) over this they'll most likely get creamed. Doesn't matter how much people want to see MS sued, lawsuits don't just happen on a whim. Not to mention if any company was sure they'd win such a case against big wealthy fish they'd hardly need to be prompted to do so.I get this feeling you're like an MS spokeperson. :think:...Maybe you're right, I hope so, because MS will be in deep trouble again if I am right. hehehe!Yeah, that is such an overused taunt when it comes to supporting this particular company that I was actually wondering when someone would accuse me of that. :) Anyway, for whatever reason you seem to equally hate them, as your recent posts indicate clearly you'd like nothing more than (anti-trust) lawsuits being brought against them so they get into "deep trouble again". Not that I use their products exclusively, but yes I happen to like the choice they provide to consumers in the OS and other markets and unlike many others I would not like to see them die. Edited December 14, 2013 by janedoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beamslider Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 There should absolutely not be any patents based on software alone....Patents historically at least in the US had to be an invention an actual tangible item. In the past you had to also include a working model and plans along with your application..... It is time to go back to that.Software should only be patentable if it is in conjunction with hardware....In other works only the overall device and software combination.... This would also not prevent as the previous system did not prevent someone else creating a similar device with similar software without infringing your patent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shasi Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nIGHT Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigationThat I didn't know that Thinix is the first one to come up with that idea/product/invention.Good that you bring that up and corrected me, I won't mind as it just made my point even stronger. Then Thinix it is should file a lawsuit against StarDock (later MS after it release Threshold with that feature) if it did has a patent for its concept/idea/invention, as software alone I think cannot be patented.But the concept/idea or what we call invention is patentable. It still does not dismiss the idea that MS will copy that idea/invention from StarDock which also copied it from Thinix. hehehe!In America, (overly broad) software patents have been granted for around 4 decades now, a move which many including me think was a grave mistake and has directly resulted in the rise of patent trolls. The Supreme Court is now planning to re-examine the entire validity of software patents in Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank, so maybe there will be some progress. In any case, irrespective of the DoubleSpace lawsuit you just mentioned which has no validity here, IMO what Thinix or Stardock have done is simply non-patentable in light of prior art. Apps that run full-screen or windowed is a concept that's decades old and every OS has them - what's new? Metro apps were made to run full-screen (so far) and desktop apps generally don't run that way (although they can switch modes when required, most often done by games). So now Metro apps have been forced to run in a window - whoop de doo! Doesn't change the fact that there's no essentially new patentable concept when it comes to simple app resizing, and if either Thinix or Stardock are crazy enough to sue MS (or each other) over this they'll most likely get creamed. Doesn't matter how much people want to see MS sued, lawsuits don't just happen on a whim. Not to mention if any company was sure they'd win such a case against big wealthy fish they'd hardly need to be prompted to do so.You just collaborated what I said there above. :yes:You didn't get the point here on the reference.Microsoft's decision to develop DoubleSpace and add it to MS-DOS was probably influenced by the fact that DOS-based operating systems from other manufacturers (IBM and Novell) had started including disk compression software in their products.Instead of developing its own product from scratch, Microsoft licensed the technology for the DoubleDisk product developed by Vertisoft and adapted it to become DoubleSpace. For instance, the loading of the driver controlling the compression/decompression (DBLSPACE.BIN) became more deeply integrated into the operating system (being loaded even before the CONFIG.SYS file).Microsoft had originally sought to license the technology from Stac Electronics, which had a similar product called Stacker, but these negotiations had failed. Microsoft was later successfully sued for patent infringement by Stac Electronics for violating some of its compression patents. During the court case Stac Electronics claimed that Microsoft had refused to pay any money when it attempted to license Stacker, offering only the possibility of Stac Electronics to develop enhancement products. MS did said that including disk compression is not an original idea and not patentable. Same reasoning as you have now, and they lost the case. :yes: The reality that Stac Electronics was granted IPR on its design gave it the right to own the design/idea/invention and not the software app that you want to shift the topic to.Honestly, I laugh at the point that realizing we both were like the prosecuting and defense attorney making a point in a legal MS lawsuit case. I get this feeling you're like an MS spokeperson. :think:...Maybe you're right, I hope so, because MS will be in deep trouble again if I am right. hehehe!Yeah, that is such an overused taunt when it comes to supporting this particular company that I was actually wondering when someone would accuse me of that. :) Anyway, for whatever reason you seem to equally hate them, as your recent posts indicate clearly you'd like nothing more than (anti-trust) lawsuits being brought against them so they get into "deep trouble again". Not that I use their products exclusively, but yes I happen to like the choice they provide to consumers in the OS and other markets and unlike many others I would not like to see them die.Did MS die when it lost its case against Stac Electronics? Nope!Did MS die when it lost its case against browser Antitrust case? Nope!Did MS die when it lost its case against Wordperfect? Nope!Too many to mention, here's the link Microsoft litigationWhen a small developer allegedly commit such a mistake it is a big lawsuit case against theft/robbery and piracy,But when MS did that, it is always the reasoning that it is a common thing and if it wasn't common and they did commit such grave errors in committing piracy when it tried to replicate another's patented idea they just want to say "Sorry! Let's forget it now as it is a thing of the past. Less than 10 seconds ago just past after final verdict.".Now that is not FAIR. :rofl:I do not want MS to die too. I do not hate them. I want their abuse of power to stop, be tamed and behave like any other good company. :yes:When you start killing small time devs then you just killed innovations. MS lost NT Lawsuit CASE: copied the idea again on some small time OS developers/company. They could have gave us a great OS too. They were asking MS to market it for them. MS chose to steal from them anyway. You better rely on MS til they ran out of something to steal from other people's idea. My point here is that MS is a big company. If it can't have anything original to present in its line of software/product then why just they hire these smart people who knows what they are doing.@janedoe Thanks for having this friendly discussion with me. :cheers:You made some great good points here too. ;) Edited December 14, 2013 by nIGHT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nIGHT Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 There should absolutely not be any patents based on software alone....Patents historically at least in the US had to be an invention an actual tangible item. In the past you had to also include a working model and plans along with your application..... It is time to go back to that.Software should only be patentable if it is in conjunction with hardware....In other works only the overall device and software combination.... This would also not prevent as the previous system did not prevent someone else creating a similar device with similar software without infringing your patent.I agree with your post.My post above that idea/creation/innovation is patentable came from what I read about IPR laws two years ago. There is already a resolution that software alone cannot be patented. This help promote innovation in this field. If it indeed has an original concept/idea/creation that brings innovation then that is patentable as in the case of Stac Electronics.Read it first before commenting the merits on this case. Same reasoning MS did as @janedoe is making above and they lost the case.Electronics design on the other hand is patentable. Due to huge amount of investment that is involve in research, testing and finding the best production method. You're not paying anything anyway. If you are then you are to express your gratefulness to the developer. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janedoe Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) Honestly, I laugh at the point that realizing we both were like the prosecuting and defense attorney making a point in a legal MS lawsuit case.I'll be the first to admit I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not competent to know whether the case you mentioned is analogous to the present instance. You may think the same case law applies, but I can assure you if you're not a lawyer conversant with US law either then your interpretation is not guaranteed to be accurate. Anyway, who's stopping any potentially lucrative suit? Here lawsuits are filled at the drop of a hat, so by all means Thinix should go ahead and sue Stardock and maybe MS too if they to decide to "copy" the idea of allowing Metro apps to run in a window. It is my personal non-expert opinion that any such suit will be tossed out, but let Thinix try for sure if their lawyers agree with you (especially since you seem to be sure Stardock and MS will lose the case).I do not want MS to die too. I do not hate them. I want their abuse of power to stop, be tamed and behave like any other good company.Well maybe not you but I know of lots of people who are virulently against them and would love nothing so much as to see them die. I have never defended their excesses and abuse of power in the '90s either, but I see how many haters' opinions are still stuck decades in the past. IMO the MS of today is not, can not and will not be allowed to be the same they were back then (I can actually think of a few candidates that have taken over that role from them). No-one's afraid of them now, which is why people always jumping to assumptions about stealing of IP completely ignore the fact that given their past transgressions there's no way they'll ever be let off easy if they're caught doing the same crap. I'll say it again, let Thinix sue Stardock and if they're successful let them go after MS as well if the same concept is used in Win8.2 or 9. Believing in rumors and relying on self-conceived notions of what is lawsuit-worthy is not how it works in the real world.MS lost NT Lawsuit CASE: copied the idea again on some small time OS developers/company. They could have gave us a great OS too. They were asking MS to market it for them. MS chose to steal from them anyway.Who are you talking about? DEC? That was by no means some small-time outfit, go look them up. And no, MS didn't lose the case but there was an out of court settlement. There was no marketing involved BTW, you seem to have your facts mixed up. As for DEC giving us an OS, they did, and it is called VMS. So tell me, despite their doing such a great job have you ever used it? Thought not. And IMO there was no great consumer OS coming from DEC. Dave Cutler who was a star VAX and VMS developer threatened to leave and to appease him they let him have his own group to develop a new CPU architecture called Prism and corresponding OS called Mica. Later they decided it wasn't worth it and shut his pet project down. Naturally pi**ed off he resigned and took 20 or so co-workers from his shuttered project over to MS and started working on NT. For NT his team re-implemented basic OS concepts they were intimately familiar with, having used the same for VMS and Mica, and of course DEC sued. It's hard to say which way the case might have gone (there was no actual code theft AFAIK), but in any case they got a settlement from MS for something they had not believed in and subsequently killed off. Nothing prevented them from giving us a great OS too, but instead they remained stuck in the past and finally were swallowed by Compaq which was a much smaller company. Compaq in turn couldn't digest DEC properly and ended up bankrupt and getting sold to HP, which brings us up to date and at the end of this history lesson. :) In short, who knows where DEC might have been if they weren't stupid and hadn't done what they did to Cutler, the father of NT?Anyway, my point's made and there's no reason to belabor it further. Let the rumors about Win8.2/9 come true and then we'll see if anyone cares to file a lawsuit against MS for something I believe to be unpatentable (because of obviousness, prior art and prior patents). Before that though let's see if anyone cares to file a lawsuit against Stardock, because if that fails so no-doubt will the one against MS. Edited December 14, 2013 by janedoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts