Actually I do. I can do what I like. In this case however, I am going to gracefully bow out. I was wrong.

Probably a good idea.... allowing you to remain commenting here purely for comedic value probably isn't really Politically Correct...

Usually people who clearly are trolling negativity towards Stardock/Stardock's products are politely shown the door.

I think that what W8/8.1 lack (in appearance as well as function) goes beyond the start menu.

The functionality thing is apps in windows (remember? that's why it was called Windows in the first place, no?).

The saving of W8/8.1 will come by adopting a ModernMix type solution... That is what will save W8 along with the start menu, if anything can.

For some reason, this really reminds me of the saga of Vista with its SP1 and SP2.

Point taken Brad. I will do my best at being a better member of this great community. My apologies to all. Thank you.

That's just it, Paul. "Threshold" (if it has the start menu and ModernMix 'fixes') would comprise the parallel to Vista SP1 and 2.

Vista and 7 are essentially the same things, just 7 has less annoying UACs.

All Vista really did wrong was the UACs were way too annoying.

Nobody wants to have to answer "Are you sure?" every time they do anything.

Windows 8 has no such problem.  Windows 8 works beautifully across the board.  It just doesn't have a start menu and people miss it.

You should all hope that Windows 9 or whatever it is doesn't come with a start menu, because then there can be a Start9 and SD can make more money.  Then they can afford to make more games (what I want) or spend more money making GalCiv3 or whatever (also good).

Really though, it would be nice if people just got used to the Metro UI.

Windows 95 was a huge change over Windows 3.1 and I think people universally agreed that was better after they got used to the differences.  Doesn't seem to be much different to me between that and 7 --> 8.

- Edit - Clarity

....and Kona was right....it's more likely going to take a v 9 to make amends for the ill-fated 8 ....

Whether you call it W9 (or in the case of Vista SP2 needed to fix Vista). Windows 7 was a de-kludged Vista... the point is that what's really missing from W8/8.1 is the "windows for apps", being able to work side-by-side and the functional start menu.

That is W8 + Start8 and ModernMix equivalents.

You can call that W8 SP2, or W8.1 SP2, or Windows 9.

The semantics are immaterial. At least I'm defining what it needs to succeed, imo...what do you all think it needs? Specifically.

Shades of MASH.

The screwup was not reconceiving the start menu (like Start8 or Pokki [minus the obligatory Pokki Store app]) and not including the ability to work in a side by side mode...making a lot of kludgy ways of navigating. If a Tiles/ModernMix/Start8 combo is installed on 8, it becomes a good OS...imo.

SD didn't put together "W8 for Dummies", so to speak, nor a "bridge" from 7 to 8 (although it can be used that way).

The way I see it, until a new OS happens (which will take time and more thought than 8), SD has given MS an excellent direction (and saved 8) by making it workable and (more) attractive at the same time. The current rumors about "Threshold" (and they're only that) indicate a willingness to rethink it in a way SD has made possible.

For whatever it's worth.

Im one of those strange guys that actually prefers the windows8 start navigation over the old startmenu (the look is something they could work on)
If they add a startmenu I demand an option to disable it and use Windows8 Start ( the same goes for the startbutton (i want to be able to hide it once again )
I can see MS adding a Modernmix like thing just to have the apps in balance with the desktop
But bringing back the old 7 startmenu? NO! - this might sound ignorant, but they should let the people buy it from SD.

its not like Photoshop gives you extra options for free.
The OS can be operated the way it is, and if folks don´t like it then they should pay or stick with windows7 or whatever they have.
I think best would be to simply make windows9 go back in time and make it windows7.9 and keep windows8 the way it is and have them seperated.
This way both partys stay happy... +It would be pretty unwise to punish customers who liked the idea of windows8 just to please the rest.
 

Probably true since the OEM's won't offer anything but MS's latest and Linux.

Wish MS or the OEMs had swung a deal with SD like Dell did. Their sales would have been better.

Funny, I haven't talked to a real life person who prefers W7 over W8...no really, I haven't...maybe I should wonder about people on the forums who claim W8 is bad...

I really don't think we want to critique a business model based on anecdotal evidence...there are good facts out there that point to the polarizing nature of W8 and its weaknesses, such as surveys of new W8 users and number of requests made to OEMs by customers for W7 installs after W8 was released....

What makes you think W9 is going to return to your golden standard of W7?  As far as UI goes, W8.1 is almost identical to W7 minus a start menu...if W8.2 had you set "boot to desktop" during your initial setup, added a start menu, and allowed advanced startup options to be dealt with in desktop mode, most people wouldn't have any problems with W8 since they could use it just as they use W7...

Jafo - My theory is that if MSFT would have changed the UI around so that it was markedly different every time, people would not have really cared about 7 --> 8.  People got the expectation of relatively small change because that is what they were given for quite a good while.

Nobody was owed small change at any point.  Kinda funny how the nice to have's become things people get pissed off about when they don't have it.

I don't see any good reason why an interface can't be designed to work on both a touch screen and a regular PC at the same time.  I don't really feel like I am owed different UIs for those two different applications.  I can click tiles pretty easily with a mouse, for instance.

Maybe I just have a really low sense of entitlement, or maybe I read "Who Moved My Cheese" one too many times (IE 1).  Not that I am trying to say we should go around seeking out opportunities to adapt, or anything.  I just think that we should probably do it when it is warranted and there are at least some reasonable arguments that it is warranted now.

Selucia - I think if OEMs offered XP, 95, or even Windows 3.1 as possible OSs out of the box there would be some people that would want those.  Not that they are any better than 8.1, but a lot of people like the old stuff just because they are used to it.  For that matter there would probably be people who would like to still be able to use ME and there was someone earlier that was at least joking around about wishing they still had Vista...