In Blue: Start Experience Changes

[AlphaBeta]

I can now confirm that most of the rumored coming changes to the Start experience in Windows 8.1 “Blue” are correct. And I’ve got a few screenshots to help demonstrate how these changes are implemented.


Start button
It’s back, baby. And if you are familiar with how Start 8 looks and works, this will look awfully familiar. Here, confirmed for the first time, is the Windows 8.1 Start button.




And here’s a new detail that was hinted at in Mary Jo’s post: When you hover over Start button, the button changes color, with a black background and the accent color used on the flag logo. Yes, it looks exactly like the Start Charm, with similar animations.

And when you activate the Switcher app switching utility, the Start button will appear at the bottom as the Start tip does today, and has Start text in the box, as it does now.

Finally, in the Milestone Preview (MP) build of Windows 8.1, at least, there is no way to turn off the Start button. That could change.


Desktop wallpaper on the Start screen
As Mary Jo reported, you’ll be able to use your desktop wallpaper as the Start background too. It looks like so:



Boot to desktop
Yep, it’s in there. And it’s off by default.

Source: http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/blue- ... ce-changes

[Wheatley]

Very good changes in my opinion. Definitely will reduce needed 3rd party application/modification installations.

[WinPC]

I am sorry, everyone, I really am, but I do not think that these screenshots are authentic. And before I go on, I want to make it very clear that I am NOT, by the way, accusing Mary Jo Foley or Paul Thurrott of faking builds at all - what I think is that someone else sent them the screenshots, and that they thought that they were real. The same person who created them probably created them in Paul's name - either that, or they sent them a .VHD of a fake build.

First, the question is this: Why would Microsoft take a step backward? It makes absolutely no sense to me at all as to why they would do this.

Second, is it really that difficult to simply download Start8 and create those screenshots from there? I could have just as easily done that myself, without any trouble at all.

Third, this change would be completely pointless, since if it just returns the user to the Start screen, then it's the same button, period. It would only be "different" in appearance and nothing more.

Finally, if this mythical "return of the Start button" is real, then why have we not seen it in the latest build known to have been compiled, let alone anything in our collection? There may have been a couple of supposedly earlier builds with the visible Start button, but why don't any screenshots of the later builds show it (unless they just showed only part of the screenshot and I just forgot)?

There are so many unconfirmed ideas about Windows 8.1 and Windows 9 going around the Internet that it can be really hard to tell fact from fiction. And really, the fact that one screenshot has Paul's name is no proof at all that it's real - what I think is that either the faker created these screenshots in his name, or that they were sent a .VHD of a fake build, and that in either case, they thought that it was real.

So on that basis, I'm afraid that these screenshots are not real. I'm not the biggest Windows 8.1 expert in the world, but I would say that those screenshots are definitely fake.

EDIT: Actually, there was a mistake about it, and the screenshots are indeed real. Sorry for any confusion that it caused.

[BAV0]

First, the question is this: Why would Microsoft take a step backward? It makes absolutely no sense to me at all as to why they would do this.
*snip*
Third, this change would be completely pointless, since if it just returns the user to the Start screen, then it's the same button, period. It would only be "different" in appearance and nothing more.

It's not really a step backwards, it's not like they're ditching metro or something, it is an improvement for many users who had trouble finding the start button, the different appearance is a big step forward for those users.

[WinPC]

I'm not saying that it is anything overly dramatic, just that the screenshots are extremely inconsistent, and therefore not real. And even perfectly legitimate people such as Paul Thurrott and Mary Jo Foley have likely been fooled in the past by fake builds and screenshots - even I myself was occasionally fooled by some fake information now and again.

I could just as easily send even the most trusted people in the world a .VHD of a fake build in much the same way, but that doesn't mean that it's real. But usually, with a bit of common sense, you can tell the fake builds from the perfectly legitimate ones.

[hounsell]

Thankfully, us BetaArchive users are not deceived, for we have the great seer WinPC to divine what is real and what is not.

I mean, they just have screenshots of a build they are using, and reasonable ones at that. WinPC has what he thinks is true. That is arrogance in the extreme.

Please describe in what way the "screenshots are extremely inconsistent". I've looked through, and while there are a few curious points, stranger things have happened already in blue than anything these screenshots depict, thanks to this being the first release of the new regime at MS.

[win2k8man]

WinPC Mary Jo Foley or Paul Thurrott would not post fake screen shots on there sites so i think you need to just wait and see i believe these screen shots are legit time will tell but i have no doubts

[rafaelgs]

Confirmed by Microsoft, many of this changes.
http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/blog ... s-8-1.aspx

Except the Start Button, atm.

[Derf]

These screenshots are real. WinPC is wrong. All I'm going to say on the matter.

[WinPC]

These screenshots are real. WinPC is wrong. All I'm going to say on the matter.

Actually, I saw it yesterday. I would have certainly posted about it, but the site was down, and it looks like you came in before me.

Well, at least we now have verifiable evidence that it is indeed real, and not just unconfirmed rumors. Sorry for any confusion that it may have caused.

[hounsell]

Well, at least we now have verifiable evidence that it is indeed real, and not just unconfirmed rumors. Sorry for any confusion that it may have caused.

They weren't unconfirmed rumours yesterday, they were blindly obvious fakes that only those lacking common sense would not rush to condemn:

the screenshots are ... not real... been fooled in the past by fake builds and screenshots... with a bit of common sense, you can tell the fake builds from the perfectly legitimate ones.

One should be certain before making claims on something they know nothing about. It has a habit of making one look like an utter fool in the eyes of one's peers.

[WinPC]

Well, at least we now have verifiable evidence that it is indeed real, and not just unconfirmed rumors. Sorry for any confusion that it may have caused.

They weren't unconfirmed rumours yesterday, they were blindly obvious fakes that only those lacking common sense would not rush to condemn:

the screenshots are ... not real... been fooled in the past by fake builds and screenshots... with a bit of common sense, you can tell the fake builds from the perfectly legitimate ones.

One should be certain before making claims on something they know nothing about. It has a habit of making one look like an utter fool in the eyes of one's peers.

I wasn't saying that the screenshots necessarily were fake, just that I didn't believe that they were real. I said that I personally would have said that they were "definitely fake", but I never actually said that anyone knew for sure.

Nor did I really want to claim that they were fake either; rather, I was just saying that we should be wary of anything that appears to be a bit "off" unless there is verifiable evidence for it. In other words, we need at least some level of evidence to back it up. I would have even posted this exact statement yesterday, but the site went offline, so I didn't get to do it.

Obviously, it was different this time, because it was actually confirmed by Microsoft. But when something suspicious or otherwise unusual appears to happen, that's when I tend to be more doubtful. At least unless proper evidence is provided for it.

[hounsell]

You said that they aren't real, not that you didn't believe they were. You should not use absolutes, as you did in your posts on this forum, where you have no ability to know for certain. You did not appeal for caution, as you claim now, you categorically claimed that they were not genuine. For someone as verbose as yourself, are we to believe it was simply you simplifying and condensing your message, accidentally trimming the qualifiers? I somehow doubt it.

At least apologise properly for spreading misinformation for no good reason.

[WinPC]

You said that they aren't real, not that you didn't believe they were. You should not use absolutes, as you did in your posts on this forum, where you have no ability to know for certain. You did not appeal for caution, as you claim now, you categorically claimed that they were not genuine. For someone as verbose as yourself, are we to believe it was simply you simplifying and condensing your message, accidentally trimming the qualifiers? I somehow doubt it.

At least apologise properly for spreading misinformation for no good reason.

As I said, at the time, I was about to post that it would have been different had the proper evidence been provided, but then the site went down yesterday at around the same time that I tried to post that message, so it got lost, and that was why I wasn't able to post anything more about it until today.