[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

That was not an insult but a concession; I was just agreeing with their own claim that "hate" (their word) for the new interface was another reason for adding the Classic Shell.

The reference to "comfort blanket" (in case that was upsetting) is also appropriate; users are seeking comfort from change by promoting the add in. A similar history is that similar dismissals and claims of "hate" arose when Win XP's Start button turned to an orb, etc. in later Windows, yet with time most all the naysayers adapted and found no disadvantage doing so, they became comfortable with the change.

Sorry, don't see where you are coming from. A different icon is a very different claim and that was indeed a security blanket. No usability changes whatsoever, just cosmetics.

The disservice around about here is that the claims or inferences by some that the Classic Shell is necessary, and in this thread the inference by mbovenka that Classic Shell is necessary for Calibre does nothing to encourage users to move away from XP. The strong claim is that Win 8 is deficient but one can make it better by using third party add ins, whereas that is actually a matter of opinion. And how is it encouraging of users to migrate from XP when Win 8 is said to be deficient?

Because I encourage them to move to Win7.

So another perspective.

In fact Win 8 is the most stable and fastest version of Windows yet.

I never disagreed with this, though I would point out the multitude of linux distros that are much faster -- if speed were the issue. And stability is merely a question of which distro to use.

With respect to the "menu" structure of its Start Page, the Apps Page that it overlays, and the Task Bar, my experience is that when people realise how this can be set up they generally become sold on it.

They come to realise that they can have just those applications on the Start Page that they want (for example, just those that they use most and leave the rest out of immediate view on the underlying Apps page), that they can be arranged in the order they want and can be laid out in sensible groups, none of which can be easily done with earlier Windows' menus.

They also come to realise that they no longer need their desktop cluttered with shortcuts that get covered by the windows of open applications (and which cannot be grouped nor is any user arrangement of them stable) and so not readily accessible without dragging or minimising windows already open.

So in your opinion rhe start screen is easier to use. (And your opinion is more important than the multitudes who disagree, because you cannot fathom that some of those opinions may have tried it.)

At least partly because it is easier to reorder.

Oh. Em. Gee. You're right, Windows has always had a freaking retarded menu. Guess what. Linux Mint is even easier than the start screen. Perhaps we should all switch to that?

So Windows made it easier more obvious to organize the start screen. Doesn't make Win7 fundamentally harder. If only people were cognizant that ther was a way to begin with...

Then they find that to get from the Desk Top to the Start Page and start an application is just 2 mouse clicks, the same as earlier Windows Start Menu but at least one click and likely a drag operation too less than earlier Windows' Desk Top shortcuts. Like earlier Windows the one click option of the Task Bar remains, but sadly the extra room on that which existed in Win 8 has now been taken away in 8.1 by the return of an icon to click on to meet the needs of those who cannot remember that to get to opening applications one clicks on the bottom left corner of the screen despite that being how it has been done for around 20 years or so now.

It was unintuitive that that should be the singular aspect of the entire OS that has no visible indication of its existence.

Now go back to counting how many clicks you saved. Which you could save on Win7 too. Or customize the menu to get rid of Microsoft's inadequacies.

Now if a user finds that they do not like all of that they are, in my opinion, entitled to use whatever older version of Windows they want, I am totally agnostic on that if there is good reason; in fact part of my background is with critical real time industrial applications which for assurance purposes the OS on a site (which for HMI and SCADA, for example, may likely be Windows) ends up never being migrated to later versions.

Mak up your mind. Is dislike/personal preferences OK or do we have to prove our right to you by virtue of using legacy apps?

But I don't think they are entitled to complain when technology eventually overtakes them, as some are now doing, or make claims that some third party add on is necessary to make the current version of Windows usable when that is really just a matter of opinion.

I'll leave it at that. But hopefully some may be encouraged to explore the benefits of Win 8 as it was meant to be used and not be discouraged by claims of need for it to be propped up by some third party add in for it to be efficient or pleasing to use.

And if thos claims are true? Even just for the majority (apparently) of people?

No OS was meant to be used in any way other than however the user wants to. I refuse to be a slave to someone else's idea of a desktop paradigm if it is inefficient for me.