StartIsBack+ 1.6.2

[Bizarre™]

StartIsBack is a great way to relieve your (and your users) Windows 8 pain. StartIsBack returns Windows 8 a real fully featured start menu and start button, behaving exactly like the ones in Windows 7. StartIsBack radically improves desktop usability and makes new Start screen clutter-free. StartIsBack is fully native lightweight zero-privileges program, cheap and fair, fast, stable and secure. Boot to desktop; Original fully-featured Windows 7 start menu; Desktop and Modern interfaces clearly separated; Make Start screen clutter-free; Totally native; Rich customization and configuration; And More to come! Think of it as a transition path which Microsoft should have made for Windows 8. StartIsBack+ is the all-new version of StartIsBack for Windows 8.1. It's a FREE upgrade for all StartIsBack users.

Thanks to hpwamr for the update.

Download

[dafmat71]

Hi, no crack for 1.6 version?!

[Rok]

Still no crack for StartIsBack+ 1.6x. :doh:

[rerigam]

StartIsBack is a great way to relieve your (and your users) Windows 8 pain. StartIsBack returns Windows 8 a real fully featured start menu and start button, behaving exactly like the ones in Windows 7. StartIsBack radically improves desktop usability and makes new Start screen clutter-free. StartIsBack is fully native lightweight zero-privileges program, cheap and fair, fast, stable and secure. Boot to desktop; Original fully-featured Windows 7 start menu; Desktop and Modern interfaces clearly separated; Make Start screen clutter-free; Totally native; Rich customization and configuration; And More to come! Think of it as a transition path which Microsoft should have made for Windows 8. StartIsBack+ is the all-new version of StartIsBack for Windows 8.1. It's a FREE upgrade for all StartIsBack users.

Thanks to hpwamr for the update.

Download

I do not really understand why people are so fond of the start button

[ZinnPL]

We have full cracked Start8. We do not need StartIsBack anymore :)

[dafmat71]

I prefer SB, really better with visual styles!

[dcs18]

I prefer SB, really better with visual styles!

Yes, StartIsBack is certainly better - but, it has far lesser visual styles than Start8. ;)

[Lacius]

For those of you waiting for a crack, since Microsoft is about to bring back the classic start menu in Windows 8.1 Update 2, StartIsBack and Start8 are about to become redundant.

[dcs18]

For those of you waiting for a crack, since Microsoft is about to bring back the classic start menu in Windows 8.1 Update 2, StartIsBack and Start8 are about to become redundant.

Oh, that's never gonna happen, those who tasted those 3rd party Start Menu alternatives would never allow them to become redundant. :thumbsdown:

[uffbros]

Just use the trial reset..Once ever month and it takes 2 seconds to apply.

[Lacius]

Oh, that's never gonna happen, those who tasted those 3rd party Start Menu alternatives would never allow them to become redundant. :thumbsdown:

After Microsoft returns the classic start menu, no one will have any incentive to Google third party start menu software, start menu alternatives will be redundant for anyone who hasn't already installed them, new revenue will plummet to close to nothing, and Start8/StartIsBack updates will cease. Welcome to Economics 101.

[maddoxx]

After Microsoft returns the classic start menu, no one will have any incentive to Google third party start menu software, start menu alternatives will be redundant for anyone who hasn't already installed them, new revenue will plummet to close to nothing, and Start8/StartIsBack updates will cease. Welcome to Economics 101.

I'll still be using SIB. I don't want no metro bs near my start menu, ty very much.

[dcs18]

Oh, that's never gonna happen, those who tasted those 3rd party Start Menu alternatives would never allow them to become redundant. :thumbsdown:

After Microsoft returns the classic start menu, no one will have any incentive to Google third party start menu software, start menu alternatives will be redundant for anyone who hasn't already installed them, new revenue will plummet to close to nothing, and Start8/StartIsBack updates will cease. Welcome to Economics 101.

Folks who have used those 3rd party Start Menu alternatives will never need to resort Google as they've already bookmarked all relevant sites. Not to forget that the millions of folks who visit this site won't need Google to learn about these alternatives - also, there are many more media than Google or even nSane.

The existing number of Users of StartIsBack & Start8 is already so high that the Developers won't need to cease updates - worse comes to worse, even if updates were to really result in a complete halt of new revenues, that still wont translate to redundancy as long as the last release continues to work.

Those who are resourceful will never ever settle for second best (the native Microsoft Start Menu is far from laying claim to being the second best.) Welcome to reality.

[Rok]

Just use the trial reset..Once ever month and it takes 2 seconds to apply.

Of course, it takes just 2 seconds to trial reset. But. also add the time, that you have spend to readd all the "start menu" entries. Which is PITA. So, Happy with StartIsBack+ 1.5.2.

[Lacius]

Folks who have used those 3rd party Start Menu alternatives will never need to resort Google as they've already bookmarked all relevant sites. Not to forget that the millions of folks who visit this site won't need Google to learn about these alternatives - also, there are many more media than Google or even nSane.

You seem to have missed the the point entirely, so I'll repeat what I said. Users who have not yet used a third party start menu alternative will have no reason to seek one after Microsoft returns the classic start menu; I specifically referred to people who have yet to install them. Of course people who already have a third party start menu alternative installed won't have to search for one.

The existing number of Users of StartIsBack & Start8 is already so high that the Developers won't need to cease updates - worse comes to worse, even if updates were to really result in a complete halt of new revenues, that still wont translate to redundancy as long as the last release continues to work.

The existing number of users is irrelevant to new revenue, as I already said. Developers are unlikely to commit time and resources to software that people are no longer buying, regardless of how many users it presently has. That's only sustainable for so long without a.) new revenue, or b.) a meaningful brand name to keep up. That's also not including the fact that the number of people using third party start menu alternatives is likely to decrease, not hold.

Those who are resourceful will never ever settle for second best (the native Microsoft Start Menu is far from laying claim to being the second best.) Welcome to reality.

The true reality is that people don't typically like to install third-party software that alters the behavior of the operating system if it can be helped. Up to now, people just wanted their classic start menus back, but the features of third-party start menu alternatives are about to become either redundant or just frivolous. New users aren't even going to be aware of third party start menu alternatives (and those who become aware won't bother), and many legacy users are unlikely to keep them around after Windows 8.1 Update 2. I also have a hunch that when it comes to computer performance, the native start menu is going to be the best; third party software is going to be redundant with regard to both features and system resources.

[dcs18]

You seem to have missed the the point entirely, so I'll repeat what I said. Users who have not yet used a third party start menu alternative will have no reason to seek one after Microsoft returns the classic start menu; I specifically referred to people who have yet to install them. Of course people who already have a third party start menu alternative installed won't have to search for one.

That's got nothing to do with the actual meaning of the term redundant - redundancy does not discriminate between Users who have to search and those who don't have to search for a Start Menu alternative.

The existing number of users is irrelevant to new revenue, as I already said. Developers are unlikely to commit time and resources to software that people are no longer buying, regardless of how many users it presently has. That's only sustainable for so long without a.) new revenue, or b.) a meaningful brand name to keep up. That's also not including the fact that the number of people using third party start menu alternatives is likely to decrease, not hold.

That's got nothing to do with the actual meaning of the term redundant, either - redundancy does not discriminate between existing or new Users of a Start Menu alternative.

The true reality is that people don't typically like to install third-party software that alters the behavior of the operating system if it can be helped. Up to now, people just wanted their classic start menus back, but the features of third-party start menu alternatives are about to become either redundant or just frivolous. New users aren't even going to be aware of third party start menu alternatives (and those who become aware won't bother), and many legacy users are unlikely to keep them around after Windows 8.1 Update 2. I also have a hunch that when it comes to computer performance, the native start menu is going to be the best; third party software is going to be redundant with regard to both features and system resources.

That's not true, people do look into the value-addition aspect - take the following examples:-

• Windows Firewall
• Windows Defender
• Windows CD Writer
• Windows Backup
• Windows Restore
• Windows Internet Explorer
• Windows Media Player
• Windows XPS Viewer
• Windows Photo Viewer
• Windows Defragmenter
• Windows Mail
• Windows Notepad

How many of the above Windows programs can claim to be the best - have 3rd party alternatives for the above ever grown redundant? On the contrary the demand has only grown - folks tend to use only the very best regardless of system resources. In fact, competent Users disable the above software.

FWIW, Users on this very thread will attest to the undeniable technical fact that StartIsBack has the least impact on performance & system resources while maintaining the best of features.

[knowledge-Spammer]

now now girls

[Lacius]

That's got nothing to do with the actual meaning of the term redundant - redundancy does not discriminate between Users who have to search and those who don't have to search for a Start Menu alternative.

That's got nothing to do with the actual meaning of the term redundant, either - redundancy does not discriminate between existing or new Users of a Start Menu alternative.

I'm allowed to distinguish between people who are/aren't going to find something redundant and the effect that will have on the future of the applications and usership as a whole, not that I needed to. You can re-read my posts on how third party start menu programs will become redundant for most, by definition.

That's not true, people do look into the value-addition aspect - take the following examples:-

• Windows Firewall
• Windows Defender
• Windows CD Writer
• Windows Backup
• Windows Restore
• Windows Internet Explorer
• Windows Media Player
• Windows XPS Viewer
• Windows Photo Viewer
• Windows Defragmenter
• Windows Mail
• Windows Notepad

How many of the above Windows programs can claim to be the best - have 3rd party alternatives for the above ever grown redundant? On the contrary the demand has only grown - folks tend to use only the very best regardless of system resources. In fact, competent Users disable the above software.

Not only didn't you list any examples of circumventing/supplementing how an OS works (i.e. you only listed programs that can be turned off and/or opened by choice; I wasn't aware Windows Start Menu was an application and not an aspect of the OS), but you also didn't give any examples of anything that decreases system performance (i.e. your list of applications can be turned off and/or run by choice; third party applications wouldn't dedicate system resources to fiddling with the original application/OS and/or running concurrently with it).

FWIW, Users on this very thread will attest to the undeniable technical fact that StartIsBack has the least impact on performance & system resources while maintaining the best of features.

Well no, the Windows 7 start menu (and probably the Windows 8.1 Update 2 start menu) has the least impact on performance and system resources. What's undeniable is that third party applications like StartIsBack negatively affect system performance as compared to a system without them. Likewise, applications like StartIsBack consistently require compatibility updates with the addition of Windows Updates, not to mention unrelated bug fixes, which one could argue is a hassle with unpredictable results (e.g. the ability of StartIsBack in the past to break the Charms Bar).

People are free to use whatever applications they want to meet whatever needs/desires they have; I'm merely stating the likely outcome to the forthcoming redundancy of third party start menus. You criticized the static nature of the Windows 7 start menu in another thread, but that doesn't mean most (>99%) of Windows 7 users don't/wouldn't find third party start menu alternatives redundant on Windows 7; the same will be the case on Windows 8.1 Update 2.

[dcs18]

Not only didn't you list any examples of circumventing/supplementing how an OS works (i.e. you only listed programs that can be turned off and/or opened by choice; I wasn't aware Windows Start Menu was an application and not an aspect of the OS), but you also didn't give any examples of anything that decreases system performance (i.e. your list of applications can be turned off and/or run by choice; third party applications wouldn't dedicate system resources to fiddling with the original application/OS and/or running concurrently with it).

Have stopped rendering social service on this forum.

Likewise, applications like StartIsBack consistently require compatibility updates with the addition of Windows Updates, not to mention unrelated bug fixes, which one could argue is a hassle with unpredictable results (e.g. the ability of StartIsBack in the past to break the Charms Bar).

Historically, Tihiy has a proven background not only in providing StartIsBack updates but also most enhancements as requested by the Users - can you approach Microsoft with such requests for the proposed Start Menu which is supposed to make all other Start Menu alternatives redundant?

If you're having unpredictable results with your StartIsBack and it's breaking your Charms Bar, it's time for a reformat - maybe you could be infected. Never heard of that alleged issue.

People are free to use whatever applications they want to meet whatever needs/desires they have; I'm merely stating the likely outcome to the forthcoming redundancy of third party start menus.

As a matter of principle, I do not speculate on something which is intangible.

For me, the upcoming native Start Menu is just a sperm in the test-tube until it's becomes tangible - later this year.

You criticized the static nature of the Windows 7 start menu in another thread, but that doesn't mean most (>99%) of Windows 7 users don't/wouldn't find third party start menu alternatives redundant on Windows 7; the same will be the case on Windows 8.1 Update 2.

Yes, I criticized the native Start Menu which I'm using on my Windows 7 Ultimate - it sucks, to me!!!

All my Windows 7 Customers have been pestering me to install the 3rd party Start Menu alternatives that I've been flaunting on my Windows 8 / 8.1 and 8.1 Update - especially StartIsBack (it's gorgeous, feature-rich and barely consumes any system resources.)

[Lacius]

If you're having unpredictable results with your StartIsBack and it's breaking your Charms Bar, it's time for a reformat - maybe you could be infected. Never heard of that alleged issue.

Perhaps you should research the known issues of using StartIsBack 1.5.2 (or lower) on Windows 8.1 Update 1 before haphazardly and irresponsibly recommending that people just reformat.

As a matter of principle, I do not speculate on something which is intangible.

For me, the upcoming native Start Menu is just a sperm in the test-tube until it's becomes tangible - later this year.

I've already explained how third party start menu replacements have at least some hinderance on system performance and why the Windows 8.1 Update 2 start menu likely will not suffer those same pitfalls.

Historically, Tihiy has a proven background not only in providing StartIsBack updates but also most enhancements as requested by the Users - can you approach Microsoft with such requests for the proposed Start Menu which is supposed to make all other Start Menu alternatives redundant?

You keep underlining redundant, but I don't think you know what it means. If an application merely adds bells and whistles but is no longer necessary, it has become redundant:

re·dun·dant

riˈdəndənt/

adjective

1. not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous.

"this redundant brewery has been converted into a library"

synonyms: unnecessary, not required, inessential, unessential, needless, unneeded,uncalled for

• (of words or data) able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.
• (of a component) not strictly necessary to functioning but included in case of failure in another component.

Yes, I criticized the native Start Menu which I'm using on my Windows 7 Ultimate - it sucks, to me!!!

That sounds less like a lack of redundancy and more like a personal problem. If you desire more bells and whistles, you're free to use whatever software you wish, but you shouldn't pretend >99% of people don't find start menu replacements on Windows 7 (and soon to be Windows 8.1 Update 2) redundant and not worth spending extra money.

[dcs18]

Perhaps you should research the known issues of using StartIsBack 1.5.2 (or lower) on Windows 8.1 Update 1 before haphazardly and irresponsibly recommending that people just reformat.

Sure, I research only real problems - not delusions.

Links, please about the known issues of StartIsBack - or, it did not happen. Remember you are the one who made that claim - not me.

Kindly don't attempt to slip the new StartIsBack 1.5.2 (or lower) on Windows 8.1 Update 1 factor into play now - you've never mentioned that specifically, in our conversation on this thread.

As a matter of principle, I do not speculate on something which is intangible.

For me, the upcoming native Start Menu is just a sperm in the test-tube until it's becomes tangible - later this year.

I've already explained how third party start menu replacements have at least some hinderance on system performance and why the Windows 8.1 Update 2 start menu likely will not suffer those same pitfalls.

I believe only in evidence - if you make claims, prove them scientifically.

You keep underlining redundant, but I don't think you know what it means.

I don't think English is your mother tongue.

Yes, I criticized the native Start Menu which I'm using on my Windows 7 Ultimate - it sucks, to me!!!

That sounds less like a lack of redundancy and more like a personal problem. If you desire more bells and whistles, you're free to use whatever software you wish, but you shouldn't pretend >99% of people don't find start menu replacements on Windows 7 (and soon to be Windows 8.1 Update 2) redundant and not worth spending extra money.

You seem to have neglected to quote what I wrote in full - the following highlight clearly rejects the theory that it's a personal problem:--

All my Windows 7 Customers have been pestering me to install the 3rd party Start Menu alternatives that I've been flaunting on my Windows 8 / 8.1 and 8.1 Update - especially StartIsBack (it's gorgeous, feature-rich and barely consumes any system resources.)

[Lacius]

Sure, I research only real problems - not delusions.

Links, please about the known issues of StartIsBack - or, it did not happen. Remember you are the one who made that claim - not me.

Kindly don't attempt to slip the new StartIsBack 1.5.2 (or lower) on Windows 8.1 Update 1 factor into play now - you've never mentioned that specifically, in our conversation on this thread.

It's not a delusion to cite a known problem with StartIsBack 1.5.2 on Windows 8.1 Update 1 (check the discussions on popular torrent sites) that Tihiy acknowledged and fixed. I also did mention it in this thread when referring to the charms bar issues. You know, the one you irresponsibly told me to format my system to solve instead of asking what my settings were like (e.g. if I disabled corner navigation) or which version of StartIsBack+ I was using? I hope that's not how you troubleshoot.

Are you implying that StartIsBack never has any problems? That's amazing, considering all software has problems. Otherwise, I have no idea what your petty "links or it didn't happen" had to do with anything. I also wasn't aware we were citing things now.

I believe only in evidence - if you make claims, prove them scientifically.

Are you saying an added third party process does not use system resources compared to a system without that third party process? That's amazing. Could you show me the evidence? Because last time I checked, third party start menu replacements did indeed use system resources (like most software).

I don't think English is your mother tongue.

Your hypocrisy with regard to your anger over unsubstantiated statements is showing.

You seem to have neglected to quote what I wrote in full - the following highlight clearly rejects the theory that it's a personal problem:--

All my Windows 7 Customers have been pestering me to install the 3rd party Start Menu alternatives that I've been flaunting on my Windows 8 / 8.1 and 8.1 Update - especially StartIsBack (it's gorgeous, feature-rich and barely consumes any system resources.)

As someone who allegedly and suddenly values evidence, you're probably as disinterested in anecdotes as I am. Some people showing an interest in the aesthetics of your start menu is cool, but it doesn't make a third party start menu program any less redundant on an operating system that already has a start menu.

You and others are free to use whatever software you want for whatever reasons you want. Do you want features that classic start menus don't have? That's great. Use them. Advocate the use of them. Show what can be done with them. I'm not saying they aren't good-looking, feature-rich, or low on system resources. But don't pretend start menu replacements are anything other than optional and redundant on Windows 7 and the forthcoming Windows 8.1 Update 2, particularly when these replacements cost money.

Third party start menu software arose from the need for a start menu on Windows 8 and Windows 8.1. That needs is about to go away. That is, by definition, what it means to become redundant. I'm sorry I insulted your third party start menu fanboydom. It's not like I said, "Your start menu is bad and you should feel bad."

[dcs18]

It's not a delusion to cite a known problem with StartIsBack 1.5.2 on Windows 8.1 Update 1 (check the discussions on popular torrent sites) that Tihiy acknowledged and fixed. I also did mention it in this thread when referring to the charms bar issues. You know, the one you irresponsibly told me to format my system to solve instead of asking what my settings were like (e.g. if I disabled corner navigation) or which version of StartIsBack+ I was using? I hope that's not how you troubleshoot.

That link that you have provided in your quote does not lead to the so called known issue where the Charms Bar is broken by StartIsBack - as alleged by you at post # 18. We look forward to the correct links.

It's a clear delusion - link/s, or that did not happen..

Are you implying that StartIsBack never has any problems? That's amazing, considering all software has problems. Otherwise, I have no idea what your petty "links or it didn't happen" had to do with anything. I also wasn't aware we were citing things now.

Can you quote me on this thread where I'm implying that "StartIsBack never has any problems," - link/s, or that did not happen.

Are you saying an added third party process does not use system resources compared to a system without that third party process? That's amazing. Could you show me the evidence? Because last time I checked, third party start menu replacements did indeed use system resources (like most software).

Not at all, on the contrary, it was you who first offered your hunch at post # 15 about how the upcoming native Start Menu might consume lesser system resources - not me. Therefore, it's incumbent upon you to now provide the evidence proving that the native Start Menu consumes lesser system resources than StartIsBack - link/s, or that did not happen.

Your hypocrisy with regard to your anger over unsubstantiated statements is showing.

As someone who allegedly and suddenly values evidence, you're probably as disinterested in anecdotes as I am. Some people showing an interest in the aesthetics of your start menu is cool, but it doesn't make a third party start menu program any less redundant on an operating system that already has a start menu.

Your failure above in substantiating frivolous claims and predictions have already exposed you - kindly don't get too personal with me (the Admins. would have to carry you away on a stretcher.)

You and others are free to use whatever software you want for whatever reasons you want. Do you want features that classic start menus don't have? That's great. Use them. Advocate the use of them. Show what can be done with them. I'm not saying they aren't good-looking, feature-rich, or low on system resources.

Yes, of course we are born free - we want good-looking Start Menu alternatives with additional features. We cherish the power of freedom in a choice on the matter.

But don't pretend start menu replacements are anything other than optional and redundant on Windows 7 and the forthcoming Windows 8.1 Update 2, particularly when these replacements cost money.

Do you pay for your warez, here - at nSane? I would not be surprised if someone has someone being suckering you.

Third party start menu software arose from the need for a start menu on Windows 8 and Windows 8.1. That needs is about to go away. That is, by definition, what it means to become redundant. I'm sorry I insulted your third party start menu fanboydom. It's not like I said, "Your start menu is bad and you should feel bad."

That need has left behind a want . . . . . . . . . . a burning urge - 3rd party Start Menu alternatives are here to stay (no matter how loudly a Microsoft FanBoy like you howls for his toy.) Check out post # 12 - only n00bs will remain content with the native Start Menu.

[Lacius]

That link that you have provided in your quote does not lead to the so called known issue where the Charms Bar is broken by StartIsBack - as alleged by you at post # 18. We look forward to the correct links.

It's a clear delusion - link/s, or that did not happen..

Ta-da, not that anything I've said is contingent upon any one bug.

Can you quote me on this thread where I'm implying that "StartIsBack never has any problems," - link/s, or that did not happen.

Nope, because I never said that's what you implied. I suggest you re-read what I said in order to figure out why I asked my question in the context of this conversation.

Not at all, on the contrary, it was you who first offered your hunch at post # 15 about how the upcoming native Start Menu might consume lesser system resources - not me. Therefore, it's incumbent upon you to now provide the evidence proving that the native Start Menu consumes lesser system resources than StartIsBack - link/s, or that did not happen.

As I said, whether or not the Windows 8.1 Update 2 start menu will consume less or more system resources than something like StartIsBack is merely an educated guess.

Your failure above in substantiating frivolous claims and predictions have already exposed you - kindly don't get too personal with me (the Admins. would have to carry you away on a stretcher.)

I don't appear to have failed, nor have I "gotten personal."

Yes, of course we are born free - we want good-looking Start Menu alternatives with additional features. We cherish the power of freedom in a choice on the matter.

'Kay.

Do you pay for your warez, here - at nSane? I would not be surprised if someone has someone being suckering you.

I suggest you re-read this thread for the context of my initial post: my attempt to alleviate people's concerns with regard to obtaining a crack for the latest version of StartIsBack.

That need has left behind a want . . . . . . . . . . a burning urge - 3rd party Start Menu alternatives are here to stay (no matter how loudly a Microsoft FanBoy like you howls for his toy.) Check out post # 12 - only n00bs will remain content with the native Start Menu.

Not only am I not a Microsoft fanboy, but your ad hominem attacks (two) are showing.

I've tried to be polite and pragmatic, as evidenced by the closing of each of my posts, but it's apparent by your emotional responses (albeit non-elicited) and the fact that I could have followed each of my above responses in this post with "If you're not going to read what I say, don't bother responding" that I've trampled on your StartIsBack fanboydom.

[software182]

:snack: :snack: