Windows 7 start menu

[Escher]

If programmers had to accommodate the "old" everything, can you imagine how bloated software would be? Yeah, some people prefer 80's clothing, but most B&M retailers don't stock it these days... I'm not dinging preferences, I'm dinging the consequences of expecting preferences to always be honored in the name of "diversity" or "we all can like different music" analogies.

Again, as a programmer, I have to disagree with this statement. Look around at different apps that have skins and the sizes of the skins are quite small. Thinking back to my last involvement with Linux, the window managers provided vastly different interfaces to the OS and were all quite small in comparison to the rest of the OS.

If they had to keep all the old functionality, then sure. But I don't think you'll find many people wanting to keep the old crappy search engine along with the new fast search engine. What they want is a familiar interface to the new functionality. True, they may miss out on a whiz-bang option the new functionality exposes, but that can always be tucked away nicely on an "Advanced" dialog if they ever cared to use it. And most people wanting the old look would say they don't care.

 

[Elledan]

I much prefer the win2k-style start menu, and yes, I have been exposed to the start menu of WinXP Themes and of Vista. Why? Because I don't use anything of those fancy start menus, since it isn't more efficient for me to do so. I launch most applications by typing Win + r + <name of shortcut I created>. I have configured the start menu to expand the control panel entry so that I never have to open the control panel window. Same for network configurations and such.

It's simple, effective and never gets in the way. Compared to this the 'new' start menu is a huge slab of mostly useless things. I have tried to come up with reasons why it'd make me more efficient, but failed to come up with anything. If anything I'd have liked for MSFT to make adding keyboard shortcuts for launching applications and other things even easier. Now that'd be a real feature for power users.

Yes, I'm sure gramps and your parents will be all over the shiny new features and it'd probably more efficient for them (learning curve and all that), but I dislike having a company treat me like I should like the same things 'n00bs' do. Really, I don't

 

[heatlesssun]

I much prefer the win2k-style start menu, and yes, I have been exposed to the start menu of WinXP Themes and of Vista. Why? Because I don't use anything of those fancy start menus, since it isn't more efficient for me to do so. I launch most applications by typing Win + r + <name of shortcut I created>. I have configured the start menu to expand the control panel entry so that I never have to open the control panel window. Same for network configurations and such.

It's simple, effective and never gets in the way. Compared to this the 'new' start menu is a huge slab of mostly useless things. I have tried to come up with reasons why it'd make me more efficient, but failed to come up with anything. If anything I'd have liked for MSFT to make adding keyboard shortcuts for launching applications and other things even easier. Now that'd be a real feature for power users.

Yes, I'm sure gramps and your parents will be all over the shiny new features and it'd probably more efficient for them (learning curve and all that), but I dislike having a company treat me like I should like the same things 'n00bs' do. Really, I don't

So what is so radically different about typing "Win+r+<command>" vs "Win+<command>"? Its actually one less keystroke in Vista/Windows 7.

 

[Elledan]

One opens the entire bloody start menu, the other just a small window you can move around and such. I prefer the latter.

 

[Joe Average]

One opens the entire bloody start menu, the other just a small window you can move around and such. I prefer the latter.

aka personal preference, aka meaningless in the grand design of the operating system which is written for the majority and not individual tastes.

That's what Linux From Scratch is for...

 

[Elledan]

aka personal preference, aka meaningless in the grand design of the operating system which is written for the majority and not individual tastes.

That's what Linux From Scratch is for...

Well, in the latter case one can move the window around, to see some text which'd otherwise be covered. I.e. there is a functional advantage to the 'classic' approach.

And I much prefer NetBSD over LFS, thank you very much.

 

[Joe Average]

Well, in the latter case one can move the window around, to see some text which'd otherwise be covered. I.e. there is a functional advantage to the 'classic' approach.

So, what do you do, bring up the Start Menu for minutes, hours at a time and it simply gets in the way? I gotta ask since you made the point about it covering something up... what exactly are you missing out on when that Start Menu is up for, oh, say 2 seconds, maybe 4 at the most, most of the time?

Not being facetious, I'm interested in knowing just what drives that mentality...

 

[nilepez]

Except all the functions of the start menu in Vista/Win7 I never use.

I have my system setup in such a way that its just as quick for me to click a few buttons as it is to click a few and type some text.

Define extra functions? And explain why you, a knowledgeable user, can't customize the Vista menu just like you could with the Windows 98 Menu that you prefer, or the XP menu that others prefer?

Again its all on the user needs and Microsoft is simply creating a OS that is geared more towards people who have next to little knowledge in a OS.

I don't buy that. Intuitive doesn't equal dumbed down. It could, but it doesn't in this case. Sometimes better is better. Maybe it's some obscure program from Logitech that I rarely use. I could go searching through explorer/programs/logitech and figure out the directory and hope that there's only one executable

Or I could hit Start type logi and see Harmony Remote, Set Point and the ancient iTouch software (which I had to look up to remember what it was called).

Maybe you've got a valid point, but so far, the only way i can imagine your way is better is if you're missing a hand or you type with one or 2 fingers (in which case, it may be time to invest in some typing lessons).

Even in the case of one hand, I'm not sure I get how the onld menu is better...especially the '98 menu.

For those who do like myself I like things simple and quick which I do not find Vista/Win7 to be.

Of course not, it's new. A baby doesn't find walking simpler or faster, but once they learn how to walk, they spend much less time crawling, because walking is faster and more efficient.

Heck they put the stupid "Screen Resolution" in the right click context menu on the desktop! Why? Because people are to lazy and I hope I can perhaps find a way to remove that from that menu because it bugs me there.

I can promise you that that was put there as a direct response to people wanting a faster way to change resolution....like you could in XP, ME, 98 and probably 95.

I have given Vista a fair chance on MANY occasions and I do not like it no matter what. The UI has changed so drastically in ways I do not like.. perhaps I am an old dog that doesn't like to be taught new tricks does that mean an OS has to force me to learn it? I think not as that just makes me want to use it less.

Then use XP, or use vista in Classic mode. Change is constant and thus inevitable.

Resistance is futile.

 

[nilepez]

I much prefer the win2k-style start menu, and yes, I have been exposed to the start menu of WinXP Themes and of Vista. Why? Because I don't use anything of those fancy start menus, since it isn't more efficient for me to do so. I launch most applications by typing Win + r + <name of shortcut I created>. I have configured the start menu to expand the control panel entry so that I never have to open the control panel window. Same for network configurations and such.

It's simple, effective and never gets in the way. Compared to this the 'new' start menu

How is that simpler? With your model, you have to create shortcuts, hit win+r and type complete shortcut name.

With Vista/7 all you have to do is type program name, executable name, short cut name, or if you only remember the software company, then the software companies name.

I don't see anything you described that makes your method easier. At best, it's a wash, but only for you. If multiple people use your ocmputer, they need to know your shortcuts or they need make their own shortcuts, which may duplicate the links you created, to get that functionality.

With that said, you're correct that they could support both. But at some point, the mama bird pushes the baby out of the nest and forces it to fly.

is a huge slab of mostly useless things. I have tried to come up with reasons why it'd make me more efficient, but failed to come up with anything. If anything I'd have liked for MSFT to make adding keyboard shortcuts for launching applications and other things even easier. Now that'd be a real feature for power users.

Yes, I'm sure gramps and your parents will be all over the shiny new features and it'd probably more efficient for them (learning curve and all that), but I dislike having a company treat me like I should like the same things 'n00bs' do. Really, I don't [/QUOTE]

 

[Mithent]

Incidentally, the Win+R shortcut is still there anyway; if you prefer to use the Run dialog then, as much as it seems more awkward to me than Start Menu search, you can just press Win+R and get the Run dialog without the Start Menu appearing at all.

Since I almost exclusively use Start Menu search or the MRU list, I'll not miss the classic Start Menu myself.

 

[Monkey God]

I like the classic menu. If that makes me abhorent of change, so be it, I dont give a shit what anybody thinks.

So many damn snobbish elitists around here. I guess free choice, opinions and preferences have no place in your brave new world.

OMG you want a simple quick interface, and dont see much value in the new one? WOW! You must want the OS to suck as well!

Umm, no.

 

[Escher]

I must say, when I went to WinXP, I turned off the theme crap and went the Classic route. Having that choice was a great thing for me. When I went to Vista, I did the same thing, but decided to give the new UI a chance, and haven't looked back. That said, I still believe choice is a good thing, and I find it very hard to understand why that's such a bad thing.

 

[firebane]

I like the classic menu. If that makes me abhorent of change, so be it, I dont give a shit what anybody thinks.

So many damn snobbish elitists around here. I guess free choice, opinions and preferences have no place in your brave new world.

OMG you want a simple quick interface, and dont see much value in the new one? WOW! You must want the OS to suck as well!

Umm, no.

If you aren't willing to conform to Microsoft standards your a snob.

 

[Joe Average]

But the so-called "standards" are the way they are because a few hundred thousand people commented on what they wanted the OS to look like, work like, and feel like to them, so that's what eventually turned into Vista. Now, with the comments gathered from Vista users since its release, Windows 7 takes it to the next level and refines what those customers and users requested.

Why people can't comprehend that is beyond me... it really is.

And just for the record, you don't need to do Windows+R, just Windows... one key, which brings up the Start Menu, and start typing from there. So it's a simple as it can possibly get - one single click to open the Start Menu or one single keypress to do it.

What the fuck do people want if that's not as simple as any OS can possibly be made to operate?

 

[DeathFromBelow]

No change = static, dead, lifeless, boring, dull...

Change = exciting, fun, something new to learn, gain experience...

Stop thinking the old way and try something different... for a change. ;p

Rather hypocritical for someone who went around telling people not to use Vista.

Which looks better:

I want my goddamn classic start menu back.

 

[Joe Average]

Rather hypocritical for someone who went around telling people not to use Vista.

Which looks better:

I want my goddamn classic start menu back.

I never did any such thing, so, that's a bold (and Italicized) lie, period.

As for the "Which looks better" that's a loaded question and personal preference which cannot be quantified by anything substantial. I could care less about form, I care about function, and the Start Menu in Vista and now Windows 7 is far more efficient and useful overall.

THAT is something you can deem as better, from a productivity standpoint. You can't deem "better" from a personal preferences standpoint, can't be done.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

I never did any such thing, so, that's a bold (and Italicized) lie, period.

Its even in your sig, man.

 

[Joe Average]

Its even in your sig, man.

The sig says "New advice: Don't buy Vista. Wait for Windows 7, it's just around the corner..." because Windows 7 is just around the corner. If you're this close to BUYING Vista and you haven't bought Vista YET for a new machine or the first time ever purchasing it, you (meaning anyone in that situation) should just go ahead and hold out with XP (which they most likely own) until Windows 7 is finished.

But then again, Windows 7 Beta 1 is out, so start using it right now, today, for free, for several months, and skip Vista all together. That is not telling people not to use it, big difference. It's simply saying "don't buy it with Windows 7 so close or you'll probably end up buying another copy of Windows in 6 months or less."

You're intelligent enough to know this, so don't play semantics with it.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

The sig says "New advice: Don't buy Vista. Wait for Windows 7, it's just around the corner..." because Windows 7 is just around the corner.

You're intelligent enough to know this, so don't play semantics with it.

Right, your position before that was "buy 64-Bit XP because its better than Vista." Its why we've been having a friendly rivalry for awhile now.

Then you come in here telling people to move along because they don't like the newer start menu. Sorry, I just had to point it out.

I (and others apparently) just happen to prefer a small and simple start menu. Its not a big deal and I can use the newer one if I have to, but I very much prefer the classic menu.

The option to force it still exists in the group policy editor but is non-functional, so I'm just going to assume this is a Beta only thing and they will turn it on later.

 

[Joe Average]

I never said XP Pro x64 was "better" than Vista, ever. I said it's faster in terms of day-to-day performance, been preaching that for years now and getting shit for it constantly. It still is faster in my own testing with the tests that I do, and others that have done their own testing tend to get similar or the same results. Your results posted in the other thread are a bit skewed for a variety of reasons, so... pick nits if ya want, makes no difference to me anymore.

Considering that I used the "Classic" Start Menu from Windows 95 through XP Pro x64 myself, it's a bit odd in some respects that I - yes, I'm saying me - will now finally recognize that the "new" Start Menu is a good thing. People either get it or they don't... but enough of this.

YMMV, as always. You're spending an awful lot of time mincing words, and most of the things you're accusing me of saying are things I've never actually said, soo... move on.

 

[firebane]

Right, your position before that was "buy 64-Bit XP because its better than Vista." Its why we've been having a friendly rivalry for awhile now.

Then you come in here telling people to move along because they don't like the newer start menu. Sorry, I just had to point it out.

I (and others apparently) just happen to prefer a small and simple start menu. Its not a big deal and I can use the newer one if I have to, but I very much prefer the classic menu.

The option to force it still exists in the group policy editor but is non-functional, so I'm just going to assume this is a Beta only thing and they will turn it on later.

Most becomes a sheeple at some point.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Your results posted in the other thread are a bit skewed for a variety of reasons, so... pick nits if ya want, makes no difference to me anymore.

Please PM me the reasons, as I have yet to get a straight answer out of any of the 64-Bit XP fanboys. Until then I believe Vista is faster.

soo... move on.

Ok then. Fine with me.

As I said, the option to force it still exists in the group policy editor but is non-functional, so I'm just going to assume this is a Beta only thing and they will turn it on later.

 

[Joe Average]

Which is similar to something they did with Vista:

They disabled the List View all the way to RC1 and it pissed me off to no end completely. I can't stand having big damned icons for my documents and files, I want just the filenames, no details crap either. They had disabled it completely for 3 years of development and literally 2 days before RC1 came out I got a notice from a TechNet developer at Microsoft (he'd posted it to a Microsoft newsgroup and I hadn't replied as he expected) telling me they had finally caved in to requests and re-enabled it.

Talk about a smile...

It's the little things, I know that. I'm not dissing people that want the "Classic" menu, it's just that I don't consider it an "issue" - it's a personal preference thing, that's all. The OS isn't broken just because more people offered comments that told Microsoft "Yes, we like the new Start Menu, keep it..." than people that said "We hate it, give us the Classic Start Menu..."

Just how things work out, I guess. So yes, the possibility is right there in Beta 1 if they just re-enable it.

People, if you have things you want to see changed in Windows 7, USE THE DAMNED SEND FEEDBACK LINK on every window. It matters...

 

[Ratfester]

Anyone able to organize their start menu? It only lets me add folders named "New Folder" and I cant drag/drop anything to them or rename them. I've tried via explorer and directly from start menu. I'm trying to pretend I have a classic menu...

 

[maxius]

All I know is when we deploy Windows 7 at my job, some of those old nurses will be so lost. A lot more tech support calls for me just to teach them how to use the Start Menu. We currently deploy XP with classic start menu forced on. We are skipping Vista and will go to 7 sometime.

and this is why i feel that that option should be their not everyone is as tech savvy as we are and have got used to the the classic start menu you want to reteach people like parents and grandparents a new way of doing things and make it stick GL

if i want to run a program in xp/vista with the classic menu its a progression of one click --- ease of movement to what i want to use ---- second click

not against the change but server 08 r2 has the classic start menu option and is the same code base so i see no reason to not allow it in the consumer version

 

[maxius]

I never did any such thing, so, that's a bold (and Italicized) lie, period.

As for the "Which looks better" that's a loaded question and personal preference which cannot be quantified by anything substantial. I could care less about form, I care about function, and the Start Menu in Vista and now Windows 7 is far more efficient and useful overall.

THAT is something you can deem as better, from a productivity standpoint. You can't deem "better" from a personal preferences standpoint, can't be done.

As you said that is personal preference though minimalist is always better than that bulky super bar i know people that were beta testing w7 and killed their installs due to the start menu i am talking professionals here not your avg scrub

 

[SmokeRngs]

As for the "Which looks better" that's a loaded question and personal preference which cannot be quantified by anything substantial. I could care less about form, I care about function, and the Start Menu in Vista and now Windows 7 is far more efficient and useful overall.

It's the little things, I know that. I'm not dissing people that want the "Classic" menu, it's just that I don't consider it an "issue" - it's a personal preference thing, that's all. The OS isn't broken

Look at both of those quotes. You keep stating it's personal preference but you go on to complain about people that don't want to use the new Start Menu. You keep saying that the new Start Menu is better for you so it should be better for everyone. You're trying to push your personal preference on other people as fact right after you stated personal preference is an opinion and not quantifiable.

The simple fact is that this thread started out with a simple question about turning on the Classic Start Menu. Instead of getting the requested information, the OP got a bunch of people trying to push their opinions on him and many others. It's flat out pathetic.

 

[maxius]

Look at both of those quotes. You keep stating it's personal preference but you go on to complain about people that don't want to use the new Start Menu. You keep saying that the new Start Menu is better for you so it should be better for everyone. You're trying to push your personal preference on other people as fact right after you stated personal preference is an opinion and not quantifiable.

The simple fact is that this thread started out with a simple question about turning on the Classic Start Menu. Instead of getting the requested information, the OP got a bunch of people trying to push their opinions on him and many others. It's flat out pathetic.

now it has evolved into ok their is no option were is it kinda thread and why has ms forsaken us

 

[firebane]

now it has evolved into ok their is no option were is it kinda thread and why has ms forsaken us

Because Microsoft cares about making money and if making money means conforming a OS to the masses then so be it.

I am not part of this "mass" and I will not conform.. simple as that.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

now it has evolved into ok their is no option were is it kinda thread and why has ms forsaken us

Like I said, it seems to still be there. They just have it turned off at the moment. They may still just be working on the taskbar/start menu and haven't gotten to adding it back in yet.

Joe Average is right about one thing, make sure you use the give feedback option to let Microsoft know you still want the classic start menu.

 

[firebane]

Like I said, it seems to still be there. They just have it turned off at the moment. They may still just be working on the taskbar/start menu and haven't gotten to adding it back in yet.

Joe Average is right about one thing, make sure you use the give feedback option to let Microsoft know you still want the classic start menu.

I looked at that feedback menu its a joke.

There isn't an option for what I feel is the appropriate one.

 

[Joe Average]

Yes, because it's always so much more productive to bash "in private" here and at other forums instead of taking complaints and suggestions directly to Microsoft.

Way to go, bub...

 

[FoxhoundOp]

I looked at that feedback menu its a joke.

There isn't an option for what I feel is the appropriate one.

Then keep using Vista/XP fucking crybaby.

ffs

 

[brons2]

They're idiots cause they like something minimalist that suits their needs rather than the bloated menu used in Win7?

Eh, the Vista/7 menu is far more minimalist. All you have to do to find the program you want to run is type the first three letters in the "search programs and files" field. No need to drill down 5 layers into the programs menu.

[edit] never mind...I see this has been covered in multiple replies already.

I guess what they say is true. You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

 

[heatlesssun]

Eh, the Vista/7 menu is far more minimalist. All you have to do to find the program you want to run is type the first three letters in the "search programs and files" field. No need to drill down 5 layers into the programs menu.

Thank You!

I've made this very same statement a hundred time and everytime I respond to a person that makes the claim that XP's menu system is more compact I never seem to get a response.

How in the hell is XP's Start memu more minimalistic? That ever expanding mess that only grows as you install more programs with no way to intelligently navigate it? I simply don't understand.

 

[brons2]

Thank You!

I've made this very same statement a hundred time and everytime I respond to a person that makes the claim that XP's menu system is more compact I never seem to get a response.

How in the hell is XP's Start memu more minimalistic? That ever expanding mess that only grows as you install more programs with no way to intelligently navigate it? I simply don't understand.

More compact? It's easy to make the Vista/7 start menu smaller. You customize it in the same manner that you customized the older ones, by going into the taskbar properties, pressing the Start Menu tab, and then press the Customize menu. By default, Vista/7 are set to use large icons for example. You could also take out or add additional menu items in there if you needed/didn't need them.

I guess if you want the option to use the classic start menu, keep using Vista, it should be officially supported for quite some time into the future.

From my POV, I want MS to remove as much as possible, because this Windows 7 seems to be running great on an older crappy machine I pulled out of the closet, that could have in no way, shape or form run Vista with any acceptable performance level.

ECS Via KT333 board
Athlon XP 3000+/333
1GB no-name RAM (2x512)
80GB PATA/133 hard drive
GeForce3 Ti200
etc...

 

[Attean]

Look, it's not that big a deal. Microsoft does NOT, out of the box, have to provide a classic option. I am almost 100% sure that they will provide the tools for a quick and painless mod back to the classic view, if they don't provide on themselves. As long as the tools are there it's no big deal. And Average Joe, stop being a dick. Who cares, really. Microsoft can make it 100% touch interface as long as it's a transparent interface back-end I can customize. Everyone wins here, you're trying to preach for some reason and it's wasting your and everyone elses time.

 

[Despotes]

At least allow us to use transparency levels on that vast, naked, ugly ass space in the Start menu.

How HARD can that be? I'm sure to some of you think it would be too retro or backwards thinking. "A dash of suger for my tea Charles"

 

[nilepez]

I must say, when I went to WinXP, I turned off the theme crap and went the Classic route. Having that choice was a great thing for me. When I went to Vista, I did the same thing, but decided to give the new UI a chance, and haven't looked back. That said, I still believe choice is a good thing, and I find it very hard to understand why that's such a bad thing.

I did the same in XP, except that I quickly switched to the XP program menu.

Change isn't bad, but, I suspect that MS wants to move forward and use what is clearly a superior program UI.

Some day, they will likely come up with one that's better than this one...and for a period of time, they will support both, but eventually, this one will go away.

It'd make no sense for them to support every UI ever made. I'm certain that someone will release a skin to change the start menu. The thing about it is that neither MS nor tech support will have to train their people for that UI.

If you're smart enough to reskin the UI, then you're smart enough to figure out how to open control panel or run or whatever and get to some program they're talking about.

That's just a guess. It may be that they hate the classic start menu and all the people that use it

 

[nilepez]

All I know is when we deploy Windows 7 at my job, some of those old nurses will be so lost. A lot more tech support calls for me just to teach them how to use the Start Menu. We currently deploy XP with classic start menu forced on. We are skipping Vista and will go to 7 sometime.

People will learn the new menu. It might take a week or 2 to get used to, but they'll figure it out. THere's really not a difference.

Classic method:

1. Click on Windows Button
2. Click on Programs
3. Click on program group
4. click on program icon
5. use program

New Menu Method

1. Click on Windows Button
2. Click on Programs
3. Click on program group
4. click on program icon
5. use program

And if they're regularly using Run, then they can be tought to to just type into the search area or to use Win+R or IT can do their jobs and stick the Run Button on the Program Menu before deploying the OS.