3rd party Start menu for Win8

[Pleb]

Erm... I've found it to be the exact opposite. A complex menu hierarchy gets unwieldy when there are a plethora of programs installed.

I use games folder in start menu as primary and then subfolders for each genre of gaming, no problem for me. I like to browse the menu so I can see what game I feel like playing today.

By your opinion you should dump Windows and use Linux cli exclusively. I`m a visual person and like visual feedback so don`t really care which method is .5 sec quicker.

 

[Unknown-One]

I use games folder in start menu as primary and then subfolders for each genre of gaming, no problem for me. I like to browse the menu so I can see what game I feel like playing today.

- Click start.
- Click all-programs.
- Click and drag the scrollbar to find the "Games" folder.
- Click the "Games" folder to expand it.
- Click and drag the scrollbar to scroll the list of games.
- Click the desired game.

Yeah, that's not tedious at all

winkey > Alan *alan wake is already the first item in the list* > enter.

By your opinion you should dump Windows and use Linux cli exclusively. I`m a visual person and like visual feedback so don`t really care which method is .5 sec quicker.

Where the HELL did I say that?

 

[Pleb]

It was sarcasm because you are claiming typing is better and faster than mouse and that is the argument Linux zealots like to throw at Windows users.

And no, I don't find it tedious at all. And F your goddamn icon.

 

[Dogs]

It was sarcasm because you are claiming typing is better and faster than mouse and that is the argument Linux zealots like to throw at Windows users.

That's not a Linux zealot thing. Windows power users use the command line just as much as Linux power users would. Command lines are a power user thing, and all power users, Windows or Linux, use them because they simply are faster than mousing around through GUIs when it comes to finding things and changing settings. The GUIs are great for rich multimedia and highly interactive programs, such as browsing the web, playing games, etc., which is why they exist, and why power users still use GUIs when consuming those types of content. But if you're trying to open a program, you can do that faster with a keyboard than a mouse, just like how you can copy all of the files containing the word 'horse' from one folder to another faster from a command line than from the GUI.

 

[OGOC]

Edit: Just had an idea (I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative here). I wonder if it's possible to add alternate names to regular shortcuts (similar to how typing "DPI" into start-search brings up "Make text and other items larger or smaller" as the first result). It could be worthwhile to use this capability to allow you to type in "games" and get a listing of all installed games, or "browsers" and get a listing of all installed browsers.

I'll pass on renaming every program just so I can type something in the search bar to then bring up a list to browse. If it's a program I don't use enough not to remember the name of it without seeing it again, I'd rather just click on Start and quickly eyeball what comes up.

If I want to take a little time, I'd rather just bring up a list of all the programs and check a box next to which ones I want placed under which browsing heading to then find them easier the next time. ("games," "browsers," etc). It's easy to group them.

And that's where some of the other theories come in:
"But, you should stop using the computer altogether if you don't know what program you want to run before you run it. If you know how to use the program, you should remember the name of it. If you don't remember the name of the program without seeing it again first, you should just sit there doing nothing until you do instead of clicking on some type of folder or menu you can browse."

I don't see how things not-pinned are relevant when we're talking about a program you use THAT often (like the web browser example you brought up).

If you want to slow yourself down by hiding often used shortcuts, fine by me, I guess...

Because there are more programs on the computer to use than just the ones used often. Your example focuses on a very specific set of programs in order to make your "Win key shortcuts are fast" point.

We're talking about what's the best way to find programs. Not just the best way to find your three most-used programs.

And if I pinned every program I often use to the taskbar so I can Win+ key it, I wouldn't have much room on the taskbar left. Some people were complaining about "clutter" on the desktop. Anyone who wants to look at clutter all day should pin lots of programs to their taskbar. That's not much different than putting shortcut folders on the desktop.

And, again, for all the search-bar junkies out there: most Start menus have a search bar anyway if you want to use that. So the question is what should the rest of the Start menu be like for the times you aren't using the search bar. This isn't an either/or thing. You'd have the search bar to use anyway if you want it.

 

[Unknown-One]

I'll pass on renaming every program just so I can type something in the search bar to then bring up a list to browse.

Who suggested you do that? I said a tagging system would be nice, not that you should brute-force it by manually renaming shortcuts...

Because there are more programs on the computer to use than just the ones used often. Your example focuses on a very specific set of programs in order to make your "Win key shortcuts are fast" point.

That was your example, not mine... I was pointing out that it was a poor example for your case.

It was sarcasm because you are claiming typing is better and faster than mouse and that is the argument Linux zealots like to throw at Windows users.

There's a pretty massive difference between advocating the COMMAND LINE and advocating a SEARCH BOX...

If you can't tell the difference between those two concepts then we have far more base things to discuss first.

And no, I don't find it tedious at all. And F your goddamn icon.

 

[XOR != OR]

That's not a Linux zealot thing. Windows power users use the command line just as much as Linux power users would. Command lines are a power user thing, and all power users, Windows or Linux, use them because they simply are faster than mousing around through GUIs when it comes to finding things and changing settings. The GUIs are great for rich multimedia and highly interactive programs, such as browsing the web, playing games, etc., which is why they exist, and why power users still use GUIs when consuming those types of content. But if you're trying to open a program, you can do that faster with a keyboard than a mouse, just like how you can copy all of the files containing the word 'horse' from one folder to another faster from a command line than from the GUI.

It's possibly worth noting here that the attraction of the command line to linux users isn't in the speed at which you can execute a program, but rather the versatility of what you can do with the program and it's output. Want to, say, find all *.odt files within 3 directories of the an arbitrarily designated root and convert them to pdfs? A moment or two of typing and you're off. Or how about find all IP addresses in a file that occur more than 3 times and are external addresses? Can do that too.

Powershell would be analogous to bash cli. It's really nothing to do with speed of program execution, rather that of versatility.

 

[Dogs]

It's possibly worth noting here that the attraction of the command line to linux users isn't in the speed at which you can execute a program, but rather the versatility of what you can do with the program and it's output. Want to, say, find all *.odt files within 3 directories of the an arbitrarily designated root and convert them to pdfs? A moment or two of typing and you're off. Or how about find all IP addresses in a file that occur more than 3 times and are external addresses? Can do that too.

Powershell would be analogous to bash cli. It's really nothing to do with speed of program execution, rather that of versatility.

In general, command lines do not lend you any capabilities you can't do on your own with a GUI. There is no real added versatility, because you can do all of those things you mentioned in the GUI as well. The advantage is in the expressiveness of the command line, which allows you to essentially write a line or two of your favorite scripting language and walk away, where as in the standard GUI environment, you would have to execute each step in the process individually, waiting for each one to finish before you move on to the next. You can't express the entire procedure in a single mouse gesture, so you're stuck there waiting. Consider your example of finding all .odt files in 3 directories and converting them to PDFs. This is not something you couldn't also do with the GUI, so it's not really a versatility thing. However, doing so with the GUI would require you manually find each of these files, manually load them into a program to convert them, and then manually collect the output. You can accomplish the same thing with a command line in a few seconds and a few lines of code, because you can express much more in 10 seconds worth of typing than you can in 10 seconds worth of pointing and clicking.

But if you're only going to read one sentence of what I said (and most people here barely seem to do even that much), your takeaway should be that typing is more expressive, and therefore faster/more efficient than mousing.

 

[Pleb]

That's not a Linux zealot thing. Windows power users use the command line just as much as Linux power users would.

No, some Linux users use CLI exclusively and don't load X on boot up. Had a Linux zealot claiming he could type a command quicker than I can double click an icon, single click if I wanted it to be. Suuuuure, you can.

Anyway, I don't use PC in a work environment so there is no one standing behind me with a whip to make me work faster as may be your case and why you are so concerned about saving nano seconds.

Finally, one last point about saving time. If metro search is better to save time to launch programs/games/apps by typing why do they have non-metro programs launch in the desktop environemnt and then when you finish the prog you have to go back to metro, that is a huge waste of time and an annoyance. I'm about to install the free Classicshell into Win8 so this argument is shortly to be moot and I can kiss Metro GUI goodbye for good. Like I told BillG on youtube when they used him to promote Win8, I ain't drinking the Grape Kool-Aid.

 

[Pleb]

In general, command lines do not lend you any capabilities you can't do on your own with a GUI. There is no real added versatility, because you can do all of those things you mentioned in the GUI as well. The advantage is in the expressiveness of the command line, which allows you to essentially write a line or two of your favorite scripting language and walk away, where as in the standard GUI environment, you would have to execute each step in the process individually, waiting for each one to finish before you move on to the next. You can't express the entire procedure in a single mouse gesture, so you're stuck there waiting.

Yes, you can, you can edit the shortcuts command line and specify command switches.

 

[heatlesssun]

Finally, one last point about saving time. If metro search is better to save time to launch programs/games/apps by typing why do they have non-metro programs launch in the desktop environemnt and then when you finish the prog you have to go back to metro, that is a huge waste of time and an annoyance.

What do you mean by having to go back into Metro when closing a desktop app?

 

[Penance]

Another vote her for startisback if you don't mind dropping 3 bucks on it.

 

[Pleb]

What do you mean by having to go back into Metro when closing a desktop app?

If you run all your stuff fromm Metro gui then you have to manually go back to Metro after running a prog that runs in the desktop GUI. Waste of time and an annoyance. I use mouse and not search to launch stuff, remember?

 

[heatlesssun]

If you run all your stuff fromm Metro gui then you have to manually go back to Metro after running a prog that runs in the desktop GUI. Waste of time and an annoyance. I use mouse and not search to launch stuff, remember?

I have no idea what you mean by manually going back to Metro. Could you go through an example of what you mean or maybe someone else understands what you're saying.

 

[Dogs]

No, some Linux users use CLI exclusively and don't load X on boot up.

Sure, some of them do, and for some purposes that's much better. My Gentoo box doesn't have X11 either, and the machine isn't even hooked up to a monitor because I just SSH to it. I mostly use it as a build environment for some of the open source projects I occasionally contribute to/play with, because most of their build systems are set up to be linux-friendly, and some builds take a lot of time and resources so it's nice to offload them from my Windows machine. Using a GUI on that box would be pointless.

But you also won't find a Windows power user who doesn't use the command line and/or powershell near-religiously. Either way, typing is far, far more expressive than mousing is, and that's not a strictly Linux belief.

Anyway, I don't use PC in a work environment so there is no one standing behind me with a whip to make me work faster as may be your case and why you are so concerned about saving nano seconds.

It's a lot more than nano-seconds.

Finally, one last point about saving time. If metro search is better to save time to launch programs/games/apps by typing why do they have non-metro programs launch in the desktop environemnt and then when you finish the prog you have to go back to metro, that is a huge waste of time and an annoyance.

It wastes effectively no time. Much less time than using a mouse to traverse the start menu wastes, that's for sure. But, since the start screen opens as fast as the start menu does, I really don't see how you can say that wastes any time at all.

 

[Pleb]

I have no idea what you mean by manually going back to Metro. Could you go through an example of what you mean or maybe someone else understands what you're saying.

When you click to launch a prog from Metro that runs on the desktop and then close the prog it doesn't go back to Metro, it leaves you in Desktop mode and you have to manually press WinKey to go back Metro. Out of the box Win8 has multiple personality disorder and I don't like it. Am I clear yet?

 

[Pleb]

It wastes effectively no time. Much less time than using a mouse to traverse the start menu wastes, that's for sure. But, since the start screen opens as fast as the start menu does, I really don't see how you can say that wastes any time at all.

You don't think switching back and forth between Metreo and Desktop mode is a time waster and an annoyance? Try removing the horse blinders first!

 

[heatlesssun]

When you click to launch a prog from Metro that runs on the desktop and then close the prog it doesn't go back to Metro, it leaves you in Desktop mode and you have to manually press WinKey to go back Metro

When you close a desktop program in Windows 7 does the Start Menu open?

 

[Pleb]

Either way, typing is far, far more expressive than mousing is, and that's not a strictly Linux belief.

Then Microsoft should have advanced Dos further and I actually just made a post in another thread saying I would rather use advanced version of Dos for gaming than Windows due to talking closer to the hardware and less OS overhead.

 

[Pleb]

When you close a desktop program in Windows 7 does the Start Menu open?

Disingenuous, the StartMenu in Win7 is on the desktop already so there is no switching between two different GUI environments.

 

[heatlesssun]

You don't think switching back and forth between Metreo and Desktop mode is a time waster and an annoyance? Try removing the horse blinders first!

As an app launcher opening programs normally from short cuts on the Start Screen I don't see where there's really much difference in the Start Menu or Start Screen. On thing that is nice about the Start Screen is that it can be opened from any monitor unlike the Start Menu. Using my Touch Mouse I just flick two fingers, the Start Screen opens up on the screen my mouse is on. That's actually faster then the Start Menu.

 

[Dogs]

Then Microsoft should have advanced Dos further and I actually just made a post in another thread saying I would rather use advanced version of Dos for gaming than Windows due to talking closer to the hardware and less OS overhead.

Indeed you did, which is ironic, because what you said in that thread and what you said in this thread are disjoint.

Let's think about this: You just got done saying that you don't like using the search even though it's faster because you can't remember the names of your applications and because you're a 'visual person' who likes seeing and clicking on things. Now you're telling us that you'd prefer to use a command line OS over an OS with a GUI because it's faster. These two things just don't add up. You're not making sense, and it seems to me like you're backpedaling.

 

[Pleb]

As an app launcher opening programs normally from short cuts on the Start Screen I don't see where there's really much difference in the Start Menu or Start Screen. On thing that is nice about the Start Screen is that it can be opened from any monitor unlike the Start Menu. Using my Touch Mouse I just flick two fingers, the Start Screen opens up on the screen my mouse is on. That's actually faster then the Start Menu.

Perhaps you are correct and i would actually like that setup but I only use one monitor. I do have another monitor I could hook up but my main monitor is 27" and I have Paradigm Titan speakers as my computer speakers so am too limited on desk space to hook up the second monitor. The second monitor would block soundwaves from my left speaker and I don't want that.

 

[Pleb]

Indeed you did, which is ironic, because what you said in that thread and what you said in this thread are disjoint.

Let's think about this: You just got done saying that you don't like using the search even though it's faster because you can't remember the names of your applications and because you're a 'visual person' who likes seeing and clicking on things. Now you're telling us that you'd prefer to use a command line OS over an OS with a GUI because it's faster. These two things just don't add up. You're not making sense, and it seems to me like you're backpedaling.

I never said any such thing. I said I would prefer Dos over Windows for gaming because of less OS overhead so would get better performance in games.

 

[Dogs]

I said I would prefer Dos over Windows for gaming because of less OS overhead so would get better performance in games.

You would prefer DOS (an OS with a command line interface) over Windows (an OS with a GUI), yes. Also, I strongly recommend you brush up on your understanding of computer science. It would lend clarity. Less overhead <> better performance.

If you have any programming background I could point out, for example, a contiguous data structure like an array-list has less memory overhead than a non contiguous one like a linked-list, but a linked-list allows faster insertion than an array-list, because that extra overhead adds value in that area.

Modern versions of Windows are much larger products, but they'll also outperform DOS because part of what makes them larger is functionality that allows them to perform better. Windows is multi-threaded, for example, while DOS is not. If you want your system to be able to take advantage of your hardware properly, you don't want DOS as your OS.

 

[Pleb]

I said "advanced" version of Dos. I want the leanest and meanest possible OS for PC gamers. Now, go make it!

Oh wait, that is what Valve are working on and using Linux. Gabe is our savior and soon we can kiss Microsoft bloatware good-bye for good.

 

[Dogs]

I said "advanced" version of Dos. Now, go make it!

Again, having less doesn't mean it will be faster.

 

[Pleb]

Again, having less doesn't mean it will be faster.

I read an article few months back that claimed otherwise. They actually said consoles do more on less due to less overhead of the OS and talking more directly to hardware. You don't have to use Dos but expect it all in Assembler language and no C++.

 

[Dogs]

I read an article few months back that claimed otherwise.

The unfortunate thing is, nearly anybody can write an article about computers, technology, video games, etc. I have written several, in fact.

They actually said consoles do more on less due to less overhead of the OS and talking more directly to hardware.

They probably were wrong...or you misinterpreted their article.

You don't have to use Dos but expect it all in Assembler language and no C++.

What would be the benefit of writing it all in assembly language, in your opinion?