Windows 7 start menu

[Negative Decibel]

lol do you have anything positive to contribute?

I see what he said is positive. It's the people that don't like it that are the negative ones.

 

[maxius]

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.

oh i have every chance i can

 

[maxius]

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.

do you have the time to reteach people a new ui i prefer the classic way of doing things i can get to what i need faster with one hand and i can see all of the programs installed

 

[nilepez]

do you have the time to reteach people a new ui i prefer the classic way of doing things i can get to what i need faster with one hand and i can see all of the programs installed

I see all of my programs on one page, but then I reorganize folder, just like I had to do with older menus...though I suppose if you're ok with 2 or 3 colums of programs groups, then it's no biggie...but it does make finding anything a PITA.

As for Training, if you can't explain how to use the new menu in a document/email with graphics, then something's wrong. People will have to adjust. And just like the transition from Word Perfect to MS Word, they'll bitch and moan. I don't hear many crying for WP these days.

Hell, my mother figured it out, and she's in her late 60s. I didn't have to walk her through it either.
If you deploy Vista or 7 in stages, support won't be overwhelmed, and service calls will decline within a couple of weeks, because when you get right down to it, the only meaningful changes are the start menu and explorer.

I've looked around the office, and everyone uses the XP style menu. In fact, I'm the only one that uses the classic skin (I just hate the blue/green colors).

As an aside, since we started this debate, I decided to put the new Control Panel to the test. I've resisted it for years, because I knew where everything was. SO far, my take is it's probably better than classic, but It'll take me a week or 2 before I've used it enough to know for sure.

Finally, someone was mentioning realestate. I tried it out by actually opening various programs, and in general, the new menu uses less realestate. Once you hit programs you then have to hit a program group (possibly 2+ groups) and at that point, you're using 2-3x the screen space with the smaller, classic menu.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Finally, someone was mentioning realestate. I tried it out by actually opening various programs, and in general, the new menu uses less realestate. Once you hit programs you then have to hit a program group (possibly 2+ groups) and at that point, you're using 2-3x the screen space with the smaller, classic menu.

I suppose, but it depends on how you organize things.

The biggest thing for me is that I never use most of the links on the regular start menu and I keep my start menu well organized. I can find anything in seconds.

Screen real estate isn't really the issue, I just want a minimal interface that does what I need it to. IMO it looks nicer and it feels more personalized for me.

 

[who am I - I ask]

let me just say, Joe likes to see himself type, i wonder what name he was before he was banned and decided on that new name. he seems to be angry and unable to accept people have preferences.

the classic start menu is for people who dont need all that bloated crap thats useless.

maybe the change you seek is the one that changes your diapers.

so if you continue to feel your choices are what should be done maybe you should keep them to yourself. not once have i seen you support what they are asking you just seem to prefer to tell people that they need change when you fail to accept it

 

[DeathFromBelow]

let me just say, Joe likes to see himself type, i wonder what name he was before he was banned and decided on that new name. he seems to be angry and unable to accept people have preferences.

There's no need to be rude to him. We just have to agree to disagree sometimes.

 

[sdotbrucato]

let me just say, Joe likes to see himself type, i wonder what name he was before he was banned and decided on that new name.

IIRC he was bbz_Ghost, and I'm fairly certain he wasnt banned but what the hell do I know.

I personally can't believe this thread is still around, people whining back and forth, back and forth, just when the Vista bullshit started to subside, more bullshit comes up with Windows 7.

MS is going to do what they want to do, accept it, hate it, but just stfu. If you don't like it so much, design your own OS, that suits your needs, your preferences, etc.

 

[Joe Average]

I suppose, but it depends on how you organize things.

The biggest thing for me is that I never use most of the links on the regular start menu and I keep my start menu well organized. I can find anything in seconds.

*snip*

Screen real estate isn't really the issue, I just want a minimal interface that does what I need it to. IMO it looks nicer and it feels more personalized for me.

No offense, but if you truly TRULY were serious about the minimal interface thing you keep going on about, try this:

Press the Windows key. Type t-h-i and I'll bet Thief appears...

Not one click, hands never leave the keyboard, done. In fact, anything you have is accessed basically the same way... go figure. That is the model of absolute efficiency - no need to search or hunt and click for anything even if you already know precisely where the item is because you created the menu layout yourself.

 

[Joe Average]

let me just say, Joe likes to see himself type, i wonder what name he was before he was banned and decided on that new name. he seems to be angry and unable to accept people have preferences.

the classic start menu is for people who dont need all that bloated crap thats useless.

maybe the change you seek is the one that changes your diapers.

so if you continue to feel your choices are what should be done maybe you should keep them to yourself. not once have i seen you support what they are asking you just seem to prefer to tell people that they need change when you fail to accept it

I've never been banned, so... you're the one that fails there. Pay attention, sonny, lest you look even more ridiculous than you already do. There is nothing on the "new" Start Menu that is useless, that is the entire point of it.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

No offense, but if you truly TRULY were serious about the minimal interface thing you keep going on about, try this:

Press the Windows key. Type t-h-i and I'll bet Thief appears.

Sure, but its more about personalization then efficiency. Either using the mouse or typing it in will get you there near instantly. There are times where I can't remember the name of something and need to look for it, in which case my classic setup feels snappier (just from muscle memory I guess).

Both are good, I'm not arguing with you there, I just like the look and "feel" of the classic menu. That's all.

You wouldn't happen to be a Thief fan by chance?

 

[Joe Average]

I tried it when it first came out... got sick of the dark quality to it, even with max brightness. Seriously, no shit... but I'm not a gamer at heart, only Quake I, II, and III ever existed on my machines, but even those finally got boring. Bleh...

</off_topic>

 

[nilepez]

I suppose, but it depends on how you organize things.

The biggest thing for me is that I never use most of the links on the regular start menu and I keep my start menu well organized. I can find anything in seconds.

Screen real estate isn't really the issue, I just want a minimal interface that does what I need it to. IMO it looks nicer and it feels more personalized for me.

Death, to me what you have there is more space and more mouse movement involved than in Vista/7, but to each his own. Even if MS doesn't officially offer the classic menu, I'm sure someone will put something out that does it. Didn't people make a Vista menu/skin for XP?

I think the best way to handle it is to slowly drop old items, but allow people to put out mods to make it look like whatever they want. Thus they may drop the classic menu and have semi dropped the classic control panel. 3 days ago I hated the idea. Today, I'm ambivalent, because I seem to be able to find everything about as quickly as before (especially now that there are so many items under control panel).

 

[GushpinBob]

I'm pretty sure that if Microsoft doesn't add the classic start menu back into the final release then somebody will release some kind of modification that will include it. I would imagine it would be some kind of shell replacement or something, kinda like the 95 Explorer shell in the Win 9x/Me days. I wouldn't worry about it.

Hell there's even projects that add Vista-like features, like alpha-blended icons, to Windows 98.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Death, to me what you have there is more space and more mouse movement involved than in Vista/7, but to each his own. Even if MS doesn't officially offer the classic menu, I'm sure someone will put something out that does it. Didn't people make a Vista menu/skin for XP?

Right, I'm sure there will be skins (although I'd prefer to stick to the default).

Thus they may drop the classic menu and have semi dropped the classic control panel. 3 days ago I hated the idea. Today, I'm ambivalent, because I seem to be able to find everything about as quickly as before (especially now that there are so many items under control panel).

With the control panel they just added a "show all items" button rather than having Control Panel Home/Classic View. Otherwise they're nearly identical:

I don't really mind the simplified control panel as the most frequently used sections are all there and I don't have to use it that often to begin with.

 

[nilepez]

I'm pretty sure that if Microsoft doesn't add the classic start menu back into the final release then somebody will release some kind of modification that will include it. I would imagine it would be some kind of shell replacement or something, kinda like the 95 Explorer shell in the Win 9x/Me days. I wouldn't worry about it.

Hell there's even projects that add Vista-like features, like alpha-blended icons, to Windows 98.

Computers running Windows 98 shouldn't be allow on the internet. How long has it been since they got security updates?

 

[nilepez]

Right, I'm sure there will be skins (although I'd prefer to stick to the default).



With the control panel they just added a "show all items" button rather than having Control Panel Home/Classic View. Otherwise they're nearly identical:

I don't really mind the simplified control panel as the most frequently used sections are all there and I don't have to use it that often to begin with.

I meant the additional icons in the classic view.

The new version does hallow you to see all of them, but it doesn't allow you to change the way those icons are displayed....so if you want a different icon size, too bad.

Nevertheless, I'm coming around to the new way things are done, so I'll probably stick with it in vista too.

Back to work.

L8r all

 

[Cerulean]

Classic start menu > *
Classic taskbar and theme > *

Simplistic, straight-forward, ease of use and comprehension, and streamlined.

1024x768 looks like 640x480 on Vista.

 

[nilepez]

Classic start menu > *
Classic taskbar and theme > *

Simplistic, straight-forward, ease of use and comprehension, and streamlined.

1024x768 looks like 640x480 on Vista.

I if you go to Bit Locker drive prep, you're probably more than 400 pixels across the screen. The classic menu is not smaller once you account for horizontal expansion.

Of course if all you do is open the start menu and marvel at how small it is, then you're right, it is more streamlined

 

[DeathFromBelow]

The classic menu is not smaller once you account for horizontal expansion.

Of course if all you do is open the start menu and marvel at how small it is, then you're right, it is more streamlined

Maybe I like staring at my start menu.

As I said, its more a personalization thing for me. I don't need 20 buttons and a huge menu when most of the time I only use four.

Sure, the classic all programs menu takes up more space, but unlike the new one I don't have to scroll down lists of shortcuts since it expands outward. I can see them all at once.

 

[TechieSooner]

i like simple and i think i am going to start an online petition that will force ms to enable this option in windows 7

Good luck with that. I seriously doubt Microsoft would listen to one voice going against what millions of beta testers like.

Just because windows creates something new doesn't mean it's better

Having every single app and document within a few keystrokes... Yea, that's not improvement at all.

Either using the mouse or typing it in will get you there near instantly.

I can beat you hands-down in access times with a keyboard over a mouse any day. I guarantee it. If you can't work a keyboard quicker than a mouse, than you're just a hunt and pecker.

There are times where I can't remember the name of something and need to look for it

Thank goodness that you've still got "All Programs" huh?

 

[GN85]

Maybe I like staring at my start menu.

As I said, its more a personalization thing for me. I don't need 20 buttons and a huge menu when most of the time I only use four.

Sure, the classic all programs menu takes up more space, but unlike the new one I don't have to scroll down lists of shortcuts since it expands outward. I can see them all at once.

For someone using 100+ apps I'm pretty that menu has carpal tunnel syndrome written all over it. But hey, the average user only clicks on IE Outlook and WMP, so who cares.

Windows 7 is efficient for noobs and people that orgasm over the word change, which = most windows users.

 

[heatlesssun]

Maybe I like staring at my start menu.

As I said, its more a personalization thing for me. I don't need 20 buttons and a huge menu when most of the time I only use four.

Sure, the classic all programs menu takes up more space, but unlike the new one I don't have to scroll down lists of shortcuts since it expands outward. I can see them all at once.

The only problem with seeing everything at once is when you can't. It's easy to fill up the Start menu on smaller screens like laptops and the scrolling navigation on the classic menus suck.

So if you like the XP menu better that's a personal choice I can understand. But the Vista/7 menu works much better in different certain situations.

 

[Jon55]

No offense, but if you truly TRULY were serious about the minimal interface thing you keep going on about, try this:

Press the Windows key. Type t-h-i and I'll bet Thief appears...

Not one click, hands never leave the keyboard, done. In fact, anything you have is accessed basically the same way... go figure. That is the model of absolute efficiency - no need to search or hunt and click for anything even if you already know precisely where the item is because you created the menu layout yourself.

Exactly. I don't understand where all these whiners come from. "The Start menu is too cluttered. The task bar is too big." "I want the old task bar back." Then stick with Vista or XP. Windows 7 is a huge step in the right direction. If you don't like it, don't use it. I'm glad Microsoft is finally growing balls and removing old features/functions and replacing them with newer/better ones. They're really innovating. If it's pure simplicity you want, then stick with your silly command lines.

 

[heatlesssun]

For someone using 100+ apps I'm pretty that menu has carpal tunnel syndrome written all over it. But hey, the average user only clicks on IE Outlook and WMP, so who cares.

Windows 7 is efficient for noobs and people that orgasm over the word change, which = most windows users.

Not at all, you simply pin your most used apps to the taskbak, and pin others to the Start menu. That's much more efficient for the vast majority and the vast majority of the apps they use.

 

[GN85]

Not at all, you simply pin your most used apps to the taskbak, and pin others to the Start menu. That's much more efficient for the vast majority and the vast majority of the apps they use.

Actually I totally forgot about the new taskbar. Now that I think of it, I'll probably be able to ditch the start menu and Launchy for most of the apps that I use. But for someone using over 100 apps, aren't we running out of space?

 

[TechieSooner]

Not at all, you simply pin your most used apps to the taskbak, and pin others to the Start menu. That's much more efficient for the vast majority and the vast majority of the apps they use.

Yea, but this guy has 100+ apps.


It still takes longer to:
Move hand to mouse.... Move mouse to Start Menu.... Click.... Go up to the icon..... Click.

versus

Windows Key+w+o+r+enter and then up pops word.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

I can beat you hands-down in access times with a keyboard over a mouse any day. I guarantee it. If you can't work a keyboard quicker than a mouse, than you're just a hunt and pecker.

If you have an assload of programs sure, but I really doubt there's a whole lot of difference between clicking start->typing something->clicking on what you want to launch vs clicking Start->Programs->Folder->Whatever

In either case we're not talking about a significant amount of time. The point of this whole thread is that some of us just prefer the classic start menu.

Thank goodness that you've still got "All Programs" huh?

You just completely misunderstood me and basically confirmed what I was saying. I meant that sometimes I forget the name of an app I don't use very often, so rather than type it I have to look for it under all programs anyway.

 

[TechieSooner]

If you have an assload of programs sure

You said you had 100+ of them.

but I really doubt there's a whole lot of difference between clicking start->typing something->clicking on what you want to launch vs clicking Start->Programs->Folder->Whatever

Spoken by someone who has never really used the feature.

I was skeptical when I first saw Vista, but dang, after you use it, going back to XP during the day at work is agony.

You just completely misunderstood me and basically confirmed what I was saying. I meant that sometimes I forget the name of an app I don't use very often, so rather than type it I have to look for it anyway.

You just confirmed my point.
Classic restricts you to ONLY point and click. Vista/Windows 7 gives you both worlds.
Why restrict yourself to one method when you can have both?

 

[DeathFromBelow]

You said you had 100+ of them.

No, you have me confused with someone else apparently. I never said that.

Edit: I see where you might have thought that. GN85 was just saying that if someone had 100 apps scrolling the start menu would be a pain, not referring to me.

Spoken by someone who has never really used the feature.

I was skeptical when I first saw Vista, but dang, after you use it, going back to XP during the day at work is agony.

I think I'm the biggest Vista fanboy around these parts.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1383898

You just confirmed my point.
Classic restricts you to ONLY point and click. Vista/Windows 7 gives you both worlds.
Why restrict yourself to one method when you can have both?

Because I never use Start Search.

Really, what's so bad about liking a different menu layout?

I guess I've just always felt that the new start menu was for people who covered their desktop in icons and never bother to organize their start menu. I have no need for start search and I like the way the classic menu looks. Sue me.

 

[Joe Average]

Who actually clicks the Start Button? That's what the Windows key is for... geez. Much more efficient, even if you've got one hand on the keyboard and one on the mouse, it just doesn't get any simpler in terms of ergonomics and speed.

If the Start Menu - when it appeared - was nothing but the text box people would still bitch, whine, and complain, so whatevarrrr...

YMMV, as always.

 

[TechieSooner]

Really, what's so bad about liking a different menu layout?

Nothing. Nothing at all.

It is when people start complaining that we should BACKTRACK and Microsoft should cater to them using old UIs that it gets ridiculous.

 

[heatlesssun]

I have no need for start search and I like the way the classic menu looks. Sue me.

Hey if you like the Classic menu you like it and I can understand the desire to have the old menuing system as an option since it is a personal decision.

But the Vista/7 Start menu works better on smaller screens and with the ability to now pin things to the task bar and well as the start menu and with the ability to type and launch, what does the old menu system buy? It's simply is old stuff that has little purpose as a app launcher. There are faster ways to do it in Vista/7. Even this biggest geek itsn't using 100+ on a regular basis, and I bet Microsoft has done tons of usuability studies knowing exactly how many apps people launch on a regular basis.

The thing I don't understand is why the quick launch area is gone, though apprarently it can be turned back on the procedure to do so didn't work for me or I didn't do it right. I tried a demo of True Launch, which is a third party quick launcher that's much better than Microsoft's and it works fine.

So if you count pinning to the task bar, the Start menu, and quick launch at least with an add on in Windows 7, you easily have the ability lauch 50 or so apps in one to two clicks without have a spastic menu that fills the screen.

There's simply no way XP's Start menu is more efficient of faster for any one 99% of the time, if not more. It's simply a personal prefernce.

 

[heatlesssun]

Who actually clicks the Start Button? That's what the Windows key is for... geez. Much more efficient, even if you've got one hand on the keyboard and one on the mouse, it just doesn't get any simpler in terms of ergonomics and speed.

If the Start Menu - when it appeared - was nothing but the text box people would still bitch, whine, and complain, so whatevarrrr...

YMMV, as always.

When in tablet mode, I use the Start button a lot! Don't forget that a big part of 7 is about pen and touch interfaces and no keyboard. There's a lot of cool stuff that's in 7 around pen and touch. The tablet input panel is actually a huge change from even Vista, its completely different. Take a little getting used to but its completely wicked.

Microsoft is always accused of copying stuff but this little gem is completely without any parallel in the OS world.

 

[Joe Average]

Yah, that's true so I agree with that aspect since I have Win7 installed on a Toshiba tablet here (an older one, m205). Runs pretty damned quick too...

 

[Dallows]

I pretty much hate everything about the new taskbar

 

[Joe Average]

I pretty much hate everything about the new taskbar

Well thank some higher power Microsoft isn't out to please everyone!!!

 

[heatlesssun]

I pretty much hate everything about the new taskbar

Care to explain your rationale?

 

[Joe Average]

Care to explain your rationale?

Oh god, don't... feed... ... ... ... ... no, no, no...

 

[brons2]

Classic start menu > *
Classic taskbar and theme > *

Simplistic, straight-forward, ease of use and comprehension, and streamlined.

1024x768 looks like 640x480 on Vista.

But why would you run 1024x768 in today's world?

(this is really 1680x1050 and not that small, Flickr reduced it to 1024x640)