Microsoft Killed the Start Menu Because No One Uses It

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft recently killed the Start Menu, and their explanation for it seems fairly straightforward: no one used it. This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but Microsoft explains that use of the Start menu dipped by 11 percent between Windows Vista and Windows 7, with many specialized Start functions — such as exploring pictures — declining as much as 61 percent."

Comments

Except for when you need it

[Fishead]

Those rare circumstances when you need something from the start menu, it's not going to be fun trying to find it.

I feel the same way about livingroom furniture. I don't care how it is, just don't move ANYTHING!

Re:Except for when you need it

[The MAZZTer]

If you tap the Windows key and start typing, like in previous versions it will start searching for what you typed. So that still works the same, at least.

Re:Except for when you need it

[0123456]

If you tap the Windows key and start typing, like in previous versions it will start searching for what you typed. So that still works the same, at least.

Yeah, I use a GUI because I love typing commands so much.

Re:Except for when you need it

[NerdyLove]

Ctrl + escape, anyone?

Re:Except for when you need it

[jedidiah]

...except it's not the same at all. That's kind of the point.

An alternative that uses different inputs are just that, an alternative. They aren't a replacement for the original.

Re:Except for when you need it

[uigrad_2000]

If you tap the Windows key and start typing, like in previous versions it will start searching for what you typed. So that still works the same, at least.

Wow, it's like they just completely cloned Gnome 3.

Re:Except for when you need it

[shutdown -p now]

It's exactly the same for this particular gesture - that's the point. Previously it would be click on Start or press Win (or Ctrl+Esc) to open Start menu, then type until the first item in the list is what you want, then Enter. Now it's exactly the same, though it looks different visually.

I still don't like the visuals, but that's a different thing.

Re:Except for when you need it

[shutdown -p now]

It's the same way it has been since Vista, just different look. Not sure if Gnome copied it from there or from somewhere else, but it's definitely not a Gnome innovation.

Re:Except for when you need it

[FhnuZoag]

Maybe they'll bring back DOS next. :)

Re:Except for when you need it

[Dahamma]

It's not a command line, it's a search box. Been that way for a while - it's actually surprisingly useful once you realize that.

I assume you have used a search box before? Some newfangled web sites have started using them. Or are you still a Yahoo! Directory fan?

Re:Except for when you need it

[Baloroth]

Already done: Powershell. Though it's more bash than DOS.

Re:Except for when you need it

[serviscope_minor]

definitely not a Gnome innovation

It's functionally equivalent to typing a command while hammering on the tab key in the shell. That makes it date back to TOPS-20 at least.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Stargoat]

You insensitive clod, I use the IBM Model M! It's the best keyboard for typing AND hitting people!!

Re:Except for when you need it

[mmell]

I noticed that.

That's why I stopped running Gnome and switched to XFCE. Well, that and compiz.

Re:Except for when you need it

[phrostie]

so it's like a command line interface?

do you think they will add a history like bash for the next version?

Re:Except for when you need it

[shutdown -p now]

It's not, since it doesn't look only in command names, but also in their human-readable descriptions; and not just from the beginning, but a match anywhere in it. It also searches other things that register with it, e.g. Control Panel applets (pretty handy - you can type something like "make text bigger", and it'll get you to the DPI settings; on the other hand, if you type "fdisk", it opens the partition manager, even though that's not called fdisk - so apparently there's some keyword-based system there). I believe it also looks in the standard Documents and Pictures folders.

I think KDE had something similar since 4.x, though.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Ralphus Maximus]

If you tap the Windows key and start typing, like in previous versions it will start searching for what you typed. So that still works the same, at least.

What's a "Windows" key?

My 27 year old Model M doesn't have one.

Cheers,
RM

Re:Except for when you need it

[kiddygrinder]

searching by looking through that stupid folder structure is about 50 times harder than typing "ftp" or whatever into a box

Re:Except for when you need it

[EvanED]

I think KDE had something similar since 4.x, though.

I have done some investigation into who had the idea first in the past. Vista was released late 2006, KDE 4 in late 2008. However, I traced the search box back a bit before then; I think Suse had it in their build of KDE for quite some time before then.

I don't really remember what the conclusion was, but I think it was that I couldn't come up with anything conclusively. In terms of determining who had the idea first, it was reasonably similar in time.

But yeah, anyone who says it's just tab completion hasn't used one or the other.

Re:Except for when you need it

[0123456]

It's not a command line, it's a search box. Been that way for a while - it's actually surprisingly useful once you realize that.

Yes, and? I have one hand on the keyboard and one hand on the mouse. I move to the menu, click on it, click on the section I want and click on the application I want. It starts. I use the mouse to interact with the application.

Alternatively I can take my hand off the mouse, type some crap, hope Windows finds the right application and then put my hand back on the mouse again. Why would I possibly prefer that?

I assume you have used a search box before? Some newfangled web sites have started using them. Or are you still a Yahoo! Directory fan?

Yes, I understand, you're so totally l33t because you prefer inefficient UIs.

Re:Except for when you need it

[adamofgreyskull]

It's the best keyboard for typing AND hitting people!!

ORLY?. (Though admittedly, it sucks for typing)

Re:Except for when you need it

[tunapez]

Works awesome when you don't have the correct file/folder/executable name. Not quite as intuitive as a search engine. AFAIK, Windows search is still an exact match search. No?

Re:Except for when you need it

[causality]

If you tap the Windows key and start typing, like in previous versions it will start searching for what you typed. So that still works the same, at least.

Yeah, I use a GUI because I love typing commands so much.

I have no idea why this was modded up except that it suits someone's anti-CLI groupthink. Meta-commentary aside...

As others pointed out, the aforementioned steps involve using a search box. A search box is a component of a comprehensive GUI.

I'm typing this in Firefox on a full-blown KDE system myself. For Web browsing, a GUI is superior. However, I have a Konsole open with several tabs (i.e. instances of my shell) running as well. I use that for all the tasks I want to do for which a CLI is superior. That includes just about any time I want to perform an operation on multiple files with a single command. It also includes the most common system administration tasks, assuming of course you're equally comfortable doing it either way (CLI or GUI).

I also have Amarok running because a decent GUI tool is better for doing things like managing a playlist or skipping to a certain portion of an audio file, even though I could also do this with something like mplayer in a shell. I just don't share (what I perceive as) your aversion to typing. Once you can easily touch-type over 80 words per minute (i.e. your "control rate") you'll find that you choose a particular method because of how much you like it better for that class of task, not because of how much you dislike the alternative. Which you use becomes a matter of what you are trying to do.

Then you don't limit yourself or your thinking by getting stuck clinging to a particular way. I definitely prefer that over this "my camp vs. your camp" mentality that keeps coming up to some degree or another in every discussion.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Isaac-1]

Wrong, the best keyboard for typing and hitting people is the Northgate Omnikey as the typing is slightly better than the model M, but the metal base plate certainly helps in hitting.

Re:Except for when you need it

[causality]

So don't use it. It's not like you have to do this to get a program to run. For those of us who like to type it's much faster than it is for those douchebags who can't get their hand off the mouse.

I didn't phrase it that way, AC, but I admit I was thinking something like that myself. It just seems like such a trivial thing to complain about. But then, I feel that way about everything that one need not choose to use, read, watch, think, listen to, etc.

Re:Except for when you need it

[RobertM1968]

If you tap the Windows key and start typing, like in previous versions it will start searching for what you typed. So that still works the same, at least.

What's a "Windows" key?

My 27 year old Model M doesn't have one.

Cheers,

RM

LoL, while it does not have one, it's not 27 years old, either. Even as ancient as two of mine are (first run for PC), they're not quite 27 yet. They're getting close though. ;-)

Re:Except for when you need it

[sgbett]

It's not a binary choice, if you'd care to give the keyboard a chance you might find some productivity wins lurking there. Like it or not 'desktop search' is one of them, MS dropping the start menu is a big hint. OSX not having one is another.

I was a die hard directory/menu user. Times change, i look back now and wonder what the hell I was doing wasting my time before. if I use it every day its in the dock (safari,mail,calendar,terminal etc) if i don't cmd-space [down] [enter]

This destroys any convoluted menu/submenu tree structure in terms of speed. Of course if you are a hunt and peck typist then this might not be the case. I doubt you are though, on slashdot.

Re:Except for when you need it

[sgbett]

* cmd-space <first few characters of app> [down] [enter]

(slashlords swallowed my < >)

Re:Except for when you need it

[guruevi]

That's fine until the index gets corrupt or any other random piece of configuration or malware disables or replaces the search engine. Also, search engines are potentially vulnerable and usually lag behind on the latest changes or uncommitted/rolled back changes.

Will it work in Safe Mode? Will it require a service? Can we make a PE version without it?

Re:Except for when you need it

[tunapez]

No joy in Vista besides basic windows commands. Admittedly, I gave up early in 7. Turned off indexing and use a portable manager to avoid further disappointments.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Belial6]

I don't know what OSX system you are using, but my Mac running OSX most certainly does have a Start Menu. It just happens to be in the middle of the application bar instead of on the left hand corner. They named the button "Applications" on OSX.

Re:Except for when you need it

[phogster]

You take that back!

Re:Except for when you need it

[Dahamma]

It's not a command line, it's a search box. Been that way for a while - it's actually surprisingly useful once you realize that.

Yes, and? I have one hand on the keyboard and one hand on the mouse. I move to the menu, click on it, click on the section I want and click on the application I want. It starts. I use the mouse to interact with the application.

Alternatively I can take my hand off the mouse, type some crap, hope Windows finds the right application and then put my hand back on the mouse again. Why would I possibly prefer that?

Ok, I just tried this:

With one hand on my keyboard and one on my mouse, I hit the Windows key with my thumb, then "W" with the same hand, then it popped up all apps starting with W (as well as a bunch of documents, mp3s, web page shortcuts, etc). One mouse click and an app (Word in this case) is launched.

I tried the same thing with just the mouse and start menu, it took 4 clicks with some mouse movements, scrolling, and browsing through cumbersome lists of folders first.

So, it's *faster* with a mouse - and that's for something trivial like an application. It's even more dramatic for a random document, file, or Web bookmark. But it's irrelevant anyway. Once using Word you have to use both hands on the keyboard anyway, of course. I assume you used both hands to type that last post?

Yes, I understand, you're so totally l33t because you prefer inefficient UIs.

No, it's because I have actually tried out the things I discuss so I have an informed opinion...

Re:Except for when you need it

[Moridineas]

I've been using OSX since 10.2 in one form or another, and I've never heard of this "application bar." What the heck are you trying to describe?

The only thing I can think of is, that you're attempting to describe a Finder windows' sidebars or the Finder's "Go" menu? If so, in both cases, what you mistakenly believe is a menu is actually a shortcut to a folder. When you click "Applications" you're being taken to a Finder window (the equivalent of an explorer window in Windows). I don't think you can say that that is in any way comparable to the Start Menu.

Re:Except for when you need it

[MahJongKong]

The point is that an all graphical interface can be quite useful for a lot of people. The current start menu (post xp design) is barely usable, but it can be worked out, you don't seem to realize that the "one hand on the keyboard and one hand on the mouse" thing is just what we do to use a broken GUI. I do it too but I'm OP and I are just not happy with it. If you are good for you but let us point out the weaknesses.

Re:Except for when you need it

[sgbett]

I'm running the version of OSX that doesn't have a start menu, it's the one that comes as default on macs. You can grab a copy from the app store if you are interested in trying it out!

Re:Except for when you need it

[BitZtream]

He's referring to the default dock which has an Application Folder stack on it, that when you hover over it, pops up a list of all the Applications in your Applications folder, effectively emulating a start menu pretty much exactly.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Dahamma]

Ok, I just tried it. Amazingly my hand was able to move that extra 4 inches necessary to accomplish your seemingly impossible task. And it was still so much easier than digging through a menu system.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Dahamma]

I don't think I was preventing you from pointing out any weaknesses, just pointing out that the modern Windows Start Menu search box is nothing like the "Run Command..." of older versions that the poster I replied to seemed to think it still was. And that a search box is both by no means a foreign concept, and in fact is the best method of finding something in many cases (Google, anyone?)

Also, that an "all graphical interface" really doesn't hinge on selecting an app to run, as should be glaringly obvious to someone who just posted a slashdot message, assuming you weren't using speech to text for what you just wrote ;)

Not that I'm a Windows advocate by any means. I have a Windows desktop, but also a Linux workstation and server and an Apple phone. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, so I pick whichever I prefer for the task I want to accomplish. (And incidentally, all of those - Windows, iOS, Gnome 3 - have adopted the concept of global search as something central to their UI...)

Re:Except for when you need it

[mattventura]

First of all, its very reliable. There's no "hoping" that windows finds the right program. It works on both the friendly name of the program and the name of the executable. Second, you can just hit enter after typing the name of it, or if there are multiple choices use the keyboard to navigate.

Third, is your typing really that slow and/or your it takes that much effort to move from the mouse to the keyboard and back? I'd rather save time then burden myself by forcing myself to use a mouse for everything when a keyboard is often the better solution.

Re:Except for when you need it

[mattventura]

Its pretty flexible. For example, if type "moz" or "fir" it will find firefox immediately, and it also works if you type firefox.exe. It won't correct typos like a search engine, but if you only need to type a few letters, its unlikely you'll make a typo.

Re:Except for when you need it

[mattventura]

Ctrl+Esc

Re:Except for when you need it

[Darinbob]

I think they may be referring to the more advanced smart menu functions, which indeed I hated using and avoid. "Specialized" start functions I avoid. So I switch it always to classic mode. But it's definitely where I go to to open up applications. There's no other way to do it.

The thing is, there's no feasible alternative. Am I supposed to describe over the phone to my mother how to browse through "Program Files" to find her applications? I have to have every single application install an icon on the desktop, then minimize all windows so I can find it? Or some new bogus windows 8 paradigm? (sadly it's probably the latter)

The concepts aren't hard: if you want to keep your users and keep them happy, don't change the UI that they're used to just because you think it's cooler. Disruption is not fun. For a NEW product it may make sense; so change it on some stupid tablet but don't change the desktop on real computers if there's no good reason.

Re:Except for when you need it

[LoudNoiseElitist]

It has nothing to do with being "l33t" and has everything to do to with speed. I'm sure I can launch any given app a lot faster than you can, despite having to move my hand.

Re:Except for when you need it

[dudpixel]

this is fine, except I rarely use the search unless I dont know what I'm looking for. If I know what I'm looking for, I'd rather navigate right to it.

With the start menu - you can do it all with the mouse - with one hand. Replace it with a search box, and now you need 2 hands...and most people will still grab the mouse to make the final selection.

This is just Microsoft moving things around to justify the never-ending upgrade cycle.

The next version will have a different interface again...its just change for the sake of change.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Dahamma]

This is just Microsoft moving things around to justify the never-ending upgrade cycle.

No, it's really not. It's Microsoft completely freaking out that Apple is eating their lunch in the UI department, and has been working to unify their UI across platforms as well. Now they are trying to do the same as Apple with Windows Phone, XBox, and Windows 8. The scary part is that they seem to be basing the latter two on the former's UI. Windows Phone 7 UI is interesting, but it's not like it's proven in the slightest...

Re:Except for when you need it

[Grishnakh]

Alternatively I can take my hand off the mouse, type some crap, hope Windows finds the right application and then put my hand back on the mouse again. Why would I possibly prefer that?

It would be preferable to just search through a well-organized menu, where all your applications are grouped according to their function (e.g. Internet, Games, Office, Graphics, Utilities, etc.), and are then very easy to find with a couple of mouse clicks.

However, Windows doesn't do that. It throws all the apps into a cluttered and completely disorganized menu where everything has its own category named after the vendor, rather than the software's function, so if you have more than a handful of applications on your windows box, the application menu becomes a giant mess.

So the search box is a useful work-around for this situation.

I have a search box in KDE too, but I never use it because the menu is well-organized and I never need to bother. Everything is easy to find here.

Re:Except for when you need it

[geminidomino]

Exactly. Best for hitting, but not typing.

So the best of (typing && hitting) still goes to the Model M. :)

Re:Except for when you need it

[dudpixel]

Apple are beating Microsoft in Mobile, not UI.

Seriously, the OSX UI only works for Apple people. Most people who are used to Windows dont like it.

Microsoft do seem to be in panic-mode since the mobile world has caught them completely off-guard.

Once the giant ruler of the IT world, sitting comfortably on their Windows and Office business assets, they are now finding themselves the underdog in a new market they didn't see coming. They've still got plenty of money though and I'd expect Windows 8 to do at least as well as Windows 7 in the corporate and home user world.

The world may have shifted to the iPhone (and more so to Android, I might remind you), but Windows is still king of the desktop.

and I'm a linux guy...

Re:Except for when you need it

[Skreems]

My take is that Microsoft has decided that desktops and laptops are going to vanish (at least by comparative volume) and tablets are going to take over in the next 3-5 years. This is a desperate attempt to make Windows relevant to that vision of the world.

Without getting into whether that assumption is realistic or not, or whether this will make people want Windows on their tablets even if it is, it's definitely going to alienate the power users. In order to suit the UI to a less precise control mechanism, you have to take out fine-grained interface elements, the idea of text inputs as an optimizing input, and generally kill everything that power users rely on to make their lives easier.

Personally I think this is going to backfire spectacularly. Power users will accept a cut down feature set on tablets because they recognize the restrictions of the interface, and because they don't rely on tablets to be full-featured multi-purpose machines to the extent that a laptop or a desktop can be. Try dumbing down the interface on their main system to this extent, though, and the kickback is going to make the reaction to Vista look like a love-in.

Re:Except for when you need it

[similar_name]

I don't think you two are even arguing about the same thing. He is arguing the GUI aspect of the Start Menu and you are arguing the 'text' part of it. Updating the old run/search box has little to do with the GUI changes of the Start Menu from XP to Vista/7.

When I paste sometimes I use ctrl+v, sometimes shift+ins, sometimes I click the clipboard, sometimes I go to edit paste, sometimes I right click and paste, (and sometimes I can just use the middle mouse button). Options are good.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Belial6]

That's interesting. Every single OSX machine I have ever seen has a start menu. Sure, Apple calls it a "Application Folder Stack" on what they call a "Dock", but a rose by any other name and all that.

I have a suspicion that you are mistaken when you think that your OSX system doesn't have a start menu...

Re:Except for when you need it

[RobertM1968]

Model M history lesson for you. The IBM Terminal Keyboard (the beast based off the Model M, which had a bunch of extra keys) was designed in 1984 and released/built the next year. The PC keyboard variant (the terminal keyboard will not work with a PC) was released in 1985. Perhaps he's surfing the net on an ancient IBM dumb terminal? Somehow I doubt that. ;-) They are the only ones that even have a chance of having been built in 1984, and to date, no one has come up with credible evidence of such - but again, they won't work on a PC. Different timing, different lots of things.

Anyway, a lot of people keep claiming their Model M is from 1984 because they are reading the copyright date (which is the same on all IBM Model M's and most Lexmark Model M's) instead of the "date of birth" spot which has the actual manufacturer date to the specific day (which is on all IBM and Lexmark Model M's). And of course, there are a few who keep trying to make such an incorrect claim, because claiming to have the oldest Model M seems to be a badge of fame in the Model M world.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Dahamma]

Hey, I have written code almost exclusively for Linux in the last 10 years (mostly embedded TVs/BD players, though - where it's now about 95% market share!)

But, yes, I do believe Apple is beating Microsoft in UI (well, more in general "usability", which also includes hardware). I think I may be the last person in the office who hasn't switched to a Macbook Pro, and most of us are primarily Linux developers :) Apparently Apple's desktop/laptop share is up to about 25%, which is a huge gain over the last few years. Microsoft is definitely in panic-mode on the desktop, for home users, at least.

Re:Except for when you need it

[mikael_j]

You're wrong.

Your reasoning is similar to arguing that all cars have jet engines because they have combustion engines and the purpose of the combustion engine in the car is to make it possible for the car to move forward in the same way that the jet engine of an airplane is there to make it possible for the plane to move forward.

The "Start menu" is very much a MS Windows thing, other systems have similar menus with other names but they are not "The Start menu". Also, OS X doesn't really have such a menu. It has the Dock and by default it also has the Applications directory accessible on the Dock (although this can be removed in which case you'll need to use other methods for accessing all .app bundles in your /Applications directory). And you do know you can drag and drop any directory onto the Dock to access that directory in the same way, right?

Next you'll call the Apple menu a "Start menu" as well...

Re:Except for when you need it

[Belial6]

That is some serious delusion you have there. The windows start menu is a directory too. You can also put other directories on the bar along the bottom. Claiming that a button on a bar at the bottom of the screen is a totally different thing because the two different companies game them different names is just plain silly.

Re:Except for when you need it

[marcello_dl]

The usefulness of alternatives to the start menu is irrelevant because the start menu was familiar to the average user.

Taking familiar stuff away decreases usability, always.

Of course MS uses the same metrics or usability that everybody else does, so they know it. But they want to make their environment unique no matter the cost, so that switching to alternatives is cumbersome and/or competition has to catch up if they want to provide an UI familiar to windows users.

We could call it "ribbonisation", or, in linux land, "ubuntisation".

Re:Except for when you need it

[Kuruk]

Agreed.

As soon as you need a program not on a desktop shortcut or a built in windows app you rarely use like MSpaint or Notepad. Where do you go, Start Menu.

This is stupidity at its best.

A decade of culture tossed out the window leaving life long customer woundering what to do when looking for a program.

Morons.

Re:Except for when you need it

[mikael_j]

Yes, it's a directory. Or rather, it is several directories that are treated in a special way by Windows. Mac OS X also treats /Applications a bit differently from other directories.

Also, as stated with Windows it is "a button on a bar at the bottom of the screen" (by default, the bar can be moved to other screen edges). On OS X the "stack" for /Applications can be dragged off the Dock and other directories can be added (and will then behave exactly like the /Applications stack, can you do that on Windows? Can you grab C:\MyTempDir\SomeOtherDir in explorer.exe and drag it to the taskbar and immediately have a second button named "SomeOtherDir" appear there which behaves exactly like the one labeled "Start" (or just labeled with a flag depending on your UI settings)?).

The "Start menu" is a GUI element on MS Windows. Your arguments remind me of how people here in Sweden who only used Windows started calling PPP and SLIP connections "fjärranslutningar" in general because the Swedish translation of Windows 95 had them labeled as such even though pretty much no one used that word to describe them previously. Just because MS uses a term doesn't mean it becomes an established industry standard...

Re:Except for when you need it

[Belial6]

Who cares what the name of the element is. The elements are functionally equivalent. If it will make you feel better, I'll call the start menu button the Applicaton's Stack. Whatever you want to call it, they both have a link to a directory that lists the applications. They both put it on the bottom of the screen on rectangle that holds links to running applications and can pin non-running applications directly to the rectangle. Renaming something doesn't change it's nature.

You are obsessed with labels over function. This is why people call you an Apple Fanboy. It is the manifestation of what people refer to as the Jobs Reality Distortion Field.

Re:Except for when you need it

[ByOhTek]

BY default, yes.

However, I tend to very quickly reorganize my start menu from 'program' and 'developer' level entries (blizzzard, visual studios, microsoft office, foxit...), to application type entries (games, internet, multimedia...).

That's one amazing thing about the start menu, it's ability to be organized. Well, prior to vista/7, they kinda screwed the pooch in that upgrade. It can still be reorganized, but not as easy as it was in the 95-XP era.

I can't really blame the start menu for developers having bad defaults.

I can blame MS for making it difficult to have a quick launch bar that isn't part of the task bar. That actually over doubled my reliance on the start menu.

Re:Except for when you need it

[ByOhTek]

There are plenty of people who use a keyboard and a GUI.

The nice thing about a GUI, is it tends to provide a more two-dimensional (rather than one dimensional) interface compared to a command line, and the display tends to be visually smoother/cleaner (unless idiots get in and try to make it overly flashy, detracting from function) and tends to be designed to provide better prompts for users.

Re:Except for when you need it

[mikael_j]

The Start menu directory/directories is/are a collection of symlinks (sorry, "shortcuts"). These in turn point at various locations such as C:\Program Files (x86)\Software Development Inc\Application Name\bin\Application.exe

The /Applications directory on Mac OS X on the other hand contains the actual application bundles.

While they share some characteristics they are not "functionally equivalent". Your argument boils down to "they have some shared properties which means they are the same" while ignoring the differences (which there are plenty of).

I'm not saying either is better, I'm saying they're different and that calling what Apple refers to as a "stack" in the Dock a "Start menu" just because it points at the /Applications directory which is the default application install directory on OS X just shows you are trying really hard to ignore the differences...

How about this, the Start menu on Windows lets you access "everything", the Control Panel, My Documents, Programs, Shutting down your computer, Running programs not in the program listing, searching.

By comparison, the /Applications stack that by default is placed in a new user's Dock on OS X does exactly one thing, it lists all the files in the directory /Applications, there is nothing "magic" about this particular stack, you can drag other directories to the Dock as well (as I have pointed out) and they will behave the exact same way.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Bert64]

But annoyingly, whereas previously in the run box if you made a mistake you could go back and edit what you previously typed, in the new search box you have to type the whole command again.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Bert64]

A menu isn't a bad thing, but the MS implementation of it was..
The structure was ridiculous, programs -> vendor name -> product name -> program...
I often don't remember the vendor name, i can see why they would want to do it that way (self promotion), but its not intuitive at all.
And what they did with XP onwards (by default), hiding the actual list of programs on a sub menu just made it worse...

OSX is slightly better, since the applications shortcut from the dock presents a big list of your apps (not your app vendors).

I much prefer the approach taken on most linux systems, where the applications are categorised according to what they do, at least that has some logic to it. Such a system also has an advantage over search if you aren't quite sure what an application is called (perhaps you don't use it very often) but you know what it should do and why you need it.

Re:Except for when you need it

[fatphil]

Of course it's not a command line, it's not got the ability to pass switches to the process being launched. Or to redirect input or output. Or pipe output to an additional process. Or only run a second process depenging on the result of running the first process...

However the TAB key does perform a search when I'm at my command line prompt.

Command line >> search box in almost every possible way. If you're going to force people to type things in order to find and run an application stopping at just the searching part seems like selling them short.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Yoozer]

I move to the menu, click on it, click on the section I want and click on the application I want.

If you know what it's called you could type it before you've even moved the moved the mouse a few inches. If you use it often, put it in a place where you can directly see and activate it (desktop, quicklaunch) so you don't have to waste time searching through sections or following paths. You need a tree/directory structure mostly for when you only have a vague hunch of what you need, instead of something specific.

Typing is way more efficient; provided of course that you're not hunting and pecking. The problem with the MS command line was always that unless you defined a crapton of paths in some configuration file it couldn't ever know what you were talking about - you'd have to 1) explicitly navigate there and 2) know which executable you wanted to start.

Just time your actions on a daily basis; what do you start using the menu and how long does it take you every time to navigate to it? Then compare this with hitting the Windows key and hitting "exc" or "wor" or what other 3 letters your software of choice starts with; it's faster. Since MS also does its research on a grand scale by recording metrics of millions of users, I'm fairly certain they've got better than personal/anecdotal evidence ;)

Re:Except for when you need it

[sgbett]

I would have to agree about categorised menus. That is definitely an advantage over search. I have found myself on a couple of occasions being unable to remember what some random app i downloaded was called.

A perfect example would be a disk tree viewer. I could not for the life of me get kdirstat out of my head (it's called disk inventory x for anyone remotely interested!)

Re:Except for when you need it

[satuon]

It's quicker to type a 3 or 4 letters than sift through all the icons. When you use the search function you're letting the computer do the searching for you. May be it's just the way I use a computer but usually my hands are on the keyboard and when I want to start a program I tap WinKey and enter some letters and press Enter. It's very quick.

Re:Except for when you need it

[sgbett]

I suppose I also have a dos command prompt.

If you ignore the fact that it runs bash and that its called terminal, and merely focus on the fact that its an app that give you cli, then yes I have dos too.

You aren't even arguing your side very well, if you want to argue that osx has a start menu, then try using the apple menu in the top left of the screen. The one with system preferences, log out, shutdown etc

That would be closer to a start menu, except for the major difference being its not a place that you use for 'starting' apps.

I'm beginning to wonder if you have even used a mac before...

Re:Except for when you need it

[synapse7]

I hope MS patents "opening" the desktop, so no other GUI/OS will ever stumble down this road.

Re:Except for when you need it

[jo_ham]

The preferences for pretty much everything on OS X can be changed via the command line.

I'm sorry it didn't work out for you - if it's any consolation I don't think Lion was really their finest hour. Snow Leopard was better in my opinion.

FWIW I use Linux and OS X side by side, but I've been a Mac user for well over a decade so I am used to it. I find "where is everything?!" bafflement when I sit down in front of a modern Windows install, since I used to use 98/w2k etc.

Re:Except for when you need it

[xkpe]

I use the search box on a regular basis, but there have been times when I don't remember the name of the application I want to run, and I can only find it going through the start menu. I'm all pro to a "spotlight" like solution but I'd like to have the alternative for when I need it.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Just Some Guy]

I move to the menu, click on it, click on the section I want and click on the application I want. It starts. I use the mouse to interact with the application.

LOL. So you've never used Windows? More like click the menu, click "Program", click the name of the publisher, click the application, and skip past all the uninstallers, readmes, and links to money saving coupons to find the app you want to launch.

The Start Menu, done right, is a great idea. MS never came remotely close to doing it right.

Re:Except for when you need it

[phlinn]

In fairness, that's more about the individual installers than microsoft. I usually force games in particular into the games folder on the start menu, although some crappy installers force you to categorize by company inside whatever folder you actually specify.

Re:Except for when you need it

[nevermore94]

Exactly! I have always thought that this is one of MS Windows biggest mistakes, no decent default categorization. Every program free to install wherever it wants with no rhyme or reason. I always create 6-8 basic categories at the first level under Programs and install all apps that let me under one of them and any that don't give me the choice I manually move into a category later. Unfortunately most Windows users don't know how or care enough to organize their programs. It drives me absolutely nuts when I have to try to find a program on someone else's computer and they have 2 or 3 pages of programs under their start menu. Rather than removing the Start menu, they should just fix it by adding some default categories and prompting people at every install which category they want to put it in until new installers start to adopt that standard and put their stuff in proper categories by default.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Fri13]

If you tap the Windows key and start typing, like in previous versions it will start searching for what you typed. So that still works the same, at least.

Yeah, I use a GUI because I love typing commands so much.

I have no idea why this was modded up except that it suits someone's anti-CLI groupthink. Meta-commentary aside...

Sarcasm is reason why it was modded up

Re:Except for when you need it

[Fri13]

Not Linux but GNOME. Operating System has nothing to do with the User Interface.

We have single Operating System (Linux kernel) and multiple dozens different User Interfaces for it (GNOME Shell example) and you are free to choose what you want for what purpose.

Re:Except for when you need it

[AlienIntelligence]

Works awesome when you don't have the correct file/folder/executable name. Not quite as intuitive as a search engine. AFAIK, Windows search is still an exact match search. No?

No

-AI

Re:Except for when you need it

[Mia'cova]

While the functionality is the same, I don't like the fullscreen aspect. If all I want to do is find the calculator, I don't need a fullscreen search. Based on some limited time with the developer preview, I find it disconcerting to have so much of the screen change for such a simple search. At least it only covers one screen when you're using multiple monitors. It also feels awkward to dismiss the start screen if you don't find what you want. You need to either hit esc three times or start twice. That compares to hitting escape twice or start once on win 7. It'll also be interesting to have some ambiguous issues with which apps to load. Do I want calc in the traditional desktop form or the immersion UI? Same issue with office apps, browsers, etc. It does take away the appeal of using search as an application launcher from the desktop.

On the flip side, I do believe that there will be sensible additions to the search results facilitated by the fullscreen aspect. But I do hope it remains mostly a local search. I wouldn't want to see movie rental suggestions in there, for example. It's a neat app integration scenario like you might get when searching with bing on WP7 but I don't want it on the PC. But certainly I wouldn't mind there being a bing (/whoever) search with app integration available.

But to close on my calc example, I think I'll be getting used to hitting start+r for the run dialog. In the dev preview, that still operates in the same way as win7. I can use that to get to most places in windows. It's a bit more memorization for something like the add/remove programs applet but the common commands will start to stick with a little use. This might also force me to start using more of my extended keyboard buttons, eg binding my 1-5 shortcut keys to something useful.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Belial6]

Applications can be put in the Windows start menu directory, and they will run just fine. symlinks can be put in the OSX Application stack and they will work just fine. Of course, you by your reasoning, there are no symlinks in Windows because they are called 'shortcuts'. The functionality of the Application stack and the start menu are functionally equivalent. You would apparently be suprised to find out that you can also drag other directories to the windows 'dock' as well.

Windows has the 'Applications Stack' hard coded, and merges 'Finder' into it, but that does not create a functional difference. The primary differences you are tying to claim make them totally different have more to do with the directory structure of the OS than with the start menu or dock.

Your perception of their differences seems to be based primarily on your misunderstanding of what the start menu/application stack/dock are and a healthy does of RDF convincing you that 'Mac is different'.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Unequivocal]

The ability to type-to-find apps, utils, emails, docs, etc on my computer quickly and easily from the start menu is the single best interface feature of Windows 7 in my opinion (granted it exists in Vista but it actually works well in 7). I guess you'd prefer to use Yahoo's "graphical interface" to Google's search box too?

Re:Except for when you need it

[mattack2]

Its almost impossible to switch between OSX and Linux on a daily basis - the habits you form on one make the other one irritating.

Are you referring to one of the several GUIs *on top of* Linux, or that you mean you can't actually switch between the CLI of Linux and Mac OS X?

Re:Except for when you need it

[mattack2]

Plus, on Mac OS X, applications do not have to go in /Applications.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Dahamma]

The start menu does let you use all kinds of switches, etc when launching an app. You just need to know the right shortcut keys to get to it: Window-c-m-d-Enter ;)

Re:Except for when you need it

[Moridineas]

Does the default dock layout really have that? For one thing, I don't think there's a way to make dock icons respond to a mouse hover? Secondly, I didn't think I'd ever seen an applications stack before in the default layout? Is that new with Lion?

Re:Except for when you need it

[fatphil]

Dang - I just ran over to my g/f's machine, as I know she's on an IBM keyboard, and I discovered she's *not* got the Model M (which I inherited in 1989 as run-into-the-ground trash), but some horrible 90s version. That means my old Model M is probably somewhere in a landfill in a neighbouring country, as I ditched a whole load of stuff before moving here. :-(

However, I do have the 8" floppy discs with Microsoft Basic for CPM/Z80 from 1980 still - hoorah! (which is on topic - it's Microsoft story!)

Re:Except for when you need it

[dudpixel]

I bought an iMac recently - 3 weeks later I'm selling it.

Usability is not a linear scale.

OSX is not somehow better for usability - you have to change everything about how you work, which is not necessarily going to make you more productive.

I found it mostly ok, but seriously limited, and in some places really unintuitive, and even broken.

Save yourself the trouble - if you ever get the urge to switch to a mac, borrow one for a few weeks. Dont do what I did. It looks like I'll lose about $400 over it :(

My final word on OSX - it is the most frustrating OS I've ever used. Mostly because of the mouse acceleration - your mouse covers about 20-30cm of desk space to get from one side of the screen to the other. I had it on the fastest setting and it still wasn't nearly enough.

Also, no maximize (ie. for browser windows etc when its actually useful), no window tiling (drag to left or right side of screen to make window resize to fill half the screen).

We should stop seeing Apple as the epitome of usability because its just nonsense. I have equally as much trouble navigating an iphone or ipad. They take just as much time to learn as any other non-apple device, so the whole usability argument is garbage.

Re:Except for when you need it

[dudpixel]

just to be clear - I mean switching between OSX (GUI) and Linux (GNOME/KDE/whatever) on a daily basis.

Its just that they are different enough that you end up forming habits with one that dont work on the other.

Switching between Windows and Linux (Again, GUI only) is easier because they are more similar.

That wasn't intended to be a criticism of OSX, just a reason for why I decided it wasn't working for me.

Re:Except for when you need it

[dudpixel]

The preferences for pretty much everything on OS X can be changed via the command line.

I'm sorry it didn't work out for you - if it's any consolation I don't think Lion was really their finest hour. Snow Leopard was better in my opinion.

FWIW I use Linux and OS X side by side, but I've been a Mac user for well over a decade so I am used to it. I find "where is everything?!" bafflement when I sit down in front of a modern Windows install, since I used to use 98/w2k etc.

Not everything. If you could change everything, I'd still be using it.

I just couldn't get used to the mouse acceleration. I normally have the pointer speed quite fast so my mouse uses about 1 inch square on the desk. With the magic mouse, I had to lift the mouse several times just to get to the other side of the screen. Add to that the fact that the menus are at the top, and my window could be at the bottom right, and we have the definition of frustration right there.
I decided if I'm going to use a normal mouse, and normal keyboard, then why not just use a normal OS too...and when I switched back to Linux, the confirmation came loud and clear.

I admit that if you started with OSX as your first computer, things might be different.

OSX just doesn't fit my workflow. I can make windows 7 fit, and it is workable. Linux is perfect for me (when it works). OSX just didn't agree.

Re:Except for when you need it

[mikael_j]

While programs can be installed to the %appdata%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu directory it is not recommended. And generally Windows programs installed on a system do not use actual symlinks (although both Vista and Win7 support symlinks) but shortcut files which are different from actual symlinks.

And as I explained, the Applications stack that is found in the Dock on OS X by default (and which can be easily removed from the Dock) is not functionally equivalent to the Start Menu on Windows. The Applications stack is merely a quick way to access the /Applications directory where applications are installed, it has no other bells and whistles.

Your argument keeps boiling down to "Well, if you ignore all the differences they are exactly the same". You've also made repeated baseless accusations of me being an Apple fanboy. I smell a troll (or a MS fanboy).

Re:Except for when you need it

[Belial6]

So, you profess that someone claiming features on Windows being equivalent to those on OSX has to be either a troll or a windows fanboy? Really? Your statement on that pretty well sums up your stance and honesty on the subject.

Re:Except for when you need it

[mikael_j]

No, I stated that you deliberately ignoring my arguments and yelling "THEY'RE THE SAME! YUO R TEH FANBOY!" is indicative of you being either a troll or a fanboy.

Re:Except for when you need it

[jp10558]

I disagree, mostly because rarely does the organization work for me. For instance, if I want Kedit, do I look in Utilities, Office, Accessories, possibly Text Editors if it's an option?

If I want to change the wireless configuration, is it in Internet, Utilities, System, KDE Conf, etc?

It may just be I'm unfamiliar with the KDE environment, but their "Start Menu" categorization is probably my biggest pet peeve with it.

Re:Except for when you need it

[jp10558]

Or, you know, win-r for the old run dialog.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Grishnakh]

Maybe it's your unfamiliarity.

if I want Kedit, do I look in Utilities, Office, Accessories, possibly Text Editors if it's an option?

On my system, it's in Utilities, which makes sense as it's not really an "office" application. There is no "Accessories" category, nor is there a "Text Editors" category.

If I want to change the wireless configuration, is it in Internet, Utilities, System, KDE Conf, etc?

That would be under System Settings, which makes sense because it deals with setting up your system and that category includes all your other configuration items: printers, display, power management, appearance settings, etc. Under there, you go to "Network Settings" (part of the "Network and Connectivity" group), which seems like a rather logical location since you're looking for wireless networking configuration. In addition, there's an applet in the system tray that lets you quickly configure wireless, so you can hop on the local free wi-fi hotspot when you're traveling.

Re:Except for when you need it

[Dixie_Flatline]

That's a ridiculous statement. I can familiarize you with a pathologically bad system of doing things and then replace it with a new system that's much better. Usability will increase because now you're using the right tool for a job. Just because you're used to banging in a screw with a hammer doesn't mean that showing you a screwdriver makes the job harder.

For a more computer relevant example, we could look at the switch between the original command line and the first GUIs. Or tabs in our web browsers. Unfamiliarity didn't make those things worse to use.

Frankly, this is what Apple always capitalized on. There are ways to make things better.

Re:Except for when you need it

[marcello_dl]

You talk about the sum, me about the factors. Usability decreases with the removal, and increases if the replacement makes up for the loss. Did the ribbon make up for the loss?
Notice that in your examples you ADDED stuff, not removed it. Command lines are windows in a GUI. Ditto for tabs.

And apple is not a good exampe as it gradually went back to more mainstream choices. Lisa was more different than the mac, the mac moved the close button "on the wrong side" like windows, and got a command line. The desktop metaphor - which incidentally proves that familiarity can be increased by changes - and the standard look of mac apps are a thing of the past.

This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[denis-The-menace]

When you can't figure out the easy way to launch stuff, look in the Start Menu.

This is change for change's sake.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Lashat]

My spare has been in the same place since I bought my car. Sucks for you tho.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[betterunixthanunix]

Eh, I don't know about that. I use FVWM, and I set up a menu, but to be honest there are only four programs I ever really needed -- so I adjusted the menu to present those programs at the top of the top level. People generally want symbolic icons, and they hate having to read through a list of things just to find what they are looking for. A combination of a short menu with just the essentials and a search box for rarely used programs is probably a better idea (in my case, xterm is one of the four programs I mentioned, which serves as a way to launch less commonly used programs).

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[shawn(at)fsu]

The programs are still there so it's not like GM removing the spare tire. It's more akin to a the owners manual not telling you where the spare tire is.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[ackthpt]

When you can't figure out the easy way to launch stuff, look in the Start Menu.

This is change for change's sake.

Indeed. I actually use the Start Menu dozens of times each day. I have shortcuts on the desktop, but usually the are obscured by all the work I'm doing. Because most people don't use it is a pretty poor reason to remove it.

The way they've complicated Task Manager I can't see too many neophyte users struggling with that beast now - might as well remove it, too.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Anonymous Coward]

When you can't figure out the easy way to launch stuff, look in the Start Menu.

You can't. Because they didn't like the look of the big, floor-to-ceiling look of the old XP system, they shrunk it all down so that it only shows 5-6 items at a time and has a scrollbar.

In short, they made it harder to use and less functional than the XP Start Menu, and to everyone's amazement, people stopped using it, and then they claimed it was some sort of UX triumph.

Ditto with the control panel - rather than one big screen with 100+ tiny icons on it, they reworded a few things ("Display" becaome "Personalization", and there are 2-3 different UIs rather than the tabs on the old-fashioned XP display.cpl) and made them all look like web-apps. Now that it's unnavigable with words or icons, everyone uses "search" and it "feels faster". You can't write documentation that says Start-Settings-ControlPanel-Display-Screensaver, you have to say "search for 'screen saver' and clicky on whatever pops up"... *sigh*

This is change for change's sake.

Much like Firefox, most UX innovation is precisely that. If you don't get the results that match your pet UI design philosophy, move the feature around, and while your users are trying to find the feature you don't want, accumulate enough telemetry to claim your users aren't using it as often, then take it away. (Status bar, full URL in the URLbar, etc.)

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[LordKronos]

Because they didn't like the look of the big, floor-to-ceiling look of the old XP system, they shrunk it all down so that it only shows 5-6 items at a time and has a scrollbar.

While I agree with most everything else in your post....5-6 items at a time? Damn, I think it might be time to upgrade to a monitor that runs higher than 640x480, because on my monitor the Windows 7 start menu shows 28 items at a time.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[oakgrove]

You can't. Because they didn't like the look of the big, floor-to-ceiling look of the old XP system, they shrunk it all down so that it only shows 5-6 items at a time and has a scrollbar.

In short, they made it harder to use and less functional than the XP Start Menu, and to everyone's amazement, people stopped using it, and then they claimed it was some sort of UX triumph.

This man speaks truth. The fact that this got passed Microsoft's UI designers is astounding.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[serviscope_minor]

I have a similar setup. Four programs sounds excessive, though :)

The only program I start on a regular basis from the GUI is xterm, and I have one of the windows keys set up to do that. Firefox is usually running in a virtual screen, so it is started rarely. Editors, etc are generally most easily started from an xterm in order to provide them with a filename. Everything else needs an xterm to run.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Sponge Bath]

It's more akin to a the owners manual not telling you where the spare tire is.

Microsoft has moved the start menu functions to the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[theolein]

I still see many, many people using the start menu where I work. Windows 7 made docking icons easier but it in no way removed the need for the Start menu.

This is appallingly retarded and it is going to come back to bite Microsoft in the ass when corporate users refuse to upgrade because their users are pissed off and lost with yet another irrational GUI change from MS after ribbons were introduced. Now, if only the main Linux distros weren't equally or even more retarded with bullshit like Unity or Gnome 3, then things would be great fro office workers who just need a simple GUI to do their work.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[mapkinase]

Between XP and W7 I started to use Start button more because they moved search textport over there. I was thinking that they should get rid of Desktop items.

Search textport does everything I need for me. They really fixed the indexing by W7 and everything on my PC is at my fingertips now. I never roam the desktop anymore in search of the proper icon.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[tunapez]

So much easier to keep people inside a walled garden if there are no doors or ladders. It's called behavioral shaping and it is much more profitable when your customers' options are limited and locked.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[couchslug]

"The fact that this got passed Microsoft's UI designers is astounding."

Not really. Rumor has it they are in a contest with the KDE, Gnome, and Unity crews to see whose interface can suck more.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Servaas]

Again, you can have many many more Icons in your list if you want too... If I click start I get the left pane filled with Thunderbird, Firefox, OpenOffice, qtorrent, Calibre, VLC Media Player etc. As for the screensaver bit, its like that in every mayor operating system. Or are you singling out screensaver settings because that's one of the minor settings Linux hasn't put in the monitor tab? What's hard about Settings, Display, Screensavers? And is there a "I would switch to Linux but the community is a bit short sighted!" t-shirt?

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Quirkz]

Ditto with the control panel - rather than one big screen with 100+ tiny icons on it, they reworded a few things ("Display" becaome "Personalization", and there are 2-3 different UIs rather than the tabs on the old-fashioned XP display.cpl) and made them all look like web-apps.

Set the control panel to show small icons or large icons instead of category, and you can have the old functionality back.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Nationless]

So THAT'S where Snow Leopard ended up...

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[gweihir]

"The fact that this got passed Microsoft's UI designers is astounding."

Not really. Rumor has it they are in a contest with the KDE, Gnome, and Unity crews to see whose interface can suck more.

Heheheheh ;-)==)

The only difference is that on Linux I can completely ignore this crap and stay with my trusty fvwm desktop, that I have been using for 22 years now, with just a few adjustments. Menus exactly containing what I want (mostly 6 shapes of xterm and then the same for root with a different background color), clean desktop, clock and pager in the right, lower corner, 3x3 virtual desktops, edge scroll and auto-raiser exactly customized to what works best, etc.

Those poor SODs on Windows have to actually use the trash MS produces.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[sg_oneill]

Actually I'm rather fond of Gnome, or at least old gnomes, UI. Its never been the prettiest thing, but its always been pretty damn simple to use. My *grandmother* can drive around Ubuntu.

I do agree this is partly microsofts own fault that the start button was dying. In its windows 95-2000 incarnations it was simplicity itself. Click->programs->pick a program.

From there it just got wierder and wierder, and much less intuitive.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Khith]

You can't. Because they didn't like the look of the big, floor-to-ceiling look of the old XP system, they shrunk it all down so that it only shows 5-6 items at a time and has a scrollbar.

THIS. This is one of the most irritating things I've found with Win7, despite it being quite good in other ways. Does anyone know if there's a secret registry setting, 3rd party program, or ANY other way to get back that "floor-to-ceiling" look of the Start menu instead of that annoying scrollbar? Not only does the current version take longer to search through, but it makes it more difficult and time-consuming to drag and drop shortcuts into there.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Hazard X]

Except in small/large icons mode the control panel won't let you sort the icons by anything other than the stock ordering. You can't (for example) list them alphabetically vertically, which is the fastest way to scan things (up and down). Instead you have to search side to side in a field of arbitrarily named icons, at which point the category/search becomes faster.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Solandri]

You can't. Because they didn't like the look of the big, floor-to-ceiling look of the old XP system, they shrunk it all down so that it only shows 5-6 items at a time and has a scrollbar.

Right click start menu -> properties -> customize -> (near the bottom) Start menu size: Number of recent programs to display

Increase its value for a taller start menu. But yeah, I agree with you, having to scroll through my list of programs in the start menu is annoying when I have tons of screen space available. Once upon a time, user interface design was all about letting the user accomplish a task with the fewest keystrokes/mouse actions possible. Somewhere along the way, some OCD designer got onto their UI team and appearance took priority. Now they have a start menu which always looks pretty, but forces users to do all sorts of unnecessary scrolling or clicking or (if you make the control panel a pop-up menu) waiting while things slowly auto-scroll to get at something which used to be available immediately.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[oakgrove]

Fortunately Gnome 3 still has fallback mode where it essentially emulates Gnome 2. Anytime I put a new user on Linux, I reach for Gnome. It ain't pretty but it is simple as hell and works.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[grubwort]

ClassicShell has a "classic" start menu that's completely customizable. It blows away the Win 7 start menu.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[donaldm]

I have a similar setup. Four programs sounds excessive, though :)

The only program I start on a regular basis from the GUI is xterm, and I have one of the windows keys set up to do that. Firefox is usually running in a virtual screen, so it is started rarely. Editors, etc are generally most easily started from an xterm in order to provide them with a filename. Everything else needs an xterm to run.

In KDE I try to limit my favourites to about 10 in the Kickoff Launcher while programs that I use regularly I put in my Desktop Folder. What's the difference? Well it depends on what I want to do and either way I can be running an GUI application in about 2 to 5 seconds. Command searches normally take me anything from 5 to 10 seconds.

I rarely use xterm any-more since I find it better to use Konsole rather then have six to ten xterm windows cluttering up my sessions. If I connect to a "jump host" as I do in my work I normally use putty and then run an application called screen which is over 23 years old but allows me to toggle/maintain multiple virtual screens all within one terminal window. Using screen is very useful when connecting to other machines via a "jump host" in that if your connection drops out you don't loose what you are doing and you can easily reconnect and continue with your work when you log back in. You can use screen on your Linux PC running an xterm but I find Konsole works just as well and IMHO is excellent for the average person who wants multiple windows in the same window.

As for using vi (vim on Linux) you can use "gvim" if editing from your file-manager but I like your self just run "vi" from the command line an the relevant file(s). For those who like "emacs" (lets not start a flame war) yes this is an excellent editor however on most Linux/Unix machines "emacs" is an add-on while "vi" is installed by default.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[alexhs]

Microsoft has moved the start menu functions to the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Lion'.

You need to to keep up with the times and modify your citations accordingly, Apple has recently shipped Lion ;)

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Khith]

Thanks! I haven't installed it yet, but this looks just like what I wanted. I'm glad that I'm not the only one annoyed by this "feature" in 7.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[grumbel]

Exactly, there seems to be a serious lack of understanding what the Startmenu and menus in general are good for. Menus are not there to be used on a regular basis, they exist to provide a reference of all the functions (and shortcuts) a given program can do, or in the case of the Startmenu, of what is installed on the given system. Menus are essentially the place where you go when you want to explore what other things you can do with a computer that isn't the stuff you already know and they provide that information in a nicely organized fashion.

For daily use, sure, keyboard shortcuts or shortcuts in the dock are much faster, but to get the shortcuts there and to learn the shortcuts in the first place, you need good old menu. This isn't just a Microsoft problem, Firefox suffers from it as well, as they have removed functions from the menu that are available via other means, such as View->Reload for example (its still in the menu when you open the menu with a keyboard shortcut, but not when you open it with a mouse, so much for UI consistency...).

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[swalve]

Yes, this, 1000% this. Don't dumb things down, smarten people up.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[GuldKalle]

They are already out of date? It should read "Beware of the Lion"

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[GuldKalle]

But in order to search for something you first have to know it's there and what its name is. The few times I have used the start menu instead of the search box is when I didn't remember the name of the program.
Also, thee search box isn't that great when it doesn't take into effect parent folder names.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[sonicmerlin]

Yeah I still don't get the "Control Panel". Why are there multiple layers? It's so confusing.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[arth1]

Fortunately Gnome 3 still has fallback mode where it essentially emulates Gnome 2.

No, it doesn't. It looks vaguely like Gnome 2, but doesn't have a fraction of the functionality. Including basic stuff like icons, right-click, applets or even setting your own fonts.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[oakgrove]

I was talking about Xfce. /s

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[studog-slashdot]

You can't. Because they didn't like the look of the big, floor-to-ceiling look of the old XP system, they shrunk it all down so that it only shows 5-6 items at a time and has a scrollbar.

In short, they made it harder to use and less functional than the XP Start Menu

ClassicShell to the rescue.

Also, 7 Taskbar Tweaker.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Quirkz]

True. It's still lousy, but it's slightly less lousy than the default. I also have a particular loathing for the tendency of the control panel to show you most of the icons, wait until you're just about to click on the one you want, and then realize there are a few more add-ons that it overlooked, causing it to refresh the display and shift the item you want to someplace you've got to find all over again. I'd much rather it just load once and load everything, even with the delay, than have to find something twice.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Reziac]

And the problem fundamentally isn't that the Start Menu is too complicated. It's that they've never provided a good tool for *managing* it. So the average person, being unaware that it's just a bunch of directories and shortcut files, suffered with the floor-to-ceiling scrolling menu from hell. M$, on noting their complaints, responded by taking away most of the menu. This led to a different set of complaints, since now no one can find anything and the reaction is to give up on the start menu entirely.

But it still didn't solve the real problem, which as I said is still that there's no good tool that average non-savvy users can turn to for *managing* the Start Menu. How hard could it be to make a nice little interface (not relying on drag-and-drop in the live menu, which in my observation is usually a disaster) geared toward letting average folks sort out their programs into reasonable hierarchies, so the Start Menu isn't always One Huge Mess??

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[scottgfx]

You've only had 50 years to file a complaint. No use crying about it now.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[ciscocontractor]

I've been using ClassicShell for a year and a half to fix the broken Win7 start menu, and am pleased to confirm that it works in Win8 as well, restoring all the things you loose otherwise.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[dunkelfalke]

It might be news for you, but there are people out there who use large fonts because they don't see that well anymore.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Custard Horse]

I hear that in Windows 9 the power button will be disabled thus defeating all virus, malware, user threat. No updates will be required and no internet connection is necessary.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Altrag]

The hard part is whether its:

Control Panel->Display->Screen Saver or
Control Panel->Personalization->Screen Saver or
Control Panel->Change the Theme->Screen Saver

or any of a dozen other things MS has tried over the past two decades. Whenever I have to deal with a Windows support call my first question is always "What version are you running?" because nothing's the goddamn same between them when you have to look at the control panel.

Working with this all the time, I'm mostly used to the various quirks of the different versions.. Except category view.. its the stupidest idea I've ever heard of. "Simplify" the one place in your computer that should be for advanced users only. And unsurprisingly, it turned out terrible and far more confusing than the basic list view for both novice and advanced users alike.

Out of all the various issues with windows, the constantly changing control panel is probably my biggest pet peeve by far. Sure they might need to add or remove things as the system evolves, but there's no bloody reason to just rename things arbitrarily every version (I'm looking at you this time, Printers and Faxes.. err just Printers.. err.. Devices and Printers.. err wtf).

The Win7 start menu is pretty nice (after I got used to it -- that took a while!) but as long as Ctrl+Esc brings up the program list, I can probably live without the start menu. I'm not going to be impressed if I have to drop back to Explorer and navigate C:\Program Files every time I need to access something that I haven't used in a while or just don't used that often though.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[ShakaUVM]

You can't. Because they didn't like the look of the big, floor-to-ceiling look of the old XP system, they shrunk it all down so that it only shows 5-6 items at a time and has a scrollbar.

In short, they made it harder to use and less functional than the XP Start Menu, and to everyone's amazement, people stopped using it, and then they claimed it was some sort of UX triumph.

Yeah. Microsoft is batshit crazy.

The Vista / Win7 is an atrocity that should be consigned to the dustbin of history, for the reasons you mentioned (as well as the fucking horrible 'all program's list of *everything* on your computer if you can't find something by typing it), but instead of taking the proper lesson away (the XP start menu is superior), they decided to just scrap it altogether.

I fully predict that they will confirm their decision when Start Menu activity drops even further in Win8, after more or less removing it.

As always, a plug for Classic Shell is worth the time - it fixes the Vista/Win7 Start Menu to look like the superior WinXP one, or allows you to customize it however you like. (http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/) Personally I kept the dubious search-by-type feature, but it only gets the focus if I type tab, which allows me to navigate through the start menu by typing, which is much faster than clicking.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[cyclomedia]

That's the 5/6 items you've used most recently. For most computer users who are NOT power users this is probably web browser, email, word processor, photo viewer and .... er.... solitaire?

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Reziac]

An AC says,
=====
No need to manage one more thing on your computer (not everybody is an enthusiast computer mechanic) just use categories to automatically group things together like debian's been doing for years...
=====

And isn't that a category manager? But doing it automatically presupposes the OS recognises every program and its function(s). I think better would be to let the user point at it and put it into the desired category. Could be integrated into the start menu -- rightclick on an item, select "Categorize", pick or add a category, move item and all associated shortcuts (whatever installed with the program, since some have a bunch).

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[mystran]

I have both Win 7 and Ubuntu running on this system (concurrently, the Ubuntu is a VirtualBox fullscreened on the second monitor), and I find your post interesting because on Windows side I have like 2 dozen icons pinned to the taskbar. Basically anything I need even semiregularly. On the Ubuntu, I have 2 icons in the Gnome panel: Firefox and gnome-terminal. I never use the Firefox icon. I think it was there by default. If I need Firefox on the Ubuntu for some reason (usually I browse with Chrome from the Windows) I'll do the same thing I do with any program other than terminal (which I usually have around 10 open on each of the 4 virtual desktops): open yet another terminal and type: firefox &

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[swjslj]

Agreed. It takes more clicks to accomplish the same tasks in Win7. And it's extremely irritating that they renamed certain features making it harder to locate them. The reason ofcourse is marketing. If new operating systems do not look different, few will buy them regardless of any "behind the scenes" improvements. XP was too good, there was very little to "fix." I'm in horrified suspense waiting to see how unusable they make Win8.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[AP31R0N]

This is bizarre to me. The start menu is how i launch EVERYTHING. My desktop is a dumping ground for downloads i'm reminding myself to do something about later.

What are people using to launch if not the menu? i have too many things installed to put everything on the desktop. Plus, having more icons on the desktop would cover the wallpaper of Moxxi from Borderlands.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Chris Mattern]

Whenever I have to deal with a Windows support call my first question is always "What version are you running?" because nothing's the goddamn same between them when you have to look at the control panel.

Which, of course, leads to a lot of:

"What version are you running?"
"Windows!"
"Yes, but what *version* of Windows?"
"Microsoft Windows!"

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Calydor]

One of the big problems that caused the Start Menu to seem daunting to some people, I suspect, is the way every single publisher of anything wants to advertise their name everywhere.

Back in the old days Sierra was known for not letting you choose exactly where to install something, it HAD to be in a \Sierra\ subdirectory. Same thing happened in the start menu, so you ended up clicking Start, Programs, Publisher, Developer, Program Name, maybe version, Program. And usually the Publisher and Developer folders would only have a single entry since Heaven forbid companies actually keep the same exact name for more than a year at a time.

Can't really blame Microsoft entirely, though the majority of the blame does fall on their shoulders. Stupid greedy marketing departments have their share of it, too.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Lisandro]

Much agreed about the new control panel layout in Vista / Win 7. I keep spending much more time than i should whenever i need to change some minor system configuration. But hey, does it look spiffy!

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Bert64]

Well the fact that most people don't use it should mean that it's no longer present by default, but should still be available for users who want it...

The problem for any mass market vendor is that one size does not fit all, so they have to try and cater to the majority of users.

Linux tries to provide choice, but then people complain there are too many choices... You really can't win.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[WolfgangPG]

Yup. This is a customizable feature. You can increase or shink the number of applicatons the start menu shows under the "recent applications" section. And you can pin stuff to the start menu or taskbar.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Reziac]

An AC says,
=====
There's an EXCELLENT tool for managing the start menu. Just open Windows Explorer and navigate to the directory that contains your start menu shortcuts. By default this will be something like "C:\Documents and Settings\%YOUR_USER_NAME%\Start Menu". Once there you can simply create, delete. cut, copy and paste shortcuts around to your hearts content. Simple, fast and effective. After ten minutes work you'll have all your shortcuts arranged just how you like them.
====

Yes indeed, this is precisely what I do, and I try to teach this method to others, but have found for the less-tech-savvy, it's a losing battle. They really don't and can't see the relationship, and are deathly afraid of messing with it from behind, so to speak. They need a tool that they can directly relate to the start menu, see it as it visually applies to the menu layout.

The wise AC continues,
====
Why oh why has computer user interface design suddenly gone down the toilet on all platforms ? Who are the imbeciles who have suddenly decided that we should throw away 30 years worth or design paradigms just for the sake of some new shiny, unusable, cumbersome, inefficient , graphically intensive SHITE.
====

Couldn't have said it better. Tho I think this is what happens when management sees "SHINY!" as a marketing tool, and lets the marketing dept. convince them SHINY will outsell USEFUL (which sadly, is often true).

The AC continues,
===
Oh well looks like my "trusty" XP machine will still be going strong for another decade or two (or at least until 2038 when I'll be dead anyway ;)
===

Same here... fact is, I still have a Win98 machine in everyday use, because the durn thing still Just Works. Well, maybe by 2038 there will finally be a linux desktop I can love (I keep hoping) but if Gnome-the-latest and the-daily-Firefox-version are any indication, FOSS is hellbent on copying the madness.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[webheaded]

1. New Start Menu actually still shows quite a bit but does not become the big sprawling mess that the XP menu did. What difference is there scrolling down vs moving your mouse down, left and right, or even worse...in a lot of XP installs it had a damn scroll button on it when your menu was too big. Do you not have a scroll wheel on your mouse? Are you seriously complaining about having to SCROLL? o_O
2. I can't remember the last time I scrolled through because I hit start, type 3 or 4 letters, and I have what I want. Not to mention the few programs I use are usually on the quick launch anyway.
3. You can still navigate to things the same way (though they aren't in the same place) so I don't understand your argument about not being able to tell someone where to look.
4. The Control panel has a Classic option still. It's been there since XP. In fact your beloved XP with it's great Start Menu (apparently) was the one that started shuffling the Control Panel into those weird categories and stupid shit. Still, it's pretty easy to simply switch to classic mode if it bothers you. If you're helping someone on the phone? Have them switch to classic. :p

Look, I get that it is irritating when they change things. I curse with every new version of Windows when I have to figure out what the hell they named Add/Remove programs to this time, but most of the things you're complaining about seem like complaints of someone that hates anything that changes ever. Adapt. It seems like you're more concerned about whining about changes than actually learning anything new. You want to keep using the Windows 98 shell then by all means go ahead. They're trying to make improvements and I welcome most of the changes they've made thus far. Though I'm not so sure I like what I'm seeing in Windows 8...I'll at least give it a chance.

It's amazing how many people complain about new things on a technology enthusiast website. I swear you guys go into every change kicking and screaming. I used to think I was kind of a complainer but some of the people on here are just...well clearly I'm a rookie.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[MHolmesIV]

You mean something like the start screen?

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[slapout]

I totally agree. I have my Start menu organized the way I want it. But that's because I know how to do it. And its more difficult than it should be.

Re:This is like GM removing the spare in trunk

[Lashat]

But it doesn't mean I won't either. Thanks AC.

Ok, how do they know?

[0racle]

Seriously, exactly what data and from where are they collecting it to figure this decline in usage.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[Meshach]

Sounds like a case for remembering that a /. reader or commenter is not a typical user to Microsoft. We do use the Start Menu and will find a way to continue using it. But "the masses" obviously do not.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[bondsbw]

Not sure, but the justification is that most people pin their most-used applications to the task bar.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[CanHasDIY]

You know the annoying little pop-up that bugs you to "Jon our Customer Improvement YadaYada?"

Well, apparently, some folks actually opt-in...


Crazy, right?

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[Ghostworks]

The data actually makes a lot of sense: Windows 7 gave user's the ability to pin program icons to the taskbar even when they're not running. So now your most frequently used programs don't need to be in the start menu or on the desktop to quickly get to them. I would imagine start menu usage would fall dramatically once the programs you use 90% of the time are pinned to the task bar.

I find the new start screen to be an odd solution to this problem. For that matter, I find it odd to thing of the drop as a "problem".

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[0123456]

Not sure, but the justification is that most people pin their most-used applications to the task bar.

Probably because the Windows 7 Start Menu is such a disaster that they can't find anything there anymore.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[mariasama16]

Well, considering those are the same users who typically have their desktop so full of icons that the wallpaper's indistinguishable and a gazillion icons in the system tray to make launching those program faster, why not kill wallpapers too? (Personally, I'm more of a minimalist and have no icons on my desktop and try and keep my system tray pruned to the bare minimum, so the start menu is very important to me).

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[jedidiah]

...that still leaves the less frequently used stuff to sort out.

One of the key strengths of a GUI is supposed to be tasks that you do so infrequently that you are prone to forget how to do them. A good GUI helps smooth over that sort of problem. A bad one just makes it so hard that you just want to reach for a bash prompt.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the Customer Experience checkbox they throw up everytime you install microsoft software? Remember how people instantly whine about privacy as soon as they see it? Turns out it actually gathers data for the exact purposes they said it does.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[gcnaddict]

The data received trough the CEIP is astounding, but what's even cooler about it is the fact that all of it is clean. None of it contains personally identifiable information unless there's an application crash where the user volunteered to send more than the usual set of data.

The CEIP was used in the development of the Windows 7 taskbar as well as the Ribbon UI in Office 2007+. In all cases, the goal was to improve usability, and Microsoft's own statistics (empirical and otherwise) show internally that they succeeded. I'm willing to say that Microsoft has recently become a very powerful player in creating engaging and highly usable systems, and that's based on empirical evidence rather than pure opinion. The sheer amount of research done by Microsoft's labs to ensure that a particular UI is easier to use and more productive than the previous version is mindblowing.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[hedwards]

Doubtful, the start menu is an easier way of locating programs than anything else that MS has provided. The only reason I can think of for people not using it is that they already have the 3 programs they use pinned to the task bar.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[hedwards]

Yes, but the start menu is there because you don't always have room for everything on the bar. And often times you don't want to minimize all your other programs just to get to the desktop icons, which themselves are likely to be a mess.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[vlm]

Well, considering those are the same users who typically have their desktop so full of icons that the wallpaper's indistinguishable and a gazillion icons in the system tray to make launching those program faster, why not kill wallpapers too? (Personally, I'm more of a minimalist and have no icons on my desktop and try and keep my system tray pruned to the bare minimum, so the start menu is very important to me).

Why force everyone to one paradigm? Some people thrive in clutter, both in the real world and on their computers. Some people are ultraminimalists. I get rid of stuff in my visual field until I can't get rid of any more. Backgrounds are distracting, see thru windows annoy me. I don't need 250 icons on the background for stuff I never use. Its mentally kind of a sh1t or get off the pot thing for me. If I wanted to look at that ... whatever, I'd look at it. Not what my computer wants me to see instead. First thing I do is get rid of the background and put up a shade of gray about as bright as my surroundings. Then I get rid of 90% of the icons on the screen. Basically every millisecond I spend searching is wasted time. On a CLI search time drops to zero quickly. On a GUI search time never drops.

I like ratpoison, because 99% of my productive time is spent in a terminal. XFCE is OK. I used KDE until it took about a gig of memory... all to start a terminal window... so I scrapped KDE.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[geekmux]

Seriously, exactly what data and from where are they collecting it to figure this decline in usage.

I'm more concerned with the why behind the numbers. IMHO, they "killed" the Start Menu with Vista when they butchered the crap out of it, taking several more annoying clicks to get to simple stuff that is used repeatedly by IT staff maintaining these systems....it used to be easy to get to things like a command line or the Run box...now it's a pain in the ass. Change sucks in general. I'll bet the numbers declined in a similar manner when XP released, with their version of the "double-wide" Start Menu, as compared with the relative simplicity of Win9x/2K.

Then again, I'm probably reading way too much into the "why" here...they probably killed it only because OSX doesn't have one.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[SlippyToad]

The Win 7 Start Menu is just like the XP menu, except that the initial pane is now most recently used programs or programs you pin there, while a sticky menu item allows to to expand the same old, reliable Xp-style start menu that is actually still there.

But, I will concede that Microsoft did a terrible job of making that obvious to people. Also I think that the ability to pin items to the start bar probably obviated the need for that menu in the first place.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[tycoex]

This is basically how it works for me.

I have the primary programs pinned to the task bar, and rarely need to find a new one.

I guess I wouldn't have enough room on my task bar if I had to pin every video game I play, but I launch all my games through steam so as long as steam is pinned I'm good.

One thing they really need to add is something I used to use a lot in True Launch Bar (they should add this to Ubuntu also). True Launch Bar let me pin folders to the task bar, and they functioned as drop down menus. So I had a single "folder" with all my game shortcuts in them, I had a "Tools" folder with stuff like calculator and other stuff you would normally find in "accessories."

I found this to be a much better solution than the start menu. The start menu still existed, but for the most part the only time I used it was when I had just installed a new program and needed to drag a shortcut onto one of my task bar menus.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[SlippyToad]

Your assumption that the Start Menu was the problem is not founded on anything other than your hatred of MS.

In reality as several others have already posted, it's probably more that the ability to pin stuff to the start bar has made the start MENU a less-used piece of interface.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[SlippyToad]

....it used to be easy to get to things like a command line or the Run box

And now all you have to do is hit the windows key and start typing the name of something resembling what you want, and it comes up in the search results.

Of course, if you aren't bright enough to read where it says "Search for programs and files" and type in that box, you probably don't need to be administering a calculator, let alone an enterprise server.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[oakgrove]

The quick launch bar was introduced with Windows 95 via internet explorer 4 shell so people have been "pinning" launchers for a lot longer than Windows 7 has been around.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[Mistakill]

Seriously, exactly what data and from where are they collecting it to figure this decline in usage.

Yeah how do they know? are they watching me?

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[Tomato42]

I find adding stuff to registry or PATH so that I can just WinKey+R "calc" Enter, much faster than searching a gui list. And it works on every Windows since 95.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[bigstrat2003]

It's still really easy to get to the things you mention. The search box works as a run box for most purposes (not quite all, but 90% in my experience), including (but not limited to) launching the command prompt. For anything that the search box doesn't do the trick for, windows-R brings up the same old run box.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[shadowfaxcrx]

The masses do not check their oil level, but that's not a good reason to get rid of the dipstick. (Are you listening BMW? -shakes tiny fist- )

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[dslbrian]

the start menu is an easier way of locating programs than anything else that MS has provided. The only reason I can think of for people not using it is that they already have the 3 programs they use pinned to the task bar.

Seriously, this is another example of GUI design based on the average idiot user. Misguided and idiotic GUI redesigns serve no purpose but to annoy the userbase (ex. KDE4 and GNOME3). I find that I use the Start menu far less often because I've moved the apps I use to the PA menu. It's my way of doing what MS should have done a long time ago - separation and modularization of the apps from the OS (no install, no registry crap, etc). Seriously all this GUI rework and MS has yet to implement truly useful and fundamental changes to the OS. They still by default cram all the OS, apps, and data into a single place on a single drive (seriously 'My Documents', 'My Music', etc.. argh, does anyone actually use this idiotic and stupidly placed directory structure for managing their data?) Tying all that together insures when an OS gets corrupted/infected/whatever a reinstall will become a painful and long process.

But no, instead of something useful like eliminating the registry, they spend their time unnecessarily reinventing the GUI. Perhaps at least they will finally discover multiple desktops. Of course just looking at the tile-based monstrosity I can just imagine how they will play the hide-the-system-settings game. Instead of something useful I'm guessing they will play the usual game of shuffling the settings and burying them several layers deep (you know as far as possible from the user).

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[quixote9]

"A bad one makes it so hard that you just want to reach for a bash prompt."

So true in both the computerese and the English sense of the word "bash."

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[geekmux]

....it used to be easy to get to things like a command line or the Run box

And now all you have to do is hit the windows key and start typing the name of something resembling what you want, and it comes up in the search results.

Of course, if you aren't bright enough to read where it says "Search for programs and files" and type in that box, you probably don't need to be administering a calculator, let alone an enterprise server.

Ah, yes, the infamous "new and improved" indexing engine, thank you for reminding me of yet another resource sucking "feature" that runs in the background attempting to index every fucking thing on the hard drive all the damn time. Sorry, not a fan of excess bullshit, especially on certain "enterprise" systems, but then again, you seem far too bright for me to be telling you about fine-tuning environments...I'm sure the right answer is to just get more memory...

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[EvanED]

...except that the initial pane is now most recently used programs or programs you pin there, while a sticky menu item allows to to expand the same old, reliable Xp-style start menu that is actually still there ... in a way that is utterly infuriating to navigate in comparison. I strongly prefer the Vista/7 start menu because of the search (see above), but for a while I wanted to strangle someone every time I had to actually drop into the 'all programs' portion. It turns a very fast operation -- scanning over the list with your eyes, or perhaps even going right for what you want -- into a far slower operation -- scrolling.

I no longer get the urge to commit homicide, but I still get annoyed.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[wierd_w]

Ask and you shall receive.

Set RPEnabled in:

HK_Current_User\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer

To "0". This disables Metro, and re-enables the win7 style start menu behavior.

Additionally, on the win8 developer preview version, doing this enables additional scare text about being fired if you leak your copy....

10 guesses which way microsoft employees use it.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[RobertM1968]

Only thing is, XP had all of those capabilities. Only new capability is the working search box tool. Pinning items, most recent, all of that was capable in XP.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[Attila Dimedici]

That really helps when you don't remember the name, but know it when you see it.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[ksd1337]

Well, from Windows phoning home, of course! ;-)

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[oakgrove]

Considering the fact that many programs defaulted to adding themselves to it, customizing it wasn't really an issue. You remove stuff from it the same way you remove anything else in Windows, right click > delete. You need to dig a little deeper for your objections to it.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[demonbug]

The data actually makes a lot of sense: Windows 7 gave user's the ability to pin program icons to the taskbar even when they're not running. So now your most frequently used programs don't need to be in the start menu or on the desktop to quickly get to them. I would imagine start menu usage would fall dramatically once the programs you use 90% of the time are pinned to the task bar.

I find the new start screen to be an odd solution to this problem. For that matter, I find it odd to thing of the drop as a "problem".

I don't think I've used this feature... is it any different than sticking shortcuts on the quick launch bar (you know, the part of the taskbar in XP that is specifically intended for this purpose)? Because that's where I stick my four or five most commonly used programs in XP (and 7).

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[bigstrat2003]

What on earth does that have to do with the GP's specific complaints about not being able to get to a command prompt or the run box, both of which are things that require you to know the name?

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[elfprince13]

As long as the search feature works, it isn't a problem. On Mac: Dock for the common stuff, Spotlight (or "Stacks") for everything else. Basically ditto for Ubuntu 11.04 with Unity. I don't get what the big deal is.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[foniksonik]

People google stuff they don't know how to do, they don't go on a wild goose chase through the OS. At work they just call the help desk.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[tftp]

Of course, if you aren't bright enough to read where it says "Search for programs and files" and type in that box, you probably don't need to be administering a calculator, let alone an enterprise server.

I have about a hundred different software applications installed on this laptop. Do you know I remember all their names? Do you know I remember which ones are installed on which computer?

Menus are self-discoverable: you click on them and you see what's there. Search requires you to know a good part of the answer before you even start.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[Hatta]

A bad one just makes it so hard that you just want to reach for a bash prompt.

By that definition, all GUIs are bad.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[MightyYar]

I think you must be kind of young. Us "old guys" learned on computers without GUIs. Windows 7 is certainly better than XP, but the "Start Menu" isn't some brilliant GUI invention. It's just a growth of the old Program Manager from Windows 3.11, only instead of the program shortcuts being in a big window they collapse into a big list. It's sort of a combination of the old "Apple Menu" and the Program Manager. Throughout it's entire existence, it has suffered from the limitation of the icons just being shortcuts - if the underlying application was moved or deleted, the icon would still be there but wouldn't connect to anything. Likewise, software could be installed but the icon could be missing from the Start Menu. That's one feature of Windows that I'd be glad to see go.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[mjwx]

The data actually makes a lot of sense: Windows 7 gave user's the ability to pin program icons to the taskbar even when they're not running.

Windows XP had this. It's called the quickstart menu and you could drag and drop items to it the same as one does on 7.

Also it isn't practical to have 15 programs on the task bar and most people will have that many programs. I've got well over 60 on my gaming box and over 25 on my work PC. I have my 5 most commonly used programs, but I still open the task bar when I need to access MS Word or Visio.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[mattventura]

How is it faster? With that, you have to type in the full name of the executable, whereas with the Win7 start menu search, I only had to type in "ca" and calculator is the top result. So here are the options:

Win+R, c, a, l, c, enter
Win, c, a, enter

Why bother typing more? Also, the search box IS a run prompt, so if you do insist on typing a full executable out, or if you want to give a program arguments, you can just hit Win instead of Win+R.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[mattventura]

Isn't the data going to be biased? The GP seems to imply that power users aren't going to be as likely to do customer experience improvement, therefore removing an important chunk of data and giving an unreliable sample.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[mattventura]

Windows key: cmd Even easier. The start menu search is a run prompt. I can say "ping -t 4.2.2.2" in the start menu and it will run it.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[ohnocitizen]

I'd love to know the answer to that question. Is this from a study they ran? Is Windows sending back usage data to Microsoft? I'm guessing the latter: Microsoft 7 Privacy Statement:

The personal information we collect from you will be used by Microsoft and its controlled subsidiaries and affiliates to enable the features you use and provide the services or carry out the transactions you have requested or authorized. The information may also be used to analyze and improve Microsoft products and services.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[joocemann]

The masses also watch regular commercial corporate television like its the only book they ever needed... and they smoke, and eat processed food.... and they vote against their best interests as peons, thinking they will be kings.... and they actually pay people to setup their xbox360 for them because the red plug in the red ring''d hole and white plug in the white ring'd hole is just too difficult for them.... You wonder what idiots actually buy and read the trash magazines you see in grocery stores; guess what, its for THE MASSES.

Is there a planet I can move to where most of the people around me are actually interested in life and participating in it instead of plodding along living to the next day sucking salty-fat-cream from the corporate food and media tubes? Maybe the netherlands....

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just about ANY GUI makes me want to reach for a bash prompt (or local shell of choice prompt).

The very first thing I do on Windows in the morning is open a command prompt window. From there, I navigate among my personal folders with nice, short, ix-person-friendly names that contain no frickin spaces or odd punctuation, using cd. I create new folders with mkdir using a text based interface with instant visual response as opposed to multiple clicks and typing a folder name in a GUI. I occasionally open folders with "start ." -- if it's easier to open a document by scrolling through the list of files in a folder until I find it and then clicking on the document name, than it is to open it from the command prompt by simply typing its first few letters (to get a unique file name) and hitting tab then enter. (Yes, direct access is quicker than scrolling and reading the scrolling screen for me, even if it involves a couple letters of typing. My visual recognition time appears to be a bit longer than average.)

I use the GUI to open apps installed in inconvenient-to-type locations, or apps whose filenames I don't recall because I use them infrequently. (See above comment about infrequently performed tasks.)

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[RogerWilco]

Not sure, but the justification is that most people pin their most-used applications to the task bar.

So basically they're saying most people are trying to use the task bar as an OSX Dock?

But probably MS doesn't want, or can't copy what Apple does verbatim, so they come up with this other new thing instead. More choice is good although I'm not sure MS is on the right track here, I know I don't like the whole ribbon interface. But something good might come of it. Finally MS is innovating the GUI after basically not doing much in 15 years.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[RogerWilco]

...that still leaves the less frequently used stuff to sort out.

One of the key strengths of a GUI is supposed to be tasks that you do so infrequently that you are prone to forget how to do them. A good GUI helps smooth over that sort of problem. A bad one just makes it so hard that you just want to reach for a bash prompt.

And then? I use the Unix/Linux command line a lot. But especially for rarely used tasks it's a poor interface. Unless you have Google available, it's very hard to find out what command to use. Only commands you use frequently and know by heart are easy on the command line. Once you know which command to use, of course there are man/info pages to help you along. But if you don't know the name of what you're looking for, you're toast.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[RogerWilco]

So how is this different from the old Quickmenu? (I'm stuck on XP).

The whole concept sounds similar to the OSX Dock to me.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[thejynxed]

Power users most certainly did submit data via this method. The entire IT department at my corporation partook in this before the release of Win7 (in return, MS was kindly enough to give our IT employees reduced cost versions of Win7 and free Office for home use). Mind you, this company has approximately 80k PCs in use at any given time, 3k of which are solely for the use of the IT staff. That doesn't count the non-Windows PCs in the PR/Marketing departments (Mac Pros) or the Linux/Unix/BSD boxes that most of the programming staff uses (embedded systems programming for industrial machines).

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[DudemanX]

You're right. Scrolling is so damn slow.

Someone should invent a mouse with some kind of wheel on it that would make scrolling like really super fast and easy to do.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[EvanED]

It's still slower than scanning.

I mean take the extreme. If it only showed you one line at once, would that be just as good because you could scroll? Of course not. (If you say "yes" then... we probably have irreconcilable differences. :-))

This is just a less extreme version of that. It's not terrible, but it's still worse than it was.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[hedwards]

Yes, and you have been able to hit win + D for years, but that doesn't really solve the problem as you then have an additional several keys to press after you've done that to restore the windows.

The desktop is for work, not launching applications. At least not with the style of WM that MS has been using for years, if they had an effective launcher in the root window it would be less of an issue.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[tokul]

Windows 7 gave user's the ability to pin program icons

Could you tell that to Windows XP user with Quick Launch bar?
What other things MS gave to users in Vista2?

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[Kees Van Loo-Macklin]

I'm with 0racle here, How do they know that the start button usage has declined so much?

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[AmiMoJo]

That is why users end up with every square centimetre of their desktop filled with icons. It is quicker to look for a familiar icon than to read through a list, and in fact Windows 7 allows you to see the desktop without disturbing any windows in one click (Aero Peek).

Personally I like using the search box on the start menu as the quickest way to get to apps. I just wish it would correct typos like Google does.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[MrSmith0011000100110]

Wasn't that really just an M$ attempt to copy Apple? I mean Apple did it so I guess it stands that M$ should do it...and fuck it up so badly that they're just ditching the entire thing...First Zune, now start menu, what's next Windows? Oh wait, that might be a good thing.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[Bert64]

And which a lot of XP users disabled, to go back to the 2000 style start menu.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[_0xd0ad]

If you want to restore your windows you can use Win+M. Win+Shift+M will restore them.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[Tomato42]

Because I don't have to stop and think if I'm at a Windows XP, Windows 2003, Windows 7 or Windows 2008 terminal. "Win, c, a, Enter" doesn't work on half of them.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[BcNexus]

Gah! Pinning to the taskbar! Horrible!

They took away* Quick launch, so I tried using the taskbar as my "go to place" for shortcuts, but pinning it to it sucked.

I therefore switched to pinning things to the Start Menu (even though there is no Right click - > "Sort my pinned items by name" option). Now they want to take it away?!? Not cool.

I've put a few hours of testing in with the Windows 8 Developers preview, and let me tell you, if users don't know how to use shit now, wait till they see tiles. Can you click and drag to swipe? Noooo. You have to use the scroll wheel. Can you ever reach the edge of the tiles by scrolling? Nooooo.


*Hid it/buried it/made it generally inaccessible

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[BcNexus]

You what else?!? Somethings don't have a context menu option to "Pin"them. Only LATER did I find I could still drag and drop something and Windows would pin it instead of of moving the link/program/etc. Yay for inconsistency!
/rant

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[BcNexus]

Read the rest of the article.They found that pinning is popular.

Good. It should be obvious by now, but that is what I do. I've pinned 23 items to my Start Menu: Assorted Libraries, Calculator, Command Prompt, Firefox, IE, Chrome, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.

If they don't have pinning or something like it ... (O-o)

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[guardian-ct]

Those of us who despise corporate tracking are probably among the most likely to enjoy having an optional start menu.

Re:Ok, how do they know?

[NuclearRampage]

From my work maybe? Our users can't find anything if it's not their desktop.

Indeed

[betterunixthanunix]

People seem to want symbolic icons that represent the programs they want to run; they don't want to look through a long menu and read a bunch of text.

Re:Indeed

[ColdWetDog]

People seem to want symbolic icons that represent the programs they want to run; they don't want to look through a long menu and read a bunch of text.

Really? Seems to be a common theme and maybe I'm just abnormal but I cannot stand interfaces with a dozen geometric shapes with random squiggles and colors that are different from every other interface with a dozen geometric shapes with random squiggles and colors.

Just put the damned labels in whatever language the system detects it's supposed to be in. Leave the squiggles and lines to the finger painting set.

Re:Indeed

[shutdown -p now]

It doesn't have to be one or the other. For frequently used apps there's the taskbar with pinned app icons (and it's still there). Start menu is where you go when you need something rare.

Re:Indeed

[Miamicanes]

> People seem to want symbolic icons that represent the programs they want to run;
> they don't want to look through a long menu and read a bunch of text.

Oh god, no. Please don't remind me about Lotus SmartSuite's Hieroglyphics from the mid-late 90s.

Give me a nice, recognizable icon AND text, so I can recognize the icons I care about frequently, then find the remaining functions without having to play "guess what this is supposed to be symbolic of".

Re:Indeed

[rcw-home]

People seem to want symbolic icons that represent the programs they want to run; they don't want to look through a long menu and read a bunch of text.

A lot of people want that - for themselves. However, most mere mortals eventually need some help with their computer and it's damn near impossible to walk someone through finding something just based on its icon over the phone.

Re:Indeed

[vlm]

People seem to want symbolic icons that represent the programs they want to run; they don't want to look through a long menu and read a bunch of text.

Want and use are two different things.

Its been proven by human interface design studies people have been trained to desire, even demand squigglie icons, but in actual use they simply read the text.

Some of it is cultural. If you live in a culture where literacy = two dozen or so glyphs, you probably don't use icons and just read the text underneath them, or, frankly, guess based on location and tool tip popups. If you live in a culture where literacy = ten thousand different glyphs, then you probably actually use icons.

Do you visually scan for an orange slime trail underneath and over a white blue circle, or the words "Firefox"? Most people look for the words.

Re:Indeed

[Tomato42]

I doubt that "most" look for "Firefox". Anyway, I'm sure that, in the very least, substantial minority looks for Firefox icon, not the words "Firefox".

Just because you're not left handed, doesn't mean that having ambidextrous mice is a bad design idea (or consumer choice).

Re:Indeed

[jd]

I'm not convinced. If that were the case, trademarks would still be in the form of iconographic proto-writing rather than words and phrases, since there is no real distinction between using a physical object and using a virtual one.

Even in the virtual world, the Start menu has always been more popular than having a desktop filled with icons, which is why installers generally ask about the latter. This is true even in the Unix world - SunView and Open Look allowed you to attach icons to programs but people used the pull-down menus instead. In more recent times, do you prefer the drop-down menus or desklets? My guess is that a majority use the latter sparingly if at all.

Finally, there's the Retraining Factor. Vista wasn't merely a bad product - Microsoft has sold plenty of those. It was a bad product that required you to learn new methods. And that last factor is the most important. It's the same reason LibreOffice struggles so much, why nobody uses KDE under Windows (apart from me) and why standards always trump custom solutions even when the standards don't work.

Re:Indeed

[flimflammer]

Not me. Give me the list any day.

Re:Indeed

[Altus]

See most of what I have seen on the subject suggested that while people initially use the text to understand what something is, the ultimately associate the icon with the activity, even if the icon isn't very representative. They also get used to the icon being in the same place from use to use and look for the icon the recognize in the place they expect it to be first.

Of course this only happens once they have been using a device for a while and the text is still necessary but there is a reason that icons are useful, at least when they are different enough to identify quickly.

Re:Indeed

[gweihir]

Exactly. I like the Opera browser, but the first thing I do on a new install is to replace all the icons with text. Smaller, easier to use, faster. Fortunately UI customization is really great on Opera.

Re:Indeed

[sjames]

Truly, I did not spend all that time in grade school learning to read just so I could spend my adulthood trying to pick the squashed bug thing that looks most capable of editing a text file.

Re:Indeed

[korgitser]

This is the classic labels versus icons debate, as witnessed in late gnome 2 for example. Some people prefer labels and some prefer icons, This depends on whether you're primarily a verbal or a visual guy/gal.

Also they work differently depending on whether you're accustomed to the menu at hand. Labels are better when you are in an unfamiliar menu, they communicate new meaning more precisely. Icons are better in an already familiar menu, they communicate known meaning faster.

As a car analogy, try to replace traffic signs with excerpts from the traffic law. Or try to replace the traffic law with diagrams. Both have their places, and only your user knows which is which. So you have to give him both.

Re:Indeed

[labnet]

I concur.

I did a survey 15 years ago amongst bus drivers for their preference for a control panel that controlled the bus aircon system.
The great majority wanted words like (OFF FAN A/C DEMIST) rather than symbols, yet what you see on most control panels is symbols.
Primarily it is a cost saving so manufacturers don't have to change the design for different language markets.

Re:Indeed

[ColdWetDog]

You're correct. As long as the UI designers don't drink the Kool-Aid and go completely one way or the other, I'm OK. But I have close to 100 programs on my two main machines. About 30 of them are used frequently. While it is easy to make 100 unique program names (note to the FOSS community, don't think too hard now, we don't need any more examples like GIMP), it's nearly impossible to have 100 unique 16 x 16 pixel icons. Maybe at 50 pixel square, but then you might as well just print out the label in the system language.

Re:Indeed

[Cant use a slash wtf]

I was completely unaware of that. Wouldn't mind seeing a link to these studies, as I find it quite interesting that I do the complete opposite of what you are saying. Yet I only speak English which has very few glyphs.
Sure, if there aren't any icons I can easily look at the text when I'm trying to find stuff, but if given the choice my eyes will naturally look for the logo.
In your example with Firefox, I would (and do) look for the logo. I would think more people would do this than you think. Hence why windows 7 just has an icon showing you what your minimised tab is, without the text.

Re:Indeed

[Bert64]

There are key differences...

Traffic signs need to be seen at a glance, so they are bold simple shapes... Reading a piece of text at a glance would be hard.
Most countries implement a driving test which you must pass before you can legally drive, one of the aspects of this test is knowledge of road signs.
Road signs are standard, and are the same throughout a country and many are international.

Icons on a computer are not standardised, every vendor has their own set and they often change between versions (and as computers become more powerful and able to display better looking icons)...
Icons are not always obvious, whereas text is obvious to anyone capable of reading.

Icons only really work for those who are already familiar with them.

Re:Indeed

[Bengie]

"it's nearly impossible to have 100 unique 16 x 16 pixel icons"

ehhh?

16*16 = 256 pixels
say 16 main distinct colors 256^16 = 3.4E38 unique 16 x 16 pixel icons at 4 bit color.

Just for S&Gs, 24bit color. 256^16,777,216 = error... calc won't do it. Anyway, more atoms than the universe has, by thousands of magnitudes.

Launchy did it for me

[Mean Variance]

Once I started using Launchy that pretty much took away my need for the Start button.

Launchy plus the Quick Launch toolbar (for Windows XP) pretty much does the job.

Once in awhile I go to Start and am surprised by how much stuff I have installed.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[bondsbw]

Anywhere in the Windows 8 Start Menu, you can start typing to bring up applications to select from. This is more akin to the Windows 7 Start Menu search box than to Launchy, but it gets the primary job done.

I wonder if Launchy itself will still work in Windows 8. I seriously doubt it is possible to overlay it on top of Metro style apps. So I wonder if it can switch you to desktop mode, and if the hotkeys can even be picked up when inside a Metro style app.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[0100010001010011]

Launchy on Windows and Linux. Alfred on OS X. No mouse needed to launch stuff. I couldn't imagine going back (and hate having to use a computer with out them installed).

Re:Launchy did it for me

[roblarky]

Am I the only one who actually spends the time to keep my Start menu organized? I have root categories (Productivity, Utilities, Internet, etc) under which I place all applications. My Programs menu pops out to a starting list of main categories, then branches out into easy to find sub-categories. The first thing I do when I'm at the "Finish" screen of a setup wizard is uncheck the "Run {program x} now" box, go to the desktop to remove any icons it put there and drag its Start Menu group into the appropriate folder.

Sure, I keep 3 programs pinned to the taskbar, but I use the Start menu all the time since I don't want my taskbar or desktop cluttered with shit. Also, I'm a big mouse user and don't want to type what I want to run.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[atlasdropperofworlds]

The Windows 7 start menu no longer has a "run" entry box, it now functions as a "Search/run". It is, in effect, launchy: Hit the windows key and start typing, and documents (matching filenames and contents), applications, or email all come up. It's very well done.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[DeadCatX2]

The start menu doesn't have an explicit Run dialog, but you can still Windows Key + R to open the Run dialog. I prefer the Run dialog because it caches recent entries.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[maxume]

I used to do that at some point. I much prefer a searching launcher, where typing something like "ff" is enough for it to guess that I want to launch Firefox.

Probably the biggest reason I wouldn't go back is that I remember program names better than categories.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[soilheart]

This.

Since I stared Launchy I always press alt-space when I want to run a program, which sometimes causes a few seconds of confusion when using the computers at my university.

I have even stopped trying to keep the start menu in order, as I never use it anyway ;)

Re:Launchy did it for me

[Fned]

Once I started using Launchy...

...am surprised by how much stuff I have installed.

I'm not.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[Tomato42]

Alt+F2 on KDE4 works basically like launchy. (with many additional features, like calculator). It's useful to the point that the only two F-keys on my keyboard that are shiny-smooth are F2 and F5.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[EvanED]

lt+F2 on KDE4 works basically like launchy. (with many additional features, like calculator)

I can't compare the two completely (I use Xmonad on Linux, not KDE), but.. if only Launchy came with such a feature.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[snickers]

And I thought I was the only one. I can't stand to see 50+ apps listed in no particular order. It's a nightmare to find things. I've had a lot of people comment when they see it that it looks so organised.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[gknoy]

Before Vista, I used to. Now, I just search for things, because I use it so rarely. More importantly, the twenty or so things I use "most" (or even remotely often) are on my quick launch bar, so I don't even have to access the menu.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[jader3rd]

Am I the only one who actually spends the time to keep my Start menu organized?

Yes, yes you are. Ever since Vista all you need to is type in the name of the program in the search box in the start menu and hit enter. Why spend the effort looking for a program when the computer can do it for you. Last week I tried (over the phone) to get my parents to launch a program they normally don't use on their XP computer. With at least three columns worth of folders they gave up looking for it and I was able to get them to launch it from Run (not an easy task either).

Re:Launchy did it for me

[Mortimer82]

I used to do this a long time ago, but I found I was going against the flow. It felt like a never ending battle of me vs the default set up. And then, any time I sat on a computer with "defaults", I wouldn't be used to it.

It would be fine if I never changed computer, or never needed to re-install the OS, however, any time you used a different computer / OS, you would need to re-organize things, go against the defaults. The other problem I had was that sometimes it was hard to perfectly categorize things.

I used to be an IT techie and can't remember if I changed my habits before or after I got my current job in customer support for a computer game company. Our busiest times are after work when everyone is at home, so that's when we have the most people on shift. They tend to change shifts every now and again to give people a chance at the better work hours, not so often any more, but when I started it was once every 2 months. Because of that, I got very good at deciding what settings are worth customizing. I also got pretty good at making most of my important data roaming friendly.

We don't use windows roaming profiles, but we each have our own personal network space. So, when I sit down at a new computer, I have a quick check list file for what I need to set up on new computer which is something like this:
- Change "My Documents" to point to a location on my personal network space
- Have Firefox use a profile which is located on my personal network space (I have a .bat file which edits a file for me automatically to set this up with one click).
- Set up outlook.
- Turn off keyboard layout shortcut keys. We have a multilingual office, so our system images include other language keyboard layouts like French. (Did you know that Ctrl+Shift+Left will change to a different keyboard layout on the fly, and will do it only for that current application which will confuse you even more!)
- Turn off accessibility shortcut keys (Yes, I held down shift for 5 seconds because I was thinking about what I wanted to write, not for you to pop up a disruptive dialogue asking if I want to use sticky keys).
- Shortcuts in quick launch for applications I use every day.
- Installation of in house developed .NET managed and auto updating support tool.
- And a few other little tidbits.

I can be up and running in less than 15 minutes on a new computer.

Although, about the start menu thing, at work on WinXP (windows 7 is coming "soon") I use Win+R to bring up the Run box to start things not on my quick launch bar, at home on my Win7 machine I use instant search.

People on here slamming instant search obviously haven't used it. It's really great, at work it's absolutely awesome in outlook, you can search for email by recipient, time, subject or body and have results within seconds. On Windows 7 and Vista, it's really fast on the start menu. Keep in mind that by default it only indexes certain locations like your documents and start menu, to keep the index efficient and fast. It seems to update itself pretty much in real time as you save new files or install new programs.

As for resources it uses up, can't say I feel the pinch at all, then again when I bought my Core i5, I also got 8GB of RAM at the same time as RAM is really pretty cheap these days. I absolutely love my home PC through and through. I use it for games, virtual machines, development, all sorts of stuff.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[Guido von Guido]

I tried organizing the start menu for a while. In addition to having to add new programs fairly frequently (weird little admin GUIs and various vendor software packages), I discovered that some of the programs that I updated would add their crap to the start menu every time I updated them. So I'd end up with two of everything. Finally, Symantec freaked out when I tried to move its folder. It just wasn't worth the trouble.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[Jason Levine]

I used to do this, but then I would forget to do it for awhile and would wind up unable to find my categories among the newly installed program folders. I found FreeLaunchBar ( http://www.freelaunchbar.com/ ) and now I have the best of both worlds. My Quick Launch Bar has a few categories (Internet, Web Development, Multimedia, etc) which, when clicked, open to menus with links to programs. Meanwhile, if I want to find a program I haven't added, I can go back to the Start Menu.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[atlasdropperofworlds]

That start menu will run anything I can run from the run dialogue, so I'm not sure what you mean by explicit. However, you're right about the actual run dialog caching recent entries - I didin't know about it and it's quite useful.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[CrashNBrn]

I always wonder why people use things like FreeLaunchBar. Windows since 98 (and possibly 95) has had the feature of putting a Folder on the TaskBar. Win7 still has this feature. You can put any folder on the taskbar. Almost none of these taskbar launchers add anything above this featurewise except eyecandy usually.

Re:Launchy did it for me

[Just Some Guy]

Asking out of ignorance of Windows administration: can't you script that so that you could be up and running in 3 seconds or less?

Re:Launchy did it for me

[Kildjean]

This is a great find! I was using Alfredo on the Mac, but for windows this is great... :)

Re:Launchy did it for me

[Tomato42]

By default it does not... and the calculator is only one of more than a dozen additional functions (searching through mail, contact book, currency conversion to name a few)

The point I was trying to make is that it's there by default on KDE, I don't have to install any additional software

Disappointing

[Lindan9]

Maybe I really am in the minority here but I really do use the start menu all the time. I like to keep very few icons on my desktop and just use the start menu. I like to think this is a mistake but perhaps I'm just set in my ways

This is why I still use Windows XP

[duguk]

This is why I'm still on Windows XP; I like the Start Menu and being able to group my applications by purpose in a *menu*.
I don't want them littered over the desktop or in silly toolbars.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[bondsbw]

This is why I'm on Windows 7; I like the Start Menu and being able to group my applications by purpose in a pretty *menu*.

Vista and 7 didn't take the menu or any of this away. And 7 gave you taskbar pinning, which you can turn off if you want.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[Anonymous Coward]

When Windows 95 was released, the Start Menu was declared an abomination by techies.

Welcome to the future.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[OzPeter]

This is why I'm still on Windows XP; I like the Start Menu and being able to group my applications by purpose in a *menu*.
I don't want them littered over the desktop or in silly toolbars.

This is one of my biggest complaints about OS-X (Snow Leopard, but I don't know if Lion is different) - You can't seem to be able to group stuff. There is no level of indirection between what is shown on the finder and the Application directory. I have previously asked about creating sub-dirs on under the Application directory and people have warned me that doing will can break things and it is not worth the effort.
 
But in writing this I am wondering if the "proper" answer is some sort of smart folder?

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[Myopic]

Absolutely! And that's the same reason I am still using my abacus.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[poena.dare]

Well, I was a Start Menu Organization Nazi, and it was a pain to keep trimmed down. Screw it. :(

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[0123456]

When Windows 95 was released, the Start Menu was declared an abomination by techies.

[citation needed]

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[hudsucker]

I have previously asked about creating sub-dirs on under the Application directory and people have warned me that doing will can break things and it is not worth the effort.

The issue is that some updater programs are expecting to be able to update the program in its original install location.

This is actually regression in OS X. In classic Mac OS, you can move an application anywhere or even rename it and it will still work. Don't like the Application folder organization? Change it!

In OS X, you should be wary of moving any of Apple's applications, since Apple's Software Update seems to be the one that is most guilty of making assumptions. Lately I've been leaving programs dropped by installers in their initial location. But if the "install" is simply dragging an icon from a disk image, you are free to put it in any folder you want.

OS X will automatically find applications in the Applications folder and in any subfolder, and also it scans applications when you click on them. After that, it knows everything it needs to about that application's existence. Usually application paths are not important, so it is OK to move an application, aside from the updater issue.

Another way to create your own "Start Menu" type organization is to create aliases to applications and organize the aliases anyway you want.

The rationalization for why Macs don't have a Start Menu and Window does, is you'd never want users to have to wade through the Program Files folders, since they contains so much more visible files than just the ones you're supposed to run. The Mac has always tried to keep the applications self-contained, so the Applications folder only contains the icons that are of use to the user. If you present the Applications folder as a menu hierarchy it is what would be in the Start menu.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[Billly Gates]

When I got a notebook with Vista I hated the start menu.

However, I noticed a difference. When you hit the Windows key you can type the name of the program or file and launch it that way automatically. After a week I loved it. MS is discouring users to use the mouse to browse. I can launch Word in 2 seconds now. Hit the windows key and type wo and then enter DONE.

I go crazy on a Mac or XP box after getting used to that

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[Sarusa]

What? I'm on Win7 at home and laptop, and my start menu works exactly like it did on XP, with the bonus addition of the quick search box. Just confirmed this with my work computer, which is still on XP, and laptop side by side.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[0ld_d0g]

Well on OSX I think you should be able to create a folder with subfolders & shortcuts to apps and then just stick that as a stack on the dock.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[kiddygrinder]

i'm not reorganising that clusterfuck every time i reinstall or install a new app, i used to do that back in win 95 days but now i'd rather just jam stuff on quick launch

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[dexotaku]

Create a folder. Make shortcuts/links to the programs you want in that folder. Drop the folder on the dock. No compatibility issues that way, but then it does mean all organising is done manually.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[Lakitu]

Every other post on this story is comical. Linux geeks complaining about their Windows Start button being taken away? Technically advanced? Liking things in menus?

There's a bit of collective amnesia going on about what people's thoughts were of the Start button when it was impelmented in the first place. What has ubuntu done to you all?

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[Threni]

I like the Start button - how else am I supposed to stop my pc. Where are they going to put Shutdown now?

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[pclminion]

You choose your entire operating system based on a single feature that could easily be provided by a third party application you could probably write yourself in 10 minutes using VBScript? Well your head is certainly screwed on straight...

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[jd]

It would likely have helped you better to be a Start Menu Organization Reduction Entity. Food-related terminology catches on better.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[Lakitu]

In OS X, you should be wary of moving any of Apple's applications, since Apple's Software Update seems to be the one that is most guilty of making assumptions. Lately I've been leaving programs dropped by installers in their initial location. But if the "install" is simply dragging an icon from a disk image, you are free to put it in any folder you want.

Ironically enough, as this has been one of the more vociferous complaints about Windows since Win95 at least -- programs assumed where they should install and where they were installed with little or no input from the user. This wreaked havoc on the more tech savvy, who would have more than just a C: drive, or who wanted to be in control of the name of the directory to which it was installed.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[EvanED]

And on that note, Space Monger is fantastic for managing files. I use it quite frequently. Scrolling, zooming, and visually shows the size of files.

You might want to check out Windirstat if you don't know about it. I haven't used Space Monger, but they look relatively similar in concept, and I have similar superlatives about Windirstat as you for Space Monger.

There's a Linux version (actually I think this came first) called KDirStat.

(You seem to describe Space Monger as a "file manager" which is not how I would describe Windirstat, so it's possible that it does something else. I'm not sure though.)

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[Lakitu]

citation needed? have you ever seen a win95 start menu?

If you want to have some fun, you can googling to find the posts like "why do i have to press start to shut down" or "why do i have to press start after my computer is already started", and see various complaints about it. Many of them include intricate workarounds to rename the button, remove the button from use, create shortcuts to shut down in one double-click, and so on.

The most common complaint I remember is about its necessity. Some people liked the original program manager MDI interface, and the self-professed experts seemed to prefer the File Manager tree view which morphed into the current day's explorer.exe. During the XP era, many users recreated Program Manager-esque layouts through shortcuts on their desktop or using all of the startbar's real estate as a giant quicklaunch bar and meticulous asperger control of their systray.

People wondered "what is the point of the start button with a sane windows shell organization?" which you would struggle through answering even today, especially after all of the improvements and bugfixes allowing a user to actually keep it organized. I'd like to see you answer that question today, because on my win7 install, programs are launched from pinned icons, recently-ran list, launchy, or the launchy style search/run box, with about 1 in a million being launched from the actual all programs menu. Many newly installed programs keep their yellow highlight for months, since they are never ran from the start menu.

The start button was an abomination in win95, and has progressively inched towards usability over the course of one and a half decades. It still doesn't make sense, and many of the new improvements to windows make it virtually useless. Anyone who wastes a second on nostalgia for their classic-themed Windows XP desktop is basically an utter moron not interested in actual usability.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[Nyeerrmm]

On a Mac you can hit Command+Space to open Spotlight and then type the name of the program you want and achieve the same thing.

Just to keep you from going crazy next time.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[jader3rd]

This is why I'm still on Windows XP; I like the Start Menu and being able to group my applications by purpose in a *menu*. I don't want them littered over the desktop or in silly toolbars.

I keep about three or four icons on my desktop (and never really use them). Until two months ago I didn't pin any programs to my Win 7 task bar either. But when I noticed that the same 6-8 programs running all of the time anyway, I decided to pin them. Now they're easier to find, and they're not taking up any additional space because they'd be taking up the space anyway when running. I'm sorry you feel that your applications can only be limited to one group.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[Locutus]

some of that was because it was forced on you by Microsoft when before that there were a dozen or so application launchers/desktop interfaces for Windows 3.x. That's right, starting with Windows 95, no OEM could change the initial desktop and people were forced to use what Microsoft decided was the best for them.

Microsoft is good at deciding what is best for you and all the other Windows users every time they release a new update to their OS. Others like choice.

One of the very nice solutions IBM implemented in OS/2 was the idea of the workspace. With that, you can chain together folders and even applications. With these chains you could then open the primary folder again and it all unfolds and opens like it was when you last closed it. It made using hierarchical folder systems simple and easy. Microsoft probably came up with the StartMenu in response. I still hate it but have gotten used to it.

LoB

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[whitefox]

Since switching to Windows 7 I'm no longer so concerned about how my Start Menu is organized. It's far easier (and faster) to simply type in the search box what I'm looking for and select it from the results.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[stratdesign]

This is why I'm still on Windows XP; I like the Start Menu and being able to group my applications by purpose in a *menu*.
I don't want them littered over the desktop or in silly toolbars.

There's actually a nice way to make your own menu in Win7 (which MS 'borrowed' from OSX - see my reply below). I haven't been using the Start menu for much besides Thunderbird (which is pinned to the Start menu and can be started by hitting [WinKey],[downarrow])
Make a folder, fill it with shortcuts to your programs. Right-click on the taskbar and select Toolbars >> New Toolbar...
Select your folder and blam, custom "start-ish" menu. I have three on my system: CS5 (with shortcuts to all the Adobe CS5 apps), Apps (Office, Blender, etc), and Tools (putty, winscp, notepad++, etc). Way nicer & faster than the start menu.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[Pope]

The rationalization for why Macs don't have a Start Menu and Window does, is you'd never want users to have to wade through the Program Files folders, since they contains so much more visible files than just the ones you're supposed to run.

No, it's because the Start Menu is a Windows thing, not a Mac thing.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[phlinn]

This isn't just microsoft. Witness how long it took Google to allow people to bypass discussion view. Or how hard it is to use an IPOD without using Itunes to manage it. Even Mozilla's attempts to eliminate the status bar in Firefox is an example of some programmer deciding "this is the way it should be, so this is the way it is". In my personal experience, Microsoft has nothing on Apple when it comes to trying to shoehorn everyone into one approach. OTOH, I have a great deal of experience with Microsoft windows, and not so much with Apple except for my IPod.

Re:This is why I still use Windows XP

[_0xd0ad]

There's actually a nice way to make your own menu in Win7 (which MS 'borrowed' from OSX - see my reply below).

Nah, that's just a toolbar and they've been around since Windows 95. The Quick Launch is just one such toolbar; you can make any folder into a toolbar. You can change the styles (icon size, whether or not there are labels), change the size of the bar (if it's too small to show its contents, it turns into a pop-out menu), or detach it from the Task Bar and make it its own floating window or dock it to create a new bar independent of the Task Bar, with options to auto-hide and/or always be on top.

gg microsoft!

[Alex Belits]

I see, insanity is really taking over.

Re:gg microsoft!

[Anonymous Coward]

I see, insanity is really taking over.

Hey maybe the microsoft developers, gnome developers and ubuntu developers were infected by a common disease ?

Re:gg microsoft!

[Tomato42]

At least we have XFCE and KDE in the Linux land.

There's only hope that KDE4 will be actually usable on windows some day...

11% ?

[alphatel]

So if all blackberry users used the phone icon 11% less over a 5 year period the ability to dial would be removed? Personally I used the command on mac or start on windows button very often for a number of reasons. I cannot understand the advantage of removing either.

Re:11% ?

[Tarlus]

Removal of the Start Menu is not the same as removal of the Windows key.

Re:11% ?

[MadFarmAnimalz]

What is a blackberry?

but my run button!

[lynnae]

Where's the run command going to go? I use the heck out of the start menu personally.

Re:but my run button!

[Anonymous Coward]

Window+R

Re:but my run button!

[SQLGuru]

Window+R......just like now. If you use the Run command, you're power-user enough to learn a keyboard shortcut.

Re:but my run button!

[lynnae]

heh, when they hid the run command I was laughed at mightily

. However, when they couldn't launch mstsc because the icon went walkabout, I was the one laughing.

Re:but my run button!

[adonoman]

Umm... <win-R> - the same as in Windows 7, where there's also no run command.

If you're wanting the little search box that vista and windows 7 have, then that behavior is unchanged. Just hit the windows key (or ctrl-esc) and start typing.

Re:but my run button!

[tftp]

Umm... - the same as in Windows 7, where there's also no run command.

I tried Win-R on Vista, and it says "This task will be created with administrative privileges." Do you think there might be a problem here?

Re:but my run button!

[k8to]

window+r doesn't work all that reliably when i'm remoting my mouse from synergy and remote desktoping from there. Which I do, because at any time I have to test code on any of aroudn 9 platforms, including flavors of linux, windows, osx, and unixes.

So I, a dyed-in-the-wool keyboard and CLI user, find that window-R is terrible and use start-run.

Re:but my run button!

[lynnae]

last time i checked, search doesn't run mstsc, inetmgr, eventvwr, cmd blah blah blah.

I mean Run, which they tucked up under Accessories when they put that damn search box in it's place. At least on server 2008 it's still there staring you in the face.

win-R, also doesn't run when you don't install the drivers for your fancy shmancy keyboard

/got to find those drivers one day

Re:but my run button!

[adonoman]

Well, at least on windows 7, I can verify that hitting and typing mstsc and hitting enter starts Remote Desktop client, inetmgr start IIS Manager, eventvwr and cmd also work as expected. I have yet to miss run since upgrading from XP, since if there's an exe on the %path% with the name you typed in, it will be the first item in the search list.

Start Menu now called Start Ribbon.

[Lashat]

Pretty much will work the same as the dock on OSX or Ubuntu Unity. Let's hope they allow customization to remain.

Re:Start Menu now called Start Ribbon.

[hedwards]

Unity? That crap, have they managed to fix it or is it still unstable, unusable and completely superfluous on desktop machines?

Re:Start Menu now called Start Ribbon.

[Lashat]

Yes. No. Yes. Yes.

WTF?

[Cro Magnon]

Without the Start Menu, how do I shutdown?

Re:WTF?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Without the Start Menu, how do I shutdown?

Hold the power button down for ten seconds, just like always. :)

Re:WTF?

[Fallingcow]

The new Stop Menu?

Re:WTF?

[silverglade00]

Or just complete 99% of your work and it will automatically shut down for you... after it finishes installing the latest 213 updates.

Re:WTF?

[l0ungeb0y]

Just use Ctrl+Alt+Del

Re:WTF?

[Zaphod The 42nd]

When your computer is ready to shutdown, it will inform you by displaying a BSOD.

Re:WTF?

[Zaphod The 42nd]

You just made me think of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg7Xh0m_Oco

Re:WTF?

[shutdown -p now]

Press the (|) button on your PC? ~

In current Win8 preview, you hover mouse in lower left corner (where "Start" button is in classic desktop mode) and get a menu. Topmost item is "Settings". It brings up a sidebar on the right which has a bunch of things that are in system tray in desktop mode - networking/WiFi, sound, brightness, notifications, keyboard layout - and shutdown/restart/logoff button.

Re:WTF?

[tverbeek]

No, seriously. How do you shut it down then?

I looked at the developer preview of Win8 for several minutes the other day and could not figure out how to shut it down. I got to ye olde explore.exe desktop, but as soon as I clicked on the Start button it threw me back to Metro with no clue what to poke at or stroke or swipe. Granted, I'm old and set in my ways, but I still rank as "well above average" on the tech-savvy scale. If I can't figure it out, I sure as hell won't be the only one.

Re:WTF?

[n6kuy]

Yeah, I know it was supposed to be a joke, but...

ctrl-alt-delete, then find the menu option for shutting down the computer.

Re:WTF?

[c 0xFF]

Wait a sec. I must be missing something here. You HOVER over something to get a menu?

Maybe I'd have to see it to understand, but that seems to be even less intuitive than going to the Start menu to begin with. The rest of your description just makes things worse. Why would I go into a settings menu to shutdown/restart/logoff?

Not only that, but I thought Win8 was supposed to be tablet-friendly. How are you supposed to hover on a touch screen? Maybe they're going for "you never need to shutdown?"

Re:WTF?

[c 0xFF]

The "three-fingered-salute" used to be a closely-guarded secret, a magical combination of buttons that few knew about. After all, you wouldn't want someone to mistakenly reboot your computer while you had an important document open.

Now it's essential knowledge to operating a computer. What happened?

Re:WTF?

[shutdown -p now]

The hover-over-left-bottom-corner menu is only there if you have a mouse or other pointing device. As far as gestures go, it's not bad, since in practice you just flick mouse left and down all the way (Fitt's law etc). It has discoverability problems, but - ironically - people usually find that menu very fast when they do the flick-down gesture to click on the Start menu icon...

For tablets, the UI is different - you swipe from beyond the screen boundary on the right, which brings up a sidebar with the same items that are in that menu (but iconized).

On a Win8 tablet, you'd probably be using the hardware button to make it "sleep" (in an iPad sense of the word - yes, it's supposed to be enough with the new app model in Metro). The menu is for more than that, though. The items are "Settings", "Devices", "Share", "Search" and "Start". "Start" brings you to the home screen, "Share" and "Search" are context-dependent (i.e. app hooks into those).

Re:WTF?

[jd]

Hmmm. Is that still going to work properly under UEFI? If not, does anyone know of a good way to boot under OpenBIOS and have UEFI as a bootstrap option through that? (You won't be able to run Windows 8 otherwise and at this point I trust OpenBIOS developers a lot more than I trust Microsoft-pressured EFI developers.)

Re:WTF?

[Ibiwan]

That is also where you'll be launching all your applications from...

Re:WTF?

[Ibiwan]

That's also where you'll be launching all your applications from...

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

While on the desktop, mouse over the bottom left corner, click Settings. A menu will slide over from the right of the screen. Click Power, then Shut Down. It took me a good 5 minutes to find it the first time.

Re:WTF?

[Bucky24]

The Mac dock works much the same way if certain settings are enabled. But on the other hand you have to tell it to display this behavior.

Re:WTF?

[sjames]

Insert a linux install disk and hit reset. Once that's complete, you can shut down normally.

Re:WTF?

[tverbeek]

How could it take you so long to find something so... intuitive?

Re:WTF?

[Tyr07]

You have to use a new key combination and Microsofts Kinect.

Ctrl+alt+kick the tower over.

Re:WTF?

[RogerWilco]

Yeah, I know it was supposed to be a joke, but...

ctrl-alt-delete, then find the menu option for shutting down the computer.

Seriously? That's how it needs to be done in Windows 8?

I don't think my mom is ever going to remember that.

Re:WTF?

[tywjohn]

Don't worry. I'm young and I couldn't figure out how to turn the damned thing off either. I just pulled the virtual plug on it and never looked back.

Re:WTF?

[MoreDruid]

I was totally lost on this as well. Although they expect Windows 8 (w8 for short, heh) to be installed on instant-on devices I guess, so shutting down isn't called for except for a hard boot with the power button. It's actually located in 2 places: Start > Settings > Power > Shut down/Restart OR Log off > enter login screen (slide up to activate, arrgh) > Power Icon > Shut down/Restart. Who thought of this as the epitome of usability for a regular PC should be tarred, feathered, skinned, quartered and shot. Or made to use it him/herself on a regular PC for an extended period of time.

Re:WTF?

[Agret]

Start - Settings - Power - Shutdown
I shit you not.

Re:WTF?

[Agret]

If you goto the properties of the taskbar on Windows 7 and change "Taskbar Buttons" to "Combine when full" your task bar will be vista style =)

Re:WTF?

[CFBMoo1]

New anti-stress feature, just yank really good on the big black cord out of the back of the computer box.

Re:WTF?

[synapse7]

I found myself pulling the virtual plug a bunch of times after having a WTF moment.
Seems they have brought us to "click hell". Win XP, requires you to click shutdown twice, which was made more efficient removing the secondary menu and with Win7 clicking shutdown actually shuts down the PC. Win8 we're essentially back to clicking shutdown twice and it seems now everything is under a secondary menu, i'm still trying to figure out the most efficient way to the "control panel".
Who the hell wants to first "open" the desktop to launch something off of it?

Re:WTF?

[Lotharus]

You don't shut down Windows 8. It shuts you down once your usefulness falls below a specific threshold.

Re:WTF?

[GruntboyX]

i it gives you an informational panel and one option is to shut down.

Re:WTF?

[_0xd0ad]

Your mom will never do that. How often do you shut down your cell phone?

I bet calculators that only have an "On" button just drive you up the wall too...

Re:WTF?

[danomac]

Windows 8 is so bulletproof it never needs to be shut down or restarted, so they've removed the option!

Keyboard shortcuts

[Teun]

Keyboard short cuts is what I mainly use.

And the QuickAccess browser widget.

Oh sorry the story was about Windows but when you get used to KDE that's sooo past tense.

Back on-topic, I feel there'll always be a place for a menu system to access your applications, not all fit in a bar or have been assigned a short cut.

UX fad will die

[Ken D]

Someday the UX fad will go away and stop making things more 'usable' and 'discoverable'

Re:UX fad will die

[mjwx]

Someday the UX fad will go away and stop making things more 'usable' and 'discoverable'

One day people will realise UX is a marketing term that has nothing to do with real HMI/HCI.

User Experience is entirely subjective and based on bias, this means if you have the wrong "user experience" that can easily be blamed on your biases and misconceptions rather then the products deficiencies. This makes it ideal for marketing but completely useless for testing as the results can be changed to say whatever you want them to.

However I dont think this day is near, on a weekly basis I'm still explaining to someone that the TV ad's are lying to them and they have trouble believing it.

Oh dear gawd

[__Paul__]

...please please please tell me that we can turn this back on.

I've managed to make a career by avoiding having to use Windows, but I'm sure one day there will be some pain-in-the-arse employer who enforces it. If that day comes, I really hope that I'll be able to make my desktop work exactly the way Windows 2000 did...

Re:Oh dear gawd

[Sperbels]

Because it does everything you need it to do and it doesn't waste screen real-estate like every new very of windows does. I don't need glitz, I need function.

Re:Oh dear gawd

[Billly Gates]

Thats pure FUD.

The article was talking about Metro, and the reference to the start menu refers to people hiting the Windows key and typing what they want vs scrolling with the mouse like the old XP way. I do it that way and I believe METRO does as well. I haven't tested it out yet though

It is not going away. The old desktop is still there in Win 8, it just explains why the start menu is not in Metro

Re:Oh dear gawd

[oakgrove]

When's the last time you used Linux? When win2k was still current? The modern Linux desktop looks absolutely nothing like it. Unless you want it to, that is. Power of choice.

Re:Oh dear gawd

[jd]

It's ok, you don't need to get frantic just yet. So long as KDE for Windows gets ported to the new environment, you'll be just fine. After all, you're still technically running Windows.

Re:Oh dear gawd

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I'm familiar with the current default Ubuntu desktop. I stand by my statement.

Re:Oh dear gawd

[__Paul__]

No, because it does what I want, and it doesn't cover up the entire screen when I want to launch a new application.

I tried the Metro thing in Win8. I can't see any reason why anyone would want to use that.

Re:Really?

[dzr0001]

But maybe it's because I'm a Sys Admin.

Are you implying that the Start Menu is for power users?

Re:I guess it is never used .... at MS

[SQLGuru]

If you read the article, they aren't talking about having shortcuts on the desktop....they are talking about pinning icons to the Task Bar (which is now a hybrid of the original quick launch toolbar and the original task bar). And at "normal" resolutions (personally, I think that resolution is on the low side -- unless viewing via an HDTV), that's 22 icons straight up....more with an asterix.....if everything you use regularly is pinned, you'll rarely go to the Start Menu.....just for those obscure programs you use infrequently.

Translation ...

[the bluebrain]

Microsoft killed the start button because Mac OS doesn't have one, and they're successful amirite? The wonder is that it took them so long.

Seven syllables: user configurable.

[whovian]

This is one area where linux prides itself. Since Microsoft is anti-linux, they generally impose their world view.

Re:...the dock.

[chronoglass]

I'd have to agree with the dock.. I hate that thing
command + space and type what im after..
if what im after can't be found that way.. I command + space "terminal"

Re:...the dock.

[oakgrove]

It surprises me as one of the very few things I miss about Windows after moving to Linux was the Start menu. The Gnome main menu always seemed very sparse in comparison. What doesn't surprise me is that people used the XP menu more than on Vista or 7. Other than search and a few other minor things, the XP start menu is better. When I'm just sifting through it, I can find what I'm looking for much faster than the Vista click-a-thon.

Usability regression

[Enderandrew]

It takes longer to browse in the start menu in Vista and 7, which trains people to put icons on their desktop, or learn how to use Alt+F2. Sadly both Gnome and KDE decided to follow suit with equal regressions. But it looks nicer!

The odd thing is that Microsoft (along with KDE and Gnome developers) were adamant that people would prefer this and use it more. Now Microsoft is admitting that fewer people are.

Re:Usability regression

[oakgrove]

For what it's worth to you, I've found that this solves my menu problems in the recent Ubuntu releases.

Re:Usability regression

[Sardak]

I've had the exact opposite experience. I use the start menu far more often when I'm using a windows 7 system than I did with any of the XP or below systems in the past. It's much, much faster to hit the windows key and type a few letters of the program I want to launch than it is to hunt through a desktop full of icons.

Re:Usability regression

[Enderandrew]

That's the thing. They want use to use Search, but the menu itself is slower.

KDE 3 on many distros had a classic menu with search integrated. It was the best of both worlds.

The future of the desktop is mobile.

[MrCrassic]

The Start Menu was an innovative answer to a then-inherent lack of organisation and difficulty in finding things. Yes, you had the File Manager on Windows and Finder on OS X, but good luck if you're looking for that "client document about some paintings" if you don't remember anything in its relative path.

Today, almost all mainstream desktops and laptops have two or more cores per CPU. Dual-core is starting to become a commodity even on phones, where it's use is starting to come to fruition quite nicely (camera enhancements, smoother video chat, better speech recognition, games, etc). 4GB of RAM is pretty common too, with 8GB RAM stock right on the horizon. SSDs are cheap now..and they are FAST. With this much power available to us on the cheap, searching for stuff from the Start Menu (or Spotlight on OS X) is a much better alternative than doing the Start -> click motions of the past. Furthermore, outside of work, most people spend more time on their mobiles than their desktops or laptops...and none of those have a Start menu. (Well, Windows Mobile did but look where that went.)

I welcome this change; it was pretty much inevitable. I'm even more glad that it's only superficial, since Windows 8 can revert back to Classic pretty easily for the luddites! I hope they copy^H^H^Hinnovate on Apple's state-saving feature since that would make Hibernate as fast as doing a Standby without its unreliability.

Re:The future of the desktop is mobile.

[Hatta]

The Start Menu was an innovative answer to a then-inherent lack of organisation and difficulty in finding things. Yes, you had the File Manager on Windows and Finder on OS X, but good luck if you're looking for that "client document about some paintings" if you don't remember anything in its relative path.

How exactly did the start menu help you in that circumstance?

Re:The future of the desktop is mobile.

[MrCrassic]

If you wanted to open a program, you had to have a shortcut to it on the Desktop; otherwise, you were off searching. The Start Menu eased this considerably by consolidating everything in one place. You still had to find stuff if it wasn't on the Start menu, but almost every program that was installed properly had a reference there.

Then there were the easy links to Documents, Pictures, etc. that was useful to people.

Re:The future of the desktop is mobile.

[Hatta]

If you can't remember a simple file path, how can you remember the start menu hierarchy? It's the exact same thing really, the start menu hierarchy is even implemented as a directory tree. Finding things in Start->Programs is exactly the same problem as finding things in c:/programs/.

Re:The future of the desktop is mobile.

[caitsith01]

If you can't remember a simple file path, how can you remember the start menu hierarchy? It's the exact same thing really, the start menu hierarchy is even implemented as a directory tree. Finding things in Start->Programs is exactly the same problem as finding things in c:/programs/.

No, it isn't. The whole point of the start menu when properly organised is that it's based on human logic rather than the arbitrary placement of files on a hard disk. So for example I might have no idea where I installed Firefox, but I know that if I go start->internet it's likely that the link will be in that part of the start menu.

Re:The future of the desktop is mobile.

[Hatta]

If your start menu is properly organized by human logic, it's because you did it manually. Which is exactly what we did in the 3.11 days.

Re:The future of the desktop is mobile.

[RogerWilco]

I think the Start Menu was not a very good idea. It was slightly improved over time with things like the Quicklaunch menu, but MS clung way too long to it.

I think OSX's Dock is better but still not ideal.

I really like how you can add Places in the OSX Finder, but I can't find a way to put those on the Dock. I can add folders, but not the entire Places at once. It also doesn't give me the nice icons that Places does for things like Applications if I do add it as folders. I'm using Snow Leopard.

Re:The future of the desktop is mobile.

[scottbomb]

Ugh. I hate this comment more than any other. As I told my brother (MS employee) my desktop computer is NOT a tablet. Please, for the love of God, stop treating it like one.

Menu is less usable

[Archangel Michael]

I've found myself using the Start Menu much less, mainly because it is not functional as it is. It was much easier to drop a shortcut and clutter up my desktop than it is trying to find what I need on the start menu.

So, it follows, make something less useful, people will use it less, then you can remove it, citing as an excuse, it is not used like it once was. Freaking Genius.

Re:Menu is less usable

[_0xd0ad]

Or, you know, you could use a toolbar.

Nobody has seen fit to re-introduce the Classic MacOS tab folders. I am disappoint.

You mean like the Quick Launch?

It's a toolbar. You can add more of them. Right click, Toolbars, New Toolbar. You can still do it in Windows 7. Here's instructions on how to put the Quick Launch toolbar back onto the Win7 task bar.

Re:I guess it is never used .... at MS

[Z00L00K]

I have way too much items for that to work so I need both the start menu and the taskbar/quick launch.

Re:I guess it is never used .... at MS

[Sperbels]

Nor I. I typically have my task bar filled with 20-30 applications at work...and I expand it to be three rows high because there isn't even enough room at 2 rows height. Then I have all my common used apps pinned to the start menu. I don't know what Windows 8 has in store for me, but if it looks anything like that stupid screen shot of the big icons, I'm not using it.

Re:...the dock.

[atlasdropperofworlds]

I think you're confused. The start menu is the same as spotlight, not the dock. On windows or ubuntu, hit the windows key and type what you're looking for to start a search, on OSX, it's command-spacebar. This is my primary mode of using any OS now.

Oh lordy.

[Lose]

>2011
>Fedora 15, Ubuntu 11.04, and Windows 8 demonstrate some so called "stroke of brilliance."
> The end is neigh.

That monstrosity in Windows8 IS NOT the answer.

[rahvin112]

So in Windows 8 (for those that tried the demo, yes I downloaded the ISO and setup a VM to try it) they replaced the simple little menu in the start button with a whole screen monstrosity that takes the entire desktop. Taking over my whole desktop because I pushed the start button isn't the answer to this problem. IMO people don't use the start menu much because they put icons of their most used programs in the quick launch tool bar and on the desktop itself. Instead they take a simple menu, blow it up full screen and if you decide you don't want to pick a program and go back to what you have running, there is no logical way to do it (there isn't a close button that's obvious, ESC doesn't work, right click doesn't work). That's fucked up.

Gnome3 and Ubuntu's solution to doing away with the start button is far better than what MS has cooked up and I don't really like those either but I can see them working better). If I fail that badly using their "NEW AND IMPROVED" start menu I can't even comprehend how disastrous this will be for the less computer literate. The best part is, you cannot bring back the old start menu that I could find. It's not in the control panel, the options are gone from the right click menu, etc.

MS is making a huge mistake overlaying their Windows Phone 7 Metro interface on windows. This is a huge fuckup that's obviously being done to use the windows monopoly against the phone competition. It's going to backfire and damage windows just like Vista did.

Re:That monstrosity in Windows8 IS NOT the answer.

[Alef]

Well, you know the old saying: If you can't make phones into small PCs, make PCs into big phones.

Re:That monstrosity in Windows8 IS NOT the answer.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can bring it back with a registry key. Looks like they just blocked over it as a hack really. When it's back it looks like it was there the whole time and was just redacted.

http://lifehacker.com/5840324/switch-your-windows-8-start-menu-back-to-windows-7-style

Re:That monstrosity in Windows8 IS NOT the answer.

[black3d]

+5

The MetroUI for a desktop PC is god-awful. Microsoft is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy here. They make the taskbar more useful with the addition of Quick Launch and then (in Windows 7) with integrated application pinning with ease, so of course folks need to use the Start Menu less. That doesn't mean we dislike the Start Menu. I still use it fairly frequently although quite likely, more than 11% less than I did in Windows XP.

Their answer to this (rather than realising that this means their UI and taskbar are working out well and perhaps build on those strengths) is to change the OS to use some crappy UI (yes, I've used the developer preview extensively.. still can't get over my utter disgust for it) and force it to the front of our screen every time we want to use a function that previously we would have gone to the Start Menu for.. Yuck.. yuck.. yuck.

I can see most geeks giving Win8 a miss - unfortunately the legions of new computer "users" who can't manage with anything more than a pretty coloured box to touch will probably drive sales and make the app-store a massive "win", meaning it might be forced on us in Windows 9 as well. Can only hope that business's skip of Windows 8 will give Microsoft pause for thought.

Re:That monstrosity in Windows8 IS NOT the answer.

[Junta]

The thing is Android and iOS cannot *reasonably* do this. Neither can MS but they are trying it anyway. (I repeat that criticism of Unity and Gnome 3 as well).

The reason is simple, the distinct form factors are just *too* different from one interface to work well on all of them, some interaction will be awkward. The first round of just putting standard desktop interfaces and putting them in a place with only touchscreens and no keyboard was awkward, so now they are going the other way and putting interfaces designed for touch interface on desktops.

Re:That monstrosity in Windows8 IS NOT the answer.

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason i think that some gnome devs sneaked into Redmond and are making internal changes...

Re:That monstrosity in Windows8 IS NOT the answer.

[Malc]

People who use the quick launch bar don't use many applications. People who use the desktop don't run many things concurrently. I have two pet peeves with installers and the fuckwits who write them: putting icons on my desktop, and not allowing me to customise the Start menu folder for whatever they're putting on there. Make it three: dickheads who don't seem to realise the difference between installing an icon on the Start menu for all users versus the current user (extra note: the account installing software will be different to the logged on user if that account isn't a member of the admins group).

I don't want icons every where, and I've yet to see something usable and sane coming out of the FOSS world (is there anybody who understands UX in that camp, or even just plain consistency within the platform?)

The best change in the Windows Start menu world has been the evolution of the Run box to a streamlined search box. I just pop up the menu, type a few characters and go. If that's working for me, I still have the rest of the Start menu. I'll be happy if they get rid of all those crap links like Photos, etc, except for the quick access to computer properties, management console, although they're hardly implemented in an idea fashion, just convenient/ingrained from 10 years of usage

Re:That monstrosity in Windows8 IS NOT the answer.

[bobobo1618]

I agree with you on this not being the right answer. Personally, I've used Windows (95-7), GNOME shell and KDE extensively and I think KDE and Windows 7 have the best implementations so far. By pressing the windows key on windows and typing what I want i have it. With some effort, the same on KDE. I like the ability in GNOME shell to switch windows so much faster but I dislike the structure of the shortcuts when you do a search. The only way to move is horizontally -_- Also, wtf is up with Slashdot's formatting? It just removes newlines because it can?

Re:That monstrosity in Windows8 IS NOT the answer.

[m50d]

Taking over my whole desktop because I pushed the start button isn't the answer to this problem.

Isn't it? When I click the start button it's because I want to do something, at which point I don't need whatever else was on my desktop until I've finished with the starting.

/hasn't tried windows8, but this part sounds like a good idea

Re:That monstrosity in Windows8 IS NOT the answer.

[numbski]

You work for Apple, don't you?

Re:That monstrosity in Windows8 IS NOT the answer.

[GruntboyX]

I continue to use Windows 8 on a Netbook that I have. I do this so microsoft can gain the usage statistics that, instead of bowing to the Metro Design, I just found a way to work around it. When I log in I immediately hit -D. takes me to the desktop, and then I created a shortcut that takes me to folder where the start menu icons are still located. I have effectively trained myself to never use the start menu for anything and to basically acomplish everything with shortcuts. In fact when shuting down the computer I simply hit -I and a side bar scrolls from the right and there is an option to shut the computer down. I never use the start menu and it is horrible for installing legacy applications. I just dock icons and use desktop shortcuts. If more people do the same, I would think microsoft will get the measurements through the usage statistics that people dont like it and therefore its usage will plummet further.

Dear Microsoft

[SYSS Mouse]

Please don't make our computers, especially those used at work, to look like XBox 360.

I don't want to see "Ownyou12345 signed on toLIVE" message while in office. (FYI Windows 8 will have fill XBox LIVE integration.)

No one uses Microsoft Windows

[glutenenvy]

or the start menu?

Seriously, it is going to be a very long time until my Apple or PC laptop or desktop are touch screen. Whats the rush to turn them into a tablet?

I mean I'm just about never going to go up to my living room TV/Monitor to swipe around for daily computing. I'll probably get burnt from the heat and arthritis will severely cripple my workload. Although the heat will probably help out on the arthritic days.

Removing the start menu is like key mapping return/enter to F1.

Start menu is going to be in the 'enhanced' upgrade.

Why not kill the START button on the KEYBOARD...

[MindPrison]

...while they're at it.

I'm sure Linux users would be thrilled to finally officially get rid of the daft flag-key on their own hardware.
I've always seen this FLAG logo on my keyboards...as me...paying for their branding.

Re:ugh

[Zancarius]

Anything but the ribbon.

Ribbon isn't actually that bad once you get used to it. I didn't like it in Office 2007 much, but it was improved somewhat for 2010. While my experience with it was mostly limited to assignments at university when I didn't have access to OOo, it wasn't as terrible as some have made it out to be. In some ways, it's easier.

What I did see is on the whole much worse than Ribbon. If you've used the Windows 8 developer previews, it seems MS likes the idea of a full-screen tablet-esque scrollable thing for apps. Kinda like a tag cloud, but for applications, and much less usable. At the very least, it was hardly navigable with a mouse. Fortunately, there was a registry tweak to bring back the Win7 start menu, though I'm not sure if that will persist given this news.

To be honest, I use a mix of the taskbar's pinning feature as well as dragging everything else to the recently used apps menu, along with occasionally digging through the programs list for anything else that I might use very rarely. I don't really care much for clutter on the taskbar, but it's handy for things that I use with regularity, if I'm using Windows.

Eliminating the start menu seems rather silly to me.

Re:...the dock.

[dan828]

It's fine if you just use 2 or 3 programs, so your average slashdotter finds it a bit limiting.

No Used it because of Crappy Design

[Richard24]

I think this should be more telling in how crappy they designed the start menu. I had to manually manage it in XP, but at least I could and group applications in nice neat sub-category menu entries akin to linux's application menu. I think I only use the start menu to 'Run' applications, access control panel, and access the restart/shutdown functionality. Occasionally I use it to find an application I rarely run. Otherwise, I use toolbar shortcuts. It took me awhile to finally get the taskbar where I could use toolbar shortcuts again on Windows 7. I am totally peeved that I cannot create one on the side of the screen anymore too! I have to waste vertical screen realestate instead of the more abundant horizontal realestate.

Don't worry

[istartedi]

Don't worry. Somebody will write a start menu replacement. Best of all, it'll come with a special program that helps you buy real estate for no money down, work at home, and enlarge your p3n1s.

new start menu blows

[Lehk228]

usage fell because the start menu with the scroll interface blows, to start a program that does not start with A i have to click the start menu, click all programs, drag the scroll bar looking for that shit, then click the program folder then click the program.

it would seriously take less time usually to winkey+R then type the path.... IF m$ had not decided to separate 32 and 64 bit programs by default install folder (what the fuck?) so in order to manually launch an app i have to remember WHICH folder it's installed in

it's a shame, aside from that BS windows 7 is overall rather nice, reliable and i like the libraries function to provide convenient lists of folders holding similar content on different drives or otherwise in different places on your drive for whatever reason

Re:new start menu blows

[Lakitu]

Press the Start button and then type the first few letters of what you want to run into the box that is automatically selected. It will bring up the results as you type, starting with programs and following with whatever other options you have it index.

Alternatively, you can install launchy, which does essentially the same thing, but better and more configurable. http://www.launchy.net/

You're trying to make a better interface work like the worse one you are used to instead of learning something new, and then complaining about it. Do you really like mouse-hovering your way through trees and trees of programs in a Win98 style start menu? How about the option to hide the lesser used programs which make you scroll down in a more annoying and confusing way than the current menu? Do you really like jerking your mouse around all day instead of using mouse and keyboard in a simplified manner to do what you want?

You can also create new libraries, add only programs you wish to it, and have those displayed in start in an expandable menu. Or learn how to pin programs.

No wonder you don't like the newer interfaces, you are just trying to fight them all the time.

Re:new start menu blows

[StikyPad]

The search bar has made traversing menus obsolete. Just hit the Start key, type the first 3-4 letters of the program you want to run, and hit Enter.

Re:new start menu blows

[JD-1027]

I create a folder on my machine that has shortcuts to all my most used apps with simple names on the shortcut. Add that folder to your path and then opening any app becomes as easy as typing:

win+R
fox
enter

It can't get any faster than that.

Re:new start menu blows

[sonicmerlin]

Yeah I don't get the start menu changes with Windows 7. Is there a way to return it to its old functionality?

Re:new start menu blows

[_0xd0ad]

in order to manually launch an app i have to remember WHICH folder it's installed in

That is why the PATH environment variable was invented. WinKey+Pause, Advanced, Environment Variables.

Re:new start menu blows

[archen]

It depends because the Win7 search box doesn't accept programs with parameters. For instance if I have a putty profile for slashdot I would use 'putty @slashdot' and it launches, but the Win7 dialog can't handle this. Under many circumstances they're the same, but Win7 search seems more capable. If it's really something you use often you're better off creating a custom shortcut key for it (properties > shortcut key).

Stardock Fences

[Jonah Hex]

I use the free version of Stardock Fences, I used to be a big Start Menu user and extolled the virtues of it to others. I'm not ready to go to giant boxes in Win8, but Fences and the Win7 taskbar works 90%+ of the time for me. http://www.stardock.com/products/fences/

HEX

A likely story. Not.

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Microsoft killed the Start menu because they want to force everyone to use Windows Phone, even if they aren't (initially) buying a Windows Phone. They failed for years to sell phones that look like a Windows desktop, so instead they're changing the Windows desktop to look like their phones, and hoping that iOS and Android end up looking "foreign" to phone users as a result.

People click on the Start menu when they want to find something to Start. Imagine that. The bottom line is that the Windows 95 UI (which is to say, Microsoft's ripoff of the RiscOS UI) was the pinnacle of personal computer desktop UI design. Everything that's happened since then has been change for change's sake and has only served to annoy users and get in their way.

Click 'Start' to Shut Down. Really?

[Quantum_Infinity]

Of course no one was using it. Who would think of clicking 'Start' to shut down the computer?

Re:Click 'Start' to Shut Down. Really?

[EvanED]

Everyone in their usability tests.

Doesn't work in Windows 8.

[Viewsonic]

I installed it on a four year old laptop and holding the power button does absolutely nothing now. I used to think this was a BIOs thing, but it appears not, or something in Windows 8 has changed it. Pressing it does absolutely nothing now. To shut down, I need to do CTRL-ALT-DEL, then go to the lower right power icon, click, select shut down.

Re:Doesn't work in Windows 8.

[springbox]

Maybe you need to change your power options. I don't know why they would have the power button default to "do nothing."

Re:Doesn't work in Windows 8.

[monkyyy]

shutdown? our data shows that only powerusers( does that term now srsly mean, someone who knows how to use a computer w/o it breaking) still do that, and therefor removed it, since 99% of users let windows run till it crashes, then reboot

Re:Doesn't work in Windows 8.

[EvanED]

ACPI has the soft-off: if you press the button, what happens. That's definitely up to the OS, and you can choose what you want it to do (shut down, sleep, hibernate, nothing) on every OS I've seen.

However, usually there's a hard-off: hold down the button for a few seconds (I think usually 3-5) and it will turn off immediately. I'm 99% sure that is a BIOS thing (if even that gives you a choice) even given what Viewsonic said. With no offense to him, I'd be more inclined to think that he's wrong about his inference, or that his laptop is strange.

search/launch

[rish87]

Whenever I am on W7 I always use the windows key which launches the start menu and puts the cursor in the search box (which can be used to launch applications). So, for example, if I want to launch chrome I just hit windows key then 'c' then enter. This is also useful for finding and opening specific files very quickly. If this functionality remains, where windows key basically launches search, then I am perfectly happy.....I never use the rest of the start menu (why would you when it is faster to just start typing what you want after hitting the windows key)

It's less typing than you might expect.

[gknoy]

I have a few programs (Eclipse, Chrome) pinned to Windows 7's taskbar, and then about 20 items on my Quick Launch toolbar for things I use Fairly Often and don't want to hunt for (Winamp, Gimp, command prompt, projects folder, etc). For other programs which I open less often, it's very handy to type in the beginning of the name, and then click:

[win], n o
Click Notepad++ link

Re:It's less typing than you might expect.

[LinuxIsGarbage]

much better to type the name, then hit enter

[win], n o [arrow as needed] [enter]

A baffling mystery

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been in various IT roles that involve direct user support and to my experience the Start button is a box of secrets of mysteries to average users. They don't use it and have no real interest in even trying. If they don't have an icon on their desktop, then the software/word document/powerpoint/whatever simply doesn't exist. There is a staggering number of people who don't even understand how to use the primary input device on their laptop. Every day I have walk-ins who report issues only to discover it's because they're trying to operate the touchpad by randomly banging on it like a bongo drum. Even after you politely explain to them the very complicated concepts of left click, right click and scrolling. Or they've decided to only use the right button under the touchpad- just because. "Why does it keep bringing this menu up?!? It's broken!"

Reminds me of that Star Trek:TNG episode.

"It doesn't go...can you make it go?"

Re:A baffling mystery

[Locutus]

The sad state of the general Windows user population but great episode, The Samaritan Snare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_Snare

good analogy

LoB

Windows 8: The reason I finally converted to Linux

[GeekMarine72]

Microsoft ... it's been a hell of a road. I started programming on my Commodore 64 long ago using the Microsoft Licensed Basic language and compiler. When I left college out of need, Visual Basic 3 provided a landing spot from which I launched my 15+ year long career. I've spent countless hours on my Windows PCs. But the "helper" features of Office 2010 that drive me insane, the lack of commitment to nearly every product / technology you've launched over the preceding decade, and now this abysmal and seizure inducing crap that is the Windows 8 "wtf" bar has pushed me over the edge. My computers gain more power, which you squander on pointless features and stupid glossy crap. Ubuntu or Mint ... here I come.

Completely agree! Have been using Windows 8 also.

[Viewsonic]

I've had it on my laptop since it was released publicly. I use it daily and I have been hoping I get "used" to it, or something "clicks". So far, no such luck. The entire Metro interface is designed for tablets. On a normal computer, it is 100% totally and completely useless. Half the programs you install don't make icons on it. Since there is no more start menu, the programs are basically "lost" until you explore your drive and make a shortcut for it on your desktop. So now I have a Metro interface and the normal Desktop littered with 30 icons. It's ridiculous. I hope every day that a new patch will be installed and the start menu will reappear, or the Metro interface actually becomes useful. Right now the entire OS is a mish-mash of really poorly ideas that simply do not work as a desktop OS. I have a feeling this is going to bomb worse than Vista and Windows ME combined. It really is terrible. I will keep it installed and keep using it, but I really wont get my hopes up.

Different route entirely.

[curado]

The Windows XP start menu worked great. It was crowded but accessible. And simple at that. Windows 7 start menu is a little give and take, but the "All Programs" folder is just sweeping a bigger problem under the rug. Like searching in the Windows attic for your programs. In Windows Vista they should have released an Explorer SDK. By now there would be several community based shell options available, based on a common framework. At least they are consistent about keeping Microsoft components closed to customization. Instead we get clunky Windows Desktop Gadgets and gradient wallpaper options.

Re:...the dock.

[Culture20]

Agreed. The whole Vista/7 dual-sided start bar is still a pain to navigate, especially without a mouse (and yes, there are more than 3 times I've had to do that without a mouse in the last year).

Hmmm...Between Vista and Windows 7

[Maltheus]

It's true, I use it less. But only because they turned it into a godawful mess. I (and probably most others) also used Windows less over that period. Does that mean they're going to retire the entire OS? This lunacy is right up there with ribbons.

Dr. McCoy says....

[tekrat]

" Engineers.... They LOVE to change things! "

Re:I guess it is never used .... at MS

[kiddygrinder]

heh, i use about 20 icons on my quick launch, how many apps are you actually using?

Why do we have to keep reinventing bullshit?

[Anonymous Coward]

For 30 years, people have understood file directory trees. That's why so many users can use windows explorer so seemlessly. It's simple and it just makes sense.

It made perfect sense in Windows XP to model the start button in the same way - on a tree system. It worked. Everyone got it. Right click to explore and organize. The only confusing part was that sometimes you would see all the icons when you right clicked to explore because of Microsofts idiotic ideas about file structures.

Then came windows vista. What did nearly every person I know do? Changed the menu back to XP style. Vista's menu sucked. Extra clicks to get to the directory tree, kept recent documents there (I do NOT want the next user to know I was looking a text file called "Debbie does Dallas".... put 'special' stuff up on the top that had to be deleted...

Then came 7. Even worse. Libraries? Totally screwed up. Impossible to organize the start menu. I've always used functional groups - multimedia, office, internet, system..... but that's nearly impossible with the horrible 7 system. To the rescue comes the open source community with their free windows XP start menu look alike. It's no wonder windows users stopped using it. It's freaking ATROCIOUS in windows 7, and everyone I know hates the damn thing.

So now.... you're going to make me move my mouse further. A couple years ago, Microsoft was preaching ribbons in their office apps because of fewer mouse motions and clicks, and now we're going to completely OPPOSITE direction (assuming MS was telling the truth) with the start menu. Inefficiency and taking up huge amounts of realestate for the simple function of opening a program.

MS has gotten so big they don't know what they're doing. There's no consistency across their products, and that stems from a total lack of cohesive direction from their leadership. They're failing, and their idiot executives don't even realize why..... hint.... take a look at what FORD did by grabbing every single person in the company and forcefully turning them to move in the same direction.

Re:Why do we have to keep reinventing bullshit?

[captjc]

I have used Windows 7 for over a year and I have no problem with the start menu. I actually like the start menu. You keep saying about the "Windows XP"-style menu, and this seems to be exactly like it with the exception that it is more glossy and has search as a text box and not a link. In fact, I remember people hating the XP-style menu when it first came out. That is why most people switched it to the Windows 98/2000 version.

As for the function, I find it more intuitive than the Win2k version. The 10 programs that I constantly use are pinned to the dock. The 10 other most commonly run programs are on the start menu and my library folders (videos, documents, downloads, control panel, and computer) on the side menu. For everything else, I can either use the search bar or the "All Programs" option which is no different to organize than the classic start menu as in on "All Programs" and click or .

Say what you want about MacOS 9, but IMO one thing they got right was the Menu bar. Window Menu at the top, Apple menu at the left corner with a simple and customizable drop down list of programs, a window selector on the right, and the system clock. It wasn't the end-all-be-all of user interface designs, but it was simple and elegant.

Re:Why do we have to keep reinventing bullshit?

[EvanED]

A lot of what you say I agree with. I think MS needs more coherence and better leadership. But...

For 30 years, people have understood file directory trees. That's why so many users can use windows explorer so seemlessly.

I'm not sure how true this is for the masses. It'd be an interesting experiment.

Vista's menu sucked. Extra clicks to get to the directory tree...

But added search, which cut out 98% of needing to get to the tree, for me. (I also liked the XP menu better than the 95-2K because of the recent applications.)

I hate the things that got worse from XP to Vista as much as the next person, but the addition of the search made up for it -- and more, by a longshot. (And besides, I'm not sure what "extra clicks" you refer to unless you're talking about the scrolling.)

kept recent documents there (I do NOT want the next user to know I was looking a text file called "Debbie does Dallas"

Even Windows 95 kept recent documents in the start menu. Unless you're turning around from complaining about extra clicks to now complaining about fewer clicks.

Then came 7. Even worse. Libraries? Totally screwed up.

I don't even get what the libraries are doing, really. I just ignore them.

Re:Why do we have to keep reinventing bullshit?

[DarkXale]

I don't even get what the libraries are doing, really. I just ignore them.

A lot of people complain endlessly about this, but I've never really understood why. Libraries simply 'collects' directories that hold a certain type files/media and allows them all to be accessed from a single 'directory' rather than having to go over to your NAS for some of your music, two different places on your local drive for some more, and an additional directory on your external.

Re:...the dock.

[causality]

It surprises me as one of the very few things I miss about Windows after moving to Linux was the Start menu. The Gnome main menu always seemed very sparse in comparison. What doesn't surprise me is that people used the XP menu more than on Vista or 7. Other than search and a few other minor things, the XP start menu is better. When I'm just sifting through it, I can find what I'm looking for much faster than the Vista click-a-thon.

It's possible I am misunderstanding you but ... It sounds like you are using one particular desktop available to Linux (out of dozens) and concluding that using Linux means you must give up ever having an equivalent to a start menu. Have you really looked into it?

For example, KDE has a "start menu". So do several different window managers.

Re:...the dock.

[EvanED]

Other than search and a few other minor things, the XP start menu is better.

I'm a CLI person to some extent*, so I'm sure that biases my opinions, but to me that's like saying "except for the fact that IPS panels have way better colors and viewing angles, cheap TN monitors are better than IPS."

IMO the search ability adds a world of different; I like the Vista/7 start menu way better than the XP menu solely on account of that. Sure, navigating through the menu sucks in comparison to XP, but the search feature not just closes that gap but blows past it.

* I actually hate most current CLIs, but they're the best we have at a lot of things, so I use them a lot of the time.

Re:...the dock.

[toastar]

^This^

I think the windows key > search for a program > click is fairly intuitive though, a major improvement on the Windows key + R approach I used in the past.

People Have Stopped Using Desktop Software

[theManInTheYellowHat]

How many people are just using a browser to do whatever they do on a PC? Whatever else they do there is an icon on the Desktop for launching the program. A business user might have some special apps but average users have a very small selection. Except of course gamers and even those are starting die off.

Re:ugh

[Tarlus]

Alas, the ribbon is becoming even more prominent in Windows 8...

So, Lets read between the lines...

[hAckz0r]

Question: For Microsoft to know that I use the start menu 11% less, exactly how would they know this? Let me guess, I called them up with stupid menu oriented questions 11% less last year than the year before? Perhaps its nave to think people learn form experience?

.
Either Microsoft is collecting information they should not be collecting, or they are basing this percentage on a survey that they themselves sponsored. We know from a long cast of historical references that Microsoft always hears what Microsoft ask to hear from their own funded surveys. If they don't get the 'right' answer that they paid for then it seems that the survey didn't really exist.

Yes, I'm guilty of using desktop icons for my most often used applications, but they happen to be on a Linux desktop. I'm actually using the Windows Start Menu 100% less than the year before, by my own non-Microsoft funded calculations.

Re:So, Lets read between the lines...

[Zakabog]

I'm going to guess you never noticed the "Windows Customer Experience Improvement Program" options. Well if you choose to participate I wouldn't be surprised if start menu usage data is something they collect.

Re:...the dock.

[SuricouRaven]

Worst part for me is when the list of quickly-launchable programs changes (as it often does) and so key sequences no longer do what they did before. By the time I'm used to them, it's changed again.

Just try 'Classic Shell'

[Rashdot]

It has a "Classic Start Menu" option, as well as a lot of other features for people who prefer the XP UI over Windows 7. No mention of Windows 8 yet though: http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/

Re:...the dock.

[oakgrove]

Thanks for the heads up but I got passed Start menu envy long ago and moved on to much more powerful ways to accomplish the same goals. I toyed around with gnomenu for a while which is 95 percent identical to whichever version of the windows start menu you want. I've used Avant Window Navigator, Cairo-Dock, Synapse, Kickoff, the Mint menu, and everything in between. Now I'm kind of digging the Unity launcher on the latest Ubuntu. I thought I was going to hate Unity but damned if they haven't come up with a few good ideas and one or two great ones.

That program isn't installed!

[earls]

Considering I had to explain just this morning that just because a program's icon isn't on the desktop doesn't mean it isn't installed to multiple people, I can totally understand this move.

Bring back program manager

[ebunga]

They killed it in 64-bit land. Bring it all back, even the look of 16-bit windows. Yes, I prefer the old ugly look of Windows 3.1.

The Dock sorely lacks

[PortHaven]

Granted, it is now bearable since they did the folders. But seriously, before that. I thought it was the most useless launch tool ever.

Granted, I love it's "activity" indicator and bouncing icons.

But it is woefully pitiful for organizing your apps. I like my app grouped, and even sub-grouped. Essentially, to me the Dock is nothing more than the Windows taskbar "quick launch" area with some nice intuitive activity behaviors.

Re:The Dock sorely lacks

[captjc]

Was it ever supposed to be the end-all-be-all launch tool on OS X? I always saw it as the combination of the quick launch and the taskbar. In that respect, it works great. For everything else there was the Applications folder and later Spotlight (as well as many third party launchers).

Re:The Dock sorely lacks

[dakameleon]

...to me the Dock is nothing more than the Windows taskbar "quick launch" area with some nice intuitive activity behaviors.

Where do you think Windows 7 got the idea from?

Re:...the dock.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Like I said, I never repeat myself.

Re:But if you start me up

[Megane]

You make a grown man cry...

Excatly This!

[DnemoniX]

I did the same thing, loaded it into a VM to give it a whirl. Guess what? Metro sucks! It is a tablet interface and needs to stay on tablets. It looks like a Windows phone raped Windows Media Center and this was the result. There are already utilities out to disable this "feature", so what does that say about it?

Re:...the dock.

[SuricouRaven]

Ignoring the start menu side of things for now... Vista-and-seven's search just really, really sucks. The ability to search within files is gone, which is really annoying. It also completly fails at searches which return large numbers of results. Just yesterday someone asked if I could search my huge collection of furry porn for [YOUDON'TWANTTOKNOW] - Vista returned just a couple of pagefulls, when I knew there was more. I had to use my linux system to search, which found hundreds of results - and that on a very simple filename-only search, nothing that should be difficult.

That's odd...

[earls]

Considering... http://www.destructoid.com/pc-vs-console-gaming-infographic-pc-is-making-a-comeback-212611.phtml

Re:But I like the start menu...

[Liger_XT5]

I'd agree. Removing the start menu may force me to leave a folder open so I have a quick way to search and click one of my network drives.
If any part of the start menu I don't use on a regular basis is the all programs part. Otherwise the docked icons and pinned start menu icons are what I use the most. A quick search leads me to those I don't use often enough. Next to that, the right click menu for files I want to open with certain programs.

I'd rather keep my desktop clean of icons and widgets. The most it does is rotate through pictures when I'm not using it.
Why leave a monitor on if it's not doing anything? Turn them into digital picture frames!

The MS start menu is a cluttered mess

[Lussarn]

There is really nothing wrong with a start menu. Microsoft however never enforced a good practice with their start menu, the signal to noise ratio is VERY low. It's cluttered with company names, uninstallers and readme files. Why should I have to know the name of the company if I want to use a program, looks very much like advertisement to me. Instead of enforcing a good practice they have extended the start menu with "most used programs" which really doesn't cure the underlying problem, and to me it's even more cluttered. They should get rid of everything but the program starters in correct folders, Games in games folder and so on, one program has one menu entry, this was probably how it was meant to be by the original designer but never enforced. Look at Gnome, very simple, and very effective. And now MS have come to the conclusion that nobody uses their cluttered mess of a start menu, and are killing it. I say it could be fixed, but MS doesn't seem to know what's wrong with it...

Re:The MS start menu is a cluttered mess

[stephanruby]

This reminds me of a presentation I participated in about Metro UI design as Windows Phone 7 was first coming out.

Windows Phone 7 goes right against its very own design principles. For instance, instead of calling email email, or using the sound principles of metro design that were introduced to us, it labeled its email program Outlook, and uses the icon of MS Outlook. The same goes for pretty much everything on that phone, from the home button which looks more like a windows icon than anything else remotely making sense, and any of the other MS-related products on that phone.

It's like Microsoft paid a ton of money to have some good design and some good usability design done for their mobile platorm, but then didn't give any of those people the actual authority to veto any stupid idea coming from their Marketing/Brand managers.

Re:The MS start menu is a cluttered mess

[xtieburn]

While its true the start menu gets cluttered its not actually MS that determines what a piece of software shoves in there.

MS cant mandate all companies use the name of their software in the start menu and not their company name its just not possible to do that. They can tell you whats best for the user and they probably already do but if a company says screw that then there isnt anything they can do. (Except remove the functionality entirely...)

Re:...the dock.

[interval1066]

The Gnome main menu always seemed very sparse in comparison.

Right, what we really needed was more clutter. I really like the gnome way of doing desktop menus, and most other things. Windows always, always, always seems to be a lot more complicated to me. After you get used to it, its ok I guess (I recently returned to using a windows machine after several years of just using Linux/Gnome, and was completely lost for the first month or so) but that transition from Linux to Windows is a nightmare. I even found OSX a lot easier and I don't use OSX for anything.

Re:...the dock.

[bell.colin]

I've just been setting up some new 2008 R2 servers and they use the new Vista (aka crap) start menu, I'm still trying to hit Win-Key, then L or U, then Enter to Logoff or Shut down.

Then i realize those don't work anymore so i have to go grab the mouse and point at the little arrow. (a few dozen or hundred times a day and this gets annoying real fast)

And don't even get me started on the now un-efficient mess of the new security and sharing tabs. (pain in the ASS when setting file share permissions now)

I haven't got to the Windows 7 Pro. in the domain yet but i hope they don't use the same login screen as 2008.

Start Me Up

[carrier lost]

Curses!

Now how am going to get to telnet so I can get back into my Sun workstation so I can reset the X server?

Developers destroyed the start menu

[MobyDisk]

The start menu was a nice one-click or one-key access to all your programs. But a combination of Microsoft watering it down + installers misusing the start menu have damaged its usefulness:

HOW TO USE THE START MENU
1. Don't use the start menu for branding. Example:
Start\Symantec Applications\Norton Antivirus\Norton Antivirus.lnk
should be
Start\Norton Antivirus.lnk
(*) This is usually committed with Sin #2 below

2. Don't make a group for one icon.
Start\Super Editor\Super Editor.lnk
should be
Start\Super Editor.lnk

3. Don't place icons in 3 places
- Quick launch
- Desktop
- Start menu

Put them in the start menu, and let the user decide what applications are important enough to put on their desktop.

4. Don't put multiple icons where 1 will do
Start\VideoLan\Documentation.lnk
Start\VideoLan\VLC Media Player.lnk
Start\VideoLan\VLC Media Player Skinned.lnk
Start\VideoLan\Readme.lnk
Start\VideoLan\Configure VLC Media Player.lnk

Documentation is part of the application. Skinned/non-skinned is an option within the application. Configuration is part of the application.

5. Don't put control panel icons on the start menu.
Ex: Start\ATI Catalyst Control Center.lnk
should be
Start\Control Panel\ATI Catalyst Control Center.lnk

6. Don't modify the start menu when I run your app or update it. Ex: I move Quicktime under "Junk" but it reappears whenever it updates. Another one is FinePrint which re-adds itself when the driver starts.

7. Microsoft: Don't limit the size of the menu menu then add a scroll bar. Windows Vista and 7 limit it to 1/2 the screen then add a scroll bar, even if everything would have fit just fine had it resized.

8. Microsoft: The icons need to be clickable size. A 16x16 icon at 1600x1200 is inappropriate when the app provided a 128x128 icon.

9. Don't forget keyboard support! This has gone down hill since Windows '9x.

10. Don't place icons under Start - Programs. Everything is a program. Just place them under "Start"

11. Don't place applications in the registry startup - place them in the start menu's startup group so that the user can remove it easily if necessary.

Re:Developers destroyed the start menu

[blair1q]

3. Don't place icons in 3 places
- Quick launch
- Desktop
- Start menu

Any app that does that is lazy. The non-lazy ones give you the option during installation, and you uncheck the ones you know you won't use. Firefox gets all three. Word doesn't get Desktop. Everything should have at least a start menu entry, because that's /usr/bin on a Windows box.

Re:Developers destroyed the start menu

[dizzysoul]

This. I can't mod this up enough. This needs to be printed printed on a giant billboard and placed on every road and highway that leads in and out of Redmond. And this shouldn't be something 'left to the developers', this is something that should be strictly enforced by Microsoft. One of the things Apple got right, is they have strict design requirements for all application written for OSX. Your application can't make stupid choices that break the flow of the OSX interface. This is one of the main reasons why OSX is considered easier to use than Windows.

Re:Developers destroyed the start menu

[seriphis]

Just to point out, the keyboard is not intuitive to the touchscreen generation. Start menu's are also not intuitive to the touchscreen generation. A large majority of the upcoming generation wouldnt know what to do if provided with a command prompt, nor would they understand the intricacies of diging through explorer windows, most people want information immediately and this is where apple's iphone interface comes in to the picture, if you consider that on one screen you can see how many email you have waiting, how many twitter updates, how many facebook updates, what new podcasts you have, the weather, your stocks, amonst other things simply by turning on your device, why would you want to use a PC that you have to dive through menus to bring up each app, or invest the time in understanding how to load it up automatically on boot. From a design perspective, microsoft is moving towards simplicity. They are making their os more like the phone that they want people to use, its a great cross sell op, saying "windows 8 is no different to the phone system that you have already invested time in learning", likewise, "the phone os is no different to the system that you use at home, why not pick me up." /. is full of power users. Windows 8 will probably not be for you... chalk it up to the bad release in 2 release cycle that microsoft appears to have going.

Re:Developers destroyed the start menu

[Killer Orca]

I wish this was how it was done! I hope someone working at MS reads this and takes heed, but I know better....

Re:Developers destroyed the start menu

[satcomjimmy]

Hell to the yeah.....and if I sort by name, why should it sort the apps with icons a-z and then also sort folders in the start menu a-z as if they're separate items?

BTW, #6 should be punishable by repeated papercutting over a 2-week period in a lemon-juice pool. This is the same reason I rarely install and update itunes on any computer regardless of the fact that I find it to be the most useful music app period.

Re:Developers destroyed the start menu

[Anonymous Coward]

The first five items are actually straight out of the Microsoft design guidelines.

Re:Developers destroyed the start menu

[manwargi]

All of the mod points for you, even if you are already at +5 and I don't actually have any. I like myself a Start Menu and I'd like it even more if developers read and followed these commandments.

Re:Developers destroyed the start menu

[eddy_crim]

Yeah, and how do you make all that happen? You have an approval process like Apple so if any one of your rules are broken MS can tell Norton REJECTED!

perhaps your post should be entitled "11 simple reasons why giving developers freedom ands in a clusterfuck"

Re:Developers destroyed the start menu

[Fri13]

And if someone does not know what KickOff is:
Original presentation http://home.kde.org/~binner/kickoff/sneak_preview.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXcFB9Gc7V0 (Not so great as it is flipped around as it is positioned to top panel)

Re:Developers destroyed the start menu

[MobyDisk]

I agree entirely. I think the shift started before touch screens though. I think as applications started to usurp the desktop metaphor people lost a lot of functionality. It seems more and more often I get questions about how to attach a file to an email, or how to move a file onto a flash drive, or how to make a folder. These were basics that desktop users knew from day 1 - copying, renaming, moving files. The new interfaces are simple, but too much is being lost.

The problem I find is that this interface doesn't scale. Using pictures as an example: Many of these interfaces don't make it easy to put things in folders, or move them around, make copies so you can edit them, etc. There is a cost to the simplicity. Part of the reason Windows 8 is getting bashed is because it is hard to see how that kind of interface works when you are a photographer with 1.5 million pictures on your computer. Or when you are a business with thousands of spreadsheets or official documents. It works great if you want to see the last 3 letters you wrote though.

Re:Developers destroyed the start menu

[Provocateur]

you left one item out from #4, 'Uninstall this app by accident.lnk'

Re:Why not kill the START button on the KEYBOARD..

[EvanED]

I don't care what you call it, but you can pry that key out of my dead fingers. I hit the Windows key 10 times more per unit time on Linux than I do on Windows.

I have a nice rule I adhere to: keyboard shortcuts not involving the Windows key are for programs. Keyboard shortcuts with the Windows key are for the window manager (switching desktops, opening a run dialog, reordering windows, etc.). Works really really well for me. I have too many WM shortcuts to use just ctrl or alt with them, and I use the WM shortcuts enough that having to do ctrl-alt or something like that would get really annoying really fast.

Re:...the dock.

[makomk]

KDE actually has two choices of start menu... one closer to the style that Windows 98/XP and older versions of KDE used, and a newer more modern one that's more akin to Vista and Windows 7, though I think it's actually based on an alternative menu for KDE that predated both. I think there's also a full-screen replacement like the Windows 8 start screen, but I've never actually used it.

Re:...the dock.

[oakgrove]

I completely agree with you. I didn't mean to speak ill of Gnome's menu. When I first started using Linux full time in 2006, I did everything imaginable to make it work and act like Windows. As time wore on I found myself doing that less and less. Now, it is a veritable chore using Windows in the vm for the occasional foray into visual studio to maintain this certain crappy website that is done completely in asp.net. But don't get me started.

Re:Completely agree! Have been using Windows 8 als

[c 0xFF]

Someone please remind me of some history.

Back when Win95 came out, programs designed for Win3.1 created entries intended for the Program Manager. Did Win95 have any sort of mechanism for accessing these items? I think the Program Manager was still around (for those who cared), but I don't think there was any sort of entry automatically created in the Start Menu.

My point? What you're seeing is exactly what happened with the move to Win95. Nothing new, and I'm sure there will be some sort of workaround in place before Win8 is launched.

That said, I doubt the solution will be pretty, obvious, or intuitive, just like with the transition to Win 95.

Re:...the dock.

[errandum]

If you think OSX blows because of the dock, you clearly never used it. Not only spotlight is actually where launchy gets it's inspiration, the way things are organized in OSX, docks or not, they just make sense.

I'd mod you down, but I wasn't sure if you were trolling or ignorant (or both).

Re:Correction

[citab]

Mod up +1

Re:...the dock.

[Synerg1y]

I really really like fluxbox's right click app menu, launch anything, anywhere, even the win 7 taskbar gets covered sometimes by full screen applications (Office nowadays rofl). I don't get why we can't at least have this as an option in windows... I know you can customize it through the registry, but wow, I try and have a life.
Flux makes it easy.

Re:...the dock.

[causality]

Thanks for the heads up but I got passed Start menu envy long ago

Who threw it to you?

Re:Start Menu Button

[Teun]

Not everyone likes to share their documents in return for targeted advertisements or has 24/7 net access..

Re:...the dock.

[jedwidz]

No need to touch the mouse even, just type <win>search term<enter>.

That convenience makes up for a multitude of Start Menu sins, like wtf organized by publisher by default like I care.

this is a nonsequitor

[wierd_w]

Ms claims they diabled the start menu because nobody uses it. To validate this statement, they give a nonsense statistic about a tangental feature of the start menu being rarely used. This means that their logic for disabling the start menu asserts the only use of the start menu was to view documents and images, otherwise the argument does not follow.

For the win8 afflicted though, there is hope. There is a DWORD named RPEnabled in

HK_Current_User\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer

That controls the activation of Metro. Setting it to "1" enables Metro. Setting it to "0" disables Metro.

A curious bit of trivia to liven up discussion:

Setting RPEnabled to 0 turns on additional scare text on the win8 developer preview, which threatens job termination for unauthorized distribution and leaking.

10 guesses what the MS developers keep this key set to.

Re:this is a nonsequitor

[Lifyre]

That makes be wonder if it will be only available in the higher levels of Windows like Professional, Professionals Premium, Business Edition, Small Business Edition, Large Business Edition, Enterprise Edition, Small Enterprise Edition, Large Enterprise Edition, Ultimate Edition, Super Ultimate Edition, Developer Edition, Desktop Developer Edition, and Double Secret Ultimate Power Users Edition.

So Starter, Starter Premium, Home Basic, Home, Home Premium, and Metro Developer Editions will all be stuck with Metro whether they like it or not unless they shell out extra $ to get a better version.

Re:this is a nonsequitor

[Lifyre]

(Makes me wonder... - god I must be trying out for congress)

Re:this is a nonsequitor

[mcavic]

I'm sure that registry setting is just for debugging. They have plenty of time to remove it before production.

People know names. That's what names are for.

[FoolishOwl]

I read somewhere that studies found that inexperienced users are more comfortable starting applications by typing (part of) the name of the application, than they are searching for graphical icons in a nested hierarchy of menus. It makes sense: you probably already know you want Firefox, and with menus, you have to figure out where in the hierarchy Firefox will be.

The Ubuntu Unity interface all but forces you to launch most applications that way, and I found I quickly got used to it -- then noticed it's easier to launch applications in pretty much the same way in Windows 7 and Android, and even in OS X, where it's not quite so encouraged.

The difficulty lies in finding out the names of applications you have installed, or would like to have installed. I like Unity, but it's biggest shortcoming is that it's really difficult to find a proper list of installed applications. That's where the Windows Start Menu, and similar menu systems, is really helpful.

I used to find the GNOME Human Interface Guidelines for the menus surprisingly misguided, in this respect: you're not supposed to actually use the name of the application in the menu system, but rather list it by the intended use of the application. "Web Browser" is a silly way to label Firefox, and it makes things worse for less obvious applications. I had to resort to command-line tools to work out that the "Disk Usage Analyzer" that was crashing on start-up was actually named "baobab".

Re:People know names. That's what names are for.

[swalve]

That's interesting, but do inexperienced users actually know the names of what they are looking for? Most I've seen are just looking for "the internet icon".

I think the real difference is between visual thinkers and non-visual thinkers. Many times, when I am looking for a folder or an application, my mind completely skips over what the name is, and looks for the color of the icon or the location of the icon.

Re:People know names. That's what names are for.

[Darinbob]

If you know the names though. It helps if you use them a lot, but if you use them a lot often it's better to make an icon, or pin it to the task bar, or add a hot-key to open it, etc. But if it's a rarely used application or utility then you don't always know the name of it, especially if it was given a cutesy name, so being able to browse through a menu of applications is helpful.

Also browsing through a menu of applications lets you know what's on the computer! First day with a new Mac and I'm browsing through the applications and utilities to see what's there and what's useful. When I get a new PC I look at start bar to see what sorts of junk has been preinstalled that needs removing, and the few that I may want to keep and use.

Re:People know names. That's what names are for.

[Ramin_HAL9001]

The difficulty lies in finding out the names of applications you have installed, or would like to have installed. I like Unity, but it's biggest shortcoming is that it's really difficult to find a proper list of installed applications. That's where the Windows Start Menu, and similar menu systems, is really helpful.

To find a list of installed applications, open a terminal and type "ls /usr/bin".

All joking aside, Ubuntu's Unity launcher is nice because it gives you a miniature, user-friendly search bar to search for applications and recent files, and I have found it to be quite handy, along with the global menu. Now, Ubuntu has the best of both the Mac (global menu) and windows (the Windows-key-activated launcher) graphical interfaces.

As for TFA and Microsoft, this is a huge mistake. Everyone Windows user EVER is going to hate this. Yet I always rejoice when Microsoft makes another mistake that pisses off its customers and helps their competition. After years of barely-legal anti-competitive behavior, the rate of innovation in the computer software industry just might begin to increase again -- oh wait, unjust patent and copyright litigation. Never mind. Consumer software will never ever innovate, and even our great-grandkids will be using word processors and spreadsheets to do "computery-stuff".

Re:People know names. That's what names are for.

[Bert64]

A better way to label applications would be something like:
Firefox (Web Browser)
So you get both the name of the application, *and* the function that it performs...

But even with just the description, ala GNOME, chances are if you know what it was called you'd have run it directly, and if your searching through the menu you don't know what the program is called but you do know what functionality you require... Had there been a menu item called "Baobab" its unlikely a random user would have any idea what it does.

Ribbon

[Bensam123]

The start menu has a very specific use. When you want to find a program and you don't use it all the time it's neatly organized and relatively easy to find. If you can't find it easily, you use the search bar. It has a very logical and concise layout designed to give you what you need, when you need it. It's relatively easy to walk someone through finding items on it because it has a very easy to use hierarchy.

Of course people put all their most accessed stuff on their desktop, it's like a drawing board them. They throw whatever they want on it. Turning their desktop into a start menu WILL NOT be conducive to either helping them find stuff on their desktop faster or if they need to resort to the start menu.

This is similar to the abomination that is the ribbon. It's nice if you've NEVER used word, but after you've used it a few times and you need specific things and you can find your way around it's really quite terrible.

They could even look at this in a different way. WHY when they first made a GUI OS, didn't they just slap all the programs across the screen? Is there a reason why options are under menus and sub-categorized? What is the reason why there is a hierarchy in the first place? It's like they didn't even take the time to assess why the current structure is in place in just about every operating system in existence except for devices with relatively little in terms of input devices (touch screen).

IMHO this is extremely shortsighted.

Re:...the dock.

[neokushan]

If you press the winkey, you can just start typing to bring up the program you want. "cmd" even brings up the command line. I find this easier than clicking anything, does this not work for you or have I missed something?

Huh?

[antdude]

I use it all the time in Windows including Vista and 7. I also organize them too. KDE v3.5.10 has one too so I use that too.

Re:Completely agree! Have been using Windows 8 als

[sconeu]

ISTR that MS did that right. Program Manager entries went to the Start menu.

Re:...the dock.

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

as an average slash dotter (here since 2004ish, degree in computer science, UNIX aficionado, i must disagree. If you add quicksilver (or spotlight search in a pinch) then OSX is the best environment for productive coding IMHO - so there goes that idea!

typing ain't the answer

[frovingslosh]

Typing and searching isn't the answer. Occasionally I don't even know the actual file name of what I'm looking for in Start, but I can easily find it by the name of the folder (application) and where I've stored it in the start menu hierarchy. Searches on my system (with several 2 TB drives) can take prohibitively long, particularly since I don't store all applications on the C system hard drive. This change is a big mistake, and will cause a flood of third party solutions. Unfortunately, although the Start menu was populated automatically by the install process, third party applications will miss this capability and thus will fall short as a substitute. But it isn't as if Microsoft really cares about their users.

Re:typing ain't the answer

[hazah]

It occurs to me (and others) that these methods are *not* mutually exclusive.

Re:typing ain't the answer

[rjstanford]

Searches on my system (with several 2 TB drives) can take prohibitively long, particularly since I don't store all applications on the C system hard drive

That's a bug in Microsoft's indexing implementation then, not a problem with the approach itself.

FWIW, OSX's spotlight search generally runs 3-4 seconds when looking up something obscure and unreferenced in a similar amount of slow HD space.

Re:...the dock.

[FireFlie]

Actually I find spotlight barely usable. Granted, I'm on an older Apple machine, but for me Quicksilver is the way to go hands down. Personally, I wish that Apple got rid of spotlight years ago, purchased Quicksilver, and integrated it into their base operating system. Cmd+space or ctrl+space for quick launch of applications, folders, contacts, sending email, doing arithmetic, looking up words, sending an instant message, running an applescript, and practically anything else that you would want to do on your system.

I wouldn't say the dock is useless, but over the past six years I've probably used it for less than 1% of the applications that I launch.

Re:...the dock.

[reboot246]

I've always had the taskbar set to auto-hide. I guess it's an old habit from the days when monitors were much smaller and I wanted every square inch of space available. Now I have a 24" monitor and I still hide the taskbar.

Oh, and I rarely ever use the start button, though sometimes I wouldn't mind having something in Windows similar to fluxbox right click.

Re:Department of Redundancy Department Jackass

[dan828]

Because this is slashdot and I didn't bother to read it. Not much of a traditionalist, are you?

WRONG!

[blair1q]

I use it all the time.

Hit the Windows key, then arrow down to the app I want? 40-50 times a day.

Their solution had better be something at least as simple to do when working on a laptop with a crappy touchpad or, worse, a clit-stick.

Re:...the dock.

[HermMunster]

Microsoft hasn't a fucking clue. They either don't get out of their own offices or they don't use their own product.

Usability -1

[computerchimp]

People can be put in different groups when it comes to organizing because that is the way their brains work. Some people need to organize some things one way but other things another way.

The windows 7 menu is better for me >90% of the time....but the other 10% is a real pain. For others it might be better 60% of the time.....

Some of the people will be please all the time. Some will be pleased some of the time. Some will be pleased less.

It sucks that MS did not recognize the bigger picture.

Re:...the dock.

[Synerg1y]

Ya, there's stuff like...

http://www.thewindowsclub.com/right-click-context-menu-extender-for-windows-7-released

but it's pretty :( compared to fluxbox.

Re:...the dock.

[Khyber]

2011

Not having a dedicated program-launching keypad.

How quaint.

Bullshit

[Snaller]

I use it daily!

Re:...the dock.

[cp.tar]

Lion’s dock IMO took a small step backwards (click-and-hold no longer shows all the app windows), but along with Spotlight and Quicksilver, it’s more than adequate.
On Linux, I just love Enlightenment’s take on Launchy/Quicksilver. Blazingly fast, intuitive... but my father still prefers the desktop menu to typing.

Re:...the dock.

[errandum]

Well, my 2 years old mbp runs spotlight well enough...

But true, quicksilver is better. But it had a issue with the source of the bookmarks it uses, so I uninstalled it. Might give it another chance soon, though.

The main point remains though. Launchy is good, but it's a spotlight clone. Claiming osx is bad because launchy is the future is a contradiction

Re:...the dock.

[hairyfeet]

Sadly as someone who builds and sells PCs I can tell you why nobody uses the start menu, its because THEY PUT EVERY DAMNED THING ON THE DESKTOP! That's why. I'll get these machines and literally you can't even tell what wallpaper they have for all the damned icons all over the thing.

As long as they have contextual search and Action Center i'll be happy. I can't even remember the last time I fired up start>all programs, its all Action Center and search. But personally i think Win 8 is gonna bomb as its TOO radical. While Win 7 was an easy sell showing the screencaps of Win 8 to over 100 customers so far NOT A SINGLE ONE has had a single nice thing to say about the Win 8 UI, nor has anyone said they'd be willing to run it. the closest I got was this exchange "That is a nice looking cell phone screen. is that Android? I've heard of that, its supposed to be nice....what do you mean windows? Windows what? Well that's just stupid! Why would I want to run a cell phone on my desktop?".

I think little Rita's reaction says it all. Not a single person i showed Win 8 to liked it, wanted it, or was even interested in trying it. it is just too radical and reminds too many of a cell phone. And I hate to break the news to MSFT, most folks hate their cell phones. Oh sure they won't let the thing go, but they can all name a dozen things, from bad reception to UI quirks that really piss them off. so having your new OS look like a cell phone? Not the way to get folks to love it.

Final prediction: Windows 7 becomes the "new XP" aka the OS that just won't die, Win 8 becomes Vista part II, and I get to spend a year and a half stripping windows 8 off and putting windows 7 on because nobody wants to run it, just as I had to do with Vista and XP. Oh fun, oh joy, thanks MSFT you clueless bunch of PHBs.

Start Menu Usefulness

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Microsoft,

You are assuming causation. Let's look at the facts.

1. You had a good thing going in 95-2000

2. XP introduced some changes, but let me still use the classic menu.

1. In WIndows Vista, you changed the UI in the start menu, as compared to Windows XP
        - Different hotkeys
        - Type to search
        - Extra menu
        - New interface suggested things to the user—this changed based on usage habits.
        - The familiar 'Programs' menu was renamed and moved.

2. From XP to Vista you saw decline in the usage of the Start Menu

3. In Windows 7, you kept with the changes you made to the Start Menu, and added a few.

4. Yet again, you saw a decline in the use of the start menu.

Granted, you saw a decline in the usage of the Start Menu. This does not imply that users don't want such a menu. Please remember that many of your users are returning customers—people who have been using Windows for years.

Personally, I loved the Start Menu in Windows 95, 98, (and ME, I guess), 2000, and XP. When I bought a new machine in 2004 that had Vista on it, the changes to the Start Menu were one of my biggest objections. Sure, the spotty performance, frequent crashes, large updates, massive footprint, and the fact that it some how un-activated itself were all contributing factors, but the Start Menu was really the big one, honestly. I used Vista for 6 months and finally decided that I needed to have XP back. When you released 7, I tried it out, thinking, "Maybe they fixed the problems." But the UI problems were actually worse, so I stuck w/ XP. I eventually decided that the ability to play Age of Empires just wasn't that important and switched to Ubuntu, and finally Mac.

I'm really not trying to bash Windows. I used Windows for years and thoroughly enjoyed it. The reason I haven't liked any of the new versions, is that you, Microsoft, keep removing the features I liked—you have effectively removed my familiarity. I liked that Windows 95-XP felt like a system where I could get some work done. Vista-8 feel like toys.

Just my 2 cents.

Sincerely,
-A former customer.

Re:...the dock.

[Canazza]

Windows + TAB + TAB + Enter = Shutdown
Windows + TAB + TAB + Right + L = Log off

Re:And you wonder why?

[D'Sphitz]

I couldn't agree more. I am a developer and use my pc all day every day for work, just built a new pc and upgraded to windows 7 and am really seriously regretting it. I said I'd give it a month before doing anything drastic (like downgrading back to XP32), 3 weeks in and it's not getting any better.

The new start menu, control panel, taskbar, directory views, ribbon menus, all completely suck. I expected that I would have to do some customizing to turn off all the new crap they packed in to the UI, but the most frustrating part of all is they are systematically removing the options to disable their new "innovations".

And what will certainly be the deal breaker for me is the new file search. One of my most used and important tools is now an abortion. I can't understand how this was even conceived of, much less approved, developed, tested and released. Several dozen times per day I hit cntrl+f and feel my heart sink when I realize that I no longer have a functional search feature with a competent interface and useful options.

This OS "upgrade" has been so frustrating. I've spent countless hours trying to restore things that have no valid reason for being gone, such as the "up a directory" arrow and useful status bar info in explorer. I've tried several 3rd party start menu programs now that the "classic start menu" option is inexplicably gone. I've tried fruitlessly to rid myself of ribbon menus and the unnecessary new menu bar in folder views and I've fought a losing battle to disable the magic folder views and get all folders to appear in details view with the same columns. Perhaps my biggest and maybe only success has been getting the task bar back to a reasonable state and restoring the quick launch bar.

I just can't seem to fathom who or how or why these decisions were made, or how (or if) corporations are putting up with it. That this is continuing with Windows 8 has really sealed the deal that this is the last version of Windows I ever pay for.

Re:...the dock.

[FauxReal]

Dock is fine, In fact I pin windows programs to my taskbar, though I preferred the ability to stack them on a menu (quickstart) on the taskbar like in XP. But I do agree with the "no option" perception of OSX. Except for one thing... Serato, it runs more stable on a mac and a macbook pro is built like a tank. That's the only reason I got one. Well that and the command line in OSX is better than Windows CMD. But damn, there are a quite a few OSX apps that have dumb interfaces compared to their Win counterpart. Which is why I dual boot/Vmware.

I stopped using it as much in Vista

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Mostly because the search for files function in Vista no longer works. How do you ship an OS when search works in the previous version, but no longer works in the 'upgraded version'. We upgraded your car. You can no longer shift into reverse.

Re:...the dock.

[Culture20]

They do. If you use Active Directory, it's easy to set up a "always type in the username" policy for the login screens. Also, remember ".\" works as "this local machine" if you ever want to log in as a local account (like every time you want to log in as your local administrator account), I had been typing in the full names of machines during login for a year before somebody told me about that trick...

In Windows 8, right?

[Sir Realist]

Odd (or even, if you prefer) numbered release from Microsoft; who cares, noones going to use it anyways.

Re:Completely agree! Have been using Windows 8 als

[c 0xFF]

I did some more digging on this. Apparently, when upgrading from Win3.1, Program Manager groups are converted to start menu entries (citation). Installing a legacy program on a clean Win95 box doesn't create convert them automatically, it seems, but opening a .grp file adds the entries for you.

So, I think MS did it mostly right, or at least as well as can be expected.

Re:...the dock.

[pspahn]

That's what I was about to say. I use the win-key all the time. It's not so much the start menu I use (there are a handful of things I go there for, though, not often), but the search box. Heck, all the programs I generally use are already open anyway.

Wonder why

[WillRobinson]

Read today apple has 23% of the desktop market. Looks like Microsoft playing right into their hands.

Re:...the dock.

[Vegemeister]

ctrl-alt-delete down down enter.

Re:...the dock.

[donaldm]

For example, KDE has a "start menu". So do several different window managers.

KDE has what is called an "Kickoff Application Launcher" which is related to the menu system in the Common Desktop Environment which goes back to 1993. Prior to that were single desktop session mangers (ie. Motif, NeWS, twm and uwm to name a few) some of which go back to the 1970's which allowed the users to bring up an application list. Microsoft only called the "Launcher" a "Start" menu.

BTW in KDE you can have more than one Launchers if you like or just create an program icon list, either way you have a huge amount of flexibility. As for Microsoft removing their start menu IMHO "who cares" since I have rarely used a Microsoft OS in over 2 years.

Re:ugh

[Man Eating Duck]

Ribbon isn't actually that bad once you get used to it. I didn't like it in Office 2007 much, but it was improved somewhat for 2010. While my experience with it was mostly limited to assignments at university when I didn't have access to OOo, it wasn't as terrible as some have made it out to be. In some ways, it's easier.

I have to strongly disagree with you there, I hate it, but let's not do that discussion right now :)

I just wanted to say that I'd really like a search-as-you-type field like the one in the Start menu, but for the Office ribbon choices. I would have been able to find whatever I wanted in less than a second, I really don't know why the GUI gurus at Microsoft haven't made it an option. Come to think of it that'd be handy for some other applications (vlc?) as well.

Re:...the dock.

[Yaur]

Organized by publisher makes sense because when search fails its usually because of a badly named executable. In that case the most helpful hint is the name of the publisher which will usually be correct.

Well, at least we know IE is safe...

[alteveer]

Wait...

Re:...the dock.

[donaldm]

No need to touch the mouse even, just type <win>search term<enter>.

That convenience makes up for a multitude of Start Menu sins, like wtf organized by publisher by default like I care.

The whole idea of the Microsoft Window system was to avoid using the command line since it was felt that most users would find it too difficult. Looks like we have come full circle from the 1980's. Even then you could bring up a list of applications from a customisable menu or just type a command (mouse optional but preferred) and yes you could even search for a command if you wished. Of course once you run your graphical application you normally need some sort of pointing device to use it properly.

Classic Shell for Win7 works well.

[guidryp]

I use this:
http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/

Here is my Win7 Start menu:
http://imageshack.us/f/801/startmenu7.jpg/

Re:Classic Shell for Win7 works well.

[duguk]

I use this: http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/

Here is my Win7 Start menu: http://imageshack.us/f/801/startmenu7.jpg/

Parent here - That looks excellent! Looks to be even an improvement on the XP version.
Will give this a try, thank you!

/. Abacus Edition

[zooblethorpe]

Absolutely! And that's the same reason I am still using my abacus.

And you're posting here on Slashdot? That's *way* cooler than browsing in Lynx!

Failed for lack of understanding it

[CodeInspired]

I'm not sure why people bag on the start menu so much. If used properly, it's the most helpful tool in all of windows, particularly with Vista and Windows 7. I think the real problem is most people have no idea how powerful it is or what you can do with it. It's always available and can be customized to fit pretty much any type of user.

However, I rarely see anyone who fully takes advantage of it's fetaures. For example, almost noone knows the difference between the "pinned to start" icons and the "recently used programs". I wish the default setting for "show recently used programs" was set to 0. When those icons change positions (and not always predictably) it confuses the hell out of regular users. However, the "pinned" ones stay in the same spot and are always available in 2 simple clicks. And with even modest resolutions, you can get quite a few pinned to start icons that are always available. If you have good vision, you can choose to show the small icons and have room for even more. This feature alone covers the majority of basic users who only typically use 5-10 programs anyway.

For power users, i'm not sure what more you can ask for. Your common programs can be pinned and 2 clicks away. Virtually all major settings and documents can be shown or hidden directly on the start menu in either as a link or as a menu. If that's not enough, you have the all-programs view that shows everything installed in an alphabetized list. And if that's too much of a pain, just click the windows key and start typing what you want. The search is very fast and you typically don't get more than a few characters in before what you are looking for is at the top of the list. And if you wait for even fractions of a second, you will see any relevent control panel options, documents, images, etc etc. that match your search.

It's really the best of both worlds for keyboard and mouse users. The hard part is getting people to understand it. Very few people are taught the "pin-to-start" concept and even fewer know that you can just type to find what you want. Combined with the confusion from the "recently used programs" mess, most people just resort to using a sea of icons littered across their desktop. Virtually every time I show someone how simple it is, and remove the hundreds shortcuts on their desktop, they come back and thank me for making their computer "less stressful".

Re:...the dock.

[jazzmans]

Way, way back in the windows 3.1 days, I used two shareware applications, one was called big windows, (it was 4 virtual desktops) and the other was a right click program manager menu that worked anywhere on the desktop. They were THE killer apps for windows.

I used those on 95, 95 se, 98, and they didn't work on win 2k. I searched and searched and searched, and always found something that gave me the same functionality. I always auto-hid my start menu on windows, and in linux I have two menus top and bottom of screen, and they both are autohide.

Now that I've been a linux only camp for over ten years, XFCE4 does both these exact things perfectly. IOW, microsoft can screw up their system all they want. Me? I've still got my multiple desktops for organizing running applications, and right click anywhere menu.

Oh yeah, OS X sucks floppy donkey balls. I hate the 'dock'
ubuntu sucks shrunken monkey balls
Gnome bites my hairy ass. Why oh why would i want to stupidify my desktop like gnome seems intent on doing?
ribbon looks crappy, but I have no direct experiance with it so . . .

jaz

Re:...the dock.

[mug funky]

there's only 2 or 3 useful things on a mac IMHO. i use them for getting the things done that can only be done with mac-only software. for everything else i use a proper computer.

Final Cut (not the new one)
DVDAfterEdit
sometimes, Apple Color, but i'd much rather use a better program.
Terminal

i only use terminal because the only way to change priority on a mac (something windows does in 4 clicks) is to sudo renice -n , which is a stupid way to do things if you want to multitask.

Re:...the dock.

[mug funky]

hate your job?

good thing you are in control of your destiny.

Are they hiring television executives?

[sjames]

It's SOP for a new incoming television executive. Find the previous exec's biggest success and kill it at all costs. If it's too big to kill, schedule it for a different and random night and time every week, but double up on the graveyard slots. If it's still kicking, demand that they add/remove characters until the chemistry fails. Then, as soon as the ratings slip, give it the ax and declare it to be a flash in the pan.

They didn't make a decent app list

[Stormwatch]

I hate the Start menu as an app launcher because they didn't even get the app list right. Linux did. At least on any Gnome or KDE system (I don't have much experience with other environments), the app list has a proper arrangement by categories: Graphics, Internet, Multimedia, Office, Settings... and from there, apps organized alphabetically. But on Windows, there is no such arrangement, everything goes together. It's a mess.

I use it!

[The Immutable]

So how many of you opted out of Microsoft's usage statistics because of 'privacy' issues?

ahhh, brings back memories

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of the Windows 95 ad campaign, where they used the Rolling Stones song titled "start me up" to publicize their addition of the start menu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0AJM6HMYjM

Unfortunately, they loop the title phrase over and over instead of playing the next line which is "you make a grown man cry..." how true.

Re:...the dock.

[hairyfeet]

Actually I LOVE my job, after doing corp it is like paradise. in corp some PHB is always fucking you over, cutting the budget, just one dumb shit thing after another, but working with SMBs, SOHOs, and home users? they KNOW they don't know shit and therefor actually listen to what you have to say. i just find the whole "lets dump everything on the desktop!" bit irritating. But its nice to help a lady keep in touch with her grandkids, or help a business to get their work done faster, and unlike corp I don't see my work trashed by some PHB with an MBA that think he knows IT but is really an ID10T.

But its nice when I don't even have to have business cards anymore because I get so much from word of mouth that I'm always swamped. hell i even have my landlady slipping notes under my door saying "If you have time would you call my friend? she needs some work done" and I usually have 3 or 4 messages waiting for me at the shop when i get back from a service call.

I still say win 8 is gonna bomb though. I have everything from electricians to graphic artists to housewives to print shops as customers and not a single one I've shown the screengrabs of win 8 has had a nice thing to say, not one. with Win 7 I got "that's nice looking, but how hard is it to work?" followed by questions about various tasks so it was obvious they were at least curious, and I haven't had a single customer come back and say "I wanna go back to XP" after upgrading.

But win 8? downright hostile. NOBODY wants it, nobody wants to know anything about it, in fact the question I got the most was "But YOU'LL be able to get me another Windows 7 machine if i need it, right?" which considering i build the desktops and research the netbooks/notebooks before purchasing? Not a problem, but it is pretty obvious at least for my customers Win 8 is gonna be another Vista. at least I won't have to kill myself looking for win 7 drivers like I did for Vista to XP.

Re:Completely agree! Have been using Windows 8 als

[Nermal6693]

Legacy apps still went into the Start menu. I'm certain of that.

As for some apps not going in there, it's possible that some legacy apps' installers tried to write directly to the .grp file instead of using the normal API. That'd probably cause problems.

This should come as no surprise.

[idbeholda]

Microsoft pretty much crippled the start menu with vista, and continued that particular downward spiral into 7. When you make something less efficient, people tend to use it less. The basic idea is that Microsoft is crying because they sat on their own fist. It's only a matter of time before they get rid of the GUI and give us back DOS. When that day arrives, technology will not be here to advance us, but only to usher in The New Dark Age that much more effectively. Enjoy your light fixtures while you still can.

Re:...the dock.

[mattventura]

Of course its harder to use if you insist on navigating through it. Just type what you want in the search box. It even works as a run prompt. Try typing "ping -t 4.2.2.2" or something in it. I don't even remember the last time I actually navigated through the start menu.

Re:...the dock.

[renegadesx]

Which is why he said he wasn't sure if parent was trolling or ignorant. If parent was serious in his views on the dock, then he would consider parent 'ignorant'.

Questioning their data gathering.

[w0mprat]

A lot of people use the integrated search in the start menu, often using the Windows hot key to pop it up, type something, hit enter. Power users especially work this way, it's the sole reason I keep coming back to Windows7 is the start menu with it's search and the taskbar is a productivity combo I don't seem to be able to match anywhere else.

Don't get me wrong metro is nice.. but I don't see it being productive. Microsoft seems unaware a good fraction of their users use their OS to get stuff done. Leave the idle content consumption and finger swipping to Apple.

Re:I guess it is never used .... at MS

[mattventura]

The problem is that having tons of icons on the taskbar clogs up the taskbar so your open windows get compressed. I use small icons, have only 8 things pinned to the taskbar, and it takes up about 1/5 the width of my 1680px wide monitor. I used to have more, but then there just wasn't enough space for open windows.

So .. 89% of users are using the start menu?

[pseudonomous]

So Microsoft claims 11% less users use the start menu in Windows 7 vs. Vista. I'll believe that; I assume everybody using Vista uses the start menu, so they're only deprecating a feature used by 89% of all users.

Re:...the dock.

[perryizgr8]

afaik win7 searches very well inside all sorts of files, even ocr'd pdfs.

Re:...the dock.

[arth1]

Windows + TAB + TAB + Enter = Shutdown

Actually, no - it's the last action you performed from the submenu. If that was a restart, it will restart instead.

The reason why people don't use the start menu anymore is twofold, and both reasons are due to Microsoft, not the users:
1: The menu is inconsistent. Things move around. People choose options easier by spatial cues than by reading the text every time. "Smart" menus are anything but. (This goes for the godawful "awesomebar" in Firefox too)
2: The user should not wait for the UI, but the other way around. To have to hover and wait or click again, and then find and hit little arrow keys to scroll through the full list, you slow down the user, without adding anything of value.

I've tried Windows 8 preview, but it took me half an hour to find out how to shut down, and I still haven't figured out how to navigate to and bring up the program I want to run. It's just not intuitive. "Try to look like an iPhone" is a recipe for failure unless you are an iPhone. This is why Gnome 3 fails so badly too.

Re:...the dock.

[Brad1138]

I recently upgraded all my comps to 7. I find I do like the XP start menu better. It would have been easy to keep that style and add a search line. I also dual boot into Ubuntu and really dislike the move to Unity (I am trying HARD to like it). I would much rather have the "start menu" that Gnome uses. I don't want to type what I am looking for, I want to click 2 or 3 times, and have it in about 2 seconds. Some of the time I can't remember the name of what I am looking for, but I know where it is in the tree of the start menu, or what the icon looks like. I'll give unity a little more time, but I miss Gnome. When Ubuntu goes to Unity exclusively and Win 8 is out, not sure what I'll do.

How to get a semi-functional menu in Windows 8

[Laughing Dog]

... at least for the Desktop. Right-click on the taskbar. Find the "toolbars" option. Add the Desktop toolbar. It doesn't put it in the place it's been since late 1994, but it's at least a useable menu.

Re:Ctrl + Esc

[jmd_akbar]

Just hit Ctrl + Esc, on your Model M.

This is weird, cuz this shortcut key combo works on every Windows machine, not just on an IBM M...

Solution: a shortcut on the desktop

[Ralph Spoilsport]

to the applications folder.

Re:...the dock.

[gumbi west]

I'm afraid your unix-geek card is going to have to be revoked if you prefer 4 clicks to a CLI command.

Re:...the dock.

[gumbi west]

If you think there are no options in OS X, you need to get to know the CLI. It is still unix, you can go and edit the script / config files just like any *nix.

Re:...the dock.

[Zemran]

If you want a Start menu with OSX, it is easy to create one. I did with my last MBP. You just create an application folder organised into subdirectories and put it next to the bin. When you mouse over it will show the first level using the desired style and you can navigate down through the directories... Great, but I doubt that it is worth the effort as now I just use subdirectories so that there is not too much stuff on the top level of the applications directory and I can find stuff quickly.

Start menu or search menu

[lsatenstein]

Once a long time ago I installed a program and some data into some folders. I used the start menu to list the contents of program files, and from that browsing, I found the program I needed. (I was misspelling it on the command line)

For data, the search button is needed. The previous doorway was the start menu. What will be the new doorway?

Lies!

[nyebelin]

There are three kind of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. MS just feel like to kill the Start Menu, and is using statistics to justify it. :D If only MS uses reasons other than statistics, we MIGHT still believed it.

finally stopped using it after years

[kaoshin]

Heavy start menu user here. Windows 7 was my first transition to new craptastic interface. I never could get comfortable and settled on an alternative, bblean.

Finally! Microsoft is following Linux leadership!

[lvxferre]

...after the KDE's crazy drop of functionality in KDE4, and GNOME trolling us with 'we want to make it so simple you cannot do real work in GNOME 3', now Microsoft is following the pioneers of interface hell! What a wonderful way to go!

Now, let us imagine the future...

[Random user] "Will Mac OS X v10.9 "Lazy Kitty" have a dock?"
[Apple dev] "No, it's too boring and like, yesterday. But it'll have so much eye candy that your eyes will develop diabetes!"

[Random user 2] "Where are my icons in Xfce5?"
[Xfce dev] "They're too resource-heavy, we let them out. You ain't gonna need them!"

Did all the brains leave Microsoft?

[Torodung]

Figure 4 reveals that 85% of people have three or more items pinned to the taskbar compared to a mere 23% who have the same number pinned to the Start menu.

Guess what the default configuration of Windows 7 is? Three items pinned to the taskbar, nothing pinned to the Start Menu.

So most people running with the default configuration is indicative of a trend?

Wow. I don't mind the idea of a "start page" one bit, but I do think this is some of the worst data analysis I have seen in a long, long time.

They probably just can't remove the start button from the taskbar because then it would essentially be a dock, and Apple would come a-suing.

Re:Did all the brains leave Microsoft?

[lvxferre]

Agreed. Figure 4 revelas that 85% of Windows users don't know how customize their desktop.

Re:...the dock.

[JMJimmy]

Interesting you choose to attack the person instead of the argument. I used the dock for as long as my MacBook Pro 2,1 hardware lasted (less than 2 years). The problem with the dock is that the more programs you have on it the harder it becomes to use. It also requires you to be able to remember the icon for each and every item on it or add in the text name which clutters the interface and also does not deal with long names well.

I'm neither a troll nor ignorant, just acutely aware of UI issues.

Re:Lab / Public / Shared PCs

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing a game of 20 questions by typing names of programs until you hit a match isn't good UI.

...is Akinator implemented in W8? I ALWAYS KNEW WINDOWS IS BLOATED!!!!

That will make launching SPSS fun...

[Radical Moderate]

...since they've changed their name with each new version for the last 3 releases. Sorry, that's IBM SPSS now. I can hear our users whining already....

Re:That will make launching SPSS fun...

[yuna49]

I recently had need to run some analyses on a survey taken for my college reunion and discovered PSPP. Before that I discovered gretl. For someone who hadn't run a regression or crosstab for some years now, and who wasn't about to buy an SPSS license just to run a few tables, I was delighted to find FOSS statistical packages.

+1000, and amen!

[Radical Moderate]

nt

On Killing Seldom Used Features

[XPulga]

Let's do a quick exercise in Microsoftian design: The week has 168 hours.

Shall we assume the typical adult male has 4x 15-minute sexual intercourses per week ? It's probably pushing a bit, but fine, let's exaggerate. That'll be 1 hour per week.

Shall we assume the typical adult male urinates 8 times per day (once every 2 hours while awake), and each event lasts 1 minute ? That'll be 8 minutes per day, 56 minutes per week. Let's round things up and call it 1 hour. We're exaggerating anyway.

166/168 = 0.9880. On our typical adult male, the penis is idle and unused 98.8% of the time. If the human body was designed by the Windows 8 design team, we would be dickless.

the deal with NeXTSTEP expired

[pbjones]

My guess is that the original deal with NeXTSTEP, that gave Windows 95 many of it's UI elements, finally expired. :-) This leaves only MacOSX still running NS code.

Re:...the dock.

[Gadget_Guy]

Windows + TAB + TAB + Enter = Shutdown

Or you could try Windows + Right + Enter = Shutdown

I have only tested this on Vista, but I am sure that Windows 7 is the same.

On Windows 8 you simply keep clicking around everywhere until the tears rolling off your face eventually short out your computer. It is a fairly intuitive interface, although it does require counselling after using it.

Re:...the dock.

[Jaruzel]

Difficult to do if you are RDPed into the server as Ctrl-Alt-Delete doesn't work.

Re:...the dock.

[Jaruzel]

Windows + R, then type Shutdown [-r] -t 0

The -r does a reboot the -t 0 is time till shutdown, in this case zero seconds.

Re:...the dock.

[Jaruzel]

Oh I forgot, to logoff:

Shutdown -l

(That's an L btw, not a 1 or an I)

stupid developers...

[SuperDre]

They already fubarred the StartMenu with Vista by not expanding like in XP and earlier.. Ofcourse people are gonna use it less if you cripple it.. I use it a lot as I find it a good way to find all the program's I have installed (yes I do some archiving/structuring with my startmenu).. I've even installed 'Classic StartMenu' to get the same XP startmenu back (but still retain the current too).. In Windows 7 I find myself much more searching for stuff as in previous windows (I can't say anything about Vista as I never used it).. Also looking at Windows 8 with it's Metro style look, yeah it looks great, but having experimented with it some, I found myself still using the 'classic desktop' much more as it was more convenient for me.. (why the hell do I need to use the scrollbar when using the mouse compared to using a finger anywhere).

Win8 and Apps

[sodafox]

Want your Start button back? Don't worry... there's an app for that.

WIndows 8 codename "seppuku"

[WaffleMonster]

Go ahead Microsoft ignore us, think you know better. We are all just change adverse loosers.

Go for it... the desktop is "dead" and everyone will be fondling their screens and likeing it in the next two years anyway. I mean it is not like you are depending on *us* to actually spend money to purchase a new version of windows?

P.S. Do you believe the nerve of all those trolls clinging to their 286's during the Vista beta bitching up a storm about system requirements and performance?

No shit Sherlock

[MistrX]

When they changed the way Start works since Vista, it sucks bigtime. Having lot's of programs installed makes that list too long and the hassle of finding your program becomes too great to bother with it. The way XP works was better to me: Expand it all over your desktop. Nice a grid of all your installed apps in one sight.
Switching to classic isn't an option, it removes the shortcuts aswell. It really goes into primitive mode, 98 style.

Now I use 3rd party tools to get my OS to do what I want with it. How absurd is that?

Microsoft! Stop telling me on how to use my pc please! And bring some legacy options back that WILL enhance usability.

Launchy didn't do it for me

[Hyperhaplo]

One of the problems with launchy I found was that you need to know what you want to launch.

So, yes, I can remember a few of the programs I've used recently and for years.. but for ages ago? No.

For a long time I kept a folder on my desktop with shortcuts to all of the games available.

I can understand why MS think that less people use the scroll bar start menu in Windows 7. It sucks compared to the XP menu. It's simple logic - as a user I want to see all of the programs installed, even if it does take up the whole screen to do so.

The windows start bar 'search for programs and files' has bugs. For example, a search for "office" does not return a match for "OpenOffice.org Writer".

A couple of days ago, I thought (for a very short time) that OpenOffice was not installed. I searched in the menu, and yes.. OpenOffice is there..

Before they remove the start menu they would need to fix the weird search behaviour.

Also, technically, programs will still want to install to the 'start' location. Does this mean that someone will write a 3rd party application to provide a start menu for windows?

Let's see what Wikipedia says:
"The Start Menu and Start Button are user interface elements used in the later versions of the Microsoft Windows operating systems and in some X window managers. The Start Button provides a central launching point for application and tasks."

So, considering this.. they are .. killing it?

Did they? How would I know?

[RockDoctor]

Oh, I know - I'll find out about it the next time the office invests in a new set of laptops for the mobile workers.

Or maybe I'll persuade the IT guys to pass this new version too. Or just stick to using one of the older laptops until they've all burned out.

(I leave the question of "Why should I care?" as an exercise for the reader.)

Re:Why can't they ever change?

[RockDoctor]

Oh, it's an AC ... is it worth replying too? Well, possibly, since I can't be bothered searching the discussion for anything else worth bothering to reply to.

Where's your start menu in iOS? Oh but iOS is the best OS in the market! It doesn't need one cause they have the dock bar at the bottom.

Have any of you used windows 7 lately? Guess what that bar is down there. Yeah that's right.

Actually using Windows 7 at the moment, because it's what work have provided on this laptop, for this trip. What I get next trip on the next job, who knows?

errr, bar at the bottom? Same shit that has been there since IIRC Win95. Is that the same as iOS-PussyCat-49 (or whatever the current version is) ... well I'll ask the next person I see using a Mac. Don't expect an answer for several months.

There's the window key+typing, there's the new dock bar+pin functionality and the good old search for your software.

Sorry, but the last training I had in how to use computers was ... back when we made the transition from actual Teletype terminals to "glass Teletype" terminals. Everything else since then I've had to pick up the manual, read it, and then catch up with the work that I've missed while reading it. Which, since I get paid for doing my job, not for being an IT person, generally means that all novel interfaces etc get ignored for 4 or 5 years, and except for systems that I'm paid to use (and teach the use of), half to two-thirds of major releases get skipped. They are not cost-effective.

Why the gratuitous hate for the company that granted

"granted"? "GRANTED"? Man, can I have a smoke on that. I know I'll fail my next piss test, even if it is in a couple of years, but it must be worth smoking. Or is that just your pay check talking?

most of you the means to be the engeniers and IT guys you are today?

Even if I spell "engineer" differently to you, why do you assume that I'm an engineer OR an IT guy? Sure I use IT quite a bit ; sure I'm normally the person (on the site) with the best understanding of IT in general and personal computers and their applications in particular. But what makes you think that I'd want to do that for a living?

The banner is (or was? I can't remember what the home page looks like, it's so rare to go there) "News for Nerds". Not "News for engineers and IT guys." There may be a lot of IT guys here ; they may even be a majority (if you include the programmers under that banner), but they're certainly not even what you'd call a "substantial majority".

Now, get the fuck off my lawn.

Re:...the dock.

[ByOhTek]

With windows remove a quicklaunch that was detachable from the task bar, WIndows Vista/7 have actually increased my use of the start Menu.

Re:...the dock.

[Cyphax]

In RDP, END takes over from Delete. :)

Re:...the dock.

[CubicleView]

I love my samsung g s2. I would marry it if God existed and allowed such unholy unions.

Re:...the dock.

[Jaruzel]

Ah, good to know. Maybe I should have read the documentation years ago ;)

Re:...the dock.

[Agret]

If you press start and type 'cmd' you have to wait for the start menu to finish searching for it before it will let you launch it via enter. You will find it's more productive to press Windows Key + R and type cmd and hit enter and you get it up instantly.

Re: Custom App menu for MacOS

[stratdesign]

Correct, messing with the Applications folder is bad news. Here's how to arrange things how you want (this works up to 10.6, and assume Lion)
1. Create a folder somewhere in your user directory, call it something like "Apps".
2. Drag shortcuts of your apps (not the apps!) into that folder (you can also make subfolders and put the shortcuts in those)
3. Drag that folder to the Dock. Once you turn off the lame default "fan" display, you will have a nice menu of apps. Apps in folders will have cascading menus.

Only downside is it is strictly alphebetical sorting. That can be fixed by renaming the shortcuts/folders

Re:...the dock.

[Windowser]

When Ubuntu goes to Unity exclusively and Win 8 is out, not sure what I'll do.

Just install KDE and your problem is solved

Re:...the dock.

[V for Vendetta]

The whole Vista/7 dual-sided start bar is still a pain to navigate [...]

Try Classic Shell, which brings back "the old" W2K menu to Vista/Win7/W2K8 Server. It has been a life saver for me. It even adds (configurable) the missing "Shared folder" icon indicators, which MS - in all their wisdom - removed from W2K8 Server.

Re:...the dock.

[Sfing_ter]

not if he puts the terminal program on the dock... just sayin...
and btw - most mac docks I've seen go damn near across the entire screen with all the programs they "need" there, so this is just another of Microsoft's "if we say it is so, it shall be so" statements.

Re:...the dock.

[jo_ham]

Funny that the "we don't have an option for that" OS X has a bash shell right there for your command line methods.

Fast, flexible and easy. ;)

Re:...the dock.

[jo_ham]

You can make it one click if you script it.

Perhaps two clicks and a couple of keystrokes if you want to vary which process gets niced.

Re:...the dock.

[jo_ham]

Apple actually started doing this by default since many people did it anyway, I think around the time they introduced the pop-out Stacks feature with fan/grid. The downloads folder starts there be default on new installs for sure.

Re:...the dock.

[jo_ham]

You can change pretty much anything you like - just fire up Terminal and go to town the unix way (or get a GUI app that will do the unix stuff for you).

It would be nice if Apple published a list of variables and settings etc, but they are all in there and editable.

All this aside

[Ol Olsoc]

Unless there is some technical reason the start menu interferes with operations, let it alone. Arguments about how to sorta kinda do what the start menu did are beside the point.

This is just the sort of thing that is so annoying about Microsoft. Someone decides how we're going to work, and not so much how we might be working already, or even how we want to work.. That's how we get masterpieces like "The Ribbon". Completely useless contrivances that at their very best are just different, but in practice tend to slow things down. I don't care about the "Well, you can just....." Sorry, if you just have to put that priceless ribbon, put it in, but leave an option for the old menu based system.

This isn't get off my lawnism, the OS is the lowest of the low, and shouldn't be changed just because they can change it. Microsoft seems to have this idea that we sit around and get all excited about the OS, that we sigh contentedly when we see all the wonderful things it does. Bull. the best OS is the one that keeps out of my way while I'm using my applications. Which is to say that if someone wants to use the start menu, it should be there. If a person has been using Windows since 95, then they should have the option to do just that. (Windows one and 3.1 excluded for obvious reasons - 1 didn't work, and 3.1 barely qualified as a GUI)

Re:...the dock.

[CronoCloud]

The problem with that is that you can't use that right click menu if you're already running an application full screen, you either have to minimize or resize to see desktop. Fluxbox could use "start button". Yes I know, you can bind the right click application menu to something like Ctrl+F1 or something.

Finder

[imahawki]

Sounds like they're going more the Finder type route from OSX. I don't think hitting one (or two) keys and typing in "Word" and then [enter] is exactly "using the command line" as someone earlier implied.

Re:...the dock.

[dingen]

I have an iMac from 2007 and Spotlight is completely instant as an application launcher. After typing one or two characters, the correct application is already there and I just hit enter to launch it.

I have tried Quicksilver years ago, before Spotlight was introduced, but I didn't like it then, because I didn't get it really.

Up next

[stubob]

Microsoft introduces the Start Menu Ribbon!

Re:...the dock.

[JMJimmy]

Yeah, bash is great and can do a lot that the GUI can't. Bash != Launchy though in terms of interface. Launchy vanishes automatically after executing a query, it can be extended via plugins, can start the browser and do a search automatically, can index more than just the start menu, etc. Bash can do many of these things but it's a lot more typing and knowledge required to operate it.

In terms of OS vs OS if bash/terminal are required to execute/configure some options/programs then knowledge of those commands and their flags is required and if that's the case then why bother with OSX? Linux would be the better alternative because you can see/create source code and is far more open than OSX in very way. Windows has the advantage of both command line and GUI options. While I'm not a fan of the direction Microsoft is heading with their GUI, it is far far more complete than either OSX or Linux.

Re:...the dock.

[cHiphead]

I use the dock the same way I use the start menu, it provides the exact same functionality for me (and add the Applications folder to the dock, set as List format and its like an All Programs menu).

You obviously don't use a Mac on a regular basis. I once had the same opinion you did, but I only used Macs on occasion at that point. I've been on a Mac for work since late 2009 and find the Dock always feels cleaner and more useful than the Start menu, especially the Start menu's tendency to auto-close when you get a notification from something in the taskbar. Also, Launchy is nice, but I don't run DOS anymore, I just use quick shortcuts for the 5-10 apps I use most often.

Re:...the dock.

[cHiphead]

I don't think the Windows 8 UI can be considered 'radical', its more of a downgrade to a category of less useful devices. Radical would be holographic touch interfacing or cybernetic interfacing of some sort.

Re:...the dock.

[rossy]

Hate to ask, what is a PHB? I know what a PhD is but a PHB has me wondering what I'm missing.

Re:...the dock.

[rossy]

You are 100% on. I REFUSE to wait for any user interface. I also find "it's now OK for you to shutdown" what about power outages. If an OS can't let me be in charge, it fails.

Thought i would miss my Command Promt too

[Wingfat]

I will miss the Start Menu, but not for long i bet. I missed the C Promt, and Directory Magic programs and BBS sites too. But now i look back on them as learning tools for future generations. I know my kid will benifit from my years of working in DOS and programming in Basic and Pascal, and HTML. I hope he will enjoy a good read/laugh of my DOS 3.11 hard cover books i have ;-) I wonder what the PC 15years from now will be.. lol

Re:...the dock.

[Dog-Cow]

You also should buy a toughbook if a Macbook Pro lasted less than 2 years.

I predict...

[neminem]

More people will install classic shell. There we go, problem solved. I mean, Win7's start menu is already an ugly piece of garbage, who cares whether they take it out? (Unless it were to replace it with something that wasn't an ugly piece of garbage, but we all know how likely that is.) I have Win7 at home, and almost none of the UI is native. I predict, for computer-savvy people at least, that will be increasingly common as the Windows UI team goes more and more bonkers changing things for the sake of it.

Re:...the dock.

[kilfarsnar]

Yes, Windows 7 search is completely broken. It only searches in commonly used locations by default. If I knew a file was in my Documents folder, I wouldn't have to search for it, now would I? Even then, it doesn't return complete results. Microsoft contraindicates indexing your entire drive, but how else am I to find hard-to-find files? Oh, and it doesn't update the index anyway. In short, it's a big pile of fail.

Re:...the dock.

[_0xd0ad]

The Quick Launch is a toolbar docked in the Task Bar with no title, small icons, and no icon text, which displays the contents of the folder "%appdata%\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch".

Win7 doesn't include it by default, but you can add it.

Re:...the dock.

[JMJimmy]

As I said, I used it on a regular basis for not quite 2 years. 5-10 apps is not using it very much - in the circles I run in you'll have that many in use let alone needing a quick way to access to. My sister's and brother-in-law's docks must have a minimum of 60 items on them. The icons are so small and it takes them ages to find anything and manage it. Mine was the same way when I used it (for video production/web development/etc).

You obviously don't understand what Launchy is. DOS requires you to type in a full command to execute things. Launchy indexes your programs/shortcuts (even documents if you want) that you specify to give quick keyboard access to them. Alt+space (this is my defined shortcut to open it, you can set it to whatever), hit f and enter opens firefox as an example since it's the most common program I access that starts with F. If I want flash it's fl, etc. Compare this to how long it takes to move your hand off the keyboard, navigate the mouse to the doc/start menu/shortcut/etc click, and return your hand to the keyboard. Even faster if you want to do a search and you're in another program, alt+space type your search. If your browser is closed it opens it and searches in your default search engine, if it's open it does the search in a new tab and brings it to the front. The other advantage of this a lot less visual clutter on the OS and you don't even need to pay attention to the OS just use the apps.

Trashy

[mcavic]

the Start menu has been replaced with a screen full of live tiles that can serve as both as an application launcher as well as widgets containing information.

I think Microsoft is trying to realize the 1990s vision of Virtual Reality, where you log on, you see words floating around in the sky, you reach out and grab the word you want, and it takes you there.

Solution

[LongearedBat]

Classic Shell

Customisable start menu and added Explorer functions. I've made it a standard feature on all my computers.

Re:...the dock.

[Stides]

Pointy Haired Boss - Dilbert reference

Re:...the dock.

[JMJimmy]

I just moved back to PCs and dual booting Windows 7 and Linux.

That MacBook was a disaster... mis-applied thermal paste caused heating issues, after I got that resolved it was still hot enough to burn my wrists and become too hot to type on (repeatedly hit 105 degrees C and auto-shutdown on minimal use). The hard drive failed, the optical drive failed, the RAM failed, the network card failed twice, and finally it would only boot randomly and only if it hadn't been running for a while - once booted it would only stay running for a maximum of 10 minutes before it shut off without warning. Absolute nightmare and it cost twice as much prior to all the replacement parts/service.

Return to Window 3.1

[mosquitobite]

Isn't this like returning to Windows 3.1? "Now the circle is complete." -Darth Vader

Re:Maybe it sucks ass now is why there is a declin

[_0xd0ad]

I have show desktop (also sadly missing on wife's computer?)

Open notepad, paste:

[Shell]
Command=2
IconFile=explorer.exe,3
[Taskbar]
Command=ToggleDesktop

Save as "Show Desktop.scf".

WinKey+D is easier though.

And to get the Quick Launch toolbar back, right-click the taskbar, make sure it's not locked, then Toolbars->New Toolbar. The Quick Launch folder is "%userprofile%\Application Data\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch".

The Start Menu's are not that bad.

[Alunral]

Windows 7's Start Menu is far from bad, it's just that it's both outdated and clunky. The current Win7 taskbar is nice, but I'd rather have the small shortcuts that show up above the "All Programs" and Instant Search bars removed completely, and JUST have the list. It's also a tad slow in opening. Even then, I run Executer, which both comes up faster, and looks far nicer then the current Start Menu. Windows 8's Start Menu, once people stop griping about how it looks, I can see being very nice for icon-clickers. Once they add the ability to add a shortcut to that without needing to edit anything, it'll actually be far more useful than the current one. But the main problem is that...many of the things we're used to that ALL OS's have is that the powerdown, restart, sleep, hibernate buttons/links are no longer there. That alone will frustrate more people than it's worth. Microsoft may be trying to make it to where people don't need to shutdown that often, but they're forgetting that it takes a lot of electricity to keep something running. You people who use the desktop for all of your shortcuts...the Metro-style Start Menu is EXACTLY that, and will BE that once it's finished. Just without the desktop. Now tell me which is easier, tapping the Windows button/clicking or getting to the desktop and then finding it. ...Arguably, both would take the same time, sometimes.

Re:...the dock.

[man_of_mr_e]

If you're on the console, then ctrl-alt-del + enter is a quick lock.

If you're rdp in, then it's the same but substitue end for del

Log off is ctrl-alt-del+down arrow+enter

Shut down is ctrl-alt-del + tab + tab + tab + enter

No mouse needed. If you don't like the GUI for setting permission, use the command line. net use and cacls are your friends.

Re:...the dock.

[norminator]

I actually use the Start Menu quite a bit, but only for the search function. Browsing the the actual menu is worse on Vista/7 than it ever was in any previous version, but overall I still like it more, precisely because I don't have to browse any more. I just hit the Windows key, start typing the first few letters of what I want and hit Enter.

It somewhat replaces utilities like SlickRun and Launchy (but not completely), making programs very easy to find, because I don't have to look for them.

Re:...the dock.

[norminator]

When I know the full name of the .exe file, I do use Win+R, but other times the Start Menu search works great.

I just tried your example, hitting the Win key, typing "cmd", and immediately hitting Enter... It took a few seconds to find it, but when it did it launched it right away, I didn't have to wait until it found it to press Enter. This could be bad in situations where some programs might have the same (or similar) names, but if you're reasonably certain that what you're typing is unique to that one program (even if you're only typing the first 3 or 4 letters), it's pretty reliable.

Re:...the dock.

[arth1]

I can't see why one can't have both the search bar of Vista+ and the fast and explorable start menu of XP-
The best of both worlds.

Re:...the dock.

[SuricouRaven]

From what I can work out, Seven/Vista's search is made to work with the index. No index, no useable search. XP didn't need the index, it just served to aid performance. In my quest for the avian porn, I was searching a network share... no index available, so Vista's search just failed dismally.

Re:...the dock.

[diego.viola]

That's why I love my ThinkPad so much, I run Linux on my ThinkPad and I can stress it and put it on a bed and it will never overheat, it's an awesome piece of hardware.

I have a Lenovo ThinkPad T510.

Re:...the dock.

[mug funky]

i haven't earned that card yet.

however, it's worth noting that i learned how to change a process' priority on windows without having to google anything. all that's needed is knowledge of "ctrl+alt+del", which is not an obvious combination, but one that's well known.

when i found "activity monitor", i thought "brilliant! it's just like task manager!", except that you couldn't actually do anything in it. then i spent a long, unhelpful time googling mac forums ("lol, works for me", "lol, why would anyone ever want to do that?"), before i wondered whether there was a bash command to do it.

mac support forums are the most useless corners of the internet. it's full of answers to legit questions doubting why a user would ever want to do what they ask, or people helpfully adding that they have no problem and their machine just works.

of course, OSS forums aren't much better - lots of very hostile RTFM style posts, or "don't bother me, feeb" type posts.

Re:...the dock.

[gumbi west]

I write software (developer tools, remote server management tools), teach (MS office required), and writeup research (real document creation software and citation management software) and I have about 20 things in my dock. I think that if I installed a "finder" like quickster, I'd never use it, though I do sometimes use spotlight to find a file, I usually am using the find text in the document feature when I'm doing this.

Using more than 20 programs doesn't really make sense to me, I doubt that most people use more than 10 of them a week.

Hmmm...

[Stone2065]

Am I the only one that is wondering HOW they're finding this out? Simply surveys, or ?

Re:What OS are you guys using?

[Reziac]

The "start button, then just type" works fine so long as you don't have any categories/programs that use a Winkey-letter. Frex, I had to name my utilities section "Tools" because Winkey-U is the start menu shortcut for Shut Down.

Re:...the dock.

[arglebargle_xiv]

Sadly as someone who builds and sells PCs I can tell you why nobody uses the start menu, its because THEY PUT EVERY DAMNED THING ON THE DESKTOP! That's why. I'll get these machines and literally you can't even tell what wallpaper they have for all the damned icons all over the thing.

Too true, unfortunately. I do a lot of family-and-friends tech support (as do most people on this site), and if it's not on the desktop then it doesn't exist.

Having said that, what you're describing is a problem that you (meaning geeks in general) have with Win8. For Joe Sixpack with eight million icons sprayed all over his desktop, Win8 is probably a great improvement. So Win8 could well be a huge success, because (sadly) the market is Joe Sixpack (or Frito Pendejo) and not techies.

Re:...the dock.

[Baki]

I agree. But in OSX you can use cmd+space almost like launchy.

And the windows vista and windows 7 start menu also can replace launchy.
Should windows 8 remove the start menu, I'll have to return to launchy.

Re:...the dock.

[gumbi west]

I've always gotten great help at Apple's support forum, you might want to try that.

If are used to one computer/program and start to use another it is often the case that some things are harder in one and easier in the other and others are just different. If you judge OS X on its conformance to MS design standards, it will fail. Accept that you will have to learn a few things about a new OS (across the board) and go with its flow a bit, and it will work much more smoothly for you.

Probably the best thing for you to do would be to write an apple script (or perl program) that implements your desires in an automated fashion. After you do that, you will find it hard to use either OS without that script (so write it in perl).

Re:ugh

[Zancarius]

I have to strongly disagree with you there, I hate it, but let's not do that discussion right now :)

Hah!

I admit, I absolutely resented Ribbon and everything it stood for when MS first announced it, and then included it in Office 2007. Perhaps the only reason I developed some fondness for it--much like one might grow fond of repeated lashings over time--is because of the circumstances; I had no choice! For simple tasks, it does seem to improve workflow. Though, the biggest annoyance of Ribbon for me was whenever I needed to access the 20% of use cases Ribbon doesn't address. I'm not sure if that was ignorance of Ribbon (on my part) or that it simply wasn't capable or written to expose certain features (possible).

That said, the last version of Office I've ever purchased was 2003. I still have '97 around somewhere, but I've generally stuck with using OOo wherever possible. Maybe I'm showing my age, but menu-driven interfaces make me feel more comfortable. At least I can find what I need fairly quickly.

I just wanted to say that I'd really like a search-as-you-type field like the one in the Start menu, but for the Office ribbon choices. I would have been able to find whatever I wanted in less than a second, I really don't know why the GUI gurus at Microsoft haven't made it an option. Come to think of it that'd be handy for some other applications (vlc?) as well.

Oh man, that would've made my life easier. That's been my biggest complaint about Ribbon: Finding those damnable options! Under a menu-driven interface, everything is reasonably well organized and condensed; under Ribbon, it's similar in a way to menu-driven--if you substitute menus with tabs--but the limited screen real estate greatly reduces the option density available since you can't exactly hide it in an intuitive manner that wouldn't outright confuse everyone.

You've got a good point. Why the UI designers at MS never considered doing something like that, most especially during the initial transitional period that Office 2007 greeted us with, almost boggles the mind. Providing some fairly intuitive and simple method of finding uncommon-but-necessary-options, particularly during a huge paradigm shift, almost seems like common sense (or hindsight?) material. Great idea, though!