Slashdot Mirror
For Windows 8 Users, Stardock Revives the Start Menu
jones_supa writes "By reinventing the Start Menu in Windows 8, Microsoft has caused some resistance to the new Start Screen. For those longing for the classic way of doing things, Stardock comes to rescue. The Start8 is a piece of software which replicates the functionality of the button and menu found in previous versions of Windows. Supported is starting applications, the Run and Shutdown features, and search."
People get set in their ways, no question about it. Plenty of OSs don't have a start menu and they're quite usable. While I don't think the start menu is inherently bad OR good, I think people get way too hung up on the way a proprietary OS used to be - up to the point that they mod the hell out of the interface. I use MacOS and Windows 7 and Windows XP and Linux all quite regularly. People need to give more and be a little bit more mobile.
Nothing is more dangerous than a programmer with a screwdriver.
Same as ME and Vista, skip it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
i kinda understand why Microsoft taking this stance on start menu, they need to get the Metro UI on desktop so that developers will make applications for Metro, and in turn it will help the Win8 Tablets gain massive apps in short period of time
I can see the bitching from users already. I tried Win 8 myself and was immediately stuck on how to quit an open app or even how to run another one and switch between them. It's just not obvious, and that's going to be a problem.
When Office 2007 was rolled out at my org, even with loads of advanced notice and training, the phone was ringing for weeks "How do I print?" "How do I copy/paste?" etc, etc....
I have a better plan. Keep Windows 7 deployed for as long as XP was before upgrading users.
I should, however, be thankfully to Microsoft for all of the job security they provide.
It's good to hear that the Windows users out there are suffering as much as us Gnome3 users. Why is it so hard to understand, most of us don't even want to be aware of the UI, it should 'just work'.
A lot of folks tend to banter back and forth over classic vs. the more modern metro and metro-like shells (such as Unity or the iOS, or Andriod). What it really comes down to is the type of user behind the computer. The more modern mobile/touch interfaces like Metro are an application-centric approach that caters best to a user who is interested in doing a specific thing quickly and easily. Older interface types with taskbars, window lists and so on are task-centric shells that cater more to power-users and/or administrators who tend to have a lot of things going on at once, and who need to be able to manage all the open applications with ease.
As such, task-centric shells are likely to always be preferred by the one group while the more average user will prefer the updated shells (even if some of them will initially complain about the need to relearn things). The most effective way to manage this situation is simple - just make sure to offer both worlds.
A good example of this is that recently Mint Linux made the move to Gnome 3, and with it, a more Application-centric shell. They provided a number of applets, and soon after a fork of Gnome 3 (Cinnamon), that were able to offer the user either extreme, and even multiple points between the two shell types. Ubuntu, on the other hand, did not really offer a choice and forced the users' hands in shifting to Unity. The result was a very large shift in popularity to Mint as the current preferred Linux distribution (as seen on Distrowatch's listings). As long as Microsoft offers a choice, I think they'll be able to keep both worlds happy. Well... as happy as can be expected for running Windows anyway. ;)
Third-party tools also gave Windows 7 back the "Classic Start Menu" that had been available from Windows 95 through Windows Vista.
Note the insignificant installed based of these tools.
When push comes to shove, this is a third-party application, which, while of great interest to a small number of devotees on their personal machines, are not a realistic (let alone desirable) option in a managed network environment. And as you're forced to use the new UI at work, you'll be less inclined to reject it at home.
The new UI is here to stay, and these tools shouldn't be viewed as anything more than a crutch to aid in your ultimate transition away from the old one. If you really don't like the new interface, don't upgrade to Windows 8 to begin with.
I've relied for years on being able to create and manage folders in the start menu as sub-folders to manage shortcuts.
Have you ever found it faster to type the name of the program you're looking for? Press the Win key and start typing. Don't even need to waste time by using a mouse.
It's the fucktard "interface designers" who've been smoking their crack for too long that are fucking this up.
Office 2007's "Ribbon" was the first salvo in this war of dumbing down and obfuscating an organized, intelligent deep interface. And may the stupid ass hair responsible for that atrocity burn in hell.
The new Win8 interface is simply an extension of the "we're too stupid and lazy to expose functionality to you easily" mentality (emphasis on "MENTAL") happening at Microsoft.
Basically, like MacOS, it's a triumph of form over function.
Too bad what people need is functional software.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Back in the early 80s, our computers were, for the most part, text-based. The OS was strictly command-line. Some software incorporated graphics, but your OS was pure text and cursor.
Then Apple made the world "ooo" and "ahhh" with the GUI. It was an instant hit. MS followed suit with Windows.
when Windows 95 came out, the vast majority of the computer-using public was very happy to see the new Start menu. It sure beat the Win 3.1 way of doing things.
Notice: for every one of these innovations, they were overwhelmingly accepted by the public as IMPROVEMENTS.
Fast-foward to 2011. People are starting to notice Linux, most use Ubuntu. Someone at Cannonical decides that the PC needs to function like a smart phone so they totally break the UI with Unity. (Yes, I know ome people love Unity..... but they are in the minority). Many Ubuntu users flee to Xfce, KDE, Mint, or some other flavor that has a UI they like. Notice how this contrasts with the above-mentioned innovations. Shuttleworth can talk all day about how "slick" Unity is but the majority of his users hate it. Does he decide to change it or at least offer an alternative? Nope, his ego prevents that... Tells us to "get used to it".
Remember.... Steve Jobs didn't have to tell us to "get used to it" when he unveiled the Mac. The public loved it. Bill Gates didn't have to tell us to "get used to it" when he unveiled Win 95. Again, the new innovation was well-received.
And now Microsoft, in all their wisdom, jumps on the "let's make the deskop look like your 'droid/iPhone!!" bandwagon. Again, are we seeing people "ooo"-ing and "ahh"-ing over Metro? Nope. Google windows 8 Metro and you'll find that most people can't stand it.
So the moral of the story is: if you build a shit sandwich, don't be surprised if your customers spit it out. And don't expect them to "get used to it" when they have other choices. And as long as there are software developers, there will always be someone out there who will gladly provide that choice.