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."

23 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Validity? by mws1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Validity? by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's also something to be said for a familiar interface between systems. Although I don't take it to the extremes that some people do, I set up my Linux box to have a similar layout to my Windows box in terms of menus, icon placement, what-action-gives-what-result, etc. My Win 7 laptop is also set up similar to my Win 7 desktop even though one has a 14" screen and the other has three 22" screens, which makes for a different usage case. It's just a lot easier when going between otherwise dissimilar operating systems.

    2. Re:Validity? by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's the same reason for why people always cry about changes in Facebook or Slashdot interface. They feel homeless.

      No, they just don't want to have to learn some new crap that's worse than the old crap.

      Microsoft buggered up the start menu in Windows 7 and people complained, so they used that as an excuse to completely remove it and replace it with something much worse. Users don't like software changes that make their life harder for no good reason.

    3. Re:Validity? by Spad · · Score: 5, Informative

      Microsoft buggered up the start menu in Windows 7 and people complained

      Really? I think the Windows 7 Start Menu is a considerable improvement over XP. I'll admit I was sceptical at first, but now I find that whenever I'm stuck on an XP box I really miss it.

      I'm sure I'll get used to most of Windows 8's new conventions too, but as it stands I'm still not convinced that they're all a good idea - especially this idea of having to have both Metro and Regular versions of half your programs.

    4. Re:Validity? by cccc828 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While it is no problem for the slashdot crowd, less tech-savvy users have huge problem with even the smallest change.

      Here is one example:
      I have a friend in his 50ties who just started to use computers and the internet. He barely known what a search engine is, and often has problems reading the small font of tool tips etc. He used IE8 and was used to type into the "Google Box" to search. Along comes the change to IE 9 and all of a sudden he has to use the URL bar to search. He has problems with that. This is not what he learned and how he expects things to work.

      He also had problems when his mail client changed the Icon to write e-mails from "Mail" to "Compose".

      A Hammer is a hammer is a hammer. In the real world tools do not change how they are operated.
      Even cars did not change their UI in the past 100 years. And the elements that did change, are often not used by everyone. How many people do you know who do not know how to set their clock correctly? Who do not use their GPS? VCRs are/were known hard to use, because each and every one has a different way to program a recording.

      While *I* love new UIs and shiny things in general, there are lots of people out there who cannot abstract computers and are lost when small things change.

    5. Re:Validity? by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can never find the program I want to run on the new start menu. As far as I'm concerned it's a disaster zone.

      Why? It's just list of applications.

      The Windows XP start menu with its flyout application menus didn't scale well. It just grows and grows with the more applications you add. For some people finding a particular item is a matter of scanning a list that fills your entire screen. Then you have the application folders which can be several layers deep, and require you to hover over a single item then move to the next menu, which can take a great deal of dexterity. Make one wrong move and the whole thing closes, and you have to start again.

      The windows 7 start menu is much more sensible: and alphabetical list with clickable folders. It scales well, it doesn't require any dexterity to manipulate it. Just pin your most used applications and you're set. What is so difficult about that?

    6. Re:Validity? by IceNinjaNine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People get set in their ways, no question about it.

      Yeah, that whole brake pedal, clutch, steering wheel.. I'm just "used to it".. they should definitely tweak it a bit.

      People need to give more and be a little bit more mobile.

      Newsflash: people need to get work done. A good friend of mine still uses Emacs and is super productive. It's a tool, not a toy. Maybe they should provide some compelling evidence that it's worth retraining folks for the new stuff. Most of the newer UI technologies on desktop machines provide little additional productivity IMHO.

      Disclosure: I'm a Slackware user running Openbox to primarily launch terminals.

      Kids... lawn.. off..

    7. Re:Validity? by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And when you start typing the name of what you want to run in the search box, it still doesn't find it?

      As the user a few posts above this suggested, if your solution to a crappy _graphical_ user interface is 'but you just have to type the name of the program', then you're doing something wrong.

    8. Re:Validity? by Missing.Matter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, you do. I know I personally mis-click sometimes, and is almost completely unusable for my mother, whose hand trembles. The Windows 7 menu is much more usable for her, and the larger targets of the Windows 8 menu are even better still. Always remember, Microsoft is developing their operating system for billions of people, and your super human skill at navigating a flyout list doesn't even play into their decision-making processes; accessibility is a legitimate concern in the design process.

    9. Re:Validity? by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Informative

      I really don't see your problem. The place to look for all applications is start>all programs, just as it was in Windows XP. The only differences are: instead of a giant list that fills your entire screen, you have a scrollable list; and instead of fly out menus you have clickable menus, a paradigm that has existed in explorer since forever. I seriously am missing the mental disconnect that makes this second scenario intractable for you.

    10. Re:Validity? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's many ways to access a program, it's not like you have to use the "type it's name" method if you don't wish to. You can put icons on your desktop. You can pin it to the start menu. You can navigate to the standard program list on the start menu. You can put it in the quicklaunch bar. You can create your own keyboard shortcuts.

      People are bitching about this just to bitch. I've literally never had an easier time launching any program, even the ones that I use once in a blue moon, as I've had on Windows 7.

    11. Re:Validity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would actually have to agree that might be a decent improvement in Windows 7. It sounds like they copied QuickSilver. Can't run OSX without it. :) OK, OK, you could, but QuickSilver makes launching apps trivial, and you never have to leave the keyboard.

      "Key board"? What's a "key-board" on His Chosen System? Is that anything like the almighty touchscreen? It doesn't have buttons, you know, which makes it better. Or is...

      Oh, wait, I remember. Wasn't a "key-board" one of those heretical things deprecated by Saint Jobs decades ago, which led us out of the Dark Age Of Productivity and into the glorious Age Of Media Consumption? Why are you bringing that old thing up? Are you a heretic in the disapproving glare of Jobs? You know people like that are almost as bad as the heathens who think some part of His Divine Interface can be improved in some way. I'm just glad you're not one of THOSE, else you would need a visit from the Black Turtleneck Squad. Now, what's "QuickSilver"?

    12. Re:Validity? by jader3rd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For people who put in that extra effort to keep things clean, everything post-XP has been a letdown.

      Are you saying that post-XP has been a letdown because you don't have to put in extra effort?

    13. Re:Validity? by steelfood · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have a friend in his 50ties

      Did he get smothered by his ties?

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  2. Don't stop there by sideslash · · Score: 4, Funny

    Stardock, please bring back the Win3.x Program Manager!

  3. Can it be deployed via GPO? by weave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Almost by dinfinity · · Score: 5, Informative

    A pity, looking at the screenshot, I was hoping that it would actually enable a taskbar while using the Metro interface. Instead, it just displays the start screen in a quarter of the display area - a size for which the Metro interface is ridiculous. Vistart ( http://lee-soft.com/vistart/ - no affiliation) is a better alternative if you want the start button back.

  5. We all suffer under the whim of UI designers by backwardMechanic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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'.

  6. Mod parent up! by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Start8 screwed up my Win8 preview install.

    Vistart works better and doesn't jack your system.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  7. It boils down to user-type by Dakiraun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. ;)

  8. Stardock: late to the game by macraig · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm already using a third party FOSS replacement, Classic Start Menu, in Windows 7 to replace at least one critical bit of capability that Microsoft revoked: folders in the root of the start menu. I've relied for years on being able to create and manage folders in the start menu as sub-folders to manage shortcuts. I eliminate at least one click, I can organize them by task or function, and I don't have to deal with the confusion of developers' sometimes unintuitive ways of placing their apps in Programs.

    I expect the author of Classic Start Menu will shift with the tide when Windows 8 arrives and produce a new version, so I will likely just keep using it if he does and it continues to prove necessary for me. That way I eliminate even the learning curve of Stardock's rendition.

  9. Re:desktops apps do not need to be full screen by forkfail · · Score: 5, Funny

    Notepad is not an editor. It's a second clipboard....

    --
    Check your premises.
  10. The controversy in a nutshell by scottbomb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.