Slashdot Mirror


Replacing Windows 8's Missing Start Menu

jfruh writes "The Start Button, which has offered Windows users quick access to important programs, folders, and configuration options since 1995 and has looked more or less the same for all that time, has been re-engineered beyond recognition for Windows 8, replaced by a Start Screen of colorful Metro tiles that greets the user upon startup. One big problem: once you enter Desktop mode to access non-Metro apps, you lose easy access to all the stuff you expect from the Start Button. This has given rise to something of a cottage industry for Start Button replacements, with multiple replacement utilities available even before Windows 8 officially arrives."

39 of 396 comments (clear)

  1. how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    replacing the missing Windows 8 with Windows 7 instead and just like, carry on with life?

    1. Re:how about by scottbomb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Windows 7 is still very new and works wonderfully. I was happy with Windows 95 until 2001 when I finally got XP. Windows XP worked well until I replaced it with Windows 7 in 2010. There is nothing Windows 8 offers that make me want it. I'll pass.

    2. Re:how about by 2fuf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Windows editions are like vintage wine or Star Trek movies: they are alternating good or crap.

      Win 98 with all updates was great, Win ME sucked big time, Win XP is legendary, Win Vista is a mess, Win 7 is superb.

      Sooo, I'll be sticking with 7 until Windows 9 :-)

    3. Re:how about by Tim+Ward · · Score: 4, Funny

      are alternating good or crap

      And Pink Floyd albums.

    4. Re:how about by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know? The funniest argument I ever heard against Linux back in the day was that you had all these wildly different desktops (GNOME, KDE, WM, XFCE, Fluxbox, etc...) and that Windows was supposedly superior because Joe Sixpack had a consistent desktop experience - Windows was Windows no matter where you went, etc.

      I wonder where those people are now, who were making that argument back in 1998... ?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:how about by Tarlus · · Score: 4, Informative

      On top of that, Windows 7 will be supported until 2019, or later if Microsoft chooses to extend its life like they did with XP. That is plenty of time for us to sit aside while Windows 8 is refined for greater usability, or flops and is redeemed by an apologetic Windows 9.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    6. Re:how about by Smartcowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't recall correctly

      Windows 3.1 was not so bad but buggy
      Windows 95 was semi-good. got better with osr2
      Windows 98 was a big step backward. It got better only with SE
      Windows ME was uter crap. Actually I skipped this version because I used Win2k at the time.

      Windows 2000 was great. Probably the best Windows OS of all time.
      Windows XP sucked at first. It was basicaly a slower version of Windows 200 with a Teletubbies interface. It only got better with the various service packs.
      Windows Vista was as shitty as ME.
      Windows 7 is actualy Vista, but working.

      All in all, in the last 20 years, Microsoft released a total of only two good os: Win2k and Win7. A far cry from alternating between good and crap.

    7. Re:how about by babblefrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What?! The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, and The Wall were all great albums.

    8. Re:how about by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

      And thank god for that. There were no more lyrics like "I've got a bike, such a pretty little bike, it's nice."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't understand why so many people consider Windows 2000 "the best OS of all time." Windows 2000 was so wildly insecure that it was responsible for the several of the worst virus/worm outbreaks of all time.

    10. Re:how about by arkhan_jg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, Windows 8 under the bonnet is pretty damn good. Boot times, responsiveness, file copying, the task manager are significantly better on windows 8 than 7.

      It's just such a crying shame they saddled it with that godawful metro interface riddled throughout. I've been running it now on at least one pc since the original developer preview, but I've now got the RTM only on my gaming rig - metro is just so embedded (I see you haven't got a default app for that filetype - let's go look for a metro one on the windows app store! Ugh.) I still find it stupidly annoying, even after months and months. I *can* use it now, but I really don't want to.

      Even if you wedge in a start menu replacement, there's still fragments of metro left over, and it's just irritating, and more so the longer you use it. Such a shame; the rest of windows 8 is a real performance improvement over 7, and they finally fixed bulk file copying to actually *work*. There's no way I could roll it out to the end-users on the work network though. I'd get lynched.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    11. Re:how about by synapse7 · · Score: 3, Funny

      To be fair, Windows 8 under the bonnet is pretty damn good. Boot times, responsiveness, file copying, the task manager are significantly better on windows 8 than 7.

      This is like saying, she has a nice personality.

  2. As a tech guy get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You might hate it, but you're gonna look really stupid if you don't know how to use Windows 8.

    1. Re:As a tech guy get used to it by flirno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No more than stupid than when people skipped Vista. In other words, no.

      You might hate it, but you're gonna look really stupid if you don't know how to use Windows 8.

    2. Re:As a tech guy get used to it by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Some of us have clients who use Vista so we don't really have a choice :(

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    3. Re:As a tech guy get used to it by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, as a tech guy, I rarely have to use the desktop installs I roll out except for internal testing. That's the user's job.

      And although we can all USE the new interfaces, they are diabolical to some of us to use every day for every program you run. Most users barely run a program or two each session. I have twenty open now and I'm winding down for the end of the day (I work in schools).

      I've lost count of how many times I've had to say to someone "I don't know, I never use that program, I'll find out". I might install it, support it, maintain it, debug it, deploy it, patch it and get it running on machines it's never supposed to. But I probably don't USE that program in my daily life very much at all (e.g. the finance programs, school reporting programs, etc.). That's for the users, for whom I can answer any problem if absolutely necessary (even if it means struggling against UI's and even personal user options that I hate) and can source external training for if need be.

      But the fact is that in my daily life, the new UI costs me time compared to the 20+ critical systems set up to use a much more basic and consistent UI than that Metro junk that DOESN'T try to tell me how I should work.

      God, I can't even use some people's desktop layouts or wallpapers they are so horrendous. It doesn't mean I don't support them and/or that I must use them myself on the servers and my own machines.

      I have yet to ever "learn" to use an OS before it's been out for a year or so. Hell, I've deployed and supported Windows 7 machines for years - and still my first personal machine with it on was this September. What *I* use has absolutely no correlation to what my *users* use, which has absolutely no correlation to what I support (which is much vaster in scope and more in-depth than any of them will ever touch - in comparison, a tricky way to start programs is the least of my problems, but one that's easily solvable when it does crop up by deploying Classic Shell, for instance).

      The new Windows 8 install we have planned for next summer? Guess what's loaded on it, and we haven't even seen the full OS out in circulation yet.

  3. My Stadegy. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stop Bitching and complaining about every change in technology and get use to the the Damn thing.

    I remember all the bitching and moaning about the Start Button when it was created. And now is is some God Sent UI that you can't live without.

    If you get get Windows 8. you will figure it out shortly and you are back to normal.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:My Stadegy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For some reason, techies always seem to be the ones bitching the loudest about changes in technology - a field that exists only because of change. The funny thing is, it's just an endless cycle. They'll bitch about change N+1, but when it's time for change N+2, they'll bitch about how N+1 is the greatest thing since sliced bread and taking N+1 away is horrible. Then when N+3 comes, suddenly N+2 is fantastic, and N+3 is sheer idiocy. And so it goes.

      Come back in 20 years, and it'll be the same.

    2. Re:My Stadegy. by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How does hiding the "Start" button qualify as advancing technology? Isn't the motivation behind this related more to hiding what is behind the curtain than it is to exposing what is behind the curtain?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    3. Re:My Stadegy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wrong. Windows 7 was the product of 20 years of refinements in user interface design. Throwing it all out and starting over is ridiculous. It's an obvious ploy to force people to upgrade what is a perfectly functional piece of software already. Frankly, MS must do this if it wants to stay in business. The revenue stream is only there if they can force people to keep shelling out money.
      This time, it might not work. I'll stick with my windows 7 for now, and probably some flavor of Linux down the road (unless required to use Windows 8 for work).

    4. Re:My Stadegy. by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the Start button wasn't that great in the first place. It was essentially a select set of shortcuts.

      A much better solution exists in Mac OS X, and should be emulated.
      Pin to the Dock the following folders: Home directory, Applications.
      Set them as list, sort by name.

      Access to ALL files/folders/applications with one click.

      No navigating into the hard drive if the installer didn't put a shortcut in the "All Programs" folder.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:My Stadegy. by The+Snowman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's a natural evolution really. Who uses bookmarks on their browsers anymore? I have thousands of them, and a nifty hierarchy to classify them. But it's not worth spending a long time finding what I had stored there several years back.

      I don't know about other browsers, but I have tons of bookmarks in Firefox. When I start typing in the address bar, it searches through them by URL and by name. Sort of like the start menus in Windows 7 and KDE. So while I may not navigate the hierarchy of programs or bookmarks, it does serve a useful purpose as what is essentially a database.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    6. Re:My Stadegy. by Missing.Matter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Throwing it all out and starting over is ridiculous.

      They didn't throw out all of Windows 7, just the start menu. I use Windows 8, and spend about 99% of my time on the desktop. As Windows 8 is almost a superset of Windows 7, Windows 8 can be used in exactly the same way as you used Windows 7..... that's pretty much what this article is all about. If you use Windows 8 like I do, you don't notice the difference until you restart the computer, or open the task manager, or copy a file, or connect a second monitor.... where you see some of the other tangible improvements of Windows 8.

  4. Why not Microsoft ? by gtirloni · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If many people can quickly create something that looks like a decent Win7 start menu, why can't Microsoft just do the obvious: leave the start button there? Or at least offer the option to re-enable it. It doesn't seem like a major support burden for them, does it?

    --
    none
    1. Re:Why not Microsoft ? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you keep it, people will keep on using it. Windows 8 Goal is to get Laptop and PC manufacturers develop more tablets and touch enabled devices. If you kept the start bar, PC makers will keep on making normal PC's and slowly die away with other OS's like Android and iOS taking over.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Why not Microsoft ? by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because they've decided to push people toward Metro (or whatever they're calling it now). Probably so that they can try to horn themselves into the tablet market, as well as pushing people to using their own app store.

    3. Re:Why not Microsoft ? by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trying to force a tablet UI on a general purpose machine like a laptop or desktop is just as bad as trying to use a desktop OS on a tablet. Microsoft are pretty much ensuring that no matter what you try to use Windows 8 on, you get the worst of both worlds..

      --
      which is totally what she said
  5. Re:Why use Win 8 anyway by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For now. When Win 8 is available, will OEMs force it as the only choice or make consumers pay more for Win 7. Enterprises usually have separate licensing with MS and probably will not upgrade unless there is a need.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  6. Not too much, please... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Funny

    Another question has yet to be answered: in Windows 8, is the BSOD still Blue? I mean, losing the emblematic Start button is one thing, but if the BSOD disappears as well, users will be really disoriented...

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Not too much, please... by David_Hart · · Score: 4, Informative

      Believe it or not, BSODs can occur due to bad hardware/firmware, not just drivers. While you may have installed industry standard apps and signed drivers, did you also verify that the firmware of your CD-ROM, BIOS, etc. were up to date? Also, bad memory modules, incorrect timing settings, and over-clocking can cause BSODs. I'm assuming that you were not overclocking at the time, so it sounds like your CD ROM drive may need a firmware update.

      The point is that BSODs are not random occurrences, there is usually an underlying cause.

  7. The Big Desktop Issue? Swapping Between Screens by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I tried, I really did, to use Win8 on the desktop both without Start Menu replacement and with one. I absolutely could not stand what felt like an unnecessary extra step between switching back and forth. I don't care if it works on a small touch screen, it doesn't work on my desktop, get rid of the extra step AND give me a Start Menu. - HEX

  8. I believe there's a longer strategy in place here. by HerculesMO · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And that is really, to get rid of "legacy" apps entirely. I think Microsoft is pretty tired of having third parties (hence, the reason for the surface) and OEMs give their hard work a bad name. So what they are doing is introducing a new API (Windows RT) that requires "certification" (Minecraft didn't want to do this for whatever reason to "stick it" to Windows 8), which means that they require that if you have an app in Windows 8, it uninstalls *completely* and *cleanly*, among other performance indicators and things like that.

    Microsoft is trying to retake its OS, under threat of the web, Apple, Google, etc. Windows 8, far from popular belief on this site, is actually a really good OS -- better in many ways, than Windows 7 is. It's faster (by a LOT), it's smooth, and its extensibility and APIs are still very good. The experience between "Metro" and the "Desktop" however, is extremely jarring. While I've written (and been modded up!) in the past about how bad the transition between the desktop and metro are, and how much better they "could have" done things, looking at a variety of information since then and forming a new opinion leads me only to think that they don't WANT it to be better. They want it to be jarring. They want you to start hating desktop apps and going to their store so you can get crap-ware free apps, that uninstall FAST and CLEAN, that don't bog down your computer, and have the additional benefit of getting a cheap piece of hardware to put it into like a Dell/HP/etc rather than paying two times the price for an Apple product.

    Whether this is a good strategy or not, remains to be seen. Microsoft uses a LOT of data and telemetry to make its decisions in terms of UI design, API improvements, usability, etc. As much as I'd like to say that Windows 8 is just a boneheaded move, the performance of the OS is just too damn good to think that. And I know us here on Slashdot will revile the new UI and its use (though honestly, the loss of the start menu was no big loss for me as I adjusted to the new way in about 3 seconds). There are things that definitely need improvement even in the metro UI, but I feel we'll get that with a few patches.

    The bottom line is that Microsoft is tired of having an unfriendly "BSOD" image, and they want to take steps to nix that, even if it means alienating a whole bunch of developers. I think they feel that their platform is still better on the whole than OSX (and I'd tend to agree here), and developers will still flock. By Windows 9, you won't see any more desktop apps being released... and that's the plan MS is heading for.

    Just a warning before you flame me though, I'm not ENDORSING this idea, I'm simply stating that this is where I think MS is going.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.
  9. Start menu is still there by NewWorldDan · · Score: 4, Informative

    The start menu is still there. You just don't see the icon in the task bar. All the functionality of it is still there. The first level is for commonly used programs. It's a nice clean layout that's easy to customize. From there, you can call up the 'All Programs' section. That's not organized quite so well, but it works.

    There's no compelling reason to upgrade to Windows 8, but unlike Vista, there's no reason to actively avoid it.

  10. UNIX runs on Macs in homes by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unix is expensive. [...] other than at work, I would bet you haven't touched Unix.

    A Mac mini (which runs a UNIX OS since 10.5) costs $650. So you're right that a real UNIX machine is more expensive than a low-end Windows PC, but not so expensive that only businesses can afford one.

  11. Re:8 is NOT a replacement to 7 by jbonomi · · Score: 3, Informative

    Windows 8 pro does not restrict my window management and multitasking at all compared to Windows 7. Perhaps the RT version does, I'm not actually sure. I don't think there's a good motivation to upgrade 7 to 8 on desktop PCs perhaps besides the performance boosts, but I'm excited to use Windows 8 on a laptop/notebook hybrid device.

  12. Replace what's missing by multi+io · · Score: 4, Funny

    Replacing Windows 8's Missing Start Menu

    How do you replace something that's not there? Wouldn't you be *adding* it instead?

  13. My view. by vistapwns · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most of you will hate this, so fair warning.

    I love Windows 8. Let me tell you why. The start menu is supposed to be an efficient program launcher. Ok, so to launch programs with the start menu, you have to click the start button, click "all programs", click your app folder, then click the application to start it. That's 4 clicks. To start a program in Windows 8, I click the start screen area, then click the application, that's two clicks. That's a quantifiable efficiency gain. People have argued against this by referring to pinning apps to the task bar and desk top and the start menu pinned item lists.

    First, Windows 8 has the task bar and desk top, so it doesn't make sense to argue with those, if they're so good, use them in Windows 8 instead of the start screen. Two, I like the desktop and task bar clear of every thing, I never liked pinning items to the task bar because it makes it less efficient to determine what's running, I like to glance at the task bar and know everything there is running, where as in the past I have at times, in a rush, mistakenly thought something pinned was running and something running was pinned, which caused problems. The Desktop is a workspace that ideally should be clear of short cuts, as a user will do things like unzip folders there, and create many temp work files there, that need to be moved or deleted, which short cuts will get in the way of, and accidently removed. The start menu's pinned item list can only contain a few items (5 or so), so while they can be launched in two clicks you are severely limited in numbers vs. the start screen which can launch 40-60 apps in two clicks. What I like to do is unpin everything except my main apps/games, and a few metro apps I use, then group them and name the groups (minus button in the lower right.) A small action that makes things much better than the default.

    Visual recognition of large distinct icons is a much nicer way to launch programs, rather than reading folder names where often a folder name is not related to the name of the app you are trying to launch, if you have many apps it can be difficult to remember which app is in which folder causing quite a bit of digging.

    With the start screen, in addition to saving clicks versus the start menu, and being easier to find the program, you can have live tiles that give you a lot of useful information. I have an email counter, several news sites, calendar, upcoming events, and other things one click away. So why not stick with gadgets and other widgets and system tray notifications you are probably asking at this point? Well, several. Security, stability, and Power. Metro apps are run in a strict sandbox, they install and uninstall in isolated, clean fashion, so no installation or uninstallation of a metro app can corrupt the system, user data, or other metro apps, and they have strict requirements such that they can not use any CPU when not being used by the user, and very minimum system resource usage for notifications.
    Contrast this with some desktop apps I was running before to accomplish these tasks, my email program was using about .5% cpu at all times, randomly accessed the disk, and increased DPC Latency, and it was a relatively well behaved email tray notifier as I tried a few others. A small amount, but it adds up for many such items. And programs like that that you (or the average user) gets from the web, have free reign over your user account, even if you don't run as admin (and you almost always have to give them admin at least once to install), they can still steal any user account data and credentials from your browser. Metro apps, being tightly sandboxed, can't read or touch any other data in the user account. I find this to be pretty important, and imagine a huge boon to productivity if users get a lot of their system/productivity utilities from metro apps instead of downloading random programs on the web, where the security risk is much higher.

    Windows 8 has a lot of performance increases in it, like for real time audio

    --
    "...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
    1. Re:My view. by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      nonsense, you can have all your favorite programs listed as soon as you click "start"

      the fact is microsoft has once again done "UI churning", making pointless changes just to "have something different". Like their insipid "ribbon", these changes only impede productivity and alienate the installed user base while adding nothing of value.

  14. I remember when Win95 came out by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lot's of people kept using Program Manager anyway because they didn't like it. I wonder how many people still do now?

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();