I´m very very sad, that windows 7 has no more classic startmenu
Locked
- Hi,
a friend of mine is beta tester and he told me, that there is no more possibility in windows 7 to use a classic startmenu at the moment, like we have it in windows vista. if that is really true, i think that could be a big reason for the customers to dislike this OS again and i really hope, that microsoft is going to add it till the final version!
All Replies
- At this current time there is no Classic Start Menu available. That does not mean that it wont be added before the final release. But at this stage there is no Classic Menu.
~Alex T.~Windows Desktop Experience MVP~ - Can you tell me why you dont't like the new startmenu? I always used the classc startmenu in XP, but since Vista and even better in Windows 7 Beta I like all the features which are included in the default startmenu.
Peter Forster, MVP Virtual Machine, Austria - I have a love/hate relationship with the new start menus. I really like the "quickfind" feature of being able to start typing something in the box and it comes up. I used the vista start menu for several months and that was very quick and easy. But I found that when I couldn't remember exactly what something was called, hunting through the programs list the way it's displayed in the Vista start menu was impossible...I could never find what I was looking for. Having it all crammed in that little list box made it seem like they want you to forget about your seldom used programs. I would actually go to c:\program files\ and look for the application folder instead!!! Now THAT is bad. So I eventually gave up and switched it back to classic. I miss the "quickfind" box, but at least I can find what I need when I need it. If I want an OS that requires me to remember each program name and type it in to launch, I'll switch to Linux:)
- I understand you, partially. But why don't you use the search function of the startmenu? You say, that you even go to C:\Program Files to search for a program...
One big advantage in Windows 7 Beta is, that all control panel icons are found by default within a search in the startmenu. Really, did you try Windows 7 Beta yourself? Try to get one of the 2.5 million downloads and test it yourself. Maybe after testing you have a new view about the startmenu in Windows 7 Beta.
Peter Forster, MVP Virtual Machine, Austria - Give it time. It takes a little to get used to but once you get familiar with it, I don't like going back to the 'old way' anymore.
- Step on into 2009, or at least 2001, when the start menu changed in XP. These changes aren't just tossed willy-nilly into Windows for fun. They're the result of a lot of research, and they're there to make you more productive. Take the time to try something new and give it a chance for a couple weeks. This is technology, and it changes- don't grow stagnant.
Josh Usovsky - Alex T said:
At this current time there is no Classic Start Menu available. That does not mean that it wont be added before the final release. But at this stage there is no Classic Menu.
~Alex T.~Windows Desktop Experience MVP~
lets hope and prey to Steve and Bill - Peter Forster said:
Can you tell me why you dont't like the new startmenu? I always used the classc startmenu in XP, but since Vista and even better in Windows 7 Beta I like all the features which are included in the default startmenu.
Peter Forster, MVP Virtual Machine, Austria
i personally find my things 10 times faster with the classic startmenu in vista x64 - Robert Bachelder said:
I have a love/hate relationship with the new start menus. I really like the "quickfind" feature of being able to start typing something in the box and it comes up. I used the vista start menu for several months and that was very quick and easy. But I found that when I couldn't remember exactly what something was called, hunting through the programs list the way it's displayed in the Vista start menu was impossible...I could never find what I was looking for. Having it all crammed in that little list box made it seem like they want you to forget about your seldom used programs. I would actually go to c:\program files\ and look for the application folder instead!!! Now THAT is bad. So I eventually gave up and switched it back to classic. I miss the "quickfind" box, but at least I can find what I need when I need it. If I want an OS that requires me to remember each program name and type it in to launch, I'll switch to Linux:)
i absolutely agree to you, just linux would not be an option for me at the moment. i break for vista x64 and i would prefer to stay with that if win7 will not show up with a classic option. - Peter Forster said:
I understand you, partially. But why don't you use the search function of the startmenu? You say, that you even go to C:\Program Files to search for a program...
One big advantage in Windows 7 Beta is, that all control panel icons are found by default within a search in the startmenu. Really, did you try Windows 7 Beta yourself? Try to get one of the 2.5 million downloads and test it yourself. Maybe after testing you have a new view about the startmenu in Windows 7 Beta.
Peter Forster, MVP Virtual Machine, Austria
i don´t think so, because i allready found it very anoying in vista and my friend told me that it is very similar. - Aaron Tiensivu said:
Give it time. It takes a little to get used to but once you get familiar with it, I don't like going back to the 'old way' anymore.
this is a matter of taste and user are different all over the world. i think the reason why most of the people choose a microsoft OS, is the fact that microsoft is trying to satisfy all the different needs that people have. they should not stop that point of view in my opinion. a mixture of old and new was never bad at all! - Skwerl said:
Step on into 2009, or at least 2001, when the start menu changed in XP. These changes aren't just tossed willy-nilly into Windows for fun. They're the result of a lot of research, and they're there to make you more productive. Take the time to try something new and give it a chance for a couple weeks. This is technology, and it changes- don't grow stagnant.
Josh Usovsky
you should tell that to all the people that prefer to stay with win xp because they allready have difficulties to understand vista and for shure will love win7 if they can´t even change the searchery a little bit to get used by the time. - I have to agree with the folks that have wondered where the classic theme went. That was the first thing I tried to do when I got the beta installed in my VM. I wanted to get the OS back to something I was familiar with, and that is always accomplished (at least since XP) with switching the theme to classic. I'm not sure what would motivate microsoft to remove this as an option? It would seem like a simple matter to reskin the thing. I have never run XP with it's original theme, I have always used classic. Also looking at a large number of XP/Vista users, I have seen them with classic themes. Surely it is not that difficult to maintain this.
Now personally, I hate the pining and unpining actions on the task bar. It slides pined things around and they get hard to find when many windows are open. I already miss quick launch. Pining is similiar but not the same. I have a single click to get to the application if I want another one. I finally figured out that if I right clicked on a running app, I could launch another one. I would rather just have the very useful quick launch area.
Any way, just some observations. Hopefully these things will make it into a final release. I will say that the OS seems snappier than Vista, so thats good.
-Jim - Jim McCaskey said:
I have to agree with the folks that have wondered where the classic theme went. That was the first thing I tried to do when I got the beta installed in my VM. I wanted to get the OS back to something I was familiar with, and that is always accomplished (at least since XP) with switching the theme to classic. I'm not sure what would motivate microsoft to remove this as an option? It would seem like a simple matter to reskin the thing. I have never run XP with it's original theme, I have always used classic. Also looking at a large number of XP/Vista users, I have seen them with classic themes. Surely it is not that difficult to maintain this.
Now personally, I hate the pining and unpining actions on the task bar. It slides pined things around and they get hard to find when many windows are open. I already miss quick launch. Pining is similiar but not the same. I have a single click to get to the application if I want another one. I finally figured out that if I right clicked on a running app, I could launch another one. I would rather just have the very useful quick launch area.
Any way, just some observations. Hopefully these things will make it into a final release. I will say that the OS seems snappier than Vista, so thats good.
-Jim
this man is speaking out of the souls of many users for shure. i hope that his words will reach the ears and hearts of the microsoft devellopers. if microsoft is interested in making a big deal this time, they should pay attention to his comment! - Let it go, man. Try something new. Put that liesure suit away. Ditch the Windows 95 UI style. Let life begin in 2009! Come on in- the water's fine!
Josh Usovsky - and beware of comments that start "my friend told me....."....
- Skwerl said:
Step on into 2009, or at least 2001, when the start menu changed in XP. These changes aren't just tossed willy-nilly into Windows for fun. They're the result of a lot of research, and they're there to make you more productive. Take the time to try something new and give it a chance for a couple weeks. This is technology, and it changes- don't grow stagnant.
Josh Usovsky
Clearly their research was dead wrong when they decided to remove quick start and mix non-running and running application icons on the menu bar. Highly confusing and I really hate it. I'm not the only one as professional reviewers complain about the mixing.
I'm all for logical changes, but Microsoft really makes illogical design changes that really tick off a lot of people. - I myself like the start Menu the way it is now , default . I think MS should add the classic and let whom want it can use it
- Flexibility is the key word here. Microsoft is trying to deliver a GUI that is liked by everyone in the entire world. That just isn't going to happen. They have the concept of themes; and I even see in v7 that they will allow us to share themes; now they just need to take that theme concept beyond window colors and desktop backgrounds and turn every gui element in to a skinnable object.
The OP wants the classic menu; fine. I don't understand why he would want it. In my opinion he's just allowing himself to resist any and all change. I was originally resistant to the XP start menu but then I forced myself to try it for a few hours and I never turned back. In the same line of thought, I hate the new Office 2007 ribbon bar concept and would prefer to have word-based menus (I have never really liked using icon-only interfaces, such as the Office ribbon bar and the v7 task bar). But some people like the office 2007 ribbon bar, some people like the classic interface; it's time for Microsoft to stop trying to make a GUI that fits all and build up a skinning community. - I could not agree more. Why don't put the two options, so the user can choose, otherwise this is a deal breaker for me.
- I too wish the classic menu were still available. Just one click and you have it all without searching. I know where I put things in the classic menu. With the new getup, you have to pause over all programs to get to your menu. When you get there, you have to click any folders to open them. In the classic menu they can expand when hovered over.
I am not a speedy typist and could open programs much faster in classic. I prefer the either the classic or XP menu over Vista's, mostly because they have icons for the computer, control panel etc. items, and I find myself finding stuff much faster by looking at them than by having to read the labels. I don't care about the search through all programs much, as I'll either use Win+R to launch programs, or custom quick launch bars (which still work despite the default bar being removed - just right-click the taskbar, choose Toolbars -> New toolbar, and you'll have Quick Launch back; I never actually had QL enabled on my Windows installs, because too many programs think that they can shove their icons there - instead I always use 2-4 toolbars that point elsewhere).
- I would hope that the MS Win7 team will agree that allowing people to setup their environment to their liking is better than having one "new better way" for all. People don't just buy one type/color of car or all decorate their house the same so in my estimation you will get more happy people if the UI is as flexible as possible. So I vote to allow the classic start menu as well as a few other styles including the "new better way" at least until the next better way comes out.
- it's double
I'm glad it's gone, keep it there and we will still need the classic menu till 2095.
What i really would dislike is that some consultants are going to decide that the Windows 7 Interface is too difficult for us users, and that they keep on deploying Windows versions forever in Classic mode. We need to move forward and adapt...
I also do think we users should be able to customize our pc's more.
- There is still mention of the classic folders in the registry.
So I guess we'll have the option later on hopefully.
It is still the best/fastest way to get to many programs.
The new startmenu just introduces an extra click to
get to any program since you cannot add folders on the
"All programs" level like it was possible in the classic menu.
Old way of working was 3 keys to any program :
windows key - first letter menu - first letter program
just superfast
Arjan
screenshot of the classic menu- Edited byArjan Sin Monday, January 12, 2009 1:15 PMadding screenshot
- The Vista / 7 way Windows key - first letters program to start - Enter (even faster)
You can always create your own toolbar in the taskbar pointing a folder with shortcuts.
I think the classic start menu is to one dimensional, i really like the new taskbar with the jump-lists. They are not only opening the program but also the recent files / tasks, it's much quicker, give it a try, stop hunting around in the registry to enable the classic menu. Move forward.
- People need to get over it. The new Start Menu is much more user-friendly and powerful than the classic Start Menu.
Why would you rather manually point & click each program you want to start, when you could simply remain on your keyboard, press the Windows key, and start typing the name of the thing you want to execute? Using the search feature, you don't have to remember if something is a control panel item, a start menu item, a document, etc. You know what you want, you type [a little bit of] the name, and BAM, you've got it!
Try to adjust to it, and you'll become a much more powerful user.
Trevor Sullivan Systems Engineer OfficeMax Corporation - Agreed. I am using the new Windows Dock (I mean startbar) and it is a step backwards in usability. It is also VERY UGLY. Most people on this forum are very technical and pro-msft and will disagree with you, but once you get out of the confines of this forum into the real world you will find some major grumblings about. I started a similar thread and got some decent (not great) suggesitons on how to fake the quick launch.
- Skwerl said:
Step on into 2009, or at least 2001, when the start menu changed in XP. These changes aren't just tossed willy-nilly into Windows for fun. They're the result of a lot of research, and they're there to make you more productive. Take the time to try something new and give it a chance for a couple weeks. This is technology, and it changes- don't grow stagnant.
Josh Usovsky
Does research mean doing a screen capture of OSX??? I don't want to run the Apple Dock. I want to run Windows.
Also, technology shouldn't change for changes sake. It needs to change FOR A REASON. If something works and it is efficient, why revamp it 100%??? - YngDiego777 said:Skwerl said:
Step on into 2009, or at least 2001, when the start menu changed in XP. These changes aren't just tossed willy-nilly into Windows for fun. They're the result of a lot of research, and they're there to make you more productive. Take the time to try something new and give it a chance for a couple weeks. This is technology, and it changes- don't grow stagnant.
Josh Usovsky
Clearly their research was dead wrong when they decided to remove quick start and mix non-running and running application icons on the menu bar. Highly confusing and I really hate it. I'm not the only one as professional reviewers complain about the mixing.
I'm all for logical changes, but Microsoft really makes illogical design changes that really tick off a lot of people.
You sound like a wise man. I agree 100%. - pcgeek86 said:
People need to get over it. The new Start Menu is much more user-friendly and powerful than the classic Start Menu.
Why would you rather manually point & click each program you want to start, when you could simply remain on your keyboard, press the Windows key, and start typing the name of the thing you want to execute? Using the search feature, you don't have to remember if something is a control panel item, a start menu item, a document, etc. You know what you want, you type [a little bit of] the name, and BAM, you've got it!
Try to adjust to it, and you'll become a much more powerful user.
Trevor Sullivan Systems Engineer OfficeMax Corporation
The average user doesn't do anything with the keyboard. They are mouse only... They don't know shortcuts. And they spend hundreds of hours flipping through pages of programs without SEEING the structure of the tree. So they never really learn. And sometimes I think we have forgotten what a proper tree looks like . Not too wide at the bottom and not too deep.. - Allards said:
it's double
I'm glad it's gone, keep it there and we will still need the classic menu till 2095.
What i really would dislike is that some consultants are going to decide that the Windows 7 Interface is too difficult for us users, and that they keep on deploying Windows versions forever in Classic mode. We need to move forward and adapt...
I also do think we users should be able to customize our pc's more.
Let's take the steering wheel out of cars and use Joysticks, steering wheels are so old school...we may still need them in 2095 if we don't get rid of them NOW...maybe we should do away with the brake pedal too and replace it with a button (maybe in the trunk like Vista's controls?).
IT guy at GM Car & Truck dealership - Hey, if you want a XP like start menu use XP! That's the point. The people want a fast and intuitive OS without inherited waste on the first side and a Windows 7 wich can be styled like Win3.1 on the other. That is not possible. So if you like the look and feel of Win95, keep it! If you like XP, keep it too! If you like innovation, switch to Vista or Windows 7.
You can't get a new car wich looks and feels like a car in the 70s. If you want a 70s car, you buy an original one. If you want a new car, you buy a new one. But if you buy a new one, they don't sell extras that lat your car looks like a 70s car.
Make up your mind! Would you like XP or 7? It's not possible to get XP wich looks like 7 and no 7 wich looks like XP! You can only have one of them, not a mixture. And that's good. Too much backwards compatibility slows down your system and fritters away your RAM and hard drive space as much as your processor power. The result: Vista. - I walked around my office and checked all the desktop computers. They are all running Vista and each user (including me) has independently set his computer to use the Classic start menu. Are we all just too stoopid to understand the new and improved start menu that became available with XP?
- CaptainComet said:
I walked around my office and checked all the desktop computers. They are all running Vista and each user (including me) has independently set his computer to use the Classic start menu. Are we all just too stoopid to understand the new and improved start menu that became available with XP?
Not stupid, it's just that to many of us "new and improved" is more marketing than reality.
I support 200 users, THEY don't like it, so why should they be forced to use it?
IT guy at GM Car & Truck dealership - For what it's worth... I ABSOLUTELY HATE the Vista/7 style "All Programs" Listing. I really want the XP style popup back, and if there is a setting to do so, I would be the happiest camper on Earth! At the very least I wish the folders were listed first rather than the programs.
Otherwise, I've always preferred the XP/Vista/7 style start menu style. I do disable the "frequent" listings, but the pinnable icons are great. I also love the search function, though I hope it gets some more tuning before release.
As for the Classic Start Menu... I'm sorry, but it hasn't been in style since Windows 2000. It was simple, and I loved it for that reason, but the new interface is simpler still, and it's really just time to move on. It was no different with how Win95 kept Program Manager around, and how Windows XP kept the "classic theme" around... you get two major releases to adapt and adjust, so seriously folks, let's just move on.
- Hey check out what I just found:
GPEdit.msc
User Configuration, Administrative Templates, Start Menu and Taskbar, Force classic Start Menu
####################
This setting affects the presentation of the Start menu.
The classic Start menu in Windows 2000 Professional allows users to begin common tasks, while the new Start menu consolidates common items onto one menu. When the classic Start menu is used, the following icons are placed on the desktop: Documents, Pictures, Music, Computer, and Network. The new Start menu starts them directly.
If you enable this setting, the Start menu displays the classic Start menu in the Windows 2000 style and displays the standard desktop icons.
If you disable this setting, the Start menu only displays in the new style, meaning the desktop icons are now on the Start page.
If you do not configure this setting, the default is the new style, and the user can change the view.
####################
It doesn't seem to work, but it's in there. Someone at Microsoft is debating this matter. - I wouldn't necessarily take that as evidence that anyone's considering it for Windows 7. The setting may just be left over from older versions, and they just haven't removed it from the beta.
- YngDiego777 said:Clearly their research was dead wrong when they decided to remove quick start and mix non-running and running application icons on the menu bar. Highly confusing and I really hate it. I'm not the only one as professional reviewers complain about the mixing.
I'm all for logical changes, but Microsoft really makes illogical design changes that really tick off a lot of people.
Nah man it was spot on, best research they ever did. I have read plenty of "proffesional reviews" that love the new way and I pray they stick to it. - add another tick under the 'hope they include the classic menu'. I am all for changes and will work on getting used to the new taskbar. I ca nsee how typing the first letters and pressing enter is faster, but first I need to learn the name of all my programs, haha. Give me some room to learn. More than the 2 years I've had Vista.
Also, quicklaunch, common.
Include "Classic Start Menu": Vote +1
I love the classic start menu and would like to see it added so people have the choice. The search feature on the start menu that finds a program quickly is a also a nice idea.- Include "Classic Start Menu": Vote +2 =P
- Really, the classic start menu is fine, however, it is old and tired.The Vista and now Win 7 taskbars and start menus are so much better. They just need to be learned.And that process is truly easy. Changing O/S does require some responsible and active paticipation, just like work, maintaining the comp, etc.All who bemoan that, get over it. The more we want the old in an O/S, the bloated it is. Period!! Do we want efficiency or 'old comfort'. Myself I want quick load, shutdown and program opening and closing in a quick manner. And I hate the resource hog Vista and XP Sp3 are
- Arjan Sin, your screen shot touches on something that I've always wondered about. I have always used the classic start menu in XP, similar to the way you do. I didn't like the way I had to move my mouse pointer to get to the top of the menu to reach my shortcuts. So, a long time ago, I moved the taskbar to the top of the screen. When I press Start, my shortcuts are just under my mouse. I have always been curious why more folks don't have the taskbar at the top. That always seemed easier to me. Maybe I was just used to the apple menu in old Mac OS.
My own 2 cents: I like the new task bar (I don't have a problem with running apps comingled with non-running apps--if I want a program, whether or not it's already running is immaterial; just bring up the window for me). The only thing I do have a problem with is the 2 clicks to run another instance of IE. I don't like the tabs in IE for a number of reasons I won't go into here. If I choose to run another instance, that should be a single click. - André Reichelt said:
Hey, if you want a XP like start menu use XP! That's the point. The people want a fast and intuitive OS without inherited waste on the first side and a Windows 7 wich can be styled like Win3.1 on the other. That is not possible. So if you like the look and feel of Win95, keep it! If you like XP, keep it too! If you like innovation, switch to Vista or Windows 7.
You can't get a new car wich looks and feels like a car in the 70s. If you want a 70s car, you buy an original one. If you want a new car, you buy a new one. But if you buy a new one, they don't sell extras that lat your car looks like a 70s car.
Make up your mind! Would you like XP or 7? It's not possible to get XP wich looks like 7 and no 7 wich looks like XP! You can only have one of them, not a mixture. And that's good. Too much backwards compatibility slows down your system and fritters away your RAM and hard drive space as much as your processor power. The result: Vista.
You must work for M$, innovation my ars. Your car anology is also funny. New cars are driven using the same basic user input cars always have.
Microsoft has always allowed users to set up windows their own way. If MS makes 7 so its their way or the highway we might as well all buy MAC's. Windows 7 will never be used by businesses if the classic start menu is removed. Same goes for many other parts of the GUI. It would cost millions to re train employees plus lost productivity. Do you know Windows 7 server has the option for the classic start menu so it can be done.
I think MS is testing the waters to see how any people complain.
Sure its possible to make an OS configurable just look at all previous MS OS's. Have you ever used Vista? Vista runs as fast or faster than XP as long as you do not install it on a PC with low system spec's. - Dubyadubya said:You must work for M$, innovation my ars. Your car anology is also funny. New cars are driven using the same basic user input cars always have.
Microsoft has always allowed users to set up windows their own way. If MS makes 7 so its their way or the highway we might as well all buy MAC's. Windows 7 will never be used by businesses if the classic start menu is removed. Same goes for many other parts of the GUI. It would cost millions to re train employees plus lost productivity. Do you know Windows 7 server has the option for the classic start menu so it can be done.
I think MS is testing the waters to see how any people complain.
Sure its possible to make an OS configurable just look at all previous MS OS's. Have you ever used Vista? Vista runs as fast or faster than XP as long as you do not install it on a PC with low system spec's.
Sorry, i really feel sorry for companies who disallow their users the freedom to use the more effective and efficient new start menu and other features in Vista, and even more in Windows 7. I think the new taskbar should be blocked too then!!??
They can't be stuck forever with the old interface. I think it's more the lack of qualified IT personal who dare to take the "risk" and offer their user a better Windows / Computer experience. If they stick with the dated XP interface forever and refuse training to progress, at the end their users might lack the skills to compete with companies where the workers are better trained and more efficient. The attitude not to move on is wrong, especially if the decision is made on the subjective opinion of an scared "Vista is bad lemming" and not on evaluation of the real product using a pilot group of users willing to change and to be trained.
Let's take jump list, once people get used to them it's only a click / drag / release to open Recent or pinned files, much quicker then how they do that in XP (Open word, open file, browse network (many clicks and slow) open file). But also the search is especially in offices useful with Outlook.
What disturbs me most is this fear of change and the laziness to learn new things.
Training is simply needed, the ones who in the information age thinks to get away with no training will not progress which means they might regress out of business. How much training it requires to learn the new Interface. - JT420 said:
The only thing I do have a problem with is the 2 clicks to run another instance of IE. I don't like the tabs in IE for a number of reasons I won't go into here. If I choose to run another instance, that should be a single click.
what about: You can simply hold down the Shift key while clicking on the taskbar icon, and it will open a new instance of the application rather than switching to the existing application. More in this great post: list http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2009/01/12/the-bumper-list-of-windows-7-secrets.aspx
Can't test it at the moment, i'm using ____ XP on my Work laptop, using 7 at home, i really start to feel bad using XP. - Allards said:Sorry, i really feel sorry for companies who disallow their users the freedom to use the more effective and efficient new start menu and other features in Vista, and even more in Windows 7. I think the new taskbar should be blocked too then!!??
They can't be stuck forever with the old interface. I think it's more the lack of qualified IT personal who dare to take the "risk" and offer their user a better Windows / Computer experience. If they stick with the dated XP interface forever and refuse training to progress, at the end their users might lack the skills to compete with companies where the workers are better trained and more efficient. The attitude not to move on is wrong, especially if the decision is made on the subjective opinion of an scared "Vista is bad lemming" and not on evaluation of the real product using a pilot group of users willing to change and to be trained.
Let's take jump list, once people get used to them it's only a click / drag / release to open Recent or pinned files, much quicker then how they do that in XP (Open word, open file, browse network (many clicks and slow) open file). But also the search is especially in offices useful with Outlook.
What disturbs me most is this fear of change and the laziness to learn new things.
Training is simply needed, the ones who in the information age thinks to get away with no training will not progress which means they might regress out of business. How much training it requires to learn the new Interface.
-------------
You mean the same users who ask me to drop by their houses and replace Vista with XP because they got Vista on a new machine and hate it? Not everyone likes things changed that much.
They want to use something somewhat familiar and not re-learn the whole thing every 2-3 years.
I have yet to have a customer ask me for a car with the steering wheel in the back seat and the e-brake in the trunk.
So why does MS think they need to rearrange things that way?
IT guy at GM Car & Truck dealership - CarGod01 said:I sincerely feel sorry for those people...You mean the same users who ask me to drop by their houses and replace Vista with XP because they got Vista on a new machine and hate it? Not everyone likes things changed that much.
They want to use something somewhat familiar and not re-learn the whole thing every 2-3 years.
I have yet to have a customer ask me for a car with the steering wheel in the back seat and the e-brake in the trunk.
So why does MS think they need to rearrange things that way?
IT guy at GM Car & Truck dealership
but, it's the fear of change, they where already conditioned to dislike Vista so much that most are not even trying. Beside that it's almost an crime for computer savvy user to say that they like Vista, saying you like Vista is as advertising yourself as stupid / unintelligent isn't it? If everyone (other computer users) says it's bad then the it's perceived bad before even tried!
As an IT guy, why not sitting down with them and explain how to use Vista, explain the advantages, if it runs slow, try to remove all the installed ____ that came with the hardware or a do a fresh install. Let's be honest, the changes in the Vista / 7 interfaces are not that dramatic and hard to learn and do not compare at all to "steering wheel in the back seat and the e-brake in the trunk" moving from XP to OSX is a better example of that.
I guess with Windows 7 most of the arguments against Vista are properly addressed by Microsoft, but he there are always people who find something, like the lack of a Classic Startmenu. - OK, let's look at this situation from a BETA perspective for a second. Microsoft wants feedback on it's new UI. If they put the Classic start menu in the beta, a non-trivial percentage of people would convert to classic mode immediately without even trying the new UI. Now considering UI is a MAJOR part of this update to Windows, it only makes sense that Microsoft would like us to try the new UI and give constructive feedback. Saying it sucks and bring back classic mode is hardly constructive.
Try it, use it. If you don't like it give Microsoft feedback on what works and what doesn't.
I believe they will include the Classic mode in the final release, though I'll never go back. There are too many features worth using and most people only use a small handful of applications, so having a giant cluttered "All Programs" menu is really not the most efficient way to do things as some of you have suggested. - I'm sure the final version of Windows 7 will include a Classic Start Menu for the people that want to use it (like yours truly). I'm quite happy with being a stagnant old fart, the Vista+ interface is something for the next generation of users.
- I am a "power user" according to my IT guy, and I enjoy playing with new toys; I write the occasional review article. I am NOT afraid of change, stuck in the 70's, or stoopit. I use Vista regularly, even though it is slower than XP, even with 4 GB of RAM, because - well, I'm not so sure why now. I detest the eye candy of Vista's "Aero" look, and was mortified and very surprised to see that it can't be turned off in 7. It's BAD. It's a poor design. It's stoopit: it has no grace or elegance. Somebody did a terrific sales job in pushing this onto the desktop, but they're blowing it big time if Ballmer or whomever tries to ram it down our throats. The Mac interface IS elegant, but it's a non-starter for me, for the usual reasons.
Maybe Windows 8 will require 3-D glasses for that "intimate desktop experience" some clown will persuade top management to enforce. As for me, give me the option to change, and don't call me names for sticking with a better, fast, and more stomache-able interface. "Aero" just plain pukes. THAT is a step backward, not the users who rightly complain. I won't buy it if I can't turn this ____ off. Full stop. - MaxWedge426 said:To be honest i also disliked the newer start menu once it was introduced in Windows XP, i always turned it off, since Vista i found it more efficient and got used to it, and now i like it. For 2003 servers i still prefer the classic but in server 2008 the new one is fine too.
I am a "power user" according to my IT guy, and I enjoy playing with new toys; I write the occasional review article. I am NOT afraid of change, stuck in the 70's, or stoopit. I use Vista regularly, even though it is slower than XP, even with 4 GB of RAM, because - well, I'm not so sure why now. I detest the eye candy of Vista's "Aero" look, and was mortified and very surprised to see that it can't be turned off in 7. It's BAD. It's a poor design. It's stoopit: it has no grace or elegance. Somebody did a terrific sales job in pushing this onto the desktop, but they're blowing it big time if Ballmer or whomever tries to ram it down our throats. The Mac interface IS elegant, but it's a non-starter for me, for the usual reasons.
Maybe Windows 8 will require 3-D glasses for that "intimate desktop experience" some clown will persuade top management to enforce. As for me, give me the option to change, and don't call me names for sticking with a better, fast, and more stomache-able interface. "Aero" just plain pukes. THAT is a step backward, not the users who rightly complain. I won't buy it if I can't turn this ____ off. Full stop.
What i don't get is that if i compare the two, Programs is on top in Xp but All Programs is at the bottom in the newer start menu, so it's quicker to get there. Documents / Settings / Search / etc are all at the first level adjustable the way the user prefers, search became so much better, i don't see the problem??!?
That's why I have a questions, if you say "no grace or elegance" what do you mean?
(for me the new menu is much more graceful, multifunctional and visually pleasing, it's all grace for me!!)
I'm also a Mac owner and i like the Mac interface it's different and for me much better then XP's GUI, but it's imho not better then Vista / 7 at all. The Aqua interface is fine, but common task like system task are still not easy, and some things are bad, try to change the cursor in OSX..... The great Graceful applications on the Mac are what i like best.
So if you compare the classic start menu with the new one, can you be specific about what you like and dislike?
I like:
1. the search
2. Jumplists
3. How close it resembles the classic menu
4. That i can view the Shutdown option list without having to click it.
Please open my eyes, i,m very open to change.. - I always turn it off too. Immediately. But truth be told I rarely use the start menu. What bothers me is I don't have the My Computer, My Network Places, My Documents and IE on my desktop. For applications that I use often I usually drop them in the taskbar.
- hallycat said:
I always turn it off too. Immediately. But truth be told I rarely use the start menu. What bothers me is I don't have the My Computer, My Network Places, My Documents and IE on my desktop. For applications that I use often I usually drop them in the taskbar.
Right click on the desktop -> Personalize -> Change desktop icons (menu on the left). There you can add the following icons to the desktop.
- Computer (My Computer)
- User's Files (My Documents)
- Network (My Network Places)
- Recycle Bin
- Control Panel - Frop said:Thanks! I should have noticed that, I looked around before posting.hallycat said:
I always turn it off too. Immediately. But truth be told I rarely use the start menu. What bothers me is I don't have the My Computer, My Network Places, My Documents and IE on my desktop. For applications that I use often I usually drop them in the taskbar.
Right click on the desktop -> Personalize -> Change desktop icons (menu on the left). There you can add the following icons to the desktop.
- Computer (My Computer)
- User's Files (My Documents)
- Network (My Network Places)
- Recycle Bin
- Control Panel
- For those who cannot live without the classic menu in windows 7 there is a way
to at least get the folder structure of start in the new menu.
Now probably you are not using/needing all of the system libraries,
i.e. Username, documents,pictures,videos,recorded tv.
All of these can be enabled in the startmenu options and can be set to display as menu.
One could copy the start menu links into one of these and use it as the start menu.
Tried it myself and it works. Just no drag and drop to reorder them.
Arjan Sin - Arjan Sin said:
For those who cannot live without the classic menu in windows 7 there is a way
to at least get the folder structure of start in the new menu.
Now probably you are not using/needing all of the system libraries,
i.e. Username, documents,pictures,videos,recorded tv.
All of these can be enabled in the startmenu options and can be set to display as menu.
One could copy the start menu links into one of these and use it as the start menu.
Tried it myself and it works. Just no drag and drop to reorder them.
Arjan SinI like the left-pane and I was even strictly a "classic" person but now I want to get rid of the right one, as it takes time to navigate over to the right.
Also, no quicklaunch in taskbar for desktop.scf, seems like a bit of a guinea pig to me
- Arjan Sin said:
Also, no quicklaunch in taskbar for desktop.scf, seems like a bit of a guinea pig to me
There is Quicklaunch in Windows 7
http://www.blogsdna.com/2003/how-to-enable-disable-quick-launch-toolbar-in-windows-7.htm
or- Right click on taskbar and select Toolbars > New Toolbar
- Browse to:
C:\Users\%username%\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch - Hit: Select Folder
Cool but why must we have to do all these geek moves all the time just for things we are used to already?
Anyway, how do I get rid of the word "quicklaunch" or must we wait for more fundamental reworking.
P.S. Still couldn't fix the gap between the folder and other windows on the taskbar could we, not to mention the gaps between icons in the system tray.
At least it's more stable that's all I can say but the UI side leaves a great deal left to be desired, and especially considering all these difficult processes one must go though just to customise how one wants while one is being conditioned to think another way.
- A suggestion for the start menu. When clicking on all programs, have the programs come out like a classic menu so all you have to do is put cursor on the folder of the program you want, to open it and then click the program to open it. having to click folders to get to the program requires extra steps from the classic menu in my humble opinion. What I am finding entertaining here though is everyone finding ways to change the OS to their liking instead of telling Microsoft about what changes would be good. Hope they have people watching these forums for ideas though.
- Please add my name to the very very unhappy to see the classic menu not be where I wanted.
I stopped using 7 after seeing that. I'm THAT hooked to it. I've been using it for so long, it's like asking me to start driving on the wrong side of the road.
Regards
- For those of you longing for the return of Classic Start Menu I don't like your chances. Does Office 2007 have a Classic Toolbars option for Word, Excel or Power Point? No. And it is better for it. I find Office 2007 brilliant to use and I hate useing 03 now. No more misplaced toolbars - thank God. I don't hear any Mac users pinning for OS 9 style interface do you? Sometimes a clean break is needed just like when we went from Windows 3.1 to 95. Everyone loved that change so why not this? I can answer my own question people like to stay in their confort zone and they are creatures of habit. Step outside your comfort zone and live a little who knows you might actually get to like it.
I think Microsoft needs to grow a pair and don't back down. The new Start Menu IS flat out better. Give it a decent go. Seriously Press Windows key on keyboard then typing what you want is flat out fast. Clicking on a Menu then a sub menu and then sort through the dozens on non alphabetized sub menus is messy and slow as. Yes I know you can right click and click sort by name but few users ever do it. When the Programs sub menu has 2 or 3 pages it's a disaster area. - Jim McCaskey said:
That was the first thing I tried to do when I got the beta installed in my VM. I wanted to get the OS back to something I was familiar with....
So why, exactly, are you beta testing W7? Wouldn't you be better sticking to XP if that's what you prefer?
It seems a bit pointless to install W7 and then immediately make it look like XP without even trying out the new user interface first. - A number of people wonder why anyone would want the Classic Menus!
Here is my reason!
With the new menus you Click on the Button then type what you want the click on what is listed. I feel you are moving your hands between the keyboard and mouse more with it.
With the classic menus I edit them and add my own folders right above "Programs" for Internet, Network, Office, Games, etc.. and copy menu items into them that I use. I have over 30 programs within 2 clicks. I also use Tweak UI and speed up the menus as much as I can.
Now if you commonly use less than 9 or 10 programs they will get listed shortly in the history and be there for easy access, but in a normal work week I use 20 different programs and would have to go hunting several times a day.
So for 90+% of users it most likely is better and maybe faster but not for I.
My 2 cents!
Please note I also
Turn off Windows Indexing
Set the size of my virtual memory
Turn off System Restore
And about a dozen more things to speed things up...
James - Allards said: what about: You can simply hold down the Shift key while clicking on the taskbar icon, and it will open a new instance of the application rather than switching to the existing application. More in this great post: list http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2009/01/12/the-bumper-list-of-windows-7-secrets.aspx
Can't test it at the moment, i'm using ____ XP on my Work laptop, using 7 at home, i really start to feel bad using XP.
Yes, I saw that. Thanks for the reminder. My only quibble with it is that it requires me to reach for the keyboard when I'm desktop navigating. In XP I could do this with mouse alone. This probably isn't so bad for IE because I have to reach for the keyboard eventually anyway to type (my home page is set to Google, and usually I'm launching IE because I want to search for something). But maybe that isn't true for other apps I want multiple instances of (though I can't think of any off the top of my head). - st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
I 100% agree that the classic menu is a good thing and I definitely would like to see its return.
Some of the ignorance that I see on this thread beggars belief with regard to this topic.
The role of a good GUI is to allow users to navigate a system in an ergonomic and efficient manner
The role of a great GUI is to allow this AND allow the user to do it in the manner THEY see fit.
The purpose of Windows 7 is to provide an OS that’s user friendly, fast, secure and stable
Vista missed the mark on a lot of those areas and that’s simply why it didn’t succeed they way MS hoped.
7 is geared to correct much of those issues and I sincerely hope they hit the target……
Windows, in most of its various guises, has typically allowed users several ways to get to any point within the system and that is the key point.
If the final release does not incorporate the classic menu, then MS will have unquestionably missed the mark again.
Now, as several of my piers have already highlighted – this is a beta trial and MS want us to “check out the new way of doing it”
That’s fine, it gives MS an opportunity to fine tune what additions they have made in response to our feedback and thus provides an additional way to get from A to B within windows.
For the people that like it – great, MS have done a good job.
For the clowns that like it and think EVERYONE else on the planet should like it just as much as them and dress like them and think like them and talk etc etc etc
AND if they still don’t like it, clearly more training is required until they do like it. Oh dear
If we prefer the classic interface, we could use that which means instant user friendliness coupled to a fast, secure and stable OS.
If MS updates 7 in a few months with the option to switch to classic mode, it will be a sign that they are listening to the people – ALL of the people.
And that can only be a good thing for the users
(Except the clowns that want everyone to think like clowns – more training perhaps??)
Rant over…..
Cheers
G
- I can get used to the start menu, but why is it always the same size no matter how big my screen is?
- I ditched the Classic Start menu when I left Windows 2000 for XP, good riddance I say, the new Windows 7 interface is far superior.
Shon - To: "G/c232rsO" - I couldn't agree more with your rant. Users want flexibility and options because they use their PC's differently. If there's a new and better way, get the word out and it will sell itself. If MS tries for force everyone to their perception of a better way, they will fail......just as they did with Vista.
- All righty then, have played with the start menu in Windows 7 and Vista and the first thing I would like to see changed on it is the ability to resize it so you can put as many programs in the left window as you want. To have it limited in size restricts the number of programs. So if Microsoft makes it resizable I am sure more would prefer it over the classic menu. I know I would.
- Thack said:Jim McCaskey said:
That was the first thing I tried to do when I got the beta installed in my VM. I wanted to get the OS back to something I was familiar with....
So why, exactly, are you beta testing W7? Wouldn't you be better sticking to XP if that's what you prefer?
It seems a bit pointless to install W7 and then immediately make it look like XP without even trying out the new user interface first.I don't want to be rude, but why do you think?
People want greater stability better instructions and interaction with hardware and bios, when a user or Tester in this case gets it up and running the first thing you want to do is make it your home and if you can't decorate it how you want or set the layout as per your needs you are going to be disappointed.
I've gotten used to the desktop.scf on the right, it's actually a good thing after scrolling but now I'd like to see greater customisation for both the taskbar and start menu as well.
- BobFrantic said:
All righty then, have played with the start menu in Windows 7 and Vista and the first thing I would like to see changed on it is the ability to resize it so you can put as many programs in the left window as you want. To have it limited in size restricts the number of programs. So if Microsoft makes it resizable I am sure more would prefer it over the classic menu. I know I would.
I like the idea, they just could make an option for the column on the right to show, hide or be turned off or make it a big Jumplist itself.
It could be that many simply dislike the width of the newer Start Menu. Making a mixed mode between to two could help... for me it's not needed, i'm fine with new one! - I like both start menus Classic and the new one in windows 7 users should be given the choice to choose which one they would to like use worked well in Vista.
- I basically like the new start menu. The only thing I think I would like to see is the Xp/Vista style folders in the all programs, in which you mouse over and have combo boxes or slide out(?) for the programs within things such as Office . Or have I missed a tweak?
Las semillas de hoy son las flores de manana - It could be that many simply dislike the width of the newer Start Menu. Making a mixed mode between to two could help... for me it's not needed, i'm fine with new one!Maybe all it needs is to be able to remove the right-pane and replace it with "blinds" under the all-programs menu, that would help I think.
- BobFrantic said:If you change the "number of recent programs to display" the menu will resize, if you set it to a large number the menu will go all the way from top to bottom of your screen.
All righty then, have played with the start menu in Windows 7 and Vista and the first thing I would like to see changed on it is the ability to resize it so you can put as many programs in the left window as you want. To have it limited in size restricts the number of programs. So if Microsoft makes it resizable I am sure more would prefer it over the classic menu. I know I would.
- I tend to agree that stepping into 2009 is just wrong, For ease of use classic just cant be beat. everything is where i want it when i want it, no questions asked, how is that wrong? i tried the new options in both vista and W7 and never felt i had the control of the classic. as for skinning, if Microsoft would have the flexibility of Aston that would be some kind of awesome miracle. im all for usability and customization.
Sorry guys but the start menu is how it's going to be at least for now. I think it's good since the old way you had to navigate massive long lists of programs, most of which (myself) I wanted to delete!
It was a complete pain the old way, this new method keeps the most used programs in view and still lets you go though an arbitrary menu, that's ok but I don't like having to have the right side forced on me as well that aspect is bad.
If you could get rid of the right-side of the menu and just have some more "banners" underneath All Programs that would be the best-of-practice to me.
- Drop the Classic Start Menu - MS can't keep supporting legacy interfaces for ever. I find most users are open to Vista's start menu. Most people went back to XP not because it looked differnet, or behaved in a slightly differnet manner, they went back because it ran like a dog on their PC or one poorly written app didn't run properly.
Love the work so far MS you have addressed every gripe I had with Vista. If you add tabs and a double Window mode to Explorer I'll be a very happy camper. LOL Johnny Rockets.
It takes some working out but it's pretty cool I reckon.
I hated the old way so much that I had made a folder full of shortcuts on the desktop it was that bad but now that's gone and believe it or not most of my applications are portable so I simply put the Portable Apps Menu on there instead and it doesn't seem to appear in the Start Menu (thank god).
Not bad MS.
Regards
- >>Let it go, man. Try something new. Put that liesure suit away. Ditch the Windows 95 UI style. Let life begin in 2009! Come on in- the water's fine!
I could not agree more! Wipe your disk and install Ubuntu.
- bartonlp said:
>>Let it go, man. Try something new. Put that liesure suit away. Ditch the Windows 95 UI style. Let life begin in 2009! Come on in- the water's fine!
I could not agree more! Wipe your disk and install Ubuntu.
I did try the newest Mandriva recently and its so close to being install and go, they are really gaining ground on Microsoft. - I don't care for the new start menu, and sincerely hope that a classic view will become an option in Windows 7.
The current start menu does not give the privacy that the classic menu provides.
Even when using classic menu, I always tweaked my OS so that recent documents, favorites etc. were not available for anyone who sat down at my desk and could quickly read anything of mine that I considered private. - Microsoft!!! Bring the classic menu!! The new menu (Win7/Vista) is not efficient of fast work.
- I HATE change! I too refused to buy the newer Vista & AWAYS switch to classic view, and said the same thing. However, after playing a few days I got used to it. I found by dragging icons into the little folder icon it was easy to acess. That and going to the ALL PROGRAMS icon on the start menu.
- dirtymm said:
I HATE change! I too refused to buy the newer Vista & AWAYS switch to classic view, and said the same thing. However, after playing a few days I got used to it. I found by dragging icons into the little folder icon it was easy to acess. That and going to the ALL PROGRAMS icon on the start menu.
too bad the all programs menu is all screwed up in W7. they just had to mess everything up i guess - Don't be sad about the Start Menu, just go back to Vista like I have and let other's wrangle with it until it's propered.
- thanks to another thread "Wow, the new taskbar is bad." i got quicklaunch. now if only somone could get the classic menu up id be thrilled. i love the os, the right side of the taskbar is great, the left works awsome now that i unpined everything and have quicklaunch, it is just when i hit that start button that my excitement dies.
- I tried your link and they took it away. There was a previous post in this forum about using a tool called gpedit from the run command, see the site they referenced below, but they have already diabled that also. Can you tell me how you got to the place where you can get the Quick Launch toolbar back.
Thanks
Phil -
http://www.blogsdna.com/2003/how-to-enable-disable-quick-launch-toolbar-in-windows-7.htm - Speed Phil said:To get the Quick Launch toolbar back:
I tried your link and they took it away. There was a previous post in this forum about using a tool called gpedit from the run command, see the site they referenced below, but they have already diabled that also. Can you tell me how you got to the place where you can get the Quick Launch toolbar back.
Thanks
Phil -
http://www.blogsdna.com/2003/how-to-enable-disable-quick-launch-toolbar-in-windows-7.htm
Right click on task bar, go to toolbars, then new toolbar.
Browse to: user, then AppData, then Roaming. open Microsoft, then open Internet Explorer. There you find Quick Launch. Highlite that folder and click on the button at the bottom "Select Folder"
On the taskbar drag the Quick Launch to the left. Right click on taskbar in there and take checks from Show Titles and Show Text.
Make sure to be using small icons and that your task bar is unlocked when you to this. Hope is helps, I wrote this from memory so hope it is accurate enough for you to get it done.
I tried the new taskbar for a few days and didn't like it at all. Getting windows I wanted to show on desktop was more work than with the Quick Launch. Hope Microsoft will give back the choice of toolbars customers want to use instead of making us use what they think is the best. Good Luck with this... - Thanks Bob - It worked. I agree with you. I like most things but the start menu requires too much effort to get to the programs I want to find.
I still can't figure out how to organize my programs in the start menu like I could in XP. Dragging and dropping sometimes copies into another folder (like a new game into "Games"), but sometimes it makes a copy there and leaves the other one where it was. In XP I could set up folders for Business, Media, Games, Utilities, etc and organize everything else under them. A couple clicks and I was where I wanted to be. I have tried that several ways in Win7 and keep bumping my head. Trying it with WinExplorer open often ends up in messages saying it can't do that because what I want to move is in use, etc..
I have been searching the posts for the way the developers intended for us to organize the start menu, but only found a big fight about classic start menu. XP start menu would be fine with me. I didn't think that was broken. A couple of the new features could have been added to it. If you find a post about how to Organize programs in the Start Menu, let me know where to find it.
Thank you for helping.
Phil - - The XP start menu has the best of both worlds. You get the window of used programs you can put your favorites in and when you put your cursor on All Programs, then the tree of folders opens up that you can move, copy, paste, cut, delete and manipulate the way you want. So hope Microsoft will give us back that option and make it more user friendly in the way we want to organize our start menu. :D minor rant and now back to our regular program(s) hehe
- I seriously don't understand how the classic start menu is more efficient.
New Start Menu:
First click on the Start button
Second click on All Programs
Use the mouse wheel to scroll the list
Click on the program group to expand it
Launch the application you require
versus
Classic Start Menu:
Click on the start button
hover over Programs and wait until Programs pops out or click on it
find the application group
hover over the application and wait till it pops out or click on it
launch the program
That's 4 clicks on either method. Also as the new All Programs doesn't fly out there's less physical mouse movement. I know the method I used with the new menu included scroll the mouse wheel - they have been out for 13 years so everyone should have one and all laptops have a scroll function on their touch pads.
Go on try it and be objective about it. Think of it as taking a small vacation and experience something new. - Another vote for the Classic Start Menu at least as an option. Seriously, I'm the user and why should I believe MS when they tell me "this is better, trust us" :-)
- Boston Irish said:
I'm the user and why should I believe MS when they tell me "this is better, trust us"
Apple do it all the time. Yet everyone applaudes them. - I like the XP menu b/c it requires fewer clicks and the choices are all there on the screen. yes, when there are lots of items it gets unwieldy but I only need a bit of re-organizing.
the vista/w7 start menu seems designed for fixed/limited screen space, like a portable device or kiosk system, not the freer potentially very large PC screen.
I mean, if the start menu is so darn great, why don't they do the same thing with regular menus? Instead of sub menus flying out, make you click to expand the menu in place, then click the scroll bar to scroll up and down. imagine what a pain that'd be if that were the S.O.P.
p.s: when you hover a folder in the start menu, why doesn't it just expand automatically?
- barth2k said:
I like the XP menu b/c it requires fewer clicks and the choices are all there on the screen. yes, when there are lots of items it gets unwieldy but I only need a bit of re-organizing.
the vista/w7 start menu seems designed for fixed/limited screen space, like a portable device or kiosk system, not the freer potentially very large PC screen.
I mean, if the start menu is so darn great, why don't they do the same thing with regular menus? Instead of sub menus flying out, make you click to expand the menu in place, then click the scroll bar to scroll up and down. imagine what a pain that'd be if that were the S.O.P.
p.s: when you hover a folder in the start menu, why doesn't it just expand automatically?
If you consider the delay of hovering and compare it to a click, the click is quicker. Yes if you hover in the XP start menu there is less clicks but there is that delay with a hover so it might as well be considered a click. My Windows 7 Start menu goes nearly to the top of the screen on my 1024x768 laptop. That's 28 folders or apps when you click on all programs. Also MS have said that 7 will have a Netbook version and a lot of them don't have very high resolution, hence it's fixed nature. - Johnny Rockets said:Apple do it all the time. Yet everyone applaudes them.
Apple do it right Johnny, Apple do it right! from what i have seen through the years there core tasks have not changed, to set up networking you go here, to set display here. they keep the OS the same no matter what else they added. i applaud them as well for that - OK, get this, i explored the start menu trying to organize my folders and programs into neat little sections like internet and entertainment and I cant make new folders, its in use other places, what is that? i cant even make it pretty? FU start menu! AUC is the devil, and will do the same to W7 as it did to vista! my lappy will be running W7 only as long as it takes me to to get in the mood to reinstall everything again, i give it a day and a half max! call this a rant, the last straw, or just giving up, but i see no point in running a vista clone when vista urked me to no end with its security do it or else attitude.
sorry i mean UAC is the devil, - lastot069 said:Johnny Rockets said: Apple do it all the time. Yet everyone applauds them.
Apple do it right Johnny, Apple do it right! from what i have seen through the years there core tasks have not changed, to set up networking you go here, to set display here. they keep the OS the same no matter what else they added. i applaud them as well for that
I wouldn't call the default Cover flow view in iTunes 8 right - looked pretty but basically useless if you have a large library. Nor the removal of the X509 anchors certificate store from the keychain in OS X 10.5 - making it a pain to use self signed certificates with applications such Office 2008. Nor does OS X have a signal strength indicator when choosing to connect to a Wifi network - how do I know which is the closet network or which ones I barely getting a strong enough signal to connect to.
I can sling mud at either side all day as I support both platforms as part of my job. I was merely observing the fact no one gives Apple lip about it. They look at Apple, bat their eyes and croon over Steve's next "And more thing" and happily pay their "Apple tax" for their over priced PC. Somebody actually made a doco about Apple fanboys and their devotion. It includes the choice quote "I wont sleep with a Windows user". It's cool to bash Microsoft. Trust me I'm no MS fanboy either. I can complain about the stuff up that was the removal of many GUI tools from Exchange 07 or how Entourage still doesn't have all the functionality that Outlook has with Exchange servers. - I subscribe to the first post. I also want the Classic Start Menu back.
I belive it's not impossible to MSFT to put it back and to add check boxes for it and for Show Quick Launch in the Taskbar Properties.
It could be nice even to have it skinned or transparent instead of white as in Vista.
I've used all Windows versions, starting with Windows 1.0 untill present. The revolution of Win95 was that easy to use menu, taking all the available screen, and making easy to use the mouse to start an program. Perhaps that has bring Windows as the most used OS in the world. If this dissapears, probably I will get an Mac for replacement. I joke, of course. I already use Linux as second OS.
Now - the reason I want it back:
Productivity - less clicks for select it AND no need to use the keyboard for that. I see here many people saying I can use Search Programs - that means to use the mouse to bring out the Search Menu, and then typing the program name using the keyboard. That definitely takes more time, and I need more effort to do it, using both hands. Also the other way - using that small window to scroll for programs, well perhaps if you don't have more than 2-3 programs could work, but I use about 100 !! Or more. How much I have to scroll and click to open folders to start one ?
I know what I say, because I use Vista for 2 years about and I found this solution better that any other - like shortcuts on desktop, or the 2 others I've already mentioned.
As many users want it back, I belive that MSFT could work a little at this, letting the users to make the choice instead of choosing for them. - from my own usage pattern I find I pretty much don't use the menu. I pin all my frequently used apps on the task bar or start menu. otherwise I pretty much just type it in. this has reduced my aggravation.
also, vista/w7 has scattered all the configuration around. i guess the idea is one dialog should do one thing and one thing only. ok, i guess that's less intimidating to the avg user, but it's also a chore to find things. I'm not sure if it makes it any easier for the newbies though. for ex, the default control panel hides too much. but the full one has exploded in # of items. or look at networks. what the heck is going on there?
again, the solution is just to use the start menu and type it in.
w7 has turned me from a mouser to a keyboarder!
btw, from reading the comments, many defenders of the new menu seem to be making a false dichotomy. "classic menu" shouldn't necessarily mean throwing out the good quick find feature. there's no reason why you can't combine best of both worlds. I guess in vista if you use classic menu there's no quick find, but why should that be the case? seems like they're just forcing people's hand. could they possibly suspect people wouldn't take to the new menu unless it alone came with the quick find sugar coating? - Johnny Rockets said:and then there are laptops that run 1440x900 or 1680x1050. 1920x1200 24" monitors can ben had for <300USD. why constrain it to the lowest common denominator? choices choices!
If you consider the delay of hovering and compare it to a click, the click is quicker. Yes if you hover in the XP start menu there is less clicks but there is that delay with a hover so it might as well be considered a click. My Windows 7 Start menu goes nearly to the top of the screen on my 1024x768 laptop. That's 28 folders or apps when you click on all programs. Also MS have said that 7 will have a Netbook version and a lot of them don't have very high resolution, hence it's fixed nature.
I mean, don't you hate it that your cable box puts out a 4:3 guide even though you have a fancy 16:9 hdtv? this is many times worse.
here's an idea: make it resizable, so at least I can get more items on screen. - Windows 7 beta is an improvement in many ways.
I also want the option to switch to the classic start menu. - Gez_au said:I have a dream!
Windows 7 beta is an improvement in many ways.
I also want the option to switch to the classic start menu.
W7 stability with XP style and ease of use! - sweethoneybee said:
Hi,
a friend of mine is beta tester and he told me, that there is no more possibility in windows 7 to use a classic startmenu at the moment, like we have it in windows vista. if that is really true, i think that could be a big reason for the customers to dislike this OS again and i really hope, that microsoft is going to add it till the final version!
I would really, really like the Classic Start Menu back, but I'd also like the same options that XP has for Classic View:
Windows Classic Theme
Windows Classic Style
Windows Classic Color Scheme (not just the "Windows Standard" option)
Windows Classic Interface Fonts
I really hope these will be added.
Thank You What people are forgetting is that after 10+ years of using classic start menu having to switch to a "new and improved" start menu can mean totally disrupting their work process. I know it was like that for me. First thing before doing ANYTHING after windows install is to set start menu to classic. No classic start menu angered me quite a lot. I hate Vista style Windows explorer & lots of Vista UI features. If i have to put up with a start menu i hate to boot i have absolutely no problems with reverting back to Win XP.
What i won't stand is someone trying to force a new feature on me.
As for people saying move on etc. I respect your opinions and am glad you like the new start menu but please for the love of god don't try to tell me what i should and shouldn't like. If we have a OS we both like in our own way it's a better product than if 1 view is forced upon all.
I myself prefer the "classic menu" I don't have a long all programs menu.
I have a bunch (maybe way too many) apps on my computer. With the classic look I can reorganize my apps in groups for what they do. They are very wuick and easy to find that way.
Trying to remember every app I have and typing its name would be something I would not want to do. I already have too much junk in my head memorized.
I have played with the new menus in XP, Vista and did not like the layout. For the most used programs I love the quick launch. Just click and away we go.
I believe the whole point of GUIs is to make them usable the way the user wants and not someone else forcing it on them becuase it is supposed to be better. The options need to be there for the user.
My current XP machine is configured as a single user machine. I like configuring my computer the way I want it, for I am the owner and user of it. I should have the choice to do this and not a choice made by someone else just becuase it might be better or cuter.
My main gripe with Vista was with all the permissions I had to go through to get to folders I wanted to browse. Again, I am owner and should have had a simple way of opening up Vista to browse wherever I wanted and not beg it to.
I have always liked Microsoft OS, but don't take away my abilty to play. If I mess up, oh well, reinstall everthing!
But give mehe classic menu option. Heck give it the abilty to incorporate the new7 options that I might like.
I still have more playing with the beta to see what else it can do.
I for one also prefer the classic. I have used both Vista and have a setup of 7 and can not, no matter how much I try, can not get used to the way 7 is or vista is for that matter. When I go to start, programs, I like the list I see as opposed to a categorized view of everything. I also like control panel in XP for the same reason. Let users have the choice!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers,
Jamie
I also prefer NOT to have a scrollbar and truncated entries in the Start Menu. I'd prefer that the entries stay in the "Fly-Out" format when you choose Classic. I can create my own folders and group Start Menu entries if I wish to reduce the height of the list. Again, this is strictly Classic mode that I'm referring to.
In order to meet you all half-way, if you wish to still have a scrollbar and truncated entries, at least provide us with an option that we can toggle on or off to enable ot disable the scrollbar feature.
Thank you.
- You know, I was really sad about it at first, too. In spite of that, I still have to say that I love Windows 7. I've tested it with all of my organizations enterprise software and, the only thing that didn't work was our Antivirus solution. What is cool, though, is that the security center came up and gave a link to 3 vendors who had already written code for W7. I can't say enough about that. Now, my big challenge is to see if I can beat the heck out of this system and look for security flaws.
- Hank Ritzert said:so, let me get this straight, you are happy about built in advertising to company's you can go spend money on to get full protection? sorry, but i get enough advertising from the web pages i visit
You know, I was really sad about it at first, too. In spite of that, I still have to say that I love Windows 7. I've tested it with all of my organizations enterprise software and, the only thing that didn't work was our Antivirus solution. What is cool, though, is that the security center came up and gave a link to 3 vendors who had already written code for W7. I can't say enough about that. Now, my big challenge is to see if I can beat the heck out of this system and look for security flaws.
- Let me add my own voice to the clamour for some kind of classic start menu, whether it's XP's menu (which I personally prefer) or Win95's menu. (FWIW, a large portion of the reason I didn't move to Vista is because it only had Win95's menu; that and a very broken Windows Explorer details view, with its horrible selection model; Win7 is only slightly better.)
The reason Win95 and WinXP start menus work is that they rely on muscle memory via absolute screen positioning. Clicking on Start, navigating to Programs or All Programs, and commencing to a program category all the way through to the selected program, relies on a constant set of movements. (I'm assuming that all experienced start menu users categorize their programs, rather than using installation program defaults, as it's too big a productivity win to ignore.)
The issue with Vista and Win7 menus is that they use a treeview model for the menu instead, and critically, it's constrained in a tiny scrollable box. These two flaws add up to an even bigger flaw: because it scrolls and expands like a treeview, the location of any given menu item is related both to what folders above it have already been expanded, and how far from the origin it has been scrolled.
Using the Vista / Win7 Start menu, one gets the feeling of rooting around in a miniscule drawer packed with miscellanea, hunting for the correct tiny widget. The fact that my main desktop expands over two large monitors only adds to the feeling of miserliness.
I start programs by category and location, not by name. When I want to start a program by name, I invoke it from my terminal window, which I always have one or more open (Cygwin rxvt). Typing in the name of a program in the start menu is a somewhat-useful novelty, but it will never be the dominant way I use the start menu - I already have a much more powerful textual interface, thanks. For Vista and Windows 7, the interface for folders (and Internet Explorer 7 and 8 too) is so foreign to me that I do just about everything I can to AVOID having to use them.
I use a dedicated file manager program (Free Commander) to manage all of my file operations whenever possible so I do not have to deal with the new folder interface.
I also use Maxthon 1.6.5.18, which allows me to use the IE 7 and IE 8 engine but with an interface that I'm used to. This is key because the interface changes introduced in IE 7 and IE 8 are hideous, imo. Thank goodness I have options like Maxthon.
But the Start Menu is not quite as easy to replace / rework. By altering the Start Menu so drastically and not providing the ability to step back to a familiar interface (fully implemented Classic mode), you make using Windows more of a chore than it should be.
Windows XP is said to be supported with security updates and WHQL certification until 2014. If that is the case, then I guess I could ride the storm out and keep using XP.
But I think a better solution would be to turn Windows 7 into something we can all use, both classic fans and fans of the new interface. If Windows 7 worked (and looked) more like Windows XP, I think I'd want to adopt that platform.
I do hope there can be a meeting of the minds on this.
- Aaron Tiensivu said:
Give it time. It takes a little to get used to but once you get familiar with it, I don't like going back to the 'old way' anymore.
I don't like the start menu in Vista thats for sure. I created icons on my desktop for the programs i use. I can't stand the scrolling all programs, my computer teachers at college don't like it either so from just that they refuse to use Vista. - For all those who are mourning the loss of the classic pull-out start menu, why not include an option in the taskbar properties dialog, to make the All Programs button bring out a flyout menu, like in the old start menu.
Off by default but optional, and it would not upset the aesthetics of the new Start Panel, and would satisfy the requirements of the curmudgeons who can't move on :)
- sweethoneybee said:
Hi,
a friend of mine is beta tester and he told me, that there is no more possibility in windows 7 to use a classic startmenu at the moment, like we have it in windows vista. if that is really true, i think that could be a big reason for the customers to dislike this OS again and i really hope, that microsoft is going to add it till the final version!
Give it time. It takes a little to get used to but once you get familiar with it, I don't like going back to the 'old way' anymore.
Adeel Ansari
M.M.G.
The Mastermind Group. @ 2009
MMG - mdta said:
For all those who are mourning the loss of the classic pull-out start menu, why not include an option in the taskbar properties dialog, to make the All Programs button bring out a flyout menu, like in the old start menu.
Off by default but optional, and it would not upset the aesthetics of the new Start Panel, and would satisfy the requirements of the curmudgeons who can't move on :)
I know I've previously stated that MS should drop the classic menu like a dead donkey but this could be a workable compromise with out having to put classic start menu back. - I know I've previously stated that MS should drop the classic menu like a dead donkey but this could be a workable compromise with out having to put classic start menu back.
There's no reason why they could not include the classic menu in Windows 7 as an OPTION, not a default.
They did this with Vista, after all.
- Well Classic Start Menu is to be deprecated, and so to force people to move on, they have dropped it from Windows 7. This is a good thing for the future, the only reason vista included it was to bridge the gap and help people acclimatise to it.
The only reason people still choose to use it, is only for the flyout menus, so including that as an option is the perfect compromise IMO
- st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
I don't use classic menu, however there should be no reason not to have the option.
Why has Microsoft become so vehemently opposed to UI customizations, and user choice? When it comes to the UI, it's personnel, it's user choice. It should not be, the egghead principle of no, no ,no our studies have shown, or it's just resistance to change. It's neither on of those it's user's choice. Microsoft simply needs to unlock the UI and allow users choice, no one is right here or wrong here it's just choice, it's personnel interaction and should be just that. Your choice, not Microsofts. If people want Windows 7 to look like windows 95 give that to them, if you want it to look like Windows XP give that to them. It is technologically feasible Microsoft will not do it. It would not detract from Windows 7 however it would not give Microsoft the control it wants. Bottom line is unlock the UI and allow users a choice, changing the color scheme is not customization. Before Vista windows had a lot more ability to change, just give that back, again stop choosing for me, only I know what I want, and works for me. It just all about choice….
- Imagine an IT administrator who has a personal distaste for the new Start Menu/Panel, and has taken it upon himself to set all the PC's in the company to the Classic Start Menu.
Now all those people who have to use Windows 7 at work, and they don't get to experience the Start Menu search, the frequently used apps, the links to libraries. Will they come away with the impression that Windows 7 is "supposed" to be like that?
Having the new standard of Start Panel is good for moving people away from the 95 way of doing things. I do think there can still be a place for the flyout menus, by offering an option to replace the functionality of the "All Programs" button to the old style pop out menu, but it should not be applicable on mass, and should be the user's choice, not the whim of a Stick-in-the-Mud administrator.
Too many Gradients - everywhere.
The "Green Bar" with the "Organize" and "Views" is not only unattractive and distracting, it's not space efficient.Why are some list-boxes "bubbled" using gradients and others are not? Like the "Save As Type" is while the "File Name" box is not?
The new dialog offers a "Toggle" between "Favorite Links" and "Folders", but if I click on the Folders item on the bottom to initiate the toggle, it moves that toggle link up near the top of the dialog, meaning I have to move my mouse up there to toggle back, then move it back down if I want to reverse that. Why can't it be in a static location?
Here is an image link showing the dialogs. The first one is the classic, efficient, space saving dialog while the other one has bloated gradients, forced column headers, the text fields are not aligned, etc. The XP style looks professional. The Win 7 / Vista style looks like someone had too many beers and started messing around with photoshop to see how "purdy" they could make it look. Someone PLEASE take note of this, ok?
XP Style: http://www.pdscomputing.com/hosting/graphics/xp-box02.png
Win7 Style: http://www.pdscomputing.com/hosting/graphics/vs-box02.png
- Ok its not useful to show Vista images when discussing Windows 7, especially now the left hand side doesn't separate the tree-view from the favourites.
You also need to remember the benefits the new Common File Dialogs offer, in giving you a tree-view on the side, as well as access to Network locations from the side.
Also you can hide the folders and other options if you want to navigate the paths from the breadcrumb bar.
Also the Command Bar (the greeny blue bar in vista) is lighter in colour which is nice, but its options adapt depending on the selection, and apps can add buttons to it, so it is not feesable to remove it.
(NOTE TO ALL MS STAFF - Add an Up button to the command bar please!)
I also miss the classic menu.. as an admin in a industrial complex, it was hard enough to get the users to handle win95/win2k interface.. Now that they can handle that.. now there is a new menu they must learn.. sure the office users can handle it but the other users will hate it, because they are Forced to learn a new way.. that is slower..
I do like windows 7.. impressive. but I need that classic menu so I can deploy it that way.
- If you are going to work in IT, you need to be able to adapt. Don't nanny those you think wont be able to handle it, and encourage them to move on...
- I greet all and apologize for my English however I would like to divide with several observations on the appearance of new little Windows.
Operate system Microsoft I use from version MSDOS and Windows3.11 until to the newest, the Introduction of classic menu in Win95 was very accurate solution. Menu is very ergonomic and intuitive. Newer solutions introduced in Vista they did not it fall me to tastes, I tried oneself to them to accustom however without result. Along with introduction Vista the rest of menu lay oneself completely it readable for me. It appeared the de troop of option in "Control Panel” which they are superfluous or should to make up with different options integer. The options of configuration of lattices are completely illegible and inexplicable, it lacks in their service of logic and simplicity marked what the same aspect in XP. To be they maybe nicely they look there now they do not it act their. Data were introduced along with introduction Win95 exploiter's new solution windows administrable on disc. Persons' majority praises this solution I still use from solutions leaning about "Norton Commander ” that is "Windows Commander ” and I will not it exchange this on different. - I apologise if this isn't what you were trying to say, but perhaps you should spend more time with the new Vista Start Menu, and try to adapt.
- Guys guys, the human race is the most adaptable species on this planet. If so many individuals can't adapt to a start menu, something is wrong with the start menu and not with the individuals.
I belive the problem is NOT that it is NEW but because it is overloaded with ____ nobody really needs.
They try to press the entire OS into this single button these programmers who never talk to users and do what they come up with in their dark minds.
- Edited by56488526 Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:26 PM
- Well how many moved from MSDOS to Windows 3.1
And how many moved from ProgMan to the Start Menu
People take a dislike to Vista due to its reputation, and as such have a bug on their back about a new Start Menu. So with a popular OS, now is the time to see how people adapt to it.
- If the new start menu was good people wouldn't have to adapt.
Look at Firefox, even if you never used tabs before you just started to use them. No need to adapt although it was a new concept.
- That is specious logic at its worst!
Anything that is new requires time to adapt, Office and the Ribbon, Windows 95 and the Start Menu, XP SP2 and the Security Centre, Vista and UAC. Because we had XP for over 7 years, it takes more time to get used to changes, and because at present the change is Vista, and people hate vista, the change is unwelcome, but give it time, and don't have such a stubborn attitude.
- Oh come on...
The original start menu was a button and when you pressed it there was a list of your programms and it was good.
Now it is monster, you press it and you have scroll bars and more buttons which extend it and jump icons which can be extended and docked icons and recent icons and a search box that is supposed to do everything but does only ____ and you have arrows and devices although there is already a device manager and and and...
Now tell me this couldn't be better...
- Not everyone has the time or inclination to keep their Programs folder neat and tidy, and as Disk Drives increase in size there is a likely hood for more applications to be installed.
There are many more benefits to the new Start Menu than the classic one. The ability to search, having important locations on one side.
Unfortunately the problems with the Start Menu are more in the way Windows cannot isolate Programs Installed from those start menu entries which have subfolders, readme files, weblinks etc.
Windows should make a list of apps installed, and keep them in a closed list, which is displayed and searchable from the start menu.
For those who want classic menu functionality, you can emulate it by creating a custom toolbar on the taskbar and pointing it to C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs. When you click on the >> button, you will have a menu that resembles the classic menu.
Also, for those who don’t care for Windows 7 colors and gradients, disabling themes will give a Windows 2000 like appearance. Run services.msc, stop the themes service and set its startup behavior to disabled.
- I have suggested a way to bring back the optional functionality, but here is an image showing it
- mdta said:
Well Classic Start Menu is to be deprecated, and so to force people to move on, they have dropped it from Windows 7. This is a good thing for the future, the only reason vista included it was to bridge the gap and help people acclimatise to it.
The only reason people still choose to use it, is only for the flyout menus, so including that as an option is the perfect compromise IMO
Classic Menu has been deprecated since 2002 with the introduction of Windows XP. Like all deprecated features it will be removed at some point. Looks like Windows 7 will be that point. I like the left-pane layout, it's great, a vast improvement on past ideas.
The only thing I don't like it the right-pane now and I would like to be able to rid myself of it completely and have other options in the left side besides just All Programs.
Does anyone follow me here or am I talking all alone?
- mdta said:I could accept this way, as it is very similar to XP, and if microsoft will give us the option that would be nice. How did you get this to do this this way anyways LOL
I have suggested a way to bring back the optional functionality, but here is an image showing it
- Great. I like this.
- I am OK with the start menu. It took a while to get used to in Vista. I never swithed to Classic view for the start menu but I did for control panel. I went from Win2000 to Vista. It was a great shock. But now I like it. What I do not like is they way control panel changes with every new version of Windows. I get tired to trying to figure out where everything was moved to and what the NEW name is for a function you have been using for years.
But maybe they will put some of the classic view stuff in the public release version. All in all I think Win7 will be more appealing that Vist was/is.
I would like to add my voice to the plea to retain Classic mode. Removing it is simpky a case of adherenece to the philosophy of "This is old and therefore bad. This is new and therefore better." Neither of these atements is universally true.
I am perfectly productive with the interface my way, and I don't want to be dictated to by being forced to an alternate which may be more productive for some, but will certainly not be for all. UI design is not a "one size fits all approach and should retain as much flexibility as possible to allow the individual to work as they see fit.
Related to the loss of the Classic Start menu, another feature has also been removed from Windows 7 beta. This is one that I relay on and I will be extremely sad to see it go if it is missing in the final release.
In XP, it was possible to detach the Desktop toolbar from the Task Bar and dock it at the edge of the creen. I use this to maintain a minimalist desktop. I dock the Desktop toolbar at the top of the screen, and then hide the desktop icons and autohide the Task Bar and the docked Desktop toolbar. This means thay my quiescent desktop is a completely blank screen, but all my desktop icons are available by just hovering my mouse sat the top edge of the screen. To me this is the ultimate in de-cluttering.
Vista removed this simple mechanism, apparently becuase some people foiund it "confusing". After some experimatation I found it was possible to achieve the same effect by creating a shortcut on the Desktop that pointed to the Desktop itself. Dragging this shortcut to the top of the screen docked it as if it were a toolbar and I was able to achieve the same result as described above. (Setting the shortcut's attributes to Hidden meant that it did not appear in the docked view.)
While less convenient, this meant I was able to continue to work as I wished. In the Windows 7 beta, this missing, which I view a severe loss. Pinning program icons to the Task Bar is not a satisfactory solution. As others have pointed out, it is a bad idea to mix program launchers with running instances on the Task Bar. Some people will find this confusing.
So please, Microsoft, let us keep our flexibility to use the system the way we want. There is no absolute right or wrong when it comes to UI design. Let the individual choose!
(Just don't get me started on why there wasn't a "Classic Mode" option in Office to avoid the horrors of the "intuitive" ribbon! I waste too much time looking for rarely used features that used to be easy to locate!)
This debate was initiated when windows95 came out. Loads of people asked for the windows 3.1 UI.
Let's be honest; the new start menu is a huge progress. It's merely a matter of getting used to it.
I don't use Vista because my machine was just a tad too slow (it can run windows 7 though). When I upgraded my machine I kept XP (still happy with it), but used ViStart from lee-soft.com to emulate the vista startmenu.
Just let's not stop progress because we feel comfortable with what we have.
- Zeus76 said:
Just let's not stop progress because we feel comfortable with what we have.
Nobody wants to stop the progress. If this IS a progress. We want the Classic Menu, but don't want to remove the actual one. Just to let users to decide what is best for them, includind both ways of configuring interface. Time will say who is best. At this moment, considering there are 2 years of Vista and so much people want back the classic menu, I belive it was not very productive or user friendly.
mjk47 said:(Just don't get me started on why there wasn't a "Classic Mode" option in Office to avoid the horrors of the "intuitive" ribbon! I waste too much time looking for rarely used features that used to be easy to locate!)
You can buy Classic Menu for Office 2007. It's third party, and I've do it. Perhaps If W7 will not include the Classic Menu, and I will be forced to use it, I will try some alternative shells, or alternative OS to replace.
- Zeus76 said:
Let's be honest; the new start menu is a huge progress. It's merely a matter of getting used to it.
except i and many don't think it's progress to have the menu confined to a fixed space, scrollbars with modest # of items, and more clicking. I'm sure this is ideal UI for a cell phone. I still use windows on an old fashioned desktop.the search function is a huge progress, but you can just as well have it with the old menu -- a hybrid menu as mdta shows above.
yes some people will dislike anything new, just as some will defend anything new. If I want to have things forced on me, I'll use a Mac. at least Steve my-way-or-the-highway Jobs has better taste than BGates.
- Firstly Bill Gates has left Microsoft, Secondly Macs are evil, and Finally, I am not suggesting bring back the classic menu, but add an option for flyouts from the All Programs Button...
No, it's not. There was nothing at all wrong with the old, XP interface. The problem was the overall security of the operating system, bot the GUI.
The Vista and now the Win 7 GUI are departures from every other user interface in every other operating system on the planet now or in the past. It is different from online interfaces. It has nothing in common with how people have, with Microsoft's help, learned to use computers, it is why so many people bought Windows XP to replace Vista, and it is the reason Win 7 is going to find similar market reluctance.
It's on every list of the top 10 commercial advertisements of all times: a wonam runs into a dark suditorium, takes a mighty wind-up and tosses a hammer through the giant television screen... Apple's way of saying that Microsoft was forcing their concept of computing on the mindless 'droids in the audience.
It was a valuable lesson back then.
We get stuck with DLL's and MFT's and FAT tables that shoudl have died decades back. We are forced to admire the Emperor's new clothes just because they're new? I think not.
(Checked the market price of MS stock lately? Your analyst/advisor will tell you it's because Vista was a Millenium-Edition-like failure. Another valuable lesson..?)
pcgeek86 said:People need to get over it. The new Start Menu is much more user-friendly and powerful than the classic Start Menu.
Why would you rather manually point & click each program you want to start, when you could simply remain on your keyboard, press the Windows key, and start typing the name of the thing you want to execute? Using the search feature, you don't have to remember if something is a control panel item, a start menu item, a document, etc. You know what you want, you type [a little bit of] the name, and BAM, you've got it!
Try to adjust to it, and you'll become a much more powerful user.
Trevor Sullivan Systems Engineer OfficeMax Corporation- André Reichelt said:
Hey, if you want a XP like start menu use XP! That's the point. The people want a fast and intuitive OS without inherited waste on the first side and a Windows 7 wich can be styled like Win3.1 on the other. That is not possible. So if you like the look and feel of Win95, keep it! If you like XP, keep it too! If you like innovation, switch to Vista or Windows 7.
You can't get a new car wich looks and feels like a car in the 70s. If you want a 70s car, you buy an original one. If you want a new car, you buy a new one. But if you buy a new one, they don't sell extras that lat your car looks like a 70s car.
Make up your mind! Would you like XP or 7? It's not possible to get XP wich looks like 7 and no 7 wich looks like XP! You can only have one of them, not a mixture. And that's good. Too much backwards compatibility slows down your system and fritters away your RAM and hard drive space as much as your processor power. The result: Vista.
Aren't you arguing that Microsoft is too stupid to just fix the security holes in XP without having to reinvent the whole Universe? How does that make sense? The only problem people had with XP was that it was porous, not that it was ugly or lacked fancy-useless GUI features that got sticky-taped into Vista and now, apparently, 7.The security holes are still there -- they're inherent in the core -- and 7 is just as porous as XP -- there's just new layers spackled-on to hide the same old holes a little better. So how is that a "new car"? Andre, sorry, but what you're arguing for is a 1970 Volkswagon Beetle that someone welded a Ferrari body on. It's still a Volkswagon.
- This is not true. Vista and Windows 7 have a new kernel re-written from XP, new Network Stack, New Audio System. UAC may seem tacked on, but alot of Windows does not function properly without it, so just know it is at the heart of the OS, and this is why compatibility took a hit from XP.
All popular OS's will require patches as time goes on, this doesn't mean its riddled with holes like a sieve, and like XP. You and people who couldn't adapt from XP or have a pathalogical hatred of Vista, need to move on, or drown in the seas of time which will pass you over.
Just think as Generations grow up with Vista and Windows 7 as their first OS, will learn to work with it better than old stick in the muds. Keep up, or bow out!
Allards said:
CarGod01 said:I sincerely feel sorry for those people...You mean the same users who ask me to drop by their houses and replace Vista with XP because they got Vista on a new machine and hate it? Not everyone likes things changed that much.
They want to use something somewhat familiar and not re-learn the whole thing every 2-3 years.
I have yet to have a customer ask me for a car with the steering wheel in the back seat and the e-brake in the trunk.
So why does MS think they need to rearrange things that way?
IT guy at GM Car & Truck dealership
but, it's the fear of change, they where already conditioned to dislike Vista so much that most are not even trying. Beside that it's almost an crime for computer savvy user to say that they like Vista, saying you like Vista is as advertising yourself as stupid / unintelligent isn't it? If everyone (other computer users) says it's bad then the it's perceived bad before even tried!
As an IT guy, why not sitting down with them and explain how to use Vista, explain the advantages, if it runs slow, try to remove all the installed ____ that came with the hardware or a do a fresh install. Let's be honest, the changes in the Vista / 7 interfaces are not that dramatic and hard to learn and do not compare at all to "steering wheel in the back seat and the e-brake in the trunk" moving from XP to OSX is a better example of that.
I guess with Windows 7 most of the arguments against Vista are properly addressed by Microsoft, but he there are always people who find something, like the lack of a Classic Startmenu.
Allards: there is nothing in the Vista/7 interface that resembles any other interface on the planet. What do people use computers for and how many interfaces do they encounter that are like this?I hate it; I've adapted to it but only because I've been forced. Nonetheless, hardly a day goes by when I don't find myself idly "rowing" the mouse around the screen while I try to remember what I have to do to launch something.
You suugest that people should take the leap. Fine. That works for you. It obviously hasn't worked universally. The radical changes in how you interact with the computer in front of you, versus how you interact with the WWW and most of your legacy software is a reason Vista was a marketing failure. It's too different from how we all know how to use these gadgets, and there's just not all that many people who are that much into them to want to re-learn everything, no matter how much or how little, they know.
I'm one of them. I use and support Vista. I wish it worked better than it does; I hope 7 fixes all of that. But mostly, I wish they'd have simply fixed XP and not gone off the map.
- barth2k said:yes some people will dislike anything new, just as some will defend anything new. If I want to have things forced on me, I'll use a Mac. at least Steve my-way-or-the-highway Jobs has better taste than BGates.
I don't think it's a matter of being forced into something. I already made the same observation with regards to the swing from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. People screamed. Finally we got used to it didn't we.Somebody said something about not being the only one not liking the new lay out. Fair enough, but the problem here is that the people who actually like it don't complain on this forum.
This is a beta, and supposed to be used to test new stuff. Maybe there will be a way to use the "old" startmenu in the retail version. Maube only in the Starter and Basic version. Who knows?
I tried Vista, was unhappy with it (I didn't have at that time the fastest computer around), and reinstalled XP. However I liked the Vista startmenu, and found one for free at Lee-Soft. In the end my "good old" XP looked like a fast Vista. All this just to say that I'm not "by default" in favour of everything new.
- lastot069 said:Gez_au said:I have a dream!
Windows 7 beta is an improvement in many ways.
I also want the option to switch to the classic start menu.
W7 stability with XP style and ease of use!
YES!!!! - The only reason people feel XP is easier, is because they were using it for 7 years plus...
Yes, this is true: the dependence on DLL's and FAT tables and the MFT, and all of the carry-overs from original DOS are still here with us. Those are the holes in all Windows operating systems, and they are there by choice: they offer legacy compatibility.
Technically speaking, XP was not a shell around DOS, nor is Vista or 7. But those old core componenets of DOS still persist.
Vista and 7 aren't truly anything new and wonderous; tacking-in new capabilities and stictching on new ways of doing old things, and even pasting in new things to do does not eliminate the foundation of all Windows operating systems.
Until someone gets down and writes a new disk-operating system and is willing to take the hit on all of the legacy hardware and legacy software that will become instantly incompaible with the new kernal, Windows will still be "old" Windows no matter what clothes are on it.
This is way off topic, 'though, and I apologize.
On topic: I don't have a pathological dread of anything: heights, big fish, asteroids, or ninjas. I have an opinion; it doesn't smell any better or worse than yours. I find the Start menu and the blingy GUI a needless chore -- and judging by market share, apparently as many people agree with my opinion as agree with yours.
As a long-time (too long a time) IT professional on all sizes and levels of computers and operating systems, I would never consider telling you to disappear or be washed-away. That's horrible! Wishing anything bad to happen simply because someone disagrees with your personal opinion speaks in encycopaedias.
mdta said:This is not true. Vista and Windows 7 have a new kernel re-written from XP, new Network Stack, New Audio System. UAC may seem tacked on, but alot of Windows does not function properly without it, so just know it is at the heart of the OS, and this is why compatibility took a hit from XP.
All popular OS's will require patches as time goes on, this doesn't mean its riddled with holes like a sieve, and like XP. You and people who couldn't adapt from XP or have a pathalogical hatred of Vista, need to move on, or drown in the seas of time which will pass you over.
Just think as Generations grow up with Vista and Windows 7 as their first OS, will learn to work with it better than old stick in the muds. Keep up, or bow out!
- Vista is hated due to bad press and anti-marketing. The Mohave (spl) experiment shows this to be true. Not because of the innovations.
Of course there will always be a small group who prefer the way XP or 95 or even 3.11 worked, and it is not illegal to continue using those OS's, but people want to keep legacy Start Menus and Legacy Explorers, and yet complain because of all the tie-overs from the past.
I fear for the sanity of some come Modiri (Windows 9) Which will most likely run all legacy apps in Virtual machines...
Add me to the list of folks wanting the classic menu back. If I can't get that, then allow the "All Programs" menu to be larger, sort All Programs by folder first and give me a setting to let me remove search from the "Start Menu." Since I directly type the name of the programs I use 90% of the time and have been doing so since the 95 days, I do Ctrl-Esc and then R without thinking. I can live with the look of the new menu, but defaulting me to the search box is why I went back to classic in Vista.
Rich Getteau- Agave said:
The security holes are still there -- they're inherent in the core -- and 7 is just as porous as XP -- there's just new layers spackled-on to hide the same old holes a little better.
Okay. And where is your proof that Windows 7 "is just as porous as XP"?
- I have a head full of key sequences. I popup the start menu with Control+Escape then P for Programs or A for fAvourites and I get very quickly the link I need. The new system is a great idea but I need speed. Fortunately the Favourites link in the Explorer application lets me pin all my favourite folders to it, so now I use Startup to open a copy of Explorer and keep it open all day.
I like the classic menu because it is compact and has the flyout submenus.
If you right click a folder (even a system folder) you can drag, drop and create a shortcut. The shortcut will have the same flyout features.
- Rich Getteau said:
Since I directly type the name of the programs I use 90% of the time and have been doing so since the 95 days, I do Ctrl-Esc and then R without thinking. I can live with the look of the new menu, but defaulting me to the search box is why I went back to classic in Vista.
Rich Getteau
I dont get this. Typing the program name in to the search box works just the same as the run command window, that's why it was removed by default from the Vista start menu. The only difference is if there's no prgram it a search. It's bloody brilliant. But seriously dude train your self on Winkey + R if you must use run - it's just plain more efficient. Ctrl + Esc then R is like using Alt + E then P in notepad instead of Ctrl + V. One is driving the menu's from the keyboard the other is a shortcut.
- bnborg said:
I like the classic menu because it is compact and has the flyout submenus.
If you right click a folder (even a system folder) you can drag, drop and create a shortcut. The shortcut will have the same flyout features.
As a support person my number 1 pet pieve is people dragging programs off the All Users Start Menu to their profiles desktop. This is a major PITA. Unfortunately W7 still allows this :-( It should create a copy instead. Similar to the behaviour of dragging a network drive out of my computer to the desktop creates a shortcut would work great. - At the end of the day alot of this is acedemic. No matter what changes Microsoft makes some people wont like them. It's a matter of what changes can be made that will please the most users. Sometimes the changes are minor, sometimes they are radical. Radical changes will always polarise users. Office 2007 is a great example of this. Personally I love the new interface's in Windows 7 & Office 2007. I have seen alot more positive feedback on the new interface than the negative with all the people I know Beta testing. So as far as I'm concerned they have it right.
- Johnny Rockets said:
I dont get this. Typing the program name in to the search box works just the same as the run command window, that's why it was removed by default from the Vista start menu. The only difference is if there's no prgram it a search. It's bloody brilliant. But seriously dude train your self on Winkey + R if you must use run - it's just plain more efficient. Ctrl + Esc then R is like using Alt + E then P in notepad instead of Ctrl + V. One is driving the menu's from the keyboard the other is a shortcut.
You're making an assumption that every keyboard I use has a windows key. Unfortunately that isn't the case. So for me Ctrl - Esc - R works on all machines/keyboards I use. Ctrl-Esc is also in the same place on every keyboard. I'm sllllooooooowwwwwly unlearning 14+ years of Ctrl - Esc - R and at this point, only about 90% of my commands in the search box end up with an "R" in front of them. Maybe in another year, that will be 0%.
The other issue is that with the cached entries in the run dialog box, I can pull up services, event viewer, ADU&C, Word, notepad ... with a couple of keystrokes. With the new search dialog box, I have to "Windows" key or Ctrl-Esc and then type services.msc or eventvwr or dsa.msc. If I just type "ser" I'll go off to search never never land while it brings up everything that starts with "ser." Same thing for websites; I can start typing www.... and my cache will fill in the rest as I type. I can't do that with the search box either.
Rich Getteau - When you find the thing for the first time, pin it to the startmenu or the taskbar...
- Johnny Rockets said:bnborg said:
I like the classic menu because it is compact and has the flyout submenus.
If you right click a folder (even a system folder) you can drag, drop and create a shortcut. The shortcut will have the same flyout features.
As a support person my number 1 pet pieve is people dragging programs off the All Users Start Menu to their profiles desktop. This is a major PITA. Unfortunately W7 still allows this :-( It should create a copy instead. Similar to the behaviour of dragging a network drive out of my computer to the desktop creates a shortcut would work great.
I was talking about dragging folder shortcuts to the Start Menu, which by default would put them on the users Start Menu, not the All Users Start Menu.I agree with you about dragging from the Start Menu. It probably would be better if the default action for any drag & drop were "Create Link".
- I posted this in another thread but i wanted to copy it here too since there seems to be a lot or arguing about how wrong we are about wanting MS to include a classic UI, and how we should just accept the change.
there are some great points in these articles for those who need proof of vistas failures and the lack of consumer support that has led to W7 needing to be better than Vista for MS
JP-M said:You got me. I can't argue against voodoo magic and conspiracy theory...
http://vista.blorge.com/2008/08/18/research-suggests-a-third-of-corporate-users-downgrade-to-xp/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/microsoft-giving-vista-business-ultimate-users-downgrade-to/
http://www.techspot.com/news/27174-Microsoft-lets-Vista-users-downgrade-to-XP.html
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=10167&pagtype=all
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200834/1805/Vista-undesirable-as-enterprise-users-continue-downgrading-to-XPhttp://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+Provides+XP+Downgrade+for+Unhappy+Vista+Users/article9027.htm
this is just a few of my voodoo spells! would you believe i have a JP-M voodoo doll too? read the first article, 35% of businesses downgrading, but its all in my head, right? 35%, lets just say out of the billion copies sold world wide by the end of 2008, half of those were business copies, 500 million copies, 35% downgraded, thats 175 million. is that enough to make my point sink in yet or is there still not enough proof? - lastot069 said:
I posted this in another thread but i wanted to copy it here too since there seems to be a lot or arguing about how wrong we are about wanting MS to include a classic UI, and how we should just accept the change.
there are some great points in these articles for those who need proof of vistas failures and the lack of consumer support that has led to W7 needing to be better than Vista for MS
JP-M said:You got me. I can't argue against voodoo magic and conspiracy theory...
http://vista.blorge.com/2008/08/18/research-suggests-a-third-of-corporate-users-downgrade-to-xp/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/microsoft-giving-vista-business-ultimate-users-downgrade-to/
http://www.techspot.com/news/27174-Microsoft-lets-Vista-users-downgrade-to-XP.html
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=10167&pagtype=all
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200834/1805/Vista-undesirable-as-enterprise-users-continue-downgrading-to-XPhttp://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+Provides+XP+Downgrade+for+Unhappy+Vista+Users/article9027.htm
this is just a few of my voodoo spells! would you believe i have a JP-M voodoo doll too? read the first article, 35% of businesses downgrading, but its all in my head, right? 35%, lets just say out of the billion copies sold world wide by the end of 2008, half of those were business copies, 500 million copies, 35% downgraded, thats 175 million. is that enough to make my point sink in yet or is there still not enough proof?
The first article is stating the flaws of using the 35% number downgrading to XP. Also I see nothing in the articles about people reverting back to XP because of a classic UI which Vista had.
But I guess there will always be a group of people unhappy with the latest version of any Windows for whatever trivial reasons. I remember all those people who didn't want to give up Win98 back in the days as well. Heck it's kinda like those people who still buys VHS now.
Eventually people will be forced to convert to another OS, whether it be MS or Linux.
- not sure if anyone noticed, but if you change visual effects to best perfomance you end up with something similar to the old "classic shell".
ok its not the same although so far i think i like it.
- Mich O said:
But I guess there will always be a group of people unhappy with the latest version of any Windows for whatever trivial reasons.
Correct. But think a little about that:
- Who liked Vista interface ? And eye-catching in speciall. Home users, most of them UNDER 25 years old
- Who don't liked Vista interface ? Companies and users older than 25 years old.
- Cristi-M said:Mich O said:
But I guess there will always be a group of people unhappy with the latest version of any Windows for whatever trivial reasons.
Correct. But think a little about that:
- Who liked Vista interface ? And eye-catching in speciall. Home users, most of them UNDER 25 years old
- Who don't liked Vista interface ? Companies and users older than 25 years old.
That statement is incorrect.
We deployed Vista at my organization to approximately 500 people. During all of the training I cannot recall anyone who did not like the new look and feel. Sure there was some confusion about the new layout and design, but once this was explained (properly) everyone has been happily using Vista. I have been asking around the past few days (sort of an ad-hock survey) and people have been lamenting how much better they like the look and feel. Even my biggest (Mac TV Commercial) skeptics are making comments about how Vista is not bad like they had believed it was.
- I've never been a fan of the fat startmenu introduced with XP. I've always preferred the 'classic' start menu. Now this is no longer available, I've tried hard to acclimatise myself to its successor. But without success. Everytime I click Ctrl-Esc and find I've accidentally typed something into that ******* search box my blood pressure rises a little.
It seems ridiculous, but one thing maddeningly, pointlessly wrong with an OS shell (small in the greater scheme of things, but utterly in-your-face as a user) can change one's disposition to the whole shebang. This aside, my first impression of 7 are broadly positive, but as with the original implementation of UAC in Vista (improved in RTM) , the sheer unpleasantness of one feature poisons one's attitude tof the rest.
If, for some unfathomable reason, Microsoft is unable or unwilling to maintain the classic startmenu, at least could we have an option to disable (better yet, move) the search box - it is, after all, possible to disable its functionality, but that doesn't get it out of the way. Just not having it as the default would go a long way to improving things. - FOOD FOR THOUGHT....
CLassic menu coming back?
Not without a lot of BITCHING... I intend to do so.
#1 Too much time to do a search.
#2 each extra move EATS TIME!
#3 Disabled get EXTREMELY UNABLED by this current MULTI-DIRECTIONAL WINDOWED MENU BS!
#4 MS had to take time to REMOVE the CLASSIC Menu option, it will be more time for them to put it back.
#5 This Current Menu since XP is bulky and now bulkier.
#6 Requires too many moves UP AND DOWN to get anywhere.
#7 Requires too many CLICKS AS YOU MOVE UP AND DOWN to get what your after.
The Classic Menu is too easy to find what you want, and we aren't allowed to have something so useful or efficient.
One thing we can count on, Microsoft will sure destroy anything efficient to introduce some less useful items. Even though W7 has been a big improvement over Vista, it dumped all the things that were evolved over time into a better state from systems of the past.
Use the FEEDBACK option and COMPLAAAAIIIINNNNN!!!!
I do....
I can tell it's just a bunch of 7 year olds who know everything about life that are makeing all the decisions for the rest of us down there at MS...... - ja37 said:
I can tell it's just a bunch of 7 year olds who know everything about life that are makeing all the decisions for the rest of us down there at MS......
Spoken like a true adult....
Here is some food for thought. You don't have to buy it. You are in control of your purchasing decisions.
You are probably too young to remember, but these same discussions have occurred before and directly after Microsoft released a new operating system starting with Windows 3.x to Windows 9x.
It seems like there are a large amount of people that can't deal with change, so when it comes they are ill prepared to adapt, accept and move on.
With the recent rumors of Windows 7 headed straight from this beta to a Release Candidate, you can pretty much guarantee that what you see is what you are going to get except for a few tweaks and bug fixes.
*EDIT*
Just found this little tidbit that might stop the bickering.
"This is where we stand today. We’ve released the feature complete Beta and have made it available broadly around the world (though we know folks have requested even more languages)." -- http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/- Edited bySuperfly. Tuesday, February 03, 2009 6:15 PMAdded to post
- I'm not too young to remember. I was there in line at midnight when Windows 95 was released, and quickly became disappointed when I found out it was really just the same old 16-bit Windows.
I had been using 32-bit Windows NT (Windows Not There yet) since I got pre-release versions with the Microsoft SDK's and DDK's of the time.
Still, there were a few things I liked about the new look and feel of Windows 95. I loved Wordpad and immediately started using it on Windows NT. I grew to like explorer.
I remember people still using File Manager under NT 4. I didn't argue with them. After all it was their choice. I didn't notice when winfile.exe was removed from the distribution. I hadn't used it for years.
The pattern all along has been that each new release had a few good features and a few bad features. The rest of it was pretty much the same, although some of it might look and feel a little different.
Window 7 is really no different. You could say that removal of the classic start menu is like removal of file manager from Windows NT. Backward compatibility was available for several years before being dropped.
The difference here is that there are a lot of users that still hate the "new" start menu, whereas by the time file manager was dropped, nobody was using it.
I think Microsoft development is directed more toward making things different just for the sake of being different, instead of actually making them better. Look at the continuing lack of compatibility for 64-bit Windows. I have been using 64-bit versions exclusively for the last two years or so.
I might get used to some of the new features, such as movable toolbars for explorer, but I will never like the new start menu. It is fat and ugly and does not have the functionality of my old, compact clasic start menu. - Superfly. said:"This is where we stand today. We’ve released the feature complete Beta and have made it available broadly around the world (though we know folks have requested even more languages)." -- http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/
No, the "feature complete" Beta is the one we've all been using. I read the blog.
It was "released to the public" January 30. - bnborg said:Superfly. said:"This is where we stand today. We’ve released the feature complete Beta and have made it available broadly around the world (though we know folks have requested even more languages)." -- http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/
No, the "feature complete" Beta is the one we've all been using. I read the blog.
It was "released to the public" January 30.
I must not have made myself clear.
I was pointing out that we have been using the feature complete beta thus reducing the possibility that we will see any major additions or changes before the RC which everyone knows (almost) never changes. - Superfly. said:WTF??? how many times do i have to hear this from people who dont want the older features. MS wants to sell W7, why would they want to make a product that people wont want? get a grip people, it makes no sence on their end to think that way.
Here is some food for thought. You don't have to buy it. You are in control of your purchasing decisions.
- lastot069 said:Superfly. said:WTF??? how many times do i have to hear this from people who dont want the older features. MS wants to sell W7, why would they want to make a product that people wont want? get a grip people, it makes no sence on their end to think that way.
Here is some food for thought. You don't have to buy it. You are in control of your purchasing decisions.
...and yet you are going to see Windows 7 hit the market with the current UI and no classic menu. So perhaps it is you who has lost his/her grip.
How many times do you have to hear this before you realize that you are in the minority and that the decision has already been made. - Superfly. said:
...and yet you are going to see Windows 7 hit the market with the current UI and no classic menu. So perhaps it is you who has lost his/her grip.
How many times do you have to hear this before you realize that you are in the minority and that the decision has already been made.
like its hard to enable it at the shop in Redmond, the code is in there already if the registry and computer management are correct. what will it matter if classic menu is there and you dont use it? its not like the 513 kb file will break you. also if the decision had been made, W7 would have gone gold. you want to look like a closed minded fool, be my guest. im just glad MS is still taking feedback from the rest of the minority. - Just for reference, the "Classic" start menu has been in the process of being "phased out" for about 8 years (since Windows XP).
Edited for politeness. :)- Edited byHector Virgen Wednesday, February 04, 2009 4:41 AM
- Sorry if I came off as rude, I was just trying to make a point. I'll try to rephrase my question: How many more new Microsoft OSes should support the 1995 start menu? Eventually they'll have to stop, I just hope we're all ready to accept their replacement when it happens.
- i do believe the ability to use the left pane as a mix between classic and what is there now would be far superior, folders on top and icons below as before, clicking all programs again would close the pop outs and return you to most used left pane as it does now. and thank you for the edit
- lastot069 said:
i do believe the ability to use the left pane as a mix between classic and what is there now would be far superior, folders on top and icons below as before, clicking all programs again would close the pop outs and return you to most used left pane as it does now. and thank you for the edit
Similar to the default start menu in Windows XP? It (kinda) looks like 7's start menu when first opened, but the All Programs are flyouts instead of in a small scrollable window. The flyouts are nice (because they fill the whole screen as needed) but I read somewhere that some users had trouble with flyouts because they couldn't move the cursor very precisely in a horizontal motion. - Hector Virgen said:Similar to the default start menu in Windows XP? It (kinda) looks like 7's start menu when first opened, but the All Programs are flyouts instead of in a small scrollable window. The flyouts are nice (because they fill the whole screen as needed) but I read somewhere that some users had trouble with flyouts because they couldn't move the cursor very precisely in a horizontal motion.
i do believe that the best fix for the movement issue would be more of a hardware fix, making a higher resolution optical mouse that would be able to read peoples unsteady hands more accurately and stabilize their intended target with a software interface that tests and learns their movements similar to the points on a stylus calibration. this could even help with a lot of neurological disorders that cause shaking. - In the post User Interface: Starting, Launching, and Switching on the Engineering Windows 7 blog, Chaitanya Sareen wrote:
Windows XP had Quick Launch turned off by default in an attempt to reduce the number of different launching surfaces throughout Windows. Based on your feedback, we quickly rectified this faux pas and Quick Launch was turned on by default again. Don’t mess with quick access to things people use every day! We heard you loud and clear.
Which sounds like good advice to me.
Having experimented a bit more, I've decided that the search box is not intrinsically evil. But, like the Windows 95 key back in the day, it's been put in exactly the wrong place. It should be on the taskbar (or be a taskbar), where it wouldn't get in the way. Perhaps tapping the windows key could get you the start menu, holding it down for a couple of hundred milliseconds give you the search box.
What is the sine qua non of a program launcher? For me it's determinism. The same sequence of keystrokes should launch the same program (or open the same document) with the same command line parameters, under the same debugger, etcetera. Indeterminism leads to waiting, frustration and loss of focus. And when a customer phones and I need to get their details and open an IDE, I don't want to have to take my hands of the keyboard. - I will also echo the hope that Microsoft will accept the fact that one single choice of UI is not acceptible. The sweeping, and in many many opinions, horrid UI changes made with Vista are a large part of why it has become the most reviled OS Microsoft has ever released. PLEASE realize that not everyone thinks that Mac's UI is hip and awesome and please stop trying to turn my PC into a Mac. Give the hordes of users who hate the Vista interface a choice.
- Lycius said:
I will also echo the hope that Microsoft will accept the fact that one single choice of UI is not acceptible. The sweeping, and in many many opinions, horrid UI changes made with Vista are a large part of why it has become the most reviled OS Microsoft has ever released. PLEASE realize that not everyone thinks that Mac's UI is hip and awesome and please stop trying to turn my PC into a Mac. Give the hordes of users who hate the Vista interface a choice.
When you make an unqualified statement like this:
"...horrid UI changes made with Vista are a large part of why it has become the most reviled OS Microsoft has ever released."
One of two things comes to mind:
1. You are a Mac zealot who joined the cult of the preppy elite (and actually bought into the garbage that Apple was selling in their anti windows campaign).
OR
2. You have never used Vista on decent hardware for any length of time (and actually bought into the garbage that Apple was selling in their anti windows campaign).
On the other hand, if you hate any type of UI progress like Mac or anything past windows 9x/XP here are a few good options:
http://www.redhat.com/
http://fedoraproject.org/
http://www.ubuntu.com/ - Lycius said:I am glad you brought this up, it would be a good call on their part to be diverse.
I will also echo the hope that Microsoft will accept the fact that one single choice of UI is not acceptible. The sweeping, and in many many opinions, horrid UI changes made with Vista are a large part of why it has become the most reviled OS Microsoft has ever released. PLEASE realize that not everyone thinks that Mac's UI is hip and awesome and please stop trying to turn my PC into a Mac. Give the hordes of users who hate the Vista interface a choice.
- Superfly. said:1. You are a Mac zealot who joined the cult of the preppy elite (and actually bought into the garbage that Apple was selling in their anti windows campaign).
OR
2. You have never used Vista on decent hardware for any length of time (and actually bought into the garbage that Apple was selling in their anti windows campaign).
On the other hand, if you hate any type of UI progress like Mac or anything past windows 9x/XP here are a few good options:
First off you should be banned for attacking someones post like that. second, it was techs and admins like me and others who found vista to not be a good product due to its many shortcomings before apple took advantage of the situation. if MS would have listened in the beta stage they would have known where the product was going to lead. The faults of vista lye on the heads of Microsoft and no one else, this is why they are releasing a new OS so quickly after Vistas release. i find it disturbing how quickly some people just shift blame away from the true source. W7 has a lot going for it, even in beta it is a strong and worthy product cant wait to see if they listen to feedback before going gold. - I agree with you, lastot069. When I first encountered Vista, I hated it. But at least I still had the classic menu to fall back to.
Explorer is another story. I loved the changes to explorer in XP. Being able to move the toolbars around and putting a toolbar on the same line as the menubar made the layout nice and compact. With IE6 and Office 2003 having the same functionality, the picture was complete.
Vista ruined all that. The concept seems to be that the developers know more than the end users about what the best layout would be.
Microsoft used to push concepts such as Windows Common Controls, so that programs would display a similar interface allowing users to use different programs without having to change how they used the mouse and hotkeys. Learning the hotkeys was easy, with the menu bar serving as an entrance to additional levels of commands.
Now they seem to be willing to throw it all away. - Superfly - I think you've hit the nail on the head. I, for one, have been perusing the more full-time use of Ubuntu and finding the ability to customize it's interface to my own wishes quite nice. I've been in systems mgmt & tech support for computer users since 1974, (hey, keep it down ;-) and have never had a computer interface that I didn't customize. Right now, I'm still using XP-pro & Ubuntu, and on the odd occasion a stripped down version of some off-the-wall KDE mish-mash, depending on what I need to do.
If I can't make Win7 do what I want to, I'll replace it with something that will. quite simple, just as you intimated in your rather brusque manner. However, you're quite correct.
BTW - change for the sake of marketing isn't necessarily progress, is it?
The new UI really seems to be taking giant leaps backwards, IMNSHO. Not just in Win7, but in the Office arena, too. In fact, it has been so troublesome, that I did find it easier to switch to entirely different products. The only parts of Office I'm using now are Outlook & Access. Open source stuff is quickly replacing the rest of the Office suite (edit: in my own usage). At this rate, it may well soon be replacing the whole system, even though I like Microsoft a lot. Much like an old comfy pair of jeans that don't quite seem to ever wear out completely. But, when I can't replace the parts that have been declared dead (by others) with the same look & feel that I've become so productive with, well, why not try on a whole new pair of jeans from the store down the street?
Mike - Borg and Mike, thank you both. we can only hope there are enough of us asking that they will truly look at it. what i read today, some parts look like they might be taking it into consideration. this was from
Have Comments about Windows 7 Beta? in the
Windows 7 Miscellaneous section.
Lhyksus said:Funny, there seems to be more Windows 7 beta users than there are Linux Users....And Linux it better???
Our Next Engineering MilestoneMany posts start with a thank you and I want to start this post with an extra special thank you on behalf of the entire Windows team for all the installs and usage we are seeing of the Windows 7 Beta. We’ve had millions of installations of Windows 7 from which we are receiving telemetry, which is simply incredible. And from those who click on the “Send Feedback” button we are receiving detailed bug reports and of course many suggestions. There is simply no way we could move from Beta through Final Release of Windows 7 without this type of breadth coverage and engagement from you in the development cycle. There’s been such an incredible response, with many folks even blogging about how they have moved to using Windows 7 Beta on all their machines and have been super happy. The question we get most often is “if the Beta expires in August what will I do—I don’t want to return to my old [sic] operating system.” For a Beta release, that is quite a complement and we’re very appreciative of such a kind response.
This post is about the path from where we are today, Beta, to our RTM (Release To Manufacturing), building on the discussion of this topic that started at the PDC. This post is in no way an announcement of a ship date, change in plans, or change in our previously described process, but rather it provides additional detail and a forward looking view of the path to RTM and General Availability. The motivation for this, in addition to the high level of interest in Windows 7, is that we’re now seeing how releasing Windows is not something that Microsoft does “solo”, but rather is something that we do as one part of the overall PC ecosystem. Obviously we have a big responsibility to do our part, one we take very seriously of course. The last stages of a Windows release are a partnership across the entire ecosystem working to make sure that the incredible variety of choices you have for PCs, software, and peripherals work together to bring you a complete and satisfying Windows 7 experience.
The next milestone for the development of Windows 7 is the Release Candidate or “RC”. Historically the Release Candidate has signaled “we’re pretty close and we want people to start testing the release, especially because all the features are done.” As we have said before, with Windows 7 we chose a slightly different approach which we were clear up front about and are all now experiencing together and out in the open. The Pre-Beta from the PDC was a release where we said it was substantially API complete and even for the areas that were not in the release we detailed the APIs and experience in the sessions at the PDC. At that time we announced that the Beta test in early 2009 would be both API and feature complete, widely available, and would be the only Beta test. We continued this dialog with our hardware partners at WinHEC. We also said that many ecosystem partners including PC makers, software vendors, hardware makers will, as has been the case, continue to receive interim builds on a regular basis. This is where we stand today. We’ve released the feature complete Beta and have made it available broadly around the world (though we know folks have requested even more languages). As a development team we’re doing just what many of you do, which is choosing to run the Beta full time on many PCs at home and work (personally I have at least 9 different machines running it full time) and we’re running it on many thousands of individual’s machines inside Microsoft, and thousands of machines in our labs as well.
All the folks running the Beta are actively contributing to fixing it. We’re getting performance telemetry, application compatibility data, usage information, and details on device requirements among other areas. This data is very structured and very actionable. We have very high-bandwidth relationships with partners and good tools to help each other to deliver a great experience. One thing you might be seeing is that hardware and software vendors might be trying out updated drivers / software enhanced for Windows 7. For example, many of the anti-virus vendors already have released compatibility packs or updates that are automatically applied to your running installation. You might notice, for example, that many GPU chipsets are being recognized and Windows 7 downloads the updated WDDM 1.1 drivers. While the Windows Vista drivers work as expected, the new 1.1 drivers provide enhanced performance and a reduced memory footprint, which can make a big difference on 1GB shared memory machines. You might insert a device and receive a recently updated version of a driver as I did for a Logitech QuickCam. Another example some of you might have seen is that the Beta requires a an updated version of Skype software currently in testing. When you go to install the old version you get an error message and then the problem and solutions user interface kicks in and you are redirected to the Beta site. This type of error handling is deployed in real time as we learn more and as the ecosystem builds out support. It is only because of our partnerships across the ecosystem that such efforts are possible, even during the Beta.
Of course, it is worth reiterating that our design point is that devices and software that work on Windows Vista and are still supported by the manufacturer will work on Windows 7 with the same software. There are classes of software and devices that are Windows-version specific for a variety of reasons, as we have talked about, and we continue to work together to deliver great solutions for Windows 7. The ability to provide people the vast array of choices and the openness of the Windows platform make all of this a massive undertaking. We continue to work to improve this while also making sure we provide the opportunities for choice and differentiation that are critical to the health and variety of the overall ecosystem. This data and the work we’re doing together with partners is the critical work going on now to reach the Release Candidate phase.
We’re also looking carefully at all the quality metrics we gather during the Beta. We investigate crashes, hangs, app compat issues, and also real-world performance of key scenarios. A very significant portion of our effort from Beta to RC is focused on exclusively on quality and performance. We want to fix bugs experienced by customers in real usage as well as our broad base of test suites and automation. A key part of this work is to fix the bugs that people really encounter and we do so by focusing our efforts on the data we receive to drive the ordering and priority of which bugs to fix. As Internet Explorer has moved to Release Candidate, we’ve seen this at work and also read about it on IE Blog.
Of course the other work we’re doing is refining the final product based on all the real-world usage and feedback. We’ve received a lot of verbatim feedback regarding the user experience—whether that is default settings, keyboard shortcuts, or desired options to name a few things. Needless to say just working through, structuring, and “tallying” this feedback is a massive undertaking and we have folks dedicated to doing just that. At the peak we were receiving one “Send Feedback” note every 15 seconds! As we’ve talked about in this blog, we receive a lot of feedback where we must weigh the opinions we receive because we hear from all sides of an issue—that’s to be expected and really the core design challenge. We also receive feedback where we thought something was straight forward or would work fine, but in practice needed some tuning and refinement. Over the next weeks we’ll be blogging about some of these specific changes to the product. These changes are part of the process and part of the time we have scheduled between Beta and RC.
So right now, every day we are researching issues, resolving them, and making sure those resolutions did not cause regressions (in performance, behavior, compatibility, or reliability). The path to Release Candidate is all about getting the product to a known and shippable state both from an internal and external (Beta usage and partner ecosystem readiness) standpoint.
We will then provide the Release Candidate as a refresh for the Beta. We expect, based on our experience with the Beta, a broad set of folks to be pretty interested in trying it out.
With the RC, this process of feedback based on telemetry then repeats itself. However at this milestone we will be very selective about what changes we make between the Release Candidate and the final product, and very clear in communicating them. We will act on the most critical issues. The point of the Release Candidate is to make sure everyone is ready for the release and that there is time between the Release Candidate and our release to PC makers and manufacturing to validate all the work that has gone on since the pre-Beta. Again, we expect very few changes to the code. We often “joke” that this is the point of lowest productivity for the development team because we all come to work focused on the product but we write almost no code. That’s the way it has to be—the ship is on the launch pad and all the tools are put away in the toolbox to be used only in case of the most critical issues.
As stated up front, this is a partnership and the main thing going on during this phase of the project is really about ecosystem readiness. PC makers, software vendors, hardware makers all have their own lead times. The time to prepare new products, new configurations, software updates, and all the collateral that goes with that means that Windows 7 cannot hit the streets (so to speak) until everyone has time to be ready together. Think of all those web sites, download pages, how-to articles, training materials, and peripheral packages that need to be created—this takes time and knowing that the Release Candidate is the final code that we’re all testing out in the open is reassuring for the ecosystem. Our goal is that by being deliberate, predictable, and reliable, the full PC experience is available to customers.
We also continue to build out our compatibility lists, starting with logo products, so that our http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility site is a good resource for people starting with availability. All of these come together with the PC makers creating complete “images” of Windows 7 PCs, including the full software, hardware, and driver loads. This is sort of a rehearsal for the next steps.
At that point the product is ready for release and that’s just what we will do. We might even follow that up with a bit of a celebration!
There’s one extra step which is what we call General Availability or GA. This step is really the time it takes literally to “fill the channel” with Windows PCs that are pre-loaded with Windows 7 and stock the stores (online or in-person) with software. We know many folks would like us to make the RTM software available right away for download, but this release will follow our more established pattern. GA also allows us time to complete the localization and ready Windows for a truly worldwide delivery in a relatively small window of time, a smaller window for Windows 7 than any previous release. It is worth noting that the Release Candidate will continue to function long enough so no one should worry and everyone should feel free to keep running the Release Candidate.
So to summarize briefly:
- Pre-Beta – This release at the PDC introduced the developer community to Windows 7 and represents the platform complete release and disclosure of the features.
- Beta – This release provided a couple of million folks the opportunity to use feature complete Windows 7 while also providing the telemetry and feedback necessary for us to validate the quality, reliability, compatibility, and experience of Windows 7. As we said, we are working with our partners across the ecosystem to make sure that testing and validation and development of Windows 7-based products begins to enter final phases as we move through the Beta.
- Release Candidate (RC) – This release will be Windows 7 as we intend to ship it. We will continue to listen to feedback and telemetry with the focus on addressing only the most critical issues that arise. We will be very clear in communicating any changes that have a visible impact on the product. This release allows the whole ecosystem to reach a known state together and make sure that we are all ready together for the Release to Manufacturing. Once we get to RC, the whole ecosystem is in “dress rehearsal” mode for the next steps.
- Release to Manufacturing (RTM) – This release is the final Windows 7 as we intend to make available to PC makers and for retail and volume license products.
- General Availability (GA) – This is a business milestone and represents when you can buy Windows 7 pre-installed on PCs or as full packaged product.
The obvious question is that we know the Pre-Beta was October 28, 2008, and the Beta was January 7th, so when is the Release Candidate and RTM? The answer is forthcoming. We are currently evaluating the feedback and telemetry and working to develop a robust schedule that gets us the right level of quality in a predictable manner. Believe me, we know many people want to know more specifics. We’re on a good path and we’re making progress. We are taking a quality-based approach to completing the product and won’t be driven by imposed deadlines. We have internal metrics and milestones and our partners continue to get builds routinely so even when we reach RC, we are doing so together as partners. And it relies, rather significantly, on all of you testing the Beta and our partners who are helping us get to the finish line together.
Shipping Windows, as we hoped this shows, is really an industry-wide partnership. As we talked about in our first post, we’re promising to deliver the best release of Windows we possibly can and that’s our goal. Together, and with a little bit more patience, we’ll achieve that goal.
We continue to be humbled by the response to Windows 7 and are heads down on delivering a product that continues to meet your needs and the needs of our whole industry.
--Steven Sinofsky on behalf of the Windows 7 team
- lastot069 said:Superfly. said: 1. You are a Mac zealot who joined the cult of the preppy elite (and actually bought into the garbage that Apple was selling in their anti windows campaign).
OR
2. You have never used Vista on decent hardware for any length of time (and actually bought into the garbage that Apple was selling in their anti windows campaign).
On the other hand, if you hate any type of UI progress like Mac or anything past windows 9x/XP here are a few good options:
First off you should be banned for attacking someones post like that. second, it was techs and admins like me and others who found vista to not be a good product due to its many shortcomings before apple took advantage of the situation. if MS would have listened in the beta stage they would have known where the product was going to lead. The faults of vista lye on the heads of Microsoft and no one else, this is why they are releasing a new OS so quickly after Vistas release. i find it disturbing how quickly some people just shift blame away from the true source. W7 has a lot going for it, even in beta it is a strong and worthy product cant wait to see if they listen to feedback before going gold.
First off expressing an opinion (which is what everyone here is doing) is not an attack. What I stated is a direct correlation with my interaction with several hundred users at my place of employment.
The Mac Zealots almost, word for word, repeat their spoon fed Apple commercials. Most of the other naysayers have never tried vista outside of viewing it over someone’s shoulder who tried to upgrade an old XP install.
You see, it is techs and admins like me that try to educate people and help them not believe the propaganda. I have found that those that have been willing to try Vista on the correct hardware have loved their experience.
You state that:
“The faults of vista lye on the heads of Microsoft and no one else, this is why they are releasing a new OS so quickly after Vistas release.”
Perhaps you missed all of the discussion that Windows 7 was in development before Vista was released?
Microsoft probably used their new “Microsoft Crystal Ball(TM)” software to look into the future and see that Vista was going to have so many “shortcomings” as you put it.
You probably also missed the discussions that after Vista, Microsoft was going to get back to a much tighter release cycle?
But yeah, I’m sure you are right, they want to sweep Vista under the rug because their new UI was such an abject failure…- Edited bySuperfly. Friday, February 06, 2009 1:11 PM
- 1 agree with you %100
I've just had this conversation actually here's my opinion from a previous post.
I feel a cut and paste will do the job since I've had to write this a few times already.
-------------------------------------
The user interface is not user friendly?
I strongly disagree with you, the user interface its great, no more bumbling through layers of windows with Areo-peak or the pinning of applications.
As for your 810mbs of RAM i don't see how that's possible, I'm running much more services than shipped and I'm only using 407 MB of RAM, and even that is higher than usual for me.
Your desire for the Luna theme over glass, REALLY? its ugly and full of nested menus. Why would you upgrade for XP if you don't want anything different. Like hell their going to bring back the old GUI.
XP was NOT intuitive, there was a lack of relation between windows, and there was a nightmare of nested menus everywhere.
I'm calling your bluff on this one, I think users like you should stick to the old stuff because you have no sense of adventure, the minute something doesn't look the same as what your use too you freak out like someone took away your right to use windows all together. Your hope of an XP reincarnation, its not happening.
If your offended I'm sorry but I feel that your wreaking the experience of developing this OS, the close minded seem to be first inline to bash anything different from the norm.
just go re install XP, no one is making you give up the Luna GUI, or you copy of XP.
------------------------------------
In other words if you like XP then stay there.
oh and one more thing. I wish you people would stop waving you jobs in everyone's faces because its doesn't matter what you do. You could work for Microsoft but if all you do is stick to the basics rather than looking for new ways of doing things, then you still fit the label, close minded.
say hi to Luna for me ;)
- Hector Virgen said:You may as well ask how long Microsoft OS's should support a command prompt.
Sorry if I came off as rude, I was just trying to make a point. I'll try to rephrase my question: How many more new Microsoft OSes should support the 1995 start menu? Eventually they'll have to stop, I just hope we're all ready to accept their replacement when it happens.
If it fills a basic need, without a lot of needless overhead, why not include it, especially if users still want it. - bnborg said:Hector Virgen said:You may as well ask how long Microsoft OS's should support a command prompt.
Sorry if I came off as rude, I was just trying to make a point. I'll try to rephrase my question: How many more new Microsoft OSes should support the 1995 start menu? Eventually they'll have to stop, I just hope we're all ready to accept their replacement when it happens.
If it fills a basic need, without a lot of needless overhead, why not include it, especially if users still want it.
The command subsystem is an integral part of the OS, it's not being kept around for nostalgia. However if Microsoft wanted to replace the command subsystem with the new and much improved PowerShell then I would be all for it. Much like they replaced the Classic Start menu with the new and improved Superbar.
- Superfly. said:I don't believe it is required, although you would have to define a different command interpreter if you wanted bat and cmd files to run. It is not a subsystem, in that it is not listed in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\SubSystems.
The command subsystem is an integral part of the OS, it's not being kept around for nostalgia. However if Microsoft wanted to replace the command subsystem with the new and much improved PowerShell then I would be all for it. Much like they replaced the Classic Start menu with the new and improved Superbar.
- Superfly. said:Lycius said:
I will also echo the hope that Microsoft will accept the fact that one single choice of UI is not acceptible. The sweeping, and in many many opinions, horrid UI changes made with Vista are a large part of why it has become the most reviled OS Microsoft has ever released. PLEASE realize that not everyone thinks that Mac's UI is hip and awesome and please stop trying to turn my PC into a Mac. Give the hordes of users who hate the Vista interface a choice.
When you make an unqualified statement like this:
"...horrid UI changes made with Vista are a large part of why it has become the most reviled OS Microsoft has ever released."
One of two things comes to mind:
1. You are a Mac zealot who joined the cult of the preppy elite (and actually bought into the garbage that Apple was selling in their anti windows campaign).
OR
2. You have never used Vista on decent hardware for any length of time (and actually bought into the garbage that Apple was selling in their anti windows campaign).
On the other hand, if you hate any type of UI progress like Mac or anything past windows 9x/XP here are a few good options:
http://www.redhat.com/
http://fedoraproject.org/
http://www.ubuntu.com/
Wow, you couldn't be any more wrong. Perhaps you should listen to your own advice and not make unqualified statements about people you know nothing about. I have never owned a Mac and personally, I think the Mac commercials are pathetic. However, when I worked at Microsoft for 18 months or so and the company forced everyone to install Vista, we ALL had virtual machines with XP installed so we could do our jobs.
Maybe you should look around before putting your fingers to the keyboard and realize that even MS knows that Vista is horrible and pretty much everyone, with the exception of a few hardware elitists like yourself, hates it.
PS. I have run Vista on good hardware, likely better than yours, and it was still a pig of an OS. Hardware doesn't change the fact they seem to be buying into the Apple garbage and trying to turn Windows into OSX. - The reason we are having this discussion now instead of when Vista came out is that functionality we are used to is being taken away. I'm talking about the compact layout and the flyout submenus of the classic start menu. This isn't the same as the Windows 95 start menu. Flyouts came much later. Was it Win2K?
Those of us who had to use Vista still had the classic start menu available. Those of us who hated Vista but had the option continued to use XP. But even we XP users realize that a 4 or 8 year old OS won't be supported much longer.
If we can't get used to Windows 7 and it continues to iritate us we will have to go to Vista. At least it still has the classic start menu.
I can get used to the new Taskbar, and even grow to like it. I can bring back my Quick Launch and with the button options I can make it look just like the older Taskbar.
When I want to explore alternative OS's, I go to http://www.theosfiles.com/. They have links to various Unix, Linux, Mac and other OS distributions. They even have links to Windows. - Lycius said:Superfly. said:Lycius said:
I will also echo the hope that Microsoft will accept the fact that one single choice of UI is not acceptible. The sweeping, and in many many opinions, horrid UI changes made with Vista are a large part of why it has become the most reviled OS Microsoft has ever released. PLEASE realize that not everyone thinks that Mac's UI is hip and awesome and please stop trying to turn my PC into a Mac. Give the hordes of users who hate the Vista interface a choice.
When you make an unqualified statement like this:
"...horrid UI changes made with Vista are a large part of why it has become the most reviled OS Microsoft has ever released."
One of two things comes to mind:
1. You are a Mac zealot who joined the cult of the preppy elite (and actually bought into the garbage that Apple was selling in their anti windows campaign).
OR
2. You have never used Vista on decent hardware for any length of time (and actually bought into the garbage that Apple was selling in their anti windows campaign).
On the other hand, if you hate any type of UI progress like Mac or anything past windows 9x/XP here are a few good options:
http://www.redhat.com/
http://fedoraproject.org/
http://www.ubuntu.com/
Wow, you couldn't be any more wrong. Perhaps you should listen to your own advice and not make unqualified statements about people you know nothing about. I have never owned a Mac and personally, I think the Mac commercials are pathetic. However, when I worked at Microsoft for 18 months or so and the company forced everyone to install Vista, we ALL had virtual machines with XP installed so we could do our jobs.
Maybe you should look around before putting your fingers to the keyboard and realize that even MS knows that Vista is horrible and pretty much everyone, with the exception of a few hardware elitists like yourself, hates it.
PS. I have run Vista on good hardware, likely better than yours, and it was still a pig of an OS. Hardware doesn't change the fact they seem to be buying into the Apple garbage and trying to turn Windows into OSX.
Thank you for further proving my original point...
Also, thank you for the good laugh about being an ex MS employee (been a long day I need a good chuckle)... Never would have seen that silly defense coming...
By the way, when I worked at Microsoft 19 months or so (I have more seniority then you in my story). Bill Gates personally came to my house and installed Vista and it was the best day of my life. Then we skipped back to Redmond holding hands and forced thousands of bitter employees to install Vista even though everyone hated it. Then after some cake and ice-cream we all sat around and reminisced about how much we missed the classic start menu. - Superfly. said:
Thank you for further proving my original point...
Also, thank you for the good laugh about being an ex MS employee (been a long day I need a good chuckle)... Never would have seen that silly defense coming...
By the way, when I worked at Microsoft 19 months or so (I have more seniority then you in my story). Bill Gates personally came to my house and installed Vista and it was the best day of my life. Then we skipped back to Redmond holding hands and forced thousands of bitter employees to install Vista even though everyone hated it. Then after some cake and ice-cream we all sat around and reminisced about how much we missed the classic start menu.
Not that I need to prove anything to you, since you're just trolling a forum which people are attempting to give feedback on a major OS on, but I worked in building 115 and 3 for the Unified Comminucations team and supported Office Communicator, Live Meeting, and Tanjay and Round Table devices.
BTW, I never said I worked for Microsoft. I said I worked at Microsoft, Redmond Campus specifically, for a company called NCS.
Please go troll somewhere else, you're not even any good at trolling. - If people want everything to act exactly the same as it has, then why upgrade in the first place?
It's inevitable that some people won't like something about Windows 7. It is impossible to please everyone. - The Tron said:
If people want everything to act exactly the same as it has, then why upgrade in the first place?
It's inevitable that some people won't like something about Windows 7. It is impossible to please everyone.
even linux upgrades its kernel, doesn't mean the GUI changes. - lastot069 said:The Tron said:
If people want everything to act exactly the same as it has, then why upgrade in the first place?
It's inevitable that some people won't like something about Windows 7. It is impossible to please everyone.
even linux upgrades its kernel, doesn't mean the GUI changes.
Then upgrade to Linux?
Seriously though, KDE changed from 3.x to 4.x and GNOME will change their interface whenever they roll out 3.0 which is supposed to be sometime next year.
Furthering the Linux (or even Mac OS at this point) comparison. It's an interface that started with Windows 95, so almost 15 years old. Linux / Mac GUIs have changed, even multiple times within that time period. - The Tron said:Then upgrade to Linux?
Seriously though, KDE changed from 3.x to 4.x and GNOME will change their interface whenever they roll out 3.0 which is supposed to be sometime next year.
Furthering the Linux (or even Mac OS at this point) comparison. It's an interface that started with Windows 95, so almost 15 years old. Linux / Mac GUIs have changed, even multiple times within that time period.
If i didn't game on my system that would be an option, but im forced to use an MS OS. so... i guess i should be used to being forced to do things a certain way. problem is i have to now find 3rd party hacks to get my desktop the way i like it, or just save my money and use XP still, which means from the users like me Microsoft makes no money. we will just have to wait and see what is in the next stages of the beta before we jump to conclusions. - Hector - if the XP menu was available, rather than the Classic menu, I'd be even happier. I prefer the XP menu to either of Vista, Win9x or Win7.
- Barry Kelly - CodeGear said:
Hector - if the XP menu was available, rather than the Classic menu, I'd be even happier. I prefer the XP menu to either of Vista, Win9x or Win7.
I could probaly live with that over what is there now, at least it would be easier organized. - When it comes to the UI, don't bother complaining, this is the way Microsoft want windows to look and feel and that's it. In my opinion it's not change for improvement it just change for change sake, this was a complaint in in the early incarnations Vista and continues to be a complaint in Windows 7, but as I said it's falling on def ears. Alright Rant over.
With that being said, first right click on task bar, then properties, start menu Click on the start tab, customize, enable say Recorded TV and dislpay as menu, than click on orb right click on Recorded TV, click on include a folder point to "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\programs"right click on Recorded TV again rename to "programs" and you have the fly out style menu of windows xp. For the life of me I can't understand why Microsoft will not just include this as an option, the only reason I can think of, is stubbornest, they are upset that a great deal of people don't like the new UI that worked so hard on and their going to force it no matter what. It's analogous to Office's Ribbon, Microsoft is forcing it, there is just as many bad reviews as good reviews on the ribbon, not a lot of companies are licensing the Ribbon UI, but they are Microsoft, they don't make mistakes they know better then their customers what their customers want. The only way this will change is either Bill Gates comes back like Jobs did or if Balmer retires than it will be a all new improved design once again.. that's my story I'm sticking to it...
PEACE!
- bnborg said:
f we can't get used to Windows 7 and it continues to iritate us we will have to go to Vista. At least it still has the classic start menu.
The new way is better except you cannot remove items such as Shut Down or put them on the left, this in my view is the real issue here, as well as no Sort by Type for items in the list.
Has something been forgotten?
- This, and a few of the other threads complaining about the new interface can be summed up in two phrases.
You can't please all the people, all the time
and
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
- Is the simple fact that a substantial percentage of potential Windows 7 buyers strongly WANT (for whatever reason) a Classic interface not sufficient reason to give it to them? Who is Microsoft to decide what I want in a computer interface? I decide what I want and it is a supplier's responsibility to supply that if they want my business.
I have seen quite a variation in percentage of users that prefer classic look, varying between 15% and 40%. It would seem to me that Microsoft should be courting every potential sale possible following the train wreck called Vista. This 15 to 40% would consider themselves abandoned by Microsoft and a certain percentage would be lost forever. Give us Classic and give the youngsters the "fluff andf puff".
John Shelton - john3347 said:
This 15 to 40% would consider themselves abandoned by Microsoft and a certain percentage would be lost forever. Give us Classic and give the youngsters the "fluff andf puff".
John Shelton
Who are you kidding? That "15-40%" would either continue using XP until it's not longer supported and/or uprade to Vista / 7 / etc when it comes out. Microsoft wouldn't "lose" them to Mac or Linux. - " You can't please all the people, all the time
and
Damned if you do, damned if you don't"
The Tron, the fact, in this instance, is that all CAN be satisfied and they (Microsoft) will only be damned if they don't. Giving those who want Classic takes nothing away from those who don't want it. Everyone can be satisfied here if Microsoft doesn't try to decide for me what I want in a user interface.
John Shelton - john3347 said:No, because if they included both Classic and the new interface (start menu / taskbar etc) Then still others would be angry that Microsoft was including unnecessary bloat and using code that is ~15 years old.
" You can't please all the people, all the time
and
Damned if you do, damned if you don't"
The Tron, the fact, in this instance, is that all CAN be satisfied and they (Microsoft) will only be damned if they don't. Giving those who want Classic takes nothing away from those who don't want it. Everyone can be satisfied here if Microsoft doesn't try to decide for me what I want in a user interface.
John Shelton
Also in case it wasn't clear, the other post I just made about the 15-40% is saying that really Microsoft has little incentive to include the classic menu. - john3347 said:
Is the simple fact that a substantial percentage of potential Windows 7 buyers strongly WANT (for whatever reason) a Classic interface not sufficient reason to give it to them? Who is Microsoft to decide what I want in a computer interface? I decide what I want and it is a supplier's responsibility to supply that if they want my business.
I have seen quite a variation in percentage of users that prefer classic look, varying between 15% and 40%. It would seem to me that Microsoft should be courting every potential sale possible following the train wreck called Vista. This 15 to 40% would consider themselves abandoned by Microsoft and a certain percentage would be lost forever. Give us Classic and give the youngsters the "fluff andf puff".
John Shelton
To all aspiring technology professionals; let John's post resonate in your mind. When you begin to view technology like John does it is time to move on to another career or consider retirement.
Learn to be forward thinking and learn to embrace, adapt and adopt new methodologies.
"Who are you kidding? That "15-40%" would either continue using XP until it's not longer supported and/or uprade to Vista / 7 / etc when it comes out. Microsoft wouldn't "lose" them to Mac or Linux."
You are partially correct here. Yes a certain percentage would continue to use XP, and in some cases Windows 2000, for a long time to come. This is a "Windows 7 LOST SALE" I also stand by my statement that a certain percentage of these users WOULD, in fact, move to a Mac or Linux and be lost to Microsoft forever. The fact that Windows XP systems are re-appearing in big box stores (Walmart) replacing Vista systems is testament to the fact that Microsoft needs to listen to their potential customers. This applies to netbooks as well as desktop systems.
John SheltonI did wonder once why the mini start menu was taken out when going from 98 to xp but meh, I like the new menu in vista, as I have already noted, the only real problems are there is no sort and no way to truly customise it.
If we are talking about quick launch, use vista.
To John,
The XP downgrade was mainly for the new laptops and was a very kind gesture on Microsoft's part and shows this "forward thinking" you are talking about.
Anyway at least XP supports NTFS that's all we have to know, 2000 has become the '98 of our times and Vista the ME.
- it's real simple, it's all about "Choice." Microsoft feels as though they must choose for people, that they know better. Microsoft can give the option's, Microsoft chooses not to, my question for Microsoft is, How is Microsoft truly making, "Windows with out walls" if you put up a wall on this. It really only about choice, and options that Microsoft is so reluctant to give. now if it truly is 15 to 40 percent. and as Mike Nash puts windows has over one billion users. That's a significant number but to Microsoft they are just people who are wrong, and don't want change.
- I really cant see why all these people are trying to fight classic start menu, even being downright mean to posters who want it. its maybe a 75k file, is that really that much of a bloat? I have 2TB in my main system, i dont think it really would matter.
- I hope MS will include classic start menu.
Latest one is not very useful for me.
It is only work for casual users who never use more then a few programs.
Windows 7 is quite nice, but lack of usefull extended menu is a complete turn off factor for me, as i often organise and run ALOT of applications from start menu > all programs. - rgreat said:
Windows 7 is quite nice, but lack of usefull extended menu is a complete turn off factor for me, as i often organise and run ALOT of applications from start menu > all programs.
That's the point though I think, all these menus and more menus don't really serve the ultimate aim of a quick and easy method to find a desired program and mind you I don't think the Menu in vista is all that smart either, since it cannot even be sorted according to type.
Not only sorting is a problem but also every folder including accessories comes under programs, too easy to leave it that way as I see it.Then of course there is the right pane, full of buttons and things I don't want or need and cannot get rid of; no customisation there at all a really pathetic effort in my view since when I want to shut down or log off etc I should be able to right click on "Start" and work from there not this ultimate arbitrated heirachy of garbage and forced "options" that I must use to get round.
- this is just another in many points of how productivity has suffered to the candy factor
- lastot069 said:
this is just another in many points of how productivity has suffered to the candy factor
I'm sorry but I really have to disagree.
I understand that some may not like it, but how is the Vista/7 Start menu eye candy at all? Let alone eye candy for the sake of eye candy like it seems you're implying. - I tried it, hoping it would be nothing like Vista. I was disappointed. I went back to XP Pro and the classic theme. I sure would not pay More than $15 for it because that is my throw away when you don't like it limit. Unless they can make it look and feel like XP, then I'll stick with XP Pro forever!
How hard is it to put the new back-end behind an XP front end with the option of making it look like Win 7?
Jim - cact25 said:I was wondering what it would take to get explorer from XP running, with side by side, compatibility, or whatever.
. . .
How hard is it to put the new back-end behind an XP front end with the option of making it look like Win 7?
Jim
Then all you would have to do is point the shell to the alternative explorer and you'd be home free. - Putting in the XP-like Start Menu is a lot more complicated then a lot of you think.
It's not a matter of just tacking on "75KB of code" (a number I'm guessing was pulled out of thin air). Since it's such a core component it affects other areas as well. Then there's the matter of maintaining both the old way and new way.
I'd like to know why people don't like the Start Menu other than "it's different" or "unproductive".
- How is it unproductive?
- How is clicking and moving the mouse down any less productive than clicking and moving the mouse right?
- Have you tried to use the search area to not even have to navigate the menus?
- If you use the program so often, why isn't it in the quicklaunch?
- Is it just me, or is it pretty 50/50 on the Love or Hate issue of the classic start menu :-P
Guess we will have to wait and see which way Microsoft swings things.
- I want a StartMenu that contains nothing except 512 different colored pixels. One for each of my programs.
- I was once dead against the new way but now I've converted over simply because it hides things until I need them, no more long winded menu after menu categorised in some order reflective of the underlying file structure, now all it needs is by Type and I'll be a happier person.
- The Tron said:I'm sorry but I really have to disagree.
I understand that some may not like it, but how is the Vista/7 Start menu eye candy at all? Let alone eye candy for the sake of eye candy like it seems you're implying.
2 over sized panes, with pretty colors, pretty buttons, pretty layout, and extra pretty aero. sounds like candy! throw in some aero preview and some 3d effects and we have candy everywhere! - lastot069 said:The Tron said: I'm sorry but I really have to disagree.
I understand that some may not like it, but how is the Vista/7 Start menu eye candy at all? Let alone eye candy for the sake of eye candy like it seems you're implying.
2 over sized panes, with pretty colors, pretty buttons, pretty layout, and extra pretty aero. sounds like candy! throw in some aero preview and some 3d effects and we have candy everywhere!
So the "pretty" colors are the issue? Would it be better if it was 1980's putty?
I will be glad when windows 7 has been released. All of this pointless discussion will be put to rest. People will either choose to adapt or they will choose to stay with an outdated/unsupported technology. - lastot069 said:The Tron said: I'm sorry but I really have to disagree.
I understand that some may not like it, but how is the Vista/7 Start menu eye candy at all? Let alone eye candy for the sake of eye candy like it seems you're implying.
2 over sized panes, with pretty colors, pretty buttons, pretty layout, and extra pretty aero. sounds like candy! throw in some aero preview and some 3d effects and we have candy everywhere!
2 oversized panes?
I know the bottom is few pixels larger. It is easily changed by right clicking, going to properties and selecting "Use small icons" if those dozen pixels are so important.
I don't know what the second pane you're referring to is.
Pretty {insert item}
Yes they do look different, and arguably better aesthetically. But they're in the same position, roughly the same size, and perform the same function. So how exactly are those "points of how productivity has suffered to the candy factor"?
In general, go to customize and choose an "Ease of Access Theme" (read non-Aero). Also, as far as I can tell, none of what you mentioned had to do with the Start Menu which is what this particular thread is about. - Superfly. said:I will be glad when windows 7 has been released. All of this pointless discussion will be put to rest. People will either choose to adapt or they will choose to stay with an outdated/unsupported technology.
Ok, now im just tired of dealing with Geniuses. people will stay with XP and they will not spend the money to upgrade, MS will loose money again! yay more layoffs for MS!The Tron said:You asked about candy in W7! I answered, where is the mystery?
2 oversized panes?
I know the bottom is few pixels larger. It is easily changed by right clicking, going to properties and selecting "Use small icons" if those dozen pixels are so important.
I don't know what the second pane you're referring to is.
Pretty {insert item}
Yes they do look different, and arguably better aesthetically. But they're in the same position, roughly the same size, and perform the same function. So how exactly are those "points of how productivity has suffered to the candy factor"?
In general, go to customize and choose an "Ease of Access Theme" (read non-Aero). Also, as far as I can tell, none of what you mentioned had to do with the Start Menu which is what this particular thread is about. - Whether productivity has suffered due to "eye candy", or ignorance on the part of the development team, or just plain meanness on the part of TPTB, there is no doubt that productivity for administrators and other support people has suffered.
There are countless examples of how it is more involved, more windows have to be opened, or it just takes more clicks to get to various system settings.
For the support people who have do this on multiple machines in any day, or to talk users through all this over the phone, this gets old in a hurry.
I realize most of this came with Vista. We bided our time, however, holding off on upgrading to Vista unless we had to.
We hoped that Microsoft would correct some of these problems with the next version of Windows. But instead, Windows 7 and Server 2008R2 have made administration even worse.
They obviously have NOT listened. - lastot069 said: You asked about candy in W7! I answered, where is the mystery?
Close, I asked about:
lastot069 said:this is just another in many points of how productivity has suffered to the candy factor
You have yet to say how the aesthetic changes I mentioned make productivity suffer.
- lastot069 said:Superfly. said: I will be glad when windows 7 has been released. All of this pointless discussion will be put to rest. People will either choose to adapt or they will choose to stay with an outdated/unsupported technology.
Ok, now im just tired of dealing with Geniuses. people will stay with XP and they will not spend the money to upgrade, MS will loose money again! yay more layoffs for MS!
The Tron said:You asked about candy in W7! I answered, where is the mystery?
2 oversized panes?
I know the bottom is few pixels larger. It is easily changed by right clicking, going to properties and selecting "Use small icons" if those dozen pixels are so important.
I don't know what the second pane you're referring to is.
Pretty {insert item}
Yes they do look different, and arguably better aesthetically. But they're in the same position, roughly the same size, and perform the same function. So how exactly are those "points of how productivity has suffered to the candy factor"?
In general, go to customize and choose an "Ease of Access Theme" (read non-Aero). Also, as far as I can tell, none of what you mentioned had to do with the Start Menu which is what this particular thread is about.
You’re wrong...
As with any new operating system, there will be those who do not want to spend money to upgrade. However, that won't much matter when it comes time to replace your hardware. Once XP is no longer offered (which will happen shortly after the release of Windows 7) it will take about 3-4 years for most organizations and approximately 3-6 years for the majority of home users to transition to new hardware. They will either choose Windows 7 (or greater) or they will choose another platform.Let’s say that for the sake of your argument there are actually more than 12 users who refuse to upgrade because Microsoft’s start menu has become to “pretty”, it still will not hurt Microsoft’s bottom line because there will be only Linux to choose from if you are eye candy phobic.
Actually it may be funny or at least interesting but XP still has great potential as an OS, the only problem with it really is how an administrator doesn't really have admin priviledges if named ie anything other than Administrator and cannot change things like the default search engine or find the loopback address for windows update.
It is NTFS so has file security so I doubt Microsoft will aim to abandon such a mature and stable product any time soon although personally I won't ever go back but it's not the same as saying I won't go back to ME or 98 because those systems were simply pathetic.
- The Tron said:you originally never asked about productivity as shown above, and as for the productivity...I'm sorry but I really have to disagree.
I understand that some may not like it, but how is the Vista/7 Start menu eye candy at all? Let alone eye candy for the sake of eye candy like it seems you're implying.You have yet to say how the aesthetic changes I mentioned make productivity suffer.
i am not rehashing items that have been proven many times over in these forums, you want an argument go find a chatroom. - messianic said:
Actually it may be funny or at least interesting but XP still has great potential as an OS, the only problem with it really is how an administrator doesn't really have admin priviledges if named ie anything other than Administrator and cannot change things like the default search engine or find the loopback address for windows update.
It is NTFS so has file security so I doubt Microsoft will aim to abandon such a mature and stable product any time soon although personally I won't ever go back but it's not the same as saying I won't go back to ME or 98 because those systems were simply pathetic.
with sites like planet64 writing custom drivers and such, XP has a good chance at an after shelf life - messianic said:
Actually it may be funny or at least interesting but XP still has great potential as an OS, the only problem with it really is how an administrator doesn't really have admin priviledges if named ie anything other than Administrator and cannot change things like the default search engine or find the loopback address for windows update.
It is NTFS so has file security so I doubt Microsoft will aim to abandon such a mature and stable product any time soon although personally I won't ever go back but it's not the same as saying I won't go back to ME or 98 because those systems were simply pathetic.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx - http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx
- Count me on the side wanting pretty much everything Classic retained. The issues for me are:
1. My company's entire filing system is based on the original ASCII sorting. Intuitive sorting, or whatever its called, breaks our system. We're at a point where we're getting programs hard coded to the new sorting method rather than respecting the OS settings here. We're wasting man hours scrolling through lists to find files that should be at the top of the list because they have '___' prepended. I can't imagine what they were thinking when they changed something so basic as file sort order.
2. As a small business owner I don't want to have to spend the time or money to re-train my staff to work with a new OS GUI unless the new GUI adds value to the company. The changes in Vista did not add value. What's in Win7 does not add value.
3. Maybe its just me, but I can't figure out how to use the new search. It never finds anything I'm looking for. I never had problems with search in XP, other than speed.
4. Most of the new "features" require extra clicks. I would have thought that Microsoft would have learned from BOB. Extra clicks mean things take longer. That may not be an issue for home use, but I never, ever want my employees to have to wait for a menu to expand or to have to click through two screens when one will do. Time is money. An extra click once a day isn't a big deal, but an extra click every time you open an application is unacceptable. The new approach on task bar is a good example. With quick launch I could open new instances with a single click. Now its right click on the taskbar button, move the cursor to the program name, then left click. It is different, but how is that better? Go through that 40+ times a day like I do and you've wasted almost an hour during a typical year of work.
I have no problem with change that has a purpose and/or with change that improves my processes or my bottom line. I do have a problem with change for the sake of change, or change because a programmer thinks he knows what's best for me. I want the OS to get out of the way and let me work. For me XP with Classic settings comes a lot closer to that than Vista or Win7.
Martin
- hmspe said:so what your really trying to say is... you wont be spending $250 per system to upgrade plus the charge of the tech that does the upgrade? so how many lost sales is that for just one small buisness?
Count me on the side wanting pretty much everything Classic retained. The issues for me are:
1. My company's entire filing system is based on the original ASCII sorting. Intuitive sorting, or whatever its called, breaks our system. We're at a point where we're getting programs hard coded to the new sorting method rather than respecting the OS settings here. We're wasting man hours scrolling through lists to find files that should be at the top of the list because they have '___' prepended. I can't imagine what they were thinking when they changed something so basic as file sort order.
2. As a small business owner I don't want to have to spend the time or money to re-train my staff to work with a new OS GUI unless the new GUI adds value to the company. The changes in Vista did not add value. What's in Win7 does not add value.
3. Maybe its just me, but I can't figure out how to use the new search. It never finds anything I'm looking for. I never had problems with search in XP, other than speed.
4. Most of the new "features" require extra clicks. I would have thought that Microsoft would have learned from BOB. Extra clicks mean things take longer. That may not be an issue for home use, but I never, ever want my employees to have to wait for a menu to expand or to have to click through two screens when one will do. Time is money. An extra click once a day isn't a big deal, but an extra click every time you open an application is unacceptable. The new approach on task bar is a good example. With quick launch I could open new instances with a single click. Now its right click on the taskbar button, move the cursor to the program name, then left click. It is different, but how is that better? Go through that 40+ times a day like I do and you've wasted almost an hour during a typical year of work.
I have no problem with change that has a purpose and/or with change that improves my processes or my bottom line. I do have a problem with change for the sake of change, or change because a programmer thinks he knows what's best for me. I want the OS to get out of the way and let me work. For me XP with Classic settings comes a lot closer to that than Vista or Win7.
Martin
- hmspe said:
Count me on the side wanting pretty much everything Classic retained. The issues for me are:
1. My company's entire filing system is based on the original ASCII sorting. Intuitive sorting, or whatever its called, breaks our system. We're at a point where we're getting programs hard coded to the new sorting method rather than respecting the OS settings here. We're wasting man hours scrolling through lists to find files that should be at the top of the list because they have '___' prepended. I can't imagine what they were thinking when they changed something so basic as file sort order.
2. As a small business owner I don't want to have to spend the time or money to re-train my staff to work with a new OS GUI unless the new GUI adds value to the company. The changes in Vista did not add value. What's in Win7 does not add value.
3. Maybe its just me, but I can't figure out how to use the new search. It never finds anything I'm looking for. I never had problems with search in XP, other than speed.
4. Most of the new "features" require extra clicks. I would have thought that Microsoft would have learned from BOB. Extra clicks mean things take longer. That may not be an issue for home use, but I never, ever want my employees to have to wait for a menu to expand or to have to click through two screens when one will do. Time is money. An extra click once a day isn't a big deal, but an extra click every time you open an application is unacceptable. The new approach on task bar is a good example. With quick launch I could open new instances with a single click. Now its right click on the taskbar button, move the cursor to the program name, then left click. It is different, but how is that better? Go through that 40+ times a day like I do and you've wasted almost an hour during a typical year of work.
I have no problem with change that has a purpose and/or with change that improves my processes or my bottom line. I do have a problem with change for the sake of change, or change because a programmer thinks he knows what's best for me. I want the OS to get out of the way and let me work. For me XP with Classic settings comes a lot closer to that than Vista or Win7.
Martin
1. I can't comment because I'm not sure what you're talking about
2. What WOULD be a change that adds value? It sounds like if there is any change to the GUI then you have to retrain so it's bad. It seems like you're asking for the impossible: A change that's not different.
3. Maybe it is you? I really can't say, a specific example would help
4. Middle-Click
lastot069, I went back and read through all of your posts in this thread. You expressed dissatisfaction with organizing the Start Menu. I agree there, you have to right click on "All Programs" then go to "Open All Users" and go from there. It's not very well done.
Other than that scenario, I saw nothing else specifically mentioned by you, so I have two questions.- What are you using now for a Start Menu? Vista, XP, XP classic (as in Windows 2000 and earlier)?
- What is it about the Vista/7 Start Menu that makes things less productive, other than simply the fact that it is different?
- The Tron said:
lastot069, I went back and read through all of your posts in this thread. You expressed dissatisfaction with organizing the Start Menu. I agree there, you have to right click on "All Programs" then go to "Open All Users" and go from there. It's not very well done.
Other than that scenario, I saw nothing else specifically mentioned by you, so I have two questions.
- What are you using now for a Start Menu? Vista, XP, XP classic (as in Windows 2000 and earlier)?
- What is it about the Vista/7 Start Menu that makes things less productive, other than simply the fact that it is different?
i use XP classic with drag and drop turned on and small icons, i can be almost as productive with xp start menu. but its too bulky and packed with things i dont use. also, it is spread out and that just takes me time to look. vista and W7 are taking this further by adding changes to explorer and adding UAC prompts to get in the way. to me the actual UAC is the deal breaker. i was so put off by the dependancies on UAC for systems that should have worked if UAC was turned off. added clicks and time management are secondary in my view due to the fact that an extra click takes a second, UAC scans and popups take minutes off productivity.
Cool, now we are talking about UAC, notice that it doesn't come on when making changes to default programs?
Moreover how dumb does it have to be to be "attached" to user files?
- lastot069 said:
i use XP classic with drag and drop turned on and small icons, i can be almost as productive with xp start menu. but its too bulky and packed with things i dont use. also, it is spread out and that just takes me time to look. vista and W7 are taking this further by adding changes to explorer and adding UAC prompts to get in the way. to me the actual UAC is the deal breaker. i was so put off by the dependancies on UAC for systems that should have worked if UAC was turned off. added clicks and time management are secondary in my view due to the fact that an extra click takes a second, UAC scans and popups take minutes off productivity.
Great, now I know where you're coming from.Packed with things you don't use
Like what? The sort of Places menu (thinking GNOME here), like Documents, Pictures, Music etc on the right? If that's the case, why does that area matter? You're still clicking on the left hand side to go through programs like you would on XP classic anyway.Spread out and takes you time to look.
Look for what? I'm guessing since you use the Classic interface you don't take advantage of the dynamically changing shortcut list that is generated based on your most used programs. In which case instead of "Programs" being towards the top in Classic, it's "All Programs" which is always located at the bottom, just above the search bar, in Windows 7.After that, the Vista/7 menu is a little different by being contained and scolling down. I find this to be easier because I can navigate simply with a click and mouse wheel and not need to move my mouse up/down/right and sometiems left. You can also have multiple folders in the Start Menu open so it mirrors the behavior of the Windows Explorer tree navigation that dates back since I don't know when.
The only quick thing I'll say about UAC is that it can be easily turned off in Windows 7 by going to Security and User Account Control. I won't go further into a discussion about UAC, because I don't want this thread to get off topic.
- The Tron said:
Great, now I know where you're coming from.
Packed with things you don't use
Like what? The sort of Places menu (thinking GNOME here), like Documents, Pictures, Music etc on the right? If that's the case, why does that area matter? You're still clicking on the left hand side to go through programs like you would on XP classic anyway.Spread out and takes you time to look.
Look for what? I'm guessing since you use the Classic interface you don't take advantage of the dynamically changing shortcut list that is generated based on your most used programs. In which case instead of "Programs" being towards the top in Classic, it's "All Programs" which is always located at the bottom, just above the search bar, in Windows 7.After that, the Vista/7 menu is a little different by being contained and scolling down. I find this to be easier because I can navigate simply with a click and mouse wheel and not need to move my mouse up/down/right and sometiems left. You can also have multiple folders in the Start Menu open so it mirrors the behavior of the Windows Explorer tree navigation that dates back since I don't know when.
The only quick thing I'll say about UAC is that it can be easily turned off in Windows 7 by going to Security and User Account Control. I won't go further into a discussion about UAC, because I don't want this thread to get off topic.
Lets just put it as I like the clean streamlined look and feel of the classic menu, all the rest is just fluff to me that gets in my way. - lastot069 said:
Lets just put it as I like the clean streamlined look and feel of the classic menu, all the rest is just fluff to me that gets in my way.
You've got that right. My sentiments exactly. - What exactly "get's in the way"?
Not wanting to be rude but are you sure it's not mere stubborness? - messianic said:
What exactly "get's in the way"?
Not wanting to be rude but are you sure it's not mere stubborness?
He discounts anything non useful to himself as "fluff" that gets in HIS way. To bad the multi billion dollar Microsoft Corporation is too dumb and blind to see things his way.
Take a look at the latest RC information (http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/default.aspx). Istill don't see a mention of classic being brought back. So what exactly is the point of this discussing this except to complain about something that is never going to happen? - if it were just my way it would be different, there are countless companys and users that use scripts to disable functions on the start menu and in windows for buisness reasons. then there are users like me that just want minimal menus. its a prefference, not stubbornness, not inability to change, its just what we like. this thread has been around for quite some time, it was started to point out what some users wanted. and none of us are MS we dont know what they will do! there are references to classic inside W7 so we will just wait and see
- The glitzier the MS OS gets the worse it gets. Not as functional. To user friendly.
Accessing features ten pages deep. Features missing. Not as professional. Two many interactive questions for the user.
Marketed for morons who don't know how to tie there own shoes, but Microsoft has made that task for people who do a complex chore. - >>Marketed for morons who don't know how to tie there own shoes, but Microsoft has made that task for people who do a complex chore. <<
That is really very constructive. Don't Know what planet you're from, but here we try to be polite. Some people ask questions, some reply. Points of view are respected, but not your kind of language. Moreover, you don't explain what exactly is not professional.
I laid out windows 7 in a company for test's sake. The thing is running fine.
Regards
Rem - You may call it stubbornness, but I really get irritated when decisions are made for me that I feel I should be able to make myself.
This is the way I feel about the Start Menu in Windows 7.
I used to be able to decide whether I wanted the classic look and feel. With Windows 7 I can't. - I think choices are good. Just because one person likes the change doesn't mean someone else will. There is nothing wrong with change, but forced changes are never good. I feel there should be a classic menu option (even though I'd probably not use it) or a XP style cascading menu. Cheesy, but I still love it. When I shop, I have choices, why not have choices even after I buy the OS? Bring classic back. Let's let customers have it both ways.
- So basically, lastof068 there is absolutely no change that Microsoft could provide that would be better for you because it is change?
I'm getting the same vibe from you, bnborg. It's not about "choice" so much as it is "let me not have to change my ways".
I'm wondering if you two use Firefox since IE changed their interface as of 7 and Safari has changed theirs in the beta of 4.
I'm also wondering that if hypothetically you were around during the betas of Windows 95 you'd complain about this new "Start Menu" and where did your "Program Manager" go and that Windows 95 is hindering your productivity because it doesn't give you the option to use the Windows 3.1 interface, (which was a much bigger change anyway). - Tron:
I was around at the release of Windows 95. I loved Wordpad so much that I copied it to my NT machines. It took me a little while to get used to Explorer but by the time it came to NT I was ready to forget about winfile and progman.
I've played with pre-release versions of Windows since Windows NT 3.1 that came with the NT SDK I signed up for.
I didn't like IE 7 on Vista/Server08 because it wouldn't remember that I wanted the Links bar. On XP, IE 7 worked fine.
I love IE 8 because it brought the Links bar back as the new Favorites Bar. - I loved the switch to 95, i was happy everything was so easy to find and set. the only thing i see better in W7 over XP right now is stability, thats not enough to spend $250 on a new OS.
- You don't find the jump lists useful? Or the clickable aero peek thumbnails? How the Start Menu will not only remember your most recently used programs, but also most recently used documents associated with them?
I just don't understand how the both of you welcomed the switch to 95 after giving it a chance, but won't do the same with 7 even when it's a much smaller difference.
I can't seem to get you to spell out why 7 isn't good other than some variant of "it's different". I went through that whole long description of your (lastot069) issues with the interface, trying to see how it could be improved and all I got, which bnborg agreed with you on, was:
lastot069 said:
Lets just put it as I like the clean streamlined look and feel of the classic menu, all the rest is just fluff to me that gets in my way.
When messianic asked what you meant by fluff, you just went on describing companies changing the menu. You never actually explained what you felt was fluff.
To me it sounds like "It doesn't matter what Microsoft comes up with, if it's not XP Classic I won't like it", which boggles my mind because like I said, you welcomed the even bigger change from Windows 3.1.
I still want to know your feelings about IE7 since it changed a lot more than just the favorites from IE6: The buttons look different, are in much different places, and has tab browsing for some examples. - zeus163 said:
I think choices are good. Just because one person likes the change doesn't mean someone else will. There is nothing wrong with change, but forced changes are never good. I feel there should be a classic menu option (even though I'd probably not use it) or a XP style cascading menu. Cheesy, but I still love it. When I shop, I have choices, why not have choices even after I buy the OS? Bring classic back. Let's let customers have it both ways.
I wouldn't call cascading menu cheesy. It's quite familiar and goes all the way back to Xerox PARC probably. Imagine if all s/w companies replace cascading menus with in place scrolling menus in all their programs. I think people would riot.
I've come to terms with the start menu by basically not using it as a menu, but as a quick search for programs with one big jump list incorporated. - That's right Barth.
The cascading view for menus is as basic as tree view for folders. If that is what you are used to, you really hate to give it up.
For some unknown reason, TPTB have decided that both are not going to be used anymore.
I didn't welcome a switch to 95 since basically it was the same old 16-bit Windows, just a different wrapping.
The "fluff" is all the unnecessary overhead that gets in the way of getting the job done.
The "job" is running and supporting applications. I would like to add one more voice to for the return of the Classic Start menu. There are situations where the new menu style is just not efficient to manage large numbers of installed applications and having the option to fall back to a simple cascaded heirarical menu system is much more efficient. I personally don't care if the option to enable it is buried so deep the average user can't find it, but I want the option to enable it if I so choose. Presently this is a significant annoyance with what is looking to otherwise be a great release of Windows.
barth2k said:You're using it how it was designed to be used.I've come to terms with the start menu by basically not using it as a menu, but as a quick search for programs with one big jump list incorporated.
bnborg said:But isn't the Start Menu just a series of folders and therefore navigated via a tree view?The cascading view for menus is as basic as tree view for folders. If that is what you are used to, you really hate to give it up.
bnborg said:Unnecessary overhead such as what exactly? I've been asking for a specific case from either of you where the new menu is less efficient and I have yet to get it.The "fluff" is all the unnecessary overhead that gets in the way of getting the job done.
The "job" is running and supporting applications.
I'm not saying those of you that want the classic one are 'wrong', you're entitled to your own opinion. I'm just trying to understand why you feel that way other than not wanting something new without even trying it.- The current Start Menu does not cascade.
Sure, you can drill down to whatever sub-folder you want. But by the time you get to the bottom, you have probably forgoten where you started. This makes it harder to try alternative paths as you try to remember where the shortcut was and what it was called.
Without flyouts, tree view, or folder bar, whatever you want to call it, you end up trying the same path more than once.
All these visual effects, and audio effects, are unnecessary unless the application you are using relies on them. People are welcome to them if that is what they want, but there should always be the option to turn them off if you don't need or want them.
The new Start Menu contains a lot of unnecessary visual effect.
Will it make some people more efficient? I suppose it is possible, but I doubt it.
I only know it makes me less efficient. Even if I get used to the look of it, so it doesn't make me pause in confusion every time I see it, it will still take longer to find the shortcut I want as it forces me to scroll up and down to see the parent menu versus the sub-menu. It's so much easier with the cascaded, flyout submenus. - The Tron said:
Unnecessary overhead such as what exactly? I've been asking for a specific case from either of you where the new menu is less efficient and I have yet to get it.
the little arrow in W7 next to shut down that you have to click to find reset! annoying! the lack of menu customization to group program types in all programs. the blank black boxes that are supposed to be previews that pop up... even if areo is off. the oversized start menu that takes up between 1/4 and 1/3 of the screen. Pinned programs, a waste considering its the same as a quick launch icon or a desktop icon. ETC... ETC... ETC... I hope this helps you understand a little more. i use alot of different programs depending on my project for the day, video editing one minute, photoshop the next, then music programs, office, games... it goes on and on.
As for internet, i have used firefox and netscape since as far back as i can remember, last i truly used IE for an extended period i think it was at version 3. with all firefox offers there is no reason to use IE - bnborg said:
The current Start Menu does not cascade.
Sure, you can drill down to whatever sub-folder you want. But by the time you get to the bottom, you have probably forgoten where you started. This makes it harder to try alternative paths as you try to remember where the shortcut was and what it was called.
Without flyouts, tree view, or folder bar, whatever you want to call it, you end up trying the same path more than once.
All these visual effects, and audio effects, are unnecessary unless the application you are using relies on them. People are welcome to them if that is what they want, but there should always be the option to turn them off if you don't need or want them.
The new Start Menu contains a lot of unnecessary visual effect.
Will it make some people more efficient? I suppose it is possible, but I doubt it.
I only know it makes me less efficient. Even if I get used to the look of it, so it doesn't make me pause in confusion every time I see it, it will still take longer to find the shortcut I want as it forces me to scroll up and down to see the parent menu versus the sub-menu. It's so much easier with the cascaded, flyout submenus.lastot069 said:The Tron said:
Unnecessary overhead such as what exactly? I've been asking for a specific case from either of you where the new menu is less efficient and I have yet to get it.
the little arrow in W7 next to shut down that you have to click to find reset! annoying! the lack of menu customization to group program types in all programs. the blank black boxes that are supposed to be previews that pop up... even if areo is off. the oversized start menu that takes up between 1/4 and 1/3 of the screen. Pinned programs, a waste considering its the same as a quick launch icon or a desktop icon. ETC... ETC... ETC... I hope this helps you understand a little more. i use alot of different programs depending on my project for the day, video editing one minute, photoshop the next, then music programs, office, games... it goes on and on.
As for internet, i have used firefox and netscape since as far back as i can remember, last i truly used IE for an extended period i think it was at version 3. with all firefox offers there is no reason to use IEi agree with both:
start menu makes the eyes tired when becomes larger-smaller or vice verca, and also all the other things described are like as you both said.
my suggestion for the menu is that perchaps microsoft should use 1 dimention for it [perchaps the larger one if they will like to be appeared the recent / pined folders] , but content margins must be changed.
also about navigation pane, the useless of the unglie folder band etc, i have written my oppinion.
- bnborg said:
The current Start Menu does not cascade.
Cascades for me, unless we have a different definition. See the sub-entries are indented
bnborg said:It's a tree view, just not tall enough, and lastot69 feels it's too tall already.Without flyouts, tree view, or folder bar, whatever you want to call it, you end up trying the same path more than once.
much easier with the cascaded, flyout submenus.
I do see your point though how you get lost
So what if something like this were to happen. Where in this example "Accessories" would stay at the top as you scrolled down it's submenu, with a graphic of some sort showing you there is stuff before "Sticky Notes" in this image.
lastot069 said: Pinned programs, a waste considering its the same as a quick launch icon or a desktop iconBut they provide additional functionality such as jump lists, window management and status updates
lastot069 said: the lack of menu customization to group program types in all programs.You can customize the start menu. I'll give you it's not intuitive, but it's possible. You have to right click on All Programs and go to Open All Users.
lastot069 said: the blank black boxes that are supposed to be previews that pop up... even if areo is off.I've never gotten that. Could you take a screenshot and submit it to Microsoft, it may be a bug.
- The Tron said:
But they provide additional functionality such as jump lists, window management and status updates
all these items i dont need while working within my open programs, if i did use office for presentations where i needed to jump from one instance to another that may be handy.The Tron said:
You can customize the start menu. I'll give you it's not intuitive, but it's possible. You have to right click on All Programs and go to Open All Users.
But only after taking ownership, a lot of hoops there to make it workThe Tron said:It is just the previews trying to show when areo isnt on, which i have sent in.
I've never gotten that. Could you take a screenshot and submit it to Microsoft, it may be a bug.
- Yeah, I've seen the black box too:
You can disable it by clearing the Desktop Preview checkbox:
- yet another hoop to jump through. it should shut off automatically if areo cant run. they tie UAC into programs so if its off they wont work but they cant make the display work as a team, sometimes im just baffled.
- lastot069 said:I thought it did shut it off automatically. I'm running Windows 7 in a VM, so no Aero is possible, and the previews are disabled. Instead of a thumbnail it shows a black box, like the one above, with text in it of what the window(s) is/are. So that's why I suspect the black box is a bug, in the screenshot it's horizontal, not more square like I would think the thumbnail would be. So my guess is that it is something about the previews not rendering correctly with Aero turned off.
yet another hoop to jump through. it should shut off automatically if areo cant run. they tie UAC into programs so if its off they wont work but they cant make the display work as a team, sometimes im just baffled.
- In Vista and Server 2008, the cooresponding checkbox is Show window previews (thumbnails):
When the DWM is not available, this box is greyed out and not selectable.
This is probably the way it should be in Windows 7. - Firstly let me say Peter I am not anti change I have been in the industry 30 years so I have had plenty of change in that time. I do not like change however just for the sake of change. I keep hearing all you Windows 7 new menu lovers say it's better , say it delivers benefits , say it's sleeker , faster , prettier , explain to me what any of that means in terms that can be measured and are actually tangible and real. I think I can make an equally important if not better valid argument that says familiarity , simplicity , ease of use , no need for constant re-training , no new cost , ability to customize and better control the user experience are all vastly more valid and obvious reasons why so many people want the classic start menu bar back.
I do not have a problem with your ideology of having the opportunity to experience a change - what I dislike is the forced nature of this and the fact it is quite detrimental especially to most home users and small business going forward. You make it sound like people can just go off and do yet again another training course to get used to the new interface and we will all be well again. Not so in the real world , especially now in these financially stricken times and most small business owners will not be wanting to spend anything on IT especially new operating systems that require a complete new way of working.
I don't like the new start menu because to me it is not intuitive or better. I find there is absolutlely no compelling reason or benefit for me to have to learn new ways of doing old tasks that I happily accomplished very quickly with the former classic start bar menu. I come from a records and information management background originally so I want to be able to customize/ set up a start bar the way I wish it to look. In the new Windows 7 start bar there is no ability to change the name of re-order or regroup the program listings so the thing just grows like topsy. An example in XP by comparison is that I create the following -
Adobe Programs
DVD -CD Burning Programs
Internet Programs
Music , Sound & Video
Print , Paint & Graphics
Utilities
When I click on the start bar I can more or less put my programs into one of those categories which means it's in order , is a very short bar to look at and actually explains to me what the function of a program is , because a lot of programs have non descript names leaving novice users bewildered about what they do and how they behave. Now others may not like or understand this but to me this is my most efficient way of operating a PC. Most of my clients love this approach and it has been implemented in a lot of private sector and government agencies here in Melbourne as a standard because it is liked , appreciated , understood , accepted and it works well.
This approach very clearly demonstrates to a Small business owner a standard approach much like an SOE that is useable across all WIndows OS up to Windows 7. No staff need retraining and there are clear benefits in terms of spped of access and use.
Your preferred bar grows like topsy with each added application , causes confusion , uncertainty , doubt and given that it is not necessarily in any particular order makes working with a PC slower , items are not in any way placed under a category that would help an end user understand what that application was for or did so it begs the question that users will have to engage in new training and that costs money and time and neither of these are available.
So I think it is incredibly rude and arrogant of Microsoft to have effectively trained the PC world since Windows 95 to interface this way then just dump it because a few people out there have got tired of the interface and have collectively decided they want everyone else to be forced to adopt a new way of interfacing to the start bar menu. I think for every person who likes it there will be two who don't.
That means the adoption rate of Windows 7 will be slow and cautious , probably a little better than VISTA but not the raging success it could be. With the return of the classic start bar and the repair/restore choice on a legitimate DVD I think Windows 7 could outdo XP even , without those two features I think it will struggle and from die hard XP users there will be strong resistance for some years to come. It need not be like that. There should be a win /win strategy in place - I don't think its that much of an issue for Microsoft to put those things back and it really does not have any impact on people who want the new interface.
Why cannot the entire IT industry take a look at keeping things that the majority like and are familiar with and go forward by adding choices and options for those keen to experiment with alternatives. We all win that way and these sorts of debates lose any heat and die quite quickly.
Ken
IT Director
Melbourne
- well put!! Bravo
