Recommended Posts

I also really like Classic Shell and am very happy it exists. I also tried start8, but that's just 'the start-screen inside a windows on the place my start-menu should be' if you ask me.

So, I'm glad this program exists, even though it may or may not be as nice-looking as Windows7's start menu. It does work and it works well.

I really can't understand why MS would do away with the start menu at this time. Granted, it has been around for quite some time and it might be time for something else, something new, but Metro's start screen isn't it for me.

We will see what Microsoft has to say when Windows 8 ends up as Windows Vista.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. When Vista "failed" did Microsoft dig out the old XP code and use it for Windows 7? No. The Start Button/Me nu is dead.

Also, they're not going to abandon the developers who released Metro apps for Windows 8. That would be a foolish move.

Yes I believe Microsoft usually doesn't bring back things they removed, which is the unfortunate part. But they have brought back some things like the Up button in Explorer, status bar size of selected files in Explorer, the Internet Games etc. But of course that doesn't mean we can't bring back certain things. :D In fact, the release of Classic Shell for Windows 8 may keep many users on the desktop after the glimpse of Metro at startup. ;) So people will get a choice to use what they want, not be forced into Metro. Mission accomplished.

Yes I believe Microsoft usually doesn't bring back things they removed, which is the unfortunate part. But they have brought back some things like the Up button in Explorer, status bar size of selected files in Explorer, the Internet Games etc. But of course that doesn't mean we can't bring back certain things. :D In fact, the release of Classic Shell for Windows 8 may keep many users on the desktop after the glimpse of Metro at startup. ;) So people will get a choice to use what they want, not be forced into Metro. Mission accomplished.

I read your blog and although I congrads you on Classic Shell, you, my friend, have no idea what you are talking about and know near nothing.

As of 2012, you can most definitely put Windows XP on any new system as long as you have retail licenses, which are transferable from your old machines to new ones. Device drivers are not an issue yet, everyone except Microsoft is supporting Windows XP and will for a long time I think, well past April 2014. Contrary to the popular myth that XP won't run as well on new machines, it does and of course has superior usability, so that's what matters more.

Anyone who reads that and knows about admining a network, would literally laugh out loud.

to all the classic shell/start button lovers :D is it really harder to press the start button and type in (part of) the apps name and press enter than to use your mouse and search through the all programs menu to start an app? in my experience it's 1.5 to 2x faster to use the start button instead of point-and-click to start an app.

yes, freedom of choice is good... but using inferior UXD elements which degrade your workflow on a new and improved OS isn't.

Anyone who reads that and knows about admining a network, would literally laugh out loud.

Most of the Windows Vista networking technologies article was written by me so yes I would know a little bit at least about networking ;). But remember, different things matter to different people. To certain people like me, usability matters the most. Even which OS's usability is better is always subjective, I am making my opinion known on the blog. Most people who are upgrading to Vista/7 thinking newer must be better and 10-year old means trash are the ones who are clueless really. As long as you are making an informed decision, don't go calling out others ignorant just because you don't agree with their views.

to all the classic shell/start button lovers :D is it really harder to press the start button and type in (part of) the apps name and press enter than to use your mouse and search through the all programs menu to start an app? in my experience it's 1.5 to 2x faster to use the start button instead of point-and-click to start an app.

yes, freedom of choice is good... but using inferior UXD elements which degrade your workflow on a new and improved OS isn't.

But who said you have to use the mouse only? Classic Shell supports typing the name of the app too if you prefer using the keyboard. It's the best of the 9x and Vista/7 style menus. Type to search feature of Vista/7 menu and the discoverability of new/unknown shortcuts whose name you don't know or forgot to type and full screen utilization of the 9x style. It doesn't expect users to use the menu only in a certain way, gives full freedom of customization.

lRo7g.png

But who said you have to use the mouse only? Classic Shell supports typing the name of the app too if you prefer using the keyboard. It's the best of the 9x and Vista/7 style menus. Type to search feature of Vista/7 menu and the discoverability of new/unknown shortcuts whose name you don't know or forgot to type and full screen utilization of the 9x style. It doesn't expect users to use the menu only in a certain way, gives full freedom of customization.

lRo7g.png

that looks much better than the ugly 9x thing in op. Hopefully people will get over their metro hate now.

to all the classic shell/start button lovers :D is it really harder to press the start button and type in (part of) the apps name and press enter than to use your mouse and search through the all programs menu to start an app? in my experience it's 1.5 to 2x faster to use the start button instead of point-and-click to start an app.

yes, freedom of choice is good... but using inferior UXD elements which degrade your workflow on a new and improved OS isn't.

You honestly remember the names of all the programs you have installed? At work i have a ton of programs installed in my machine and do not remember all the names. So its kinda hard to search for something you do not remember the name of.

to all the classic shell/start button lovers :D is it really harder to press the start button and type in (part of) the apps name and press enter than to use your mouse and search through the all programs menu to start an app?

to me it is, as i often like to use an operating system with just a mouse.

classic shell is a must for me on windows 7 and even more so on windows 8.

-andy-

Can you explain how the expanding Programs menu is a usability nightmare? It better utilizes screen estate in fact instead of cramping it into a tiny area with a scrollbar. The Start screen is also trying to make it go "full screen" for this reason. The one problem with flyout menus in Windows 9x was that if the mouse moved a little bit outside the menu it would close. But our menu being customizable, you can simply set the "Menu Delay" setting to a larger value like 10000 and it will never close with the mouse just moving, it will only open folders and close with a mouse click.

I've noticed that search finds things faster than the old way, so for me, it's not as much a usability nightmare than the cascading menus from before. But then again, I've been moving more towards using the keyboard and the shortcuts compared to years ago. Also, I tested Win 7 search in the start menu compared to 8 and 8 finds the apps/programs quicker.

Can you explain how the expanding Programs menu is a usability nightmare? It better utilizes screen estate in fact instead of cramping it into a tiny area with a scrollbar. The Start screen is also trying to make it go "full screen" for this reason. The one problem with flyout menus in Windows 9x was that if the mouse moved a little bit outside the menu it would close. But our menu being customizable, you can simply set the "Menu Delay" setting to a larger value like 10000 and it will never close with the mouse just moving, it will only open folders and close with a mouse click.

The fact that users have to move their mouses all over the screen, searching through folders, clicking here and there, aiming for tiny targets was always a bad idea. The problem you described is just one of the issues with the design but your solution forces the user to spend twice as much time clicking so it's not much of a solution.

The Vista/7 replacement is not any better because it involves clicking down through level after level within a tightly confined space. This is the same reason that Start Menu search is less than ideal in Vista/7 - there's just not enough room on the Start Menu to properly view and manage search results.

Flyout menus for things like control panel may have just barely worked in XP and earlier but there are far too many control panel items these days for that. Searching through a long list of icons for a rarely-used control panel item is not fun.

MS killed the flyout menus because they were a bad idea, not because they had nothing better to do. The one thing I hate most about XP is the all programs menu and I don't see any reason to bring it back. That's just me though and good luck to you if you want to continue with the old way of doing things.

You honestly remember the names of all the programs you have installed? At work i have a ton of programs installed in my machine and do not remember all the names. So its kinda hard to search for something you do not remember the name of.

Yes. Otherwise, they are pinned to the taskbar.

You honestly remember the names of all the programs you have installed? At work i have a ton of programs installed in my machine and do not remember all the names. So its kinda hard to search for something you do not remember the name of.

yes. seems like you have a memory problem if you can't remember the names of programs on your computer. and you have the "all apps" button for that on the start screen

@jakem1, it looks like you have trashed the 9x style flyout menu, Vista style mouse way of clicking and scrolling to launch and Vista/7 style search. Then why do you use Windows at all? :p What style do you prefer of launching then? Do you mean type to launch style with full screen utilization because Classic Shell can do that too. The search box results can take up the entire screen in multiple columns or they can scroll in a single narrow column.

The issue with the classic shell start menu is that once you've got a few things installed, it swamps the screen completely. To find a single app you have to click on a menu to get a sub-menu to get a sub-menu to get a sub-menu to get a sub-menu.

AI11181.jpg

If I have to have a startmenu swamping my screen, I'll have one that was designed from the ground up to do it right. The beauty of this baby is that if I know what I'm looking for I can simply start typing and it'll appear infront of me. If I have several things come up, I can filter between music, movies, pictures or apps on the fly.

Untitled-53.png

@jakem1, it looks like you have trashed the 9x style flyout menu, Vista style mouse way of clicking and scrolling to launch and Vista/7 style search. Then why do you use Windows at all? :p What style do you prefer of launching then? Do you mean type to launch style with full screen utilization because Classic Shell can do that too. The search box results can take up the entire screen in multiple columns or they can scroll in a single narrow column.

In XP/Vista I would pin applications to the Start Menu and the Quick launch menu. In Windows 7 I pin apps to the Start Menu and the Taskbar. I can continue to do this in Windows 8. Pinning works fine for 99% of my daily use. On the odd occasion that I have to use an app that I haven't pinned I reluctantly use the all programs menu in XP and search in Vista/7.

Like McKay above, I would prefer to use the Start screen in Windows 8 than your fullscreen version of the Start menu. I don't see the point of running 3rd-party code when a suitable 1st-party version exists.

Interesting. I always take criticism with an open mind as in there's an opportunity for an improvement to Classic Shell.

@McKay, so you are saying that you prefer the search results to be categorized - how? by just a title/heading like the Vista/7 menu categorizes results or keep them separate screens like Windows 8 does? Many people I heard complaining about the Start screen want exactly the opposite and found the separate screens - Apps, Settings and Files to be an additional unnecessary step towards launching what you searched for quickly as you have to click or navigate to Apps, Settings or Files to launch a results from that section on the Start screen.

@jake1, the reason the third party code was written was because the first party code doesn't do - context menus - it offers a very limited set of context menu actions and these actions (Run as administrator, Run as different user, Open file location etc), are located at the bottom of the Start screen - away from the tile which means more movement for mouse users, or more keystrokes navigating to the bottom for keyboard users. The Start screen doesn't allow many advanced things like launching multiple items simultaneously without closing the menu or dragging and dropping any folder into the menu to turn it into an expandable folder. In the Classic Shell menu, you can hold down Shift and launch as many items as you want. You can operate keyboard shortcuts directly like F2 to Rename, Del, Alt+Enter for Properties. With the list style view of presentation, even for full screen, you can accomodate far more items with multiple columned menu than full screen huge tiles.

Interesting. I always take criticism with an open mind as in there's an opportunity for an improvement to Classic Shell.

@McKay, so you are saying that you prefer the search results to be categorized - how? by just a title/heading like the Vista/7 menu categorizes results or keep them separate screens like Windows 8 does? Many people I heard complaining about the Start screen want exactly the opposite and found the separate screens - Apps, Settings and Files to be an additional unnecessary step towards launching what you searched for quickly as you have to click or navigate to Apps, Settings or Files to launch a results from that section on the Start screen.

I prefer categories, sometimes when looking for an app in Windows Vista/7 I'd type in a word from the title, and dozens of things would pop up, a song with the same title, perhaps a movie or photograph, and then dozens of emails in which I might have mentioned the word. Especially when I'm trying to search for a setting or how to switch something off, in 8 I can manually click "Setting" in the search filters to the right.

I'm not saying that the categories is the deal-breaker, I'm saying that the classic shell start menu will inevitably swamp your screen, it's just how it's designed. With Windows 8, it was designed with that in mind from the beginning, combining the searching power of Windows 7, with the ability to display that many items and the filter makes it far superior for me.

@McKay, just to be clear, you have read on the previous page that Classic Shell Start Menu also has a filter, right? Except that it presents unified results from programs and settings which is really an advantage IMO. No tabbing required, search, press Up/Down if required, press Enter. Plus another thing it does that Microsoft's methods don't do is partial word matches/searches. So you can search for 'rar' and see 'WinRAR'. But for me, the ultimate feature is customization of adding your own command, item or expandable folder. For example, to the Shutdown menu, I can add "Shutdown.exe /g" command which restarts and restores all running apps automatically.

fnJld.png

For those not ready to let go of the start menu apps like these are fine, if that's what you want go for it. The thing people have to remember though is that at some point, maybe not fully in Windows 9 but soon after, I honestly expect the desktop, as it is now in Windows 8, to be changed next.

Hate it or love it the whole UI will be changed with time, the start menu was just the first thing to go. Really, with Win7 and the superbar letting me pin the apps I use each day I very rarely use the start menu at all, and when I do it's always to open one of the other apps I have pinned to it (which in Windows 8 will just be pinned to the start screen so it's the same).

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!