The return of the Start menu in future Windows 8.1 update: Thoughts?

[Jim K Global Moderator]

I don't get what you mean with your middle click.

 

If I use the middle click the wheel goes to frictionless scroll vs. "precise" click-to-click scroll which I prefer.  It is a hardware feature.

 

Anyway, I still prefer not to pin programs except on the HTPC where its sole purpose is to run XBMC and occasionally browse the net or rip dvd/blu rays.

[DConnell Member]

That is great.  Keep with the Metro / typing to launch applications.  Not sure why you and Dot Matrix have a hard time understanding and are trying to convince others that Metro is so much better and that WE should use it.  No thank you, I'd much rather have the Start Menu / QuickLaunch bar to run programs instead of being thrown into a full screen program launcher.  

 

Also, the argument that the Start Menu is legacy and has passed its usefulness is such hogwash...it is JUST a program launcher...that is it and that is all it should be.  Did I mention I love the QuickLaunch bar?  Even after almost 15 years it beats the Start Menu and Start Screen at launching programs.  I don't like pinning because it takes either holding the shift button or right clicking to run multiple instances.

 

Below is my simple Windows 7 method of launching programs.  Desktop has two icons, Computer and Recycle Bin.  Simplistic and it works for me.

 

I'm not saying that you have to use the Screen, only that I prefer it.

 

And typing is my preferred launching method in Windows 7. It let me not have to deal with the menu at all, apart from the search box. It was easier to use search than to deal with the multilayer menus.

 

For 8 I use the tiles first, search only for things I don't have pinned to Start.

 

And full-screen vs. compact is definitely a matter of preference. When I bring up Start, I'm looking to launch a program. I'd rather have more of my brand-new 24 inch monitor utilized for that so I can find what I want and get back to work sooner. IMO there's no need these days to cram the program presentation into a little corner. That's one of the reasons I prefer the Screen to the menu - better use of the available resources.

 

I find Quicklaunch useful as well, but I keep it down to just a few programs.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

This, x1000000000000000000000000000000000

It may just be a launcher, but it's a horribly designed launcher. The biggest issue with it (and the desktop in general), is that it just doesn't scale well at all. It's incredibly hard to see those icons, and the user is dependent on reading line after line in order to locate the folder they need, thanks to the vanilla folders all having the same icon. Taskbar pinning is great, but it's no savior either, as I find myself easily able to mis-click on those icons, wasting time as I now have to wait for the application to launch before closing it. The same applies for the quicklaunch bar. I'm personally glad that was removed from Windows 7. It was great to pin "show desktop" there, and that was about it.

FYI, You can open new instances of applications by simply clicking the middle mouse wheel.

 

You may think it is...but I think it is more practical than having a full screen program launcher.  The design of it is simplistic and does exactly what it needs to do.  I, however, do not suffer from any of those issues you are describing though either...I do not have issues identifying icons, rarely open the wrong program or have issues going through various folders.  But I also keep my computer(s) fairly neat and organized.  I do not need or want a program launcher which takes up the entire screen.  It is about choice and preference and for me that means the start menu and nothing metro.  Regarding QuickLaunch bar, luckily it wasn't really removed and it still is one of the quickest methods of not just launching one program but also multiple instances of the same program.

 

 

I'm not saying that you have to use the Screen, only that I prefer it.

 

And typing is my preferred launching method in Windows 7. It let me not have to deal with the menu at all, apart from the search box. It was easier to use search than to deal with the multilayer menus.

 

For 8 I use the tiles first, search only for things I don't have pinned to Start.

 

And full-screen vs. compact is definitely a matter of preference. When I bring up Start, I'm looking to launch a program. I'd rather have more of my brand-new 24 inch monitor utilized for that so I can find what I want and get back to work sooner. IMO there's no need these days to cram the program presentation into a little corner. That's one of the reasons I prefer the Screen to the menu - better use of the available resources.

 

I find Quicklaunch useful as well, but I keep it down to just a few programs.

 

 

Well, pretty much you have to use the screen with how Windows 8 shipped (natively...w/o 3rd party applications).  That was the biggest blunders Microsoft has made (probably) since the launch of Windows ME.  I am not arguing the point of preferences...I honestly do not care which method that you, Dot Matrix or anyone else uses.  I do not care that you and others think Metro is great and that live tiles are useful...I, however, do not care for either.  My beef is that while you have your preference as an option my preferred option/preference does not exist natively.  Hopefully, with this future update, you can have your preferred method but I and others can also have ours (natively).  We can then live in harmony...you using Metro and I'll be using the start menu.  

 

That is the way it should have been from the very beginning.

[DConnell Member]

Well, pretty much you have to use the screen with how Windows 8 shipped (natively...w/o 3rd party applications).  That was the biggest blunders Microsoft has made (probably) since the launch of Windows ME.  I am not arguing the point of preferences...I honestly do not care which method that you, Dot Matrix or anyone else uses.  I do not care that you and others think Metro is great and that live tiles are useful...I, however, do not care for either.  My beef is that while you have your preference as an option my preferred option/preference does not exist natively.  Hopefully, with this future update, you can have your preferred method but I and others can also have ours (natively).  We can then live in harmony...you using Metro and I'll be using the start menu.  

 

That is the way it should have been from the very beginning.

 

Similarly, my beef with XP, Vista and 7 was the lack of native options apart from the Start Menu. And to a lesser extent, 9x as well - Progman was present, but well hidden. People like to act as if everyone was perfectly happy with the state of affairs prior to the release of 8, so MS shouldn't have changed things. That wasn't the case. I like the range of program support Windows has, so that meant I had to live with the Menu/desktop combo. I never liked the Menu. While 3rd party options existed, I never found one stable and efficient enough to be an adequate replacement.

 

So I can sympathize - where you are now is my position from 1995 - 2012. The situation hasn't changed - MS is (currently) providing one interface and you can use it or go third party. That's how it's always been as far back as Windows 3.x. I used Norton Desktop, a third party shell with 3.x. If it had been compatible with 95, I would have kept using it.

 

The only change is that for once, I actually like what they're providing out of the box so I don't have to look at third party shells. And you're on the other side, where I used to be. The high-profile option of an older interface is actually completely unprecedented.

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

don't see why there so much hate for the start menu, it's been a useful and one of the best ideas microsoft had for windows imo.

 

I will welcome it's return, then i can stop using quick launch as a menu..

[George P Global Moderator]

don't see why there so much hate for the start menu, it's been a useful and one of the best ideas microsoft had for windows imo.

 

I will welcome it's return, then i can stop using quick launch as a menu..

 

Because it's old and needs to be updated at least?  Look at other UIs, like the Linux ones out there.  Ubuntu, Mint etc, they don't use the same old Windows 7 style menu, though KDE might still but I haven't been keeping up with that since 4.0.    I messed around with Mint 16 a few days ago and it's menu is a interesting mix, there's no folders where apps dump things, there's preset categories on one side and then a app list on the other.    Everyone is moving away from the old style menus on to something else, no reason Windows should stick back. 

[Orange Battery]

I am only replying to the OP because this is my opinion.  The old fashioned Start Menu with restart options and simple customisation beats anything Ive seen in 8 so far.  I purchased 4 licenses for 8 for my family and nobody is using them!   People at work say  8 is a pain and that its opening things in windows they don't want or can't control.  I know that we can re-assign opening options to the desktop but casual users don't and from Ive seen and heard, casual users  are frustrated and hating the experience compared to their old working environment.  Getting the start menu back is a huge step backward but its needed because MS don't seem to be able to come up with anything to beat it - Im just sorry that MS had to realise that because it feels like all these highly paid people have no idea what their customers want.  If there was an viable alternative to Windows then i would be gone, until that time we are left just paying incompetent people because we have to.

[Dot Matrix]

don't see why there so much hate for the start menu, it's been a useful and one of the best ideas microsoft had for windows imo.

 

I will welcome it's return, then i can stop using quick launch as a menu..

It's outdated. We currently live in an app-centric world, and many modern operating systems are being designed around this. Take a look at Mac OSX, iOS, Android, etc. Currently, the Start Menu hides things away from the user. You have to dig, dig, and dig some more to locate what you're looking for (If you're for whatever reason against using Search, which, c'mon, there's no reason not to use it). People don't want to do that (which is why you always see them clutter their desktops with junk). It's also limited in capacity. You can only pin so many apps to it, before you reach your limit (depending on the size of your screen).

 

These are just a few of the issues Microsoft is facing that I can think of off the top of my head. Like I said, these times are changing, and this is nothing more than Microsoft adapting to new market trends. You can't blame them for doing that, as the changes to Windows are needed if it is to remain relevant.

[PGHammer]

If it were a case of simply clicking an item, that would be one thing, but the menu required drilling down to find anything not in the most frequently used or pinned programs. I hate having to dig through multiple submenus. It's easier and faster to type. I like the screen because it eliminates the drilldown - it really is "just click it".

The nested-submenu problem predates the Start menu - in fact, it goes back to Program Manager and File Manager (in short, back to Windows 3.x/NT3.x) and is actually a legacy of the submenu structure commonplace to all non-mainframe OSes.  Yes - I said *all*; look at the BSDs and UNIX, and you will see the SAME trunk/branch/twig/leaf file-system structure that DOS was much sporked for.  There has been exactly zero change in the filesystem structure realistically since before the birth of the GUI - as much as a truly object-oriented filesystem has been talked about - going back before the original Microsoft/IBM Operating System/2 project, in fact - where have filesystems in general not gone, in fact?  And would anyone care to guess WHY they haven't gone there?

 

When it comes to how things work, the reality is, like ice cream - the overwhelming majority STILL prefer "vanilla".

[MorganX]

The nested-submenu problem predates the Start menu - in fact, it goes back to Program Manager and File Manager (in short, back to Windows 3.x/NT3.x) and is actually a legacy of the submenu structure commonplace to all non-mainframe OSes.  Yes - I said *all*; look at the BSDs and UNIX, and you will see the SAME trunk/branch/twig/leaf file-system structure that DOS was much sporked for.  There has been exactly zero change in the filesystem structure realistically since before the birth of the GUI - as much as a truly object-oriented filesystem has been talked about - going back before the original Microsoft/IBM Operating System/2 project, in fact - where have filesystems in general not gone, in fact?  And would anyone care to guess WHY they haven't gone there?

 

When it comes to how things work, the reality is, like ice cream - the overwhelming majority STILL prefer "vanilla".

 

The branching tree structure makes sense. You can always go to the root and find your way around easily from a command line or gui. But besides the fact that it makes sense, there are some technical reasons it hasn't change aren't there? Systems running Windows can't just "change" without the OS/Registry changing.

[xWhiplash]

It's outdated. We currently live in an app-centric world, and many modern operating systems are being designed around this. Take a look at Mac OSX, iOS, Android, etc. Currently, the Start Menu hides things away from the user. You have to dig, dig, and dig some more to locate what you're looking for (If you're for whatever reason against using Search, which, c'mon, there's no reason not to use it). People don't want to do that (which is why you always see them clutter their desktops with junk). It's also limited in capacity. You can only pin so many apps to it, before you reach your limit (depending on the size of your screen).

 

These are just a few of the issues Microsoft is facing that I can think of off the top of my head. Like I said, these times are changing, and this is nothing more than Microsoft adapting to new market trends. You can't blame them for doing that, as the changes to Windows are needed if it is to remain relevant.

 

Um what?  Apps are just applications.  Yes I would rather have the OS built around Flappy Bird instead of actual productive programs like 3DS Max.

 

Again with this start menu hiding things?  It is called being organized.  You do not have to dig, and dig, and dig, and dig.  If you are looking for Microsoft Office, you do not look in the Autodesk or Adobe folder.....

[DConnell Member]

Um what?  Apps are just applications.  Yes I would rather have the OS built around Flappy Bird instead of actual productive programs like 3DS Max.

 

Again with this start menu hiding things?  It is called being organized.  You do not have to dig, and dig, and dig, and dig.  If you are looking for Microsoft Office, you do not look in the Autodesk or Adobe folder.....

 

No, but you have to look for the Microsoft Office folder, which if you have a lot of programs installed, can get lost in the shuffle. The menu had very poor organization tools, while with the Screen you just drag and drop programs into groups and then name the groups. And there's no digging into folders.

 

But it's good that the menu is coming back as an option, rather than MS catering to just one style of organization. Flexibility is a good thing.

 

Hopefully Microsoft won't repeat their mistake with Update 1, assume that everyone wants the menu back, and make it difficult to disable it on traditional machines. You know, what they did with Boot to/Return to desktop?

[Dot Matrix]

Um what? Apps are just applications. Yes I would rather have the OS built around Flappy Bird instead of actual productive programs like 3DS Max.

Again with this start menu hiding things? It is called being organized. You do not have to dig, and dig, and dig, and dig. If you are looking for Microsoft Office, you do not look in the Autodesk or Adobe folder.....

Yes, you do have to dig. At least that's what the people here claim because they install "hundreds" of applications they can never remember the name for.

Unless they're all lying about that?

[PGHammer]

The branching tree structure makes sense. You can always go to the root and find your way around easily from a command line or gui. But besides the fact that it makes sense, there are some technical reasons it hasn't change aren't there? Systems running Windows can't just "change" without the OS/Registry changing.

MorganX - as I just pointed out, it predates Windows, and even exists in operating systems that aren't Windows (or predate Windows), such as DOS and UNIX - neither of which HAS a registry.

An object-oriented filesystem has been taked - and talked, and talked about - yet it always comes down to nothing.

As much as we *claim* to hate the old structure, the chances of our moving away from it - in or out of Windows - are basically none because such a fundamental change horks in way too many ricebowls.

[+Warwagon MVC]

No, but you have to look for the Microsoft Office folder, which if you have a lot of programs installed, can get lost in the shuffle. The menu had very poor organization tools, while with the Screen you just drag and drop programs into groups and then name the groups. And there's no digging into folders.

 

But it's good that the menu is coming back as an option, rather than MS catering to just one style of organization. Flexibility is a good thing.

 

Hopefully Microsoft won't repeat their mistake with Update 1, assume that everyone wants the menu back, and make it difficult to disable it on traditional machines. You know, what they did with Boot to/Return to desktop?

 

 

But with the Windows vista / 7  start menu it would bring up a small box in the bottom left where you could search for it. Now the same thing happens except it takes up the entire screen.

[DConnell Member]

But with the Windows vista / 7  start menu it would bring up a small box in the bottom left where you could search for it. Now the same thing happens except it takes up the entire screen.

 

I don't have a problem with full-screen. It goes away as soon as I make my selection.

 

I do have a problem with having all my stuff crammed into a tiny corner. Especially since I have a cute but stubborn cat who loves to curl up in front of my screen. The search box, if I can see it at all, is a little . . . fuzzy.

[Dot Matrix]

Now the same thing happens except it takes up the entire screen.

No, it doesn't have to. Use the Search Charm, or press WIN+S to open it on the desktop.

[Michael Scrip]

That is great.  Keep with the Metro / typing to launch applications.  Not sure why you and Dot Matrix have a hard time understanding and are trying to convince others that Metro is so much better and that WE should use it.  No thank you, I'd much rather have the Start Menu / QuickLaunch bar to run programs instead of being thrown into a full screen program launcher.  

 

Also, the argument that the Start Menu is legacy and has passed its usefulness is such hogwash...it is JUST a program launcher...that is it and that is all it should be.  Did I mention I love the QuickLaunch bar?  Even after almost 15 years it beats the Start Menu and Start Screen at launching programs.  I don't like pinning because it takes either holding the shift button or right clicking to run multiple instances.

 

Below is my simple Windows 7 method of launching programs.  Desktop has two icons, Computer and Recycle Bin.  Simplistic and it works for me.

 

Same for me.  The Start Menu is where I put icons for my frequently used programs.  I use it like a simple program launcher.  I made that choice.

 

You're exactly right... Windows has always been about customizing the experience for ME. I don't want someone else telling me how I should use my computer.

 

I never understood why the Start Screen was supposed to be so much better.

 

[Dot Matrix]

Same for me.  The Start Menu is where I put icons for my frequently used programs.  I use it like a simple program launcher.  I made that choice.

 

You're exactly right... Windows has always been about customizing the experience for ME. I don't want someone else telling me how I should use my computer.

 

I never understood why the Start Screen was supposed to be so much better.

 

So, you're comparing the Start Menu to a pre-beta version of the Start Screen?

[+LogicalApex MVC]

I don't have a problem with full-screen. It goes away as soon as I make my selection.

 

I do have a problem with having all my stuff crammed into a tiny corner. Especially since I have a cute but stubborn cat who loves to curl up in front of my screen. The search box, if I can see it at all, is a little . . . fuzzy.

It is strange... I'm trying Windows 8 out again and I'm still not sure how the Start Screen is better for a person who "searches" for their applications. It literally only allocates as much width as you had on the Start Menu to the searches while dedicating 90% of your screen to something you aren't interested in seeing (tiles or all apps list).

 

I still use Win+R for most of my programs, but it was annoying to see when I tried to understand the "just use search" mindset. If I had to rely on search to launch apps I would use Win+S. At least it keeps you out of the Start Screen...

[Michael Scrip]

So, you're comparing the Start Menu to a pre-beta version of the Start Screen?

Not exactly.

 

One is a thin strip that appears on top of the desktop I'm already working on.

 

The other takes over the entire screen... separating me from the desktop I was working on.

 

Look Dot... I know you love the Start Screen.  

 

I don't.  

 

Let me.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

It is strange... I'm trying Windows 8 out again and I'm still not sure how the Start Screen is better for a person who "searches" for their applications. It literally only allocates as much width as you had on the Start Menu to the searches while dedicating 90% of your screen to something you aren't interested in seeing (tiles or all apps list).

 

I still use Win+R for most of my programs, but it was annoying to see when I tried to understand the "just use search" mindset. If I had to rely on search to launch apps I would use Win+S. At least it keeps you out of the Start Screen...

It's not any better for searching: it's the same old same old which is why I find that I generally don't really care if I have the start screen or start menu. The effective pluses for the start screen are live tiles and a bigger pen board. Other parts like the application-menu are worse to use than the original hierarchical menu system found in the start menu. So it has those trade-offs, that's my assessment anyway.

[bikeman25]

I personally like the start screen as is, works fine on my Desktop with Keyboard and Mouse, adapted to it in the first week of using Windows 8.0 in October 2013, Updated to Update 1, and still enjoy Start screen, running several apps both Desktop and start screen without any issues, snapping Apps to the screen as needed, closing them when done, while keeping eye on Desktop application

 

Overall works perfectly for my needs

[+Warwagon MVC]

So, you're comparing the Start Menu to a pre-beta version of the Start Screen?

 

I'm going to take 2 responses out your book.

 

First one : ok?

Second one:  and?

 

What does it matter if it's pre-beta or not the start screen is still just a full screen with a bunch of rectangles and squares.

[MorganX]

It is strange... I'm trying Windows 8 out again and I'm still not sure how the Start Screen is better for a person who "searches" for their applications. It literally only allocates as much width as you had on the Start Menu to the searches while dedicating 90% of your screen to something you aren't interested in seeing (tiles or all apps list).

 

I still use Win+R for most of my programs, but it was annoying to see when I tried to understand the "just use search" mindset. If I had to rely on search to launch apps I would use Win+S. At least it keeps you out of the Start Screen...

 

It's not. As someone who likes 8.1U1, it's just not. I don't think anyone truly believes that it is, it's just a rallying point. When 8.1U2 arrives with the juiced up Start Menu, this particular argument should get real interesting.

It's not any better for searching: it's the same old same old which is why I find that I generally don't really care if I have the start screen or start menu. The effective pluses for the start screen are live tiles and a bigger pen board. Other parts like the application-menu are worse to use than the original hierarchical menu system found in the start menu. So it has those trade-offs, that's my assessment anyway.

 

Sanity. :D