Recommended Posts

But (from my perspective) that's exactly what is meant by "classic menu"--they shouldn't try to implement Search in the Start menu. It ****es me off to no end.

After a clean boot, I have to wait and wait and wait as I'm typing "cmd[enter]" just to get to a command prompt (for example) because the hard drive's still grinding away while the system finishes loading at the same time it's doing a search.

Same thing if everything got paged to disk.

Well, if you don't like the Search bar in the 'start' menu, you don't have to use it! For many of us, it is much quicker to find programs and some files. Much quicker than other ways to navigate through the 'start' menu.

Why would you say Microsoft shouldn't implement an element which is useful to the majority when you can easily ignore it or not use it?

i wish microsoft make an option in W7 to change start menu like in XP

i used to feel the same way i hated the new start menu when vista came out

but tbh its just becase we have been using xp for so long

after forcing myself to use vista from around 3 weeks i go got used to it and it isn't that bad

i would prefer if we could sort it by folders first in the all programs section but there's nothing we can do about that

I love the new start menu and its enhancements in Windows 7. I like to launch paint just my clicking start, typing 'pa' and hitting enter - voila! Paint launches :) I don't even have to let go of the mouse.

One annoying thing is when I type 'not' or 'note', the default is Sticky Notes instead of Notepad... so I need to type 'notep' and hit enter to launch it ;)

It's worth mentioning, though, that a lot of my friends use the classic start menu in XP and I failed to convince them to use the default one. When they'd see Windows 7's menu, they'd probably just turn the computer off and run away :p

Time to move on. Everyone is screaming "GUI CHANGE", and getting disappointed that the gui changes so little, and then they complain about the lack of "a classic start menu". Come on, I haven't used it since 2001, when XP RTM'ed :p I belive that 8 years should be enough to adapt to new things that are better and more practical :p

Well, if you don't like the Search bar in the 'start' menu, you don't have to use it! For many of us, it is much quicker to find programs and some files. Much quicker than other ways to navigate through the 'start' menu.

I think that, really, my problem is that I see this edit box and always try to use it like I'd use the Run menu item. It doesn't help that the Run menu item isn't shown by default (you have to dig into the start menu properties to change that).

Why would you say Microsoft shouldn't implement an element which is useful to the majority when you can easily ignore it or not use it?

I never said that--Mercellus suggested that searching would be awkward to implement in the classic menu; I've only mentioned that they shouldn't try to add it to the classic menu, and only that. It's not there right now, so it's not "useful to the majority".

I'd like the classic start menu to remain, if only because it makes it easier for those of us who will be rolling out Windows 7 in a business environment. It's likely to run along side XP machines at the same time so I'd want to keep the UI has close as possible to XP during the transition. It makes it easier to direct people to applications if they can be accessed in the same way on both systems.

My only personal bugbear about the vista "search" thing is that if my PC is already busy it sometimes takes 5/10 seconds to find an application I want to run. If the application is my PATH already this is kinda annoying as I can access it instantly by pressing crtl r and bringing up the run box. If I don't wait for it, it will bring up the big search window instead. I shouldn't have to bring up the run box.

About bloody time. I was amazed it made it into Vista. It's now 14 years old!

I've never worked out why people love it so much, you lose so much functionality with the Classic Menu:

On XP/Vista:

1. No one-click access to My Computer/My Documents etc...

2. An extra Settings menu to click before you get to Control Panel/Printers etc...

3. No Recent Programs on Start Menu

On Vista:

1. No Instant Search

I'd like the classic start menu to remain, if only because it makes it easier for those of us who will be rolling out Windows 7 in a business environment. It's likely to run along side XP machines at the same time so I'd want to keep the UI has close as possible to XP during the transition.

The Vista Start Menu looks pretty similar to the XP one, without having to resort to the Classic menu. Personally I've always thought it's better to give users the new look straight away, they'll only usually need to learn it eventually anyway.

Granted if your business changed the XP start menu to the Classic one, then it will look different but I imagine most people will be used to the XP start meny from home use.

Well, if you don't like the Search bar in the 'start' menu, you don't have to use it! For many of us, it is much quicker to find programs and some files. Much quicker than other ways to navigate through the 'start' menu.

Only if you're too lazy to organise your Start Menu ;).

If you leave it alone you can quickly have 30-50 subfolders in the Start Menu and it becomes an utter mess. I organize mine and only have 7 subfolders. I delete all the rubbish like the uninstall shortcut and readme shortcuts.

I guess some people are "mousers" - what i call people that can't do anything on the PC without a mouse. If my mouse isn't operating i can use the keyboard to change almost every single feature almost just a quick. I find it waay easier to just use the windows key with my left hand and start typing a few letters and hit enter - i don't even have to select it first before because it automatically chooses the top option (which is 95% of the time correct).

I'm very much a keyboard person. I use the Command Line all the time and shortcut keys too but when it comes to the Start Menu I prefer the Mouse approach.

I do agree that too many people rely on it though, never using shortcut keys for example.

Edited by bradavon
I think that, really, my problem is that I see this edit box and always try to use it like I'd use the Run menu item. It doesn't help that the Run menu item isn't shown by default (you have to dig into the start menu properties to change that).

You can easily ignore a search box, though. It wouldn't make sense to remove a feature the majority of users find useful. As for the "Run" feature, the search bar on the start menu actually does everything the "Run" feature does and more. Therefore, there is no point in putting the "Run" feature back on the 'start' menu :) Did you know this?

I never said that--Mercellus suggested that searching would be awkward to implement in the classic menu; I've only mentioned that they shouldn't try to add it to the classic menu, and only that. It's not there right now, so it's not "useful to the majority".

You do realise the majority are not people who use the classic 'start' menu, right? Otherwise Microsoft would have definitely kept it in. They know what their users use as they do many usability studies and research.

The majority of users use the default and improved 'start' menu and this majority does find search in the start menu useful, therefore, when you said Microsoft should not implement start menu search you were saying they should not implement a feature which the majority of users find useful.

I'm sure you said they shouldn't implement start menu search, didn't you? You didn't implie whether you meant on just the classic 'start' menu or the default 'start' menu?

Only if you're too lazy to organise your Start Menu ;).

If you leave it alone you can quickly have 30-50 subfolders in the Start Menu and it becomes an utter mess. I organize mine and only have 7 subfolders. I delete all the rubbish like the uninstall shortcut and readme shortcuts.

I agree. I do the same thing. As I said earlier in this thread, I don't even have a scrollbar in my 'start' menu now :p All my folders are neatly organised too.

I was just saying the 'start' menu search is quicker for most of the users out there. Me included if I decided to use that instead of the default folder organisation which Microsoft (putting shortcuts in there by default without folders) and OEMs (all the pointless crap cluterring up the 'start' menu) give you.

I'd wager that "most" people don't find Instant Search on the Start Menu useful. Most people are mouse users and this goes against that thinking. Techies love it though.

I'm not on about people who use it, I'm on about people who find it useful :)

I don't use it often as I am use to using my mouse to find programs, but I know how to use it and find it very useful, especially for things like "msconfig" which aren't in the 'start' menu :)

It's obvious that if the majority of users knew what it was, they would find it useful :)

But (from my perspective) that's exactly what is meant by "classic menu"--they shouldn't try to implement Search in the Start menu. It ****es me off to no end.

After a clean boot, I have to wait and wait and wait as I'm typing "cmd[enter]" just to get to a command prompt (for example) because the hard drive's still grinding away while the system finishes loading at the same time it's doing a search.

Same thing if everything got paged to disk.

Actually, Search has been in the Start menu since (believe it or not) Windows 2000 Professional. (That was, in fact, the whole reason behind the revamping of Index Server starting with Windows 2000 Professional, and then thru XP, Vista, and now 7.) The only difference is with both Vista and 7 (more so 7 than even Vista) is that Search is more obvious (like Spotlight in Leopard or the last upgrades to Tiger). And actually, no you don't. Not in 7, Vista, or XP or even Windows 2000 Professional. You could *always* type "Program Name" "Document" from the Run line (the trick works with URLs and browsers, too, and not just IE, but Firefox or Opera or [name of alternative browser here]; it's a VERY old trick). The enhancements to Index Server over the years are so you don't have to type in the full blasted path to the executable OR the document you want to open, as Index Server will already know where they are. If there's already a default association for both the document type and an application, all YOU have to type in is the name of the file; Windows and Index Server will automagically track down the associated application and tell IT to open the file for you.

It's a VERY slick trick present in no other OS. (Not Linux, not MacOS, not even Solaris.) And Windows has had it for nearly a decade.

I'm not on about people who use it, I'm on about people who find it useful :)

I don't use it often as I am use to using my mouse to find programs, but I know how to use it and find it very useful, especially for things like "msconfig" which aren't in the 'start' menu :)

It's obvious that if the majority of users knew what it was, they would find it useful :)

I've found it VERY useful; in fact, I started using it with Windows 2000 Professional, where it started becoming useful due to the first major revamp of Index Server, which was added to the desktop versions of Windows NT with 4.0 Workstation. Ever launch an application by just typing in the name of an associated file at the Run line? That trick is *old*.

You can easily ignore a search box, though. It wouldn't make sense to remove a feature the majority of users find useful. As for the "Run" feature, the search bar on the start menu actually does everything the "Run" feature does and more. Therefore, there is no point in putting the "Run" feature back on the 'start' menu :) Did you know this?

Of course. But that's exactly why I don't like using the search bar like I would use the Run menu--it takes forever for it to search and refresh the list of items shown as I'm typing. The Run menu doesn't perform any search, so I can just type "cmd" (or whatever), and bang, you're there, no slowdowns, no hard drive grinding away doing searches it doesn't need to do.

I'm sure you said they shouldn't implement start menu search, didn't you? You didn't implie whether you meant on just the classic 'start' menu or the default 'start' menu?

Just the Classic menu (it's not there, therefore, they shouldn't waste any resources trying to add it). I never said (or implied) they should remove existing functionality in the newer menu for my own sake. :-) I'm too lazy to look up my exact quote.

I really believe this is not a matter of usability at all, more of a stubborn "I don't want to".

People sometimes really do not know what's best for themselves, you can sit them down and show them a majorly improved system for achieving a task, but at the end of it all they'll ask if they can do it the old way, and stick with that ad infinitum.

Cut the old feature out, and force them to use the new method, and while they'll use it grudgingly at first, eventually they get used to it and say "Hey, you were right. That really is a much better method!".

Cut out all the unused and/or legacy UI settings and features and provide one single consistant UX.

Classic start menu. :no: It's like someone still wanting to use feather quills for writing a letter. (N)

Brill! Made my night :p Too true though, in my opinion classic start menu is awful. As soon as XP came along with it's rounded top corners and bolder features, I said goodbye to "mr box and straight cut everywhere". That's what I don't get about people and themes, everyone still seems to love the old box windows 95 look.

Next you'll be asking for beige to come back into fashon!

Mmmm, beige. . . .

They need to get rid of classic anything on 7. Period. The start menu is gone... and the classic theme looks hideous in 7.

I agree, the classic theme needs to go, the only reason it can't is because too many things still rely on it being there... I wish Microsoft would just remove it from the users view while leaving it in the operating system itself for compatibility reasons.

Of course. But that's exactly why I don't like using the search bar like I would use the Run menu--it takes forever for it to search and refresh the list of items shown as I'm typing. The Run menu doesn't perform any search, so I can just type "cmd" (or whatever), and bang, you're there, no slowdowns, no hard drive grinding away doing searches it doesn't need to do.

You can do exactly the same with the 'start' search that you can in the "Run" feature. If you don't want it to search just type in "cmd" (or whatever command, file, program) and press enter. Typing in "cmd" and pressing enter does the exact same thing as it does in the "Run" feature and if you do that, pressing enter straight away, it won't search.

Just the Classic menu (it's not there, therefore, they shouldn't waste any resources trying to add it). I never said (or implied) they should remove existing functionality in the newer menu for my own sake. :-) I'm too lazy to look up my exact quote.

OK, I apologise for misunderstanding your point :)

I'd wager that "most" people don't find Instant Search on the Start Menu useful. Most people are mouse users and this goes against that thinking. Techies love it though.

No techies just hit WinKey+R and type in the executable filename. There is no point in Instant Search for the Start Menu, when the filename is 8 characters (or less) long...

Microsoft if you read this - add an option to the RTM version of Windows 7 to auto-open All Programs when the Start Menu is opened!!! Especially because if the Privacy options are unchecked, that area of the Start Menu is ALWAYS blank...

No techies just hit WinKey+R and type in the executable filename. There is no point in Instant Search for the Start Menu, when the filename is 8 characters (or less) long...

Techies should be able to learn that pressing Winkey and the typing in the executable file name does the exact same thing without the +R

We can only hope

Yes. We can only hope :)

Unfortunately I doubt they will be able to with Windows 7's successor though due to compatibility problems :(

Maybe, like somebody else suggested - leave it in Windows but disable the option for end users ;)

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • As I've been usually saying lately - we all can thank "AI" for this.
    • Friday Windows 11 preview builds are here. Insiders in the Experimental (formerly Dev) and Beta Channel can download builds 26300.8697 and 26220.8690. My Windows11 device on the Preview Channel just got 26220.8728. My guess is this build is a nightly update from 26220.8690.
    • Traffic has a surprisingly unexpected impact on your surroundings by Sayan Sen Image by Radik 2707 via Pexels A collaborative study by researchers from several Israeli institutions found that everyday pollution from traffic and industrial activity measurably changed the atmospheric electric field over the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, providing new evidence of how human activity can influence the lower atmosphere. The research was led by Dr. Roy Yaniv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Gertner Institute at Sheba Medical Center, Dr. Assaf Hochman of the Fredy & Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences at the Hebrew University, and Prof. Yoav Yair of Reichman University. The study also involved Itay Froomer, a student from Hadera High School and the Israeli Museum of Medicine and Science (Technoda), who carried out the work as part of the Ministry of Education's 5-unit physics research track. The researchers focused on the atmospheric electric field under fair-weather conditions. Even in the absence of storms, a weak electric field naturally exists between Earth's surface and the atmosphere. One of the main ways scientists measure this field is through the Potential Gradient (PG), which is the inverse of the vertical component of the electric field. PG is a key part of the global electric circuit, a planet-wide system of electrical currents maintained by thunderstorms and electrified clouds around the world. Scientists have long known that the atmospheric electric field can be influenced by factors ranging from large-scale atmospheric processes to local weather conditions such as dust, fog and clouds. Human-made pollution is also known to play a role, but understanding exactly how urban emissions affect the electric field close to the ground has remained an area of ongoing research. To investigate this relationship, the team analyzed measurements from a newly installed electric field mill, an instrument used to continuously monitor the strength of the atmospheric electric field. The instrument was installed at the Center for Technological Education (Roter House) in Holon and became operational in August 2024. It was funded by Israel's Ministry of Education and the Holon municipality. The electric field mill forms part of a broader monitoring network that includes nearby meteorological stations and air-quality monitoring sites. This allowed researchers to compare electric field measurements with detailed weather data and pollution records to better understand what was driving changes in the Potential Gradient. The study focused on two major urban pollutants: fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), both commonly produced by vehicle traffic and industrial activity. PM2.5 refers to microscopic airborne particles small enough to remain suspended in the atmosphere for extended periods, while NOx is a group of gases released during fuel combustion. Researchers examined daily, weekly and seasonal patterns in the atmospheric electric field and compared them with changes in pollutant concentrations. Their analysis revealed a clear relationship between NOx levels and changes in the Potential Gradient, particularly during morning and evening rush hours when traffic emissions were at their highest. “What we observe is a direct physical link between emission peaks and electrical variability,” explained Dr. Roy Yaniv. “NOx reduces atmospheric conductivity very quickly, so the electric field responds almost instantaneously during traffic rush hours.” Atmospheric conductivity describes how easily electrical charges move through the air. According to the researchers, nitrogen oxides rapidly alter this conductivity, causing a near-immediate response in the electric field. PM2.5, however, was associated with a delayed response. The researchers attributed this difference to the particles' longer atmospheric residence time, meaning they remain in the atmosphere for longer periods, as well as their different microphysical interactions with surrounding air and atmospheric components. The study also identified a pronounced "weekend effect." In Israel, traffic volumes and some industrial activity decline significantly on Fridays and Saturdays. During these periods, concentrations of both NOx and PM2.5 dropped, and corresponding changes were observed in the atmospheric electric field. “The weekend signal demonstrates just how sensitive the electric field is to changes in human activity,” the researchers noted. “When emissions decline, the electrical environment adjusts at once, providing a high-resolution indicator of urban atmospheric conditions.” The findings showed that pollution levels can influence not only the chemical composition of the atmosphere but also its electrical properties. Researchers said the results strengthened the case for using atmospheric electricity as an additional tool for environmental monitoring, particularly in densely populated urban areas where anthropogenic, or human-caused, influences are most pronounced. The study also pointed to potential public health applications. By combining air-quality measurements with observations of atmospheric electricity, researchers said they could gain a more complete picture of how urban atmospheric conditions change over time. “Integrating air-quality data with electric-field measurements gives us a clearer picture of how the lower atmosphere evolves moment by moment,” the researchers added. “It’s a framework that can support both scientific insight and practical environmental decision-making.” Beyond the scientific findings, the project highlighted a collaboration between universities, public institutions and secondary education. Researchers said the work demonstrated how students could take part in real-world environmental research while contributing to studies of air quality, atmospheric processes and their potential effects on society. Source: Hebrew University, ScienceDirect This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • We aren't even at the all-star game and Microsoft is talking about an update that will most likely be released during the World Series if not after. A lot can happen in the world between now and the 2026 World Series, including the 2026 FIFA Cup. Tell me about it again after the FIFA Cup is concluded. That should allow plenty of time to prepare for it.
    • Great, tell me when I have a "Bad Pool Caller" elsewhere not in Windoze.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      541
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      186
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      79
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      77
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!