Where is the classic start menu in Windows 7

[jjrambo]

I use Mandriva 2009 Linux on my Laptop. I love it. I'm not insane to try to play Crysis under Windows Vista on this laptop. I have high end desktop for gaming only. Back to Mandriva. Its GUI is so well designed, as i said love this OS in every possible way. Finally suspend, hibernation works right. I can unplug my power plug and battery will last for 3 1/2 hours with Vista on it that **** would die after 2 hours. It's brilliant OS for everything except gaming and it's not that Linux is not good platform for gaming but DX is standardized and it's only API...openGL here and there.

I tried Windows 7, my fingers gets so tired...just like Windows Vista OS is not intuitive. There are couple things i like. I think whatever usable study MS does it, they do it completely wrong.

[ATLien_0]

Nick7 you also have to remember that a lot of the largeness comes because of touchscreens and tablets.

I havent used the classic start menu since windows 2000 which was over 8 years ago at this point, i think microsoft has given plenty of time for people to get used to the xp/vista/7 style start menu. Everything has to change at some point.

[FloatingFatMan]

For those not liking the new start menu, well, nobody is forcing you to use it, you know. Windows 7 is a totally optional upgrade, so if you really like the classic start menu, you're welcome to stay on XP or Vista if you prefer. If you want to stand still whilst everyone else moves forwards, that's a choice you're completely free to make. ;)

[andir]

For those not liking the new start menu, well, nobody is forcing you to use it, you know. Windows 7 is a totally optional upgrade, so if you really like the classic start menu, you're welcome to stay on XP or Vista if you prefer. If you want to stand still whilst everyone else moves forwards, that's a choice you're completely free to make. ;)

Optional until Program X requires something that Win7 has. Optional until the program installer says that the program you just bought will only install in Win7 as happened in the transition from Win2K to XP. Optional until Microsoft stops releasing security patches for the noodle strainer that is the Windows OS.

Optional and Microsoft are mutually exclusive as history has pointed out. I have already moved most of my daily tasks to other operating systems, but there are some things that I still need Windows for and my employer is a Windows centric environment because someone on the board has never heard of anyone else since IBM stopped selling OS/2. In their mind, there is no other way, and that's how they choose to run things.

[neufuse Veteran]

I'm sorry but what is so hard about the new one? It's exactly the same number of steps to get to an application as it was in the classic start menu

Classic

=====

Click Start

Click programs

Click Icon for program or folder program is in

Start Panel

========

Clcik Start Orb

Click All Programs

Click Icon for program or folder program is in

same number of steps... am I missing something about how its "harder" or more confusing to use the start panel?! Plus you can pin frequently used apps too to make it even easier yet!

[Chasethebase Veteran]

Microsoft want people to move on. The Classic Start Menu is fugly anyways...just unnecessary bloat.

[Elite Prime]

I never use the classic start menu its just so inferior to the new start menu.

[FloatingFatMan]

Optional until Program X requires something that Win7 has. Optional until the program installer says that the program you just bought will only install in Win7 as happened in the transition from Win2K to XP. Optional until Microsoft stops releasing security patches for the noodle strainer that is the Windows OS.

Optional and Microsoft are mutually exclusive as history has pointed out. I have already moved most of my daily tasks to other operating systems, but there are some things that I still need Windows for and my employer is a Windows centric environment because someone on the board has never heard of anyone else since IBM stopped selling OS/2. In their mind, there is no other way, and that's how they choose to run things.

Still totally optional. Nobody is forcing you to use this hypothetical program which requires the newest OS. Use an older version, or an alternative. Why should the rest of us do without new features just because some still want to use ancient software?

[Thirtythree]

if they removed it I'll be disappointed

Go back to Windows 2000 then...

[andir]

Still totally optional. Nobody is forcing you to use this hypothetical program which requires the newest OS. Use an older version, or an alternative. Why should the rest of us do without new features just because some still want to use ancient software?

I never said you should do without the new features... just retain the old features as well. On the same logic as you... why should everyone be forced to use the new features and do without the old?

I never once stated that they should remove the new features. I just want an option to restore the old.

And for the record... My employer may require the application. Someone I'm sending or receiving a file from may require this new app. You said it yourself in a previous thread. Windows is a part of the world that's not going away any time soon (or something to that effect.) Unless you'd like to retract that idea, then you have to agree that upgrading windows is NOT an optional step for anyone in today's computing world.

[FloatingFatMan]

But there has to be a limit to the amount of legacy code they retain, or you just get code bloat, which slows the whole thing down. One of the fundamentals in Windows 7 is that it implements MinWin, to reduce extraneous dependencies and cut back on code bloat. Why do you think it runs so much slicker than Vista, hmm? They HAVE to draw the line somewhere, and they've chosen to draw that line under some old features that the majority of people don't use anymore.

If your employer requires use of older software that's incompatible with newer OS's, then your employer will have to stay with older OS's, or obtain newer software that IS compatible.

Personally, I think they need to get rid of a LOT more of the legacy code than they have. Time to offload the compatibility with 16 bit applications for a start, at least in the 64bit version. All those people still insisting on using File Manager from Win 3.11 (Yes, there ARE some you know), need to get out of the 80's!

[mad_onion]

Personally, I think they need to get rid of a LOT more of the legacy code than they have. Time to offload the compatibility with 16 bit applications for a start, at least in the 64bit version. All those people still insisting on using File Manager from Win 3.11 (Yes, there ARE some you know), need to get out of the 80's!

the 64bit version of vista doesn't support 16bit apps. actually i'm pretty sure xp 64bit is the same.

[danisflying527]

adding classic start menu would just be going backwards

Move forward ppls!!

[br0adband]

I'm always amazed at the rationalizations people come up with for keeping "stuff" forever in the OS... like the "classic" Start Menu.

I'm running Win7, been doing so for quite some time now. I was running Windows 95 nearly 3 months before it was "official" in August of 1995. I had snagged it online using a 14.4Kbps modem, all 35 damned DMF floppies - took 3.5 days to download it but it was worth it because I had the jump on nearly everyone.

First thing I did - and I still have done, at least till Windows 7 that is - after a clean installation is move the Taskbar to the top of the screen. I've always had this desire to build a time machine, go back to around 2004 or so, and find the single Idiot-In-Charge that was the primary person responsible for the decision to put the Taskbar on the bottom of the screen and beat him to death with a keyboard. :D I can just imagine myself screaming "THEY'RE CALLED DROP DOWN MENUS FOR A REASON YOU MORON..." as I drop that keyboard down on his skull over and over...

*ahem*

No really, I'm a nice guy, but that Taskbar on the bottom just rubs me the wrong way - like a cheese grater, even.

But, with Windows 7, and the fact that FINALLY we have a Taskbar that actually works GREAT on the side of the screen, that's where it is now, and that's where it'll stay. I just ordered an HP 2335 S-IPS 23" 1920x1200 LCD from Geeks.com for $150 (it's a refurb but it's one of the best LCDs ever made) and I can't wait to get it hooked up to this workstation of mine.

Every time I see someone complain about the Vista or Windows 7 Start Menu one thing becomes abundantly clear:

They're stuck in the past because they're complaining about how many clicks or whatever it takes to get to what they want and I'm then struck by the notion that they just don't get it.

How can I be sure?

Because they're clicking at all, that's how. I very rarely "click" the Start Menu/Orb because I can press the Windows key on the keyboard far faster. Left hand rarely strays from the keyboard whereas the right hand is keyboard/mouse centric and is one or the other. But I can hit the Windows key on the lower left with my thumb on the left hand right now without even really thinking about it - even as I'm in this sentence.

I see people that are stuck in the past with the Windows+R for the Run box - that's deprecated and inefficient now too. No more need for the +R on that one, just press the Windows key and start typing - you just knocked out one step in the process with dropping the R key from the combo completely.

I don't have any reason to "click" the Start Menu/Orb anymore, and really no one does since effectively every keyboard made in the past 10 years solid have a Windows key on them - ok, some particular models and brands refused to add them for a long time, but right now if you went out to get a "PC" keyboard without a Windows key on it, you'd be damned hard pressed to find one.

Who the hell clicks the Start Menu/Orb anymore if you can press one key just under your left hand and there it is? Why reach for the mouse, or bother to even move the cursor to the Start Menu/Orb when that one single key is the "key to everything" - pun intended. I don't get why people just can't accept it and learn something new. Oh, well, yeah, I do get it... but I can't say why (it's a quote from George Carlin about stupid people but, alas, I'd be censored so fast it's not even funny, and censorship sucks, folks).

People can't stand change. That's the single reason, and nothing else will cut it or explain it any better.

I was hoping that the 2 years of Vista market penetration had made some kind of dent in the perception that you have to click that Start Menu/Orb, but I can see by scanning over the comments in this thread that hasn't happened. Damned shame, I tell you, a real damned shame.

Try it sometime, for a full week: break the old habits, learn something new. Get those neuron pathways broken and let 'em rebuild stronger than they were before, just like a bone does when it's broken and heals. Try NOT clicking the Start Menu/Orb for a solid week and just use that Windows key to get it to appear, and type what you want instead of clicking the mouse - in fact, don't use the mouse at all on the Start Menu for a week.

After a week I guarantee you - if you're honest with yourself and you seriously commit to the different way of doing this - that you will realize "Holy crap, that guy was right... this is so easy now, I should have tried this a long time ago..."

Clicking the Start Menu/Orb... what a quaint old yet very inefficient way of doing things... ;)

[Luis Mazza]

Old start menu is as pathetic as the people who look for it in 3 generations + operating systems. Get a life!

[neufuse Veteran]

First thing I did - and I still have done, at least till Windows 7 that is - after a clean installation is move the Taskbar to the top of the screen. I've always had this desire to build a time machine, go back to around 2004 or so, and find the single Idiot-In-Charge that was the primary person responsible for the decision to put the Taskbar on the bottom of the screen and beat him to death with a keyboard. :D I can just imagine myself screaming "THEY'RE CALLED DROP DOWN MENUS FOR A REASON YOU MORON..." as I drop that keyboard down on his skull over and over...

*ahem*

No really, I'm a nice guy, but that Taskbar on the bottom just rubs me the wrong way - like a cheese grater, even.

except in windows they are called Menu's and Context menus... not drop down menus just because Mac does it one way doesnt meant everyone else has to follow suit... :p

[jjrambo]

Point is OS with classic or new start menu wont speed up your app, game or anything. Microsoft fails to address issues Windows have since its 95 release and it was never addressed, so all this is just big waste of time. One of the issues is terrible folder/file organization. I suppose Library is first step to fix it...but that will go really really slow.

Second issue is registry -> what a stupid idea.

As far as GUI i get tired using Vista or Windows 7 GUI. Extra clicks all over, and for the most part not intuitive. I gave up on Windows. Only thing i need it for is gaming.

[br0adband]

Point is OS with classic or new start menu wont speed up your app, game or anything. Microsoft fails to address issues Windows have since its 95 release and it was never addressed, so all this is just big waste of time. One of the issues is terrible folder/file organization. I suppose Library is first step to fix it...but that will go really really slow.

Second issue is registry -> what a stupid idea.

As far as GUI i get tired using Vista or Windows 7 GUI. Extra clicks all over, and for the most part not intuitive. I gave up on Windows. Only thing i need it for is gaming.

Only for gaming... wow, I think I've heard that lame excuse about 25 bazillion times over the years.

Do us all a favor: if you can create, design, code, manufacture, and distribute an OS that is better in all the ways you seem to think your OS can be, I'll pay you a thousand bucks cash for a copy of it. It can't be a Linux distro, it can't be OSX, it has to be something you create from scratch to do everything better than what you claim "sucks" in Windows.

Hell, there will be a very long line of people with cash if you can do it.

Until then, move on and make constructive comments, will ya... bashing gets you nowhere... and that is the actual biggest waste of time.

[wahoospa]

I think the reason lots of people miss the classic start menu is just that, they miss it. When someone uses the start menu for years it makes it hard to switch. Some people who just started with Vista or Win 7 may think that the OS will look almost the same but when it is installed then they are shocked to find a completely different menu. Probably because that is the first button they press after installing the new OS. They hit the start button, move the mouse up and expect programs to be listed like before. I have no complaints with the Windows 7 menu even though I like the XP style better. I honestly can say I can find programs quicker in the classic menu. Probably because I am more used to it. I do like Windows 7 very much and will upgrade to it when the registered versions are shipped. But peoples start menu preferences are about like someone that drives a automatic car and can't drive a stick shift. (My wife!)

They refuse to learn even thought the stick shift gets better mileage.

[andir]

I think the reason lots of people miss the classic start menu is just that, they miss it. When someone uses the start menu for years it makes it hard to switch.

No no... you completely miss the point. We are obviously stupid and ignorant. There couldn't have possibly been any aspect of the old menu driven method that we might like.

[br0adband]

No no... you completely miss the point. We are obviously stupid and ignorant. There couldn't have possibly been any aspect of the old menu driven method that we might like.

And you're more than welcome to continue using that old menu driven method... by sticking to the old operating system, of course. Things change, simple.

We're not missing any points, that's the point. But we're open to change whereas entirely too many aren't. Microsoft doesn't write operating systems for individuals, they write them for the majority, and the majority apparently likes the "new" way of doing things, hence the way things are now.

[andir]

And you're more than welcome to continue using that old menu driven method... by sticking to the old operating system, of course. Things change, simple.

We're not missing any points, that's the point. But we're open to change whereas entirely too many aren't. Microsoft doesn't write operating systems for individuals, they write them for the majority, and the majority apparently likes the "new" way of doing things, hence the way things are now.

Microsoft doesn't work on a majority system as you sell it. OEMs force sell it to customers. I dare you to go to HP and buy a Linux laptop or desktop PC right now. People DO NOT have a choice. Period. There's no popular opinion involved here.

[jjrambo]

Old start menu is as pathetic as the people who look for it in 3 generations + operating systems. Get a life!

Windows Vista start menu is almost like Windows XP menu. It has same layout.

[jjrambo]

Microsoft doesn't work on a majority system as you sell it. OEMs force sell it to customers. I dare you to go to HP and buy a Linux laptop or desktop PC right now. People DO NOT have a choice. Period. There's no popular opinion involved here.

People do have choice. You buy laptop and you uninstall Windows, delete OEM Volume on your hard drive and then install Linux distro. That's what i did with my Toshiba Laptop.

[jjrambo]

I think the reason lots of people miss the classic start menu is just that, they miss it. When someone uses the start menu for years it makes it hard to switch. Some people who just started with Vista or Win 7 may think that the OS will look almost the same but when it is installed then they are shocked to find a completely different menu. Probably because that is the first button they press after installing the new OS. They hit the start button, move the mouse up and expect programs to be listed like before. I have no complaints with the Windows 7 menu even though I like the XP style better. I honestly can say I can find programs quicker in the classic menu. Probably because I am more used to it. I do like Windows 7 very much and will upgrade to it when the registered versions are shipped. But peoples start menu preferences are about like someone that drives a automatic car and can't drive a stick shift. (My wife!)

They refuse to learn even thought the stick shift gets better mileage.

Old menu was more elegant and easier to navigate through and it's just more effective then new start menu. New start menu is a mess and start search bar is in totally wrong place. Start menu should be broken into categories like it's done in GNOME on upper taskbar. System, Places etc...