Where is the classic start menu in Windows 7

[thomasw234]

CSMenu

It's nowhere near finished yet, and has bugs in the code, but it works to a certain extent. I've attached a screenshot :)

Thomas.

[iambk]

There's nothing wrong with preferring the old menu because you're used to it, but don't pretend like it's more efficient or faster than the new setup, because it's not, and Microsoft would have done a plethora of usability studies before making the decision.

It's quite amusing how a lot of the people whining about the classic menu also disable the search indexer.

For organized users such as myself, the classic start menu is faster and we don't need search functionality; we already know where everything is, thank you for very.

I realize and respect that many users run a much larger number of programs than I do and having a good search index improves their usability. I'm not trying to stand in the way of Microsoft innovating new solutions for those users.

I will be honest and say that once in a while I do use classic search in Windows XP. I like the classic search. But I don't like the indexing service running in the background and even when I've tried to use the indexing service, it doesn't work quite like I would expect it to. But I have no complaints that Microsoft offers the new search interface to users. I'm just happy that Microsoft also allows a registry setting to enable the classic search. Like the classic start menu, it is simple and code has already been written for it besides so it is less prone to bugs and not as difficult to maintain.

I'm sure that Microsoft has a very solid code foundation for the classic start menu as well. Does it cost Microsoft a little bit of money to keep it in new versions of Windows to make users such as myself happy? Yes it does. And Microsoft has a perfect right to say, "well, users such as yourself aren't worth this minimal cost for us." That's fine. I'm very happy that Microsoft at least took the time for Windows XP x86-64 edition; I may be using it for a long time to come.

[iambk]

Awesome! Die classic start menu, die! I always was depressed when I saw someone using XP w/the classic menu. For sure its time for users to adapt.

That's unfortunate if you get depressed when seeing users use what they themselves prefer. I guess you're more enlightened than they are? Time for them to adapt? I see.

Were you happy when Microsoft removed Windows XP from the consumer market? Happy that when I purchased my Dell laptop, Vista was the only option available to me?

I'm glad that Microsoft has made new things that you enjoy. For years I've been a first adopter for a lot of Microsoft's products. I think is was 1992 (I could be way off) when I obtained an early alpha of Chicago. It ran like **** but I was very enthusiastic at many of the changes I saw. I realized that it would help me to work faster and improve my productivity. But I guess I don't know what's best for myself, anymore. For some reasons I don't like my computer to be too dynamic (eg personalized menus). For some reason I like the GUI but I still like having shortcut keys because for whatever reason a shortcut key is often faster for me than the mouse.

Linus Torvalds seems even worse than me. He used the pine email client for years, and now he uses the Alpine email client, both text based email clients. He believes all email should be in plain text. I suppose I must be dumb, and he must be even dumber, huh?

[zeke009]

Awesome! Die classic start menu, die! I always was depressed when I saw someone using XP w/the classic menu. For sure its time for users to adapt.

I never liked the WinXP Luna interface, I always switched it to classic. I've never changed the appearance of Vista though, stuck with the fancy interface on it since the betas and I'll do the same with Win7. I like the new interfaces quite a bit... but Luna was just not something I liked.

[iambk]

Keyboard: Easy, type the first two letters of the program name - it'll be at or near the top of the list. This if you're suggesting every single program is right at the top level of your All Programs menus, which invariably it won't be.

Mouse: Click on your pinned program: option one, only one click. Click on the all programs button then your program: option two. Plus your mouse hardly moves to navigate around the all programs menu, unlike in XP.

And while this may be about your specific experience, where I'm sure you optimise your start menu to hell and back, normal users would see even more benefit.

Btw, my name is just "Kirkburn".

I was actually including pressing the [Windows Key] to bring up the start menu as one of the two keystrokes. I place my most often used programs at the top of my start menu. I don't even have to press the enter key provided each shortcut is named with a unique starting letter. I place less used programs into submenus off the start menu, so those will often require three keystrokes.

But yes, I organize my start menu and most users do not. I'm a minority.

I actually like certain features of the new start menu. I would be very happy if Microsoft offered settings for the new start menu that created more of a compromise. I don't like how it defaults to the search when I press the [Windows Key], for example. Even an unsupported registry tweak to allow for simple things like this would be appreciated.

I wonder how Microsoft selects participants for their usability studies. There is some logic to having a specific usability study for what I guess might be called power users. It makes sense for Microsoft to offer priority consideration to 80% of its userbase or whatever, but that doesn't mean that the usability for the rest of the users can't at least be considered. Of course, they don't have to. They can do as they please. Just a perspective.

[Orange Battery]

I will miss the classic start menu, like many users I don't remember the names of all the small apps I use occasionally and the cascade effect just worked for me. I think seven has lost some of the user interface in areas such as the start menu and toolbars and I don't really know why as its not like its a huge part of code that couldn't be cleaned up and refreshed. I use Windows 90% of the time, I don't need different ways of doing the same thing because it happens to appeal to the current designer. I just find it annoying and no matter what anyone says its going to effect my use, I cant help that.

[Dead_Monkey]

I actually like certain features of the new start menu. I would be very happy if Microsoft offered settings for the new start menu that created more of a compromise. I don't like how it defaults to the search when I press the [Windows Key], for example. Even an unsupported registry tweak to allow for simple things like this would be appreciated.

I agree with this one. I like the new menu, but I'm annoyed that the search box doesn't behave exactly like the run box did, which is what I would expect it to do. I could Win-r, but I'm more used to doing Crtl-Esc, R which no longer works, similarly Ctrl-Esc, A to favorites (which aren't even pinned to the menu by default anymore, haven't been in two versions...but nonetheless).

It makes sense for it to behave the way it does, but that doesn't mean that I'm not still attached to my old ways (which only worked at all for compatibility reasons).

[Orange Battery]

I actually like certain features of the new start menu. I would be very happy if Microsoft offered settings for the new start menu that created more of a compromise.

I think you hit the nail on the head. We need more options and in built tweaking like any normal app provides, I mean look at stuff such as photoshop, its used a lot so allows users to tweak it.

[Calum Veteran]

I agree with this one. I like the new menu, but I'm annoyed that the search box doesn't behave exactly like the run box did, which is what I would expect it to do. I could Win-r, but I'm more used to doing Crtl-Esc, R which no longer works, similarly Ctrl-Esc, A to favorites (which aren't even pinned to the menu by default anymore, haven't been in two versions...but nonetheless).

It makes sense for it to behave the way it does, but that doesn't mean that I'm not still attached to my old ways (which only worked at all for compatibility reasons).

In what ways doesn't it behave like the 'run' box did? I was under the impression it did :)

[Kirkburn]

I was actually including pressing the [Windows Key] to bring up the start menu as one of the two keystrokes. I place my most often used programs at the top of my start menu. I don't even have to press the enter key provided each shortcut is named with a unique starting letter. I place less used programs into submenus off the start menu, so those will often require three keystrokes.

I fail to see how that's any different to the current start menu, which, if anything, if even more designed towards putting important shortcuts on the very first level.

I count twenty applications showing on my immediate view of my Windows Vista menu, and that's barely customized.

[Fish]

Real men shun Explorer altogether and use an alternative shell :p /jk

Seriously though, with very little effort Litestep can easily imitate the classic start menu. You can have all the best bits from your shiny new OS, but with a GUI you're already familiar with.

[iambk]

I fail to see how that's any different to the current start menu, which, if anything, if even more designed towards putting important shortcuts on the very first level.

Dynamic vs static.

[PGHammer]

And what will Windows Server use? Aero?!

Classic is going to stay. I don't see how they could replace it.

Actually, Windows Server can use Aero (and has been able to since 2003); it's just not active by default. After all, under *normal* circumstances, of what use would Aero be in a server?

If basic hardware for servers ever includes the Aero-minimimum graphical requirements (and that isn't farfetched in the least), Classic even in Windows Server could find itself going the way of the passenger pigeon.

[Kirkburn]

Dynamic vs static.

And guess which OS has more choice?

XP's links are all static. Vista can be either all static, all dynamic, or a mix of both. I know what I'd choose.

(And that is, currently, a mix of both)

[mirsad]

Great

Since this is my first post I read all discussion in this tread.

Most of you miss point.

OK let start from beginning.

Statement Microsoft do comprehensive search. WRONG. They use public relation/marketing agency to do this which present only results which customer (in this case MS) like to hear. Why I put this statement? Simple answer they do not like to lose this job which gives them lot of money. I think of marketing agency or company which does this. Anyone who work in some marketing department can testify about nonsense which some agency can present like your brand is in first place anyone know about it but your income from that brand make considerable drop down.

Where is proof for this. Vista. Simple proof. Vista was dead born at start.

What they (MS) do?

To correct mistake they enforced OEM to implement Vista on new machines simply cutting off XP. What was result? OEM enforces MS to go back to XP so you now can order machine with XP or VISTA. You can ask why this happen? Reason is very simple. They did not listen corporate consumers. They try to enforce some policies which are not acceptable and they come there where they did not want to be. MS live from corporate consumers (not as most of you may think home users) and they as first kill most of old hardware. Anyone who know how corporate think know that corporate like to minimize expenses. If you are some corporate executive and your machines is as time of deployment of vista old from 1 to 5 years only 1/5 of machines can except vista as OS and you need to invest in 4/5 of machines to renew them just to deploy vista and to spend more money to OS ex 40 $ more you just make decision NO GO. And at the end they get no go for vista in corporate environment. So they decide to make new OS. I think they did not learned from first and they lunch another which can make same mistake in this case Win 7.

I really like vista and win 7 in this beta stage but. Great features. But IT is not this that makes decisions in companies.

Corporate managers do this. So if some and most of them use win since win not or win 98 and they used to classic menu and see new 7 and I can?t find my programs etc you get another NO GO . If you do not know how managers think you should learn because they have limited time to learn new features and use of computer is just use of a tool which fit or not fit in their hands. If not fit find something which will fit. This why XP is still most used corporate OS. It meets IT, managers and end users requirements.

Someone point out that this is time for *nix desktops to be introduced in companies and he is right. Companies in time of crisis make decisions which cost less, and not make more expenses which may be win 7 if cost more than vista and we may see more corporate to be turnover to *nix systems then ever before.

Like it or not home users are just less part of segment of market pie. Most of us here are what someone call early user (buyers) on which companies make lot of money (ex new graphic card which cost more than 400$ buy just 1% of market but profit is more than 100% when this graphic card get final projected price ex 150$ reach 90% of market). Point is even with vista MS never make OS public like this before. They trying to get more people in this but now they do not listen. Or they are def to user?s wishes.

Everyone who tells it is time to move on is right. But some stupid GUI missing feature can cost someone great deal. Why not let user is judge what he will use new or classic this is simple. This feature as it is in Office is main obstacle for old users to get new and great features in Office. Why I pointing this in Office 2007. Office 2007 has great features but an advanced user of office 2003 can it find difficult to manage. Why you may ask? Simple. An advanced user used to some organization of office and find difficult to find some feature even it is ?natural sorted?, and he get loose much time to make simple tasks, what his decision is go back to 2003 or purchase classic menu for this idiotic software. You may ask why this is simple you have time limit to do some tasks and if you get loose time to learn new software you are unproductive and you may break deadline and you are responsible. People?s habit is something on what MS should pay great attention.

So end of line. They should leave classic start menu. This is not security problem. This is not much code to work on since this is old code which needs to be rewritten. This is just simple option.

[zhangm Supervisor]

Great

Since this is my first post I read all discussion in this tread.

Most of you miss point.

OK let start from beginning.

Statement Microsoft do comprehensive search. WRONG. They use public relation/marketing agency to do this which present only results which customer (in this case MS) like to hear. Why I put this statement? Simple answer they do not like to lose this job which gives them lot of money. I think of marketing agency or company which does this. Anyone who work in some marketing department can testify about nonsense which some agency can present like your brand is in first place anyone know about it but your income from that brand make considerable drop down.

Where is proof for this. Vista. Simple proof. Vista was dead born at start.

I suppose that's why nearly 400 million copies of Vista have been sold to date. Clearly the consumers are out to punish Microsoft for making such a horrible OS.

What they (MS) do?

To correct mistake they enforced OEM to implement Vista on new machines simply cutting off XP. What was result? OEM enforces MS to go back to XP so you now can order machine with XP or VISTA. You can ask why this happen? Reason is very simple. They did not listen corporate consumers. They try to enforce some policies which are not acceptable and they come there where they did not want to be. MS live from corporate consumers (not as most of you may think home users) and they as first kill most of old hardware. Anyone who know how corporate think know that corporate like to minimize expenses. If you are some corporate executive and your machines is as time of deployment of vista old from 1 to 5 years only 1/5 of machines can except vista as OS and you need to invest in 4/5 of machines to renew them just to deploy vista and to spend more money to OS ex 40 $ more you just make decision NO GO. And at the end they get no go for vista in corporate environment. So they decide to make new OS. I think they did not learned from first and they lunch another which can make same mistake in this case Win 7.

Yes, market drives demand, which, for better or for worse, drives the products. Corporations will always be slow to update, because they value familiarity beyond anything else. Large companies also abide by equipment upgrade cycles which can be around five years, though typically anything greater than three years is normal. Since Vista has been out for a while, the rate of corporate adoption may very well increase. Don't expect Windows 7 to be picked up immediately either, it will experience the exact same delay as every other OS upgrade.

I really like vista and win 7 in this beta stage but. Great features. But IT is not this that makes decisions in companies.

Corporate managers do this. So if some and most of them use win since win not or win 98 and they used to classic menu and see new 7 and I can?t find my programs etc you get another NO GO . If you do not know how managers think you should learn because they have limited time to learn new features and use of computer is just use of a tool which fit or not fit in their hands. If not fit find something which will fit. This why XP is still most used corporate OS. It meets IT, managers and end users requirements.

Someone point out that this is time for *nix desktops to be introduced in companies and he is right. Companies in time of crisis make decisions which cost less, and not make more expenses which may be win 7 if cost more than vista and we may see more corporate to be turnover to *nix systems then ever before.

So here you are arguing for changing to *nix. But later on, you're arguing that Microsoft should keep the Classic start menu because change means lost productivity. Look back at this argument you just made here, and explain why moving to *nix will not result in lost productivity as well?

Like it or not home users are just less part of segment of market pie. Most of us here are what someone call early user (buyers) on which companies make lot of money (ex new graphic card which cost more than 400$ buy just 1% of market but profit is more than 100% when this graphic card get final projected price ex 150$ reach 90% of market). Point is even with vista MS never make OS public like this before. They trying to get more people in this but now they do not listen. Or they are def to user?s wishes.

Everyone who tells it is time to move on is right. But some stupid GUI missing feature can cost someone great deal. Why not let user is judge what he will use new or classic this is simple. This feature as it is in Office is main obstacle for old users to get new and great features in Office. Why I pointing this in Office 2007. Office 2007 has great features but an advanced user of office 2003 can it find difficult to manage. Why you may ask? Simple. An advanced user used to some organization of office and find difficult to find some feature even it is ?natural sorted?, and he get loose much time to make simple tasks, what his decision is go back to 2003 or purchase classic menu for this idiotic software. You may ask why this is simple you have time limit to do some tasks and if you get loose time to learn new software you are unproductive and you may break deadline and you are responsible. People?s habit is something on what MS should pay great attention.

So end of line. They should leave classic start menu. This is not security problem. This is not much code to work on since this is old code which needs to be rewritten. This is just simple option.

Your post is painful to read. This argument also doesn't work. Office 2007 was a great jump ahead in usability. Yes, it looks different than Office 2003. Windows 3.11 looked different than MS DOS. Windows 95 looked different than Windows 3.11, and Windows 2000 looked different than Windows 95. Windows XP looked different than Windows 2000, and Vista looks different than Windows XP. Have we lost HUGE amounts of productivity due to these changes? Surely the graphical user interface we have now is so completely alien, compared to plain old text-based interfaces, that no one should be able to figure out how to use it. The point is that people learn and adapt, and Vista and Windows 7 are not huge leaps to deal with.

Please come up with a better argument than "change leads to lost productivity, thus we should fear progress and change."

[FoxieFoxie]

I hope control planel is next.

[Wildcard]

I suppose that's why nearly 400 million copies of Vista have been sold to date. Clearly the consumers are out to punish Microsoft for making such a horrible OS.

How many were sold with a new pc ? How many customers decided to upgrade by going out and purchasing the software ?

[Quillz]

How many were sold with a new pc ? How many customers decided to upgrade by going out and purchasing the software ?

It doesn't make a difference as far as sales are concerned.

[burnblue]

I was actually including pressing the [Windows Key] to bring up the start menu as one of the two keystrokes. I place my most often used programs at the top of my start menu. I don't even have to press the enter key provided each shortcut is named with a unique starting letter. I place less used programs into submenus off the start menu, so those will often require three keystrokes.

But yes, I organize my start menu and most users do not. I'm a minority.

I don't understand why you wouldn't just pin these and then let Win+# (it's like, one and a half keystrokes) bring up your application. If the frequent apps have to stay in your start menu and not on the taskbar (which is fine), then I still don't see the issue. When I type my first letter, my most frequently used app is what's highlighted and I can just click enter. It's not alphabetical, it's optimized. Less used programs that would be 3 keystrokes away are now so much closer.

It's cool that you optimize the heck out of your setup from years in your old environment, but if the Windows team has worked hard to remove the need for you to spend time doing this, why wouldn't you just take it and run? Everytime I reinstall an OS (on my PC or phone) or a piece of software, I re-evaluate whether or not I need to spend the kind of time optimizing settings that I used to. The answer is usually no. I think many of the other commenters giving you a hard time or treating you like 'a dinosaur' just don't understand why you stick to a personal convention that's filled with effort when the replacement is better. You don't have to move everything around and then remember where it all is. When you get ready to install new programs, you don't have to brainstorm about where the shortcuts will fall in your new hierarchy. I'm sure you're proud of knowing where everything is, but you can have this knowledge and have stuff easier to find at the same time (not mutually exclusive).

[Rickkins]

I suppose that's why nearly 400 million copies of Vista have been sold to date.

*********. If you really believe that crap, I have some beachfront property to sell you.(oh and please, don't bother providing some ms provided stats to support your claim...it won't make you seem right.)

Your post is painful to read. This argument also doesn't work. Office 2007 was a great jump ahead in usability. Yes, it looks different than Office 2003.

Office 2007 better that 2003....??? Keep your hands where I can see them, and step away from the bong...

[Calum Veteran]

Office 2007 better that 2003....??? Keep your hands where I can see them, and step away from the bong...

:blink:

How was Office 2007 not an improvement over 2003? Especially in the usability area? Did you not see the guy, in his presentation with half his screen covered by toolbars and different configurations of toolbars?

The UI of version 2003 and below was extremely impractical in an Office suite. In fact, that whole design concept is awful and I look forward to it being removed from Visual Studio at some point in the future (the 'ribbon' interface is not practical in a development environment, according to MS, but another type of interface may be).

Rickkins, please let me know what makes you think version 2003 is better than 2007. I'm interested in your reasons as it shocks me.

Reason for edit - another typo :rolleyes:

Edited June 22, 2009 by C.J

[rakeshishere]

The UI of version 2003 and below was extremely unpractical in an Office suite.

I dont want to be called a grammar nazi here ,but its actually impractical :)

[zhangm Supervisor]

*********. If you really believe that crap, I have some beachfront property to sell you.(oh and please, don't bother providing some ms provided stats to support your claim...it won't make you seem right.)

Take 1.6 billion relatively modern (can connect to the web) computer users in the world (rounded down: http://50x15.com/en-us/internet_usage.aspx). Take the market share of Vista, 24% (rounded down: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-....aspx?qprid=10). Take 24% of the total estimated number of online users. You get about 380 million.

Office 2007 better that 2003....??? Keep your hands where I can see them, and step away from the bong...

Care to elaborate, or are you just in the "changes scare me" fanclub? Oh, I also don't have a bong. Grow up.

[Calum Veteran]

I dont want to be called a grammar nazi here ,but its actually impractical :)

2:43 in the morning for me ;) Thanks for pointing it out :) I'm actually that embarrassed at such a silly mistake that I've edited it, haha.