Where is the classic start menu in Windows 7

[ecstasis]

I too find no "classic" start menu in Windows 7 very annoying.

however, does anyone know how to automatically show All Programs by default when opening the start menu. clicking All Programs everytime is so freaking stupid.

i haven't read the rest of the replies here, but am i the only one that finds it ironic that he's annoyed the classic menu is gone, yet is equally annoyed that the new start menu somewhat duplicates the classic one in having to click all programs to see the remainder of his installed items... ??

[alpha_omega]

With the removal of the classic Start menu, I imagine that Windows 8 (or w/e the next major release of Windows is called) will do away with the Windows Classic theme, as well.

And what will Windows Server use? Aero?!

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

[MikeChipshop Member]

Aero basic?

[alpha_omega]

Aero basic?

IIRC, it requires the "Themes" service which is disabled on all Server editions by default. Even if Aero Basic was used, what would be the fallback visual style? Yep, Classic again.

[MikeChipshop Member]

I can see where you are coming from and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, mine is that the classic theme is dead and is a waste of space on most users desktop system.

On a server system there should indeed be a fallback theme, i just don't think classic is an elegant solution to that issue.

[zeta_immersion]

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

you have no idea how cool those are then .... history is where all's at

for desktop use yeah sure make it whatever, for server use make it slim so maybe we could port it from the server to win7 and voila ... either way .... if win7 is good, i can live without classic

[MikeChipshop Member]

Retro is all the rage these days... i'm going home to enable classic on all my systems...

...and then throw them all outta the window in frustration at the lack of usability and uglyness! :p

[alpha_omega]

I can see where you are coming from and everyone is entitled to their own opinion,

It's not an opinion, it's common sense. Why should MS reinvent the wheel? Windows Classic is tried and tested. It's reliable and - most importantly - does its job.

...mine is that the classic theme is dead and is a waste of space on most users desktop system.

The comctl32.dll takes 585KB on Server 2003 and it's not much bigger on Vista or W7...

On a server system there should indeed be a fallback theme, i just don't think classic is an elegant solution to that issue.

Not just on server systems, you need a fallback mechanism on desktops too.

I think the current solution is pretty elegant. If Aero fails, the XP-like/non-Aero styles kick in, and if they fail, Classic comes to the rescue.

[danisflying527]

Why do people keep saying its so much easier to hove over the program???

It's way easier to search for a program!!!!!

What if you have like 1 billion applications and they are all like going off the screen (like me lol)

The vista start menu and 7's one makes it sooooooo much easier

[MikeChipshop Member]

It's not an opinion, it's common sense. Why should MS reinvent the wheel? Windows Classic is tried and tested. It's reliable and - most importantly - does its job.

Which, as i said, is an opinion.. your opinion.

I don't call it reinventing of the wheel, just evolution of the wheel. compare car wheels today to the original cart wheels.

Not just on server systems, you need a fallback mechanism on desktops too.

I think the current solution is pretty elegant. If Aero fails, the XP-like/non-Aero styles kick in, and if they fail, Classic comes to the rescue.

Hands up who (and this is aimed at users who don't use classic), when their Aero theme fails and reverts to classic, doesn't straight away try to rectify the situation or restart their computer?

[y_notm]

Which, as i said, is an opinion.. your opinion.

I don't call it reinventing of the wheel, just evolution of the wheel. compare car wheels today to the original cart wheels.

Hands up who (and this is aimed at users who don't use classic), when their Aero theme fails and reverts to classic, doesn't straight away try to rectify the situation or restart their computer?

Windows Classic needs to be there. Besides being there for server, it's also the fallback display method should the themes service fail, and for compatibility purposes. Aero and Aero Basic are skins for windows, classic is what they are skinning. You can't just drop it.

OTOH, I can't think of a single thing that would require the classic start menu to be there, so it's removal is less of an impact on the overall eco system, outside of a few stubborn users.

[burnblue]

I don't always open the same things - so pinning is not worth it. Typing in what I want is a waste of time - when I could point to it with my mouse (like with classic menu) or couple of clicks (in All Programs).

You know, I don't pin either but the Fequent/Recent list in the Start Menu almost ALWAYS has the program I need at the time.. I only need to launch it once or twice then it's always there for me.

In the classic start menu, you hovered over All Programs to get the flyout list, it's never all extended by default as soon as you click Start. The Vista menu is no different, hover over All Programs and be on your way. Having to scroll may be the only annoyance, but you would have to do it anyway, even if the list was up by default, as long as you have many program folders.

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.

If you mainly use the search box for regular Run commands, then just do Win+R. I agree that the Start Menu results should be snappier.. maybe they could load program shortcuts and things like cmd before they even start searching the index. I do need Search to remain in my Start Menu though.

[psycros]

In the classic start menu, you hovered over All Programs to get the flyout list, it's never all extended by default as soon as you click Start. The Vista menu is no different, hover over All Programs and be on your way. Having to scroll may be the only annoyance, but you would have to do it anyway, even if the list was up by default, as long as you have many program folders.

The first thing an intelligent user does in XP is turn off scrolling start menus. But from what I'm seeing, intelligent users are few and far between in this forum. So you Vista apologists think it makes more sense to force people to memorize program names and commands, and have to actually type them in rather than perform, at most, 3 mouse clicks? Why don't you go back to DOS then? LOL, I bet you "progressive" Vista lovers are the same employees that spend half your days playing Solitaire and hanging out by the water cooler. You elevate pretentiousness and time wasting to a high art. You're even worse than Mac fanboys - at least they arguably have a decent desktop! Laughable, just laughable.

Microsoft has at the very least insured XP will be the OS of choice for a couple more years. They may have also doomed themselves to irrelevance on the desktop with Windows 7. No upgrade path from XP? Yeah, that makes really good business sense. The Linux people are looking at the crippled world economy and thanking every god they worship for Redmond's astounding arrogance in thinking they can force TWO inferior desktops on people instead of just one. The open sourcer's moment may finally have arrived. If that turns out to be the case then Microsoft will have nobody but itself and the fanboy's who feed their delusions to blame.

[FloatingFatMan]

Microsoft has at the very least insured XP will be the OS of choice for a couple more years. They may have also doomed themselves to irrelevance on the desktop with Windows 7. No upgrade path from XP? Yeah, that makes really good business sense. The Linux people are looking at the crippled world economy and thanking every god they worship for Redmond's astounding arrogance in thinking they can force TWO inferior desktops on people instead of just one. The open sourcer's moment may finally have arrived. If that turns out to be the case then Microsoft will have nobody but itself and the fanboy's who feed their delusions to blame.

LOL! You make me laugh, really.

You honestly think people are going to flock to Linux over something as trivial as the start menu? ROFL! Get a clue buddy, that's NOT going to happen. Things are evolving, so you might as well get used to it. Look at all the themes for Linux desktops which do their best to emulate the Vista start menu. The same will happen with the updated Win 7 one, and if you think differently, then you're going to find yourself sadly mistaken.

Even with it's poor attempts at copying what Microsoft do better, Linux STILL fails in the desktop world, with it's piddling little 1% market share; so it's got zero chance of EVER competing with Windows. Hell, most people don't even KNOW about Linux, let alone want to use it. All they see are too options, Microsoft and Apple; Linux isn't even on the radar, and it's never going to BE on the radar when it comes to the mainstream market.

[argonite]

So you Vista apologists think it makes more sense to force people to memorize program names and commands, and have to actually type them in rather than perform, at most, 3 mouse clicks? Why don't you go back to DOS then? LOL, I bet you "progressive" Vista lovers are the same employees that spend half your days playing Solitaire

The day you can't remember that the program for Solitaire is named SOLITAIRE, that the expensive office suite you have on your computer is OFFICE and that for most users the browser has the word INTERNET in it, is the day I weep for computing.

Let's try your DOS comparison:

1 click in explorer to see directory and files (negligible amount of time)

VS

"cd directoryname" and "dir" (OH MY GOD)

So DOS is somewhat slow to do the same task. That's alright, it's older than I am.

But should we really go back to it when we have this:

Three mouse clicks + waiting for list to expand. (4 seconds) XP-style

VS

Winkey + Three letters: "SOL" + Enter (2 seconds) VISTA-style

Oh yeah, that's really slow and cumbersome. :rolleyes:

[Calum Veteran]

The first thing an intelligent user does in XP is turn off scrolling start menus. But from what I'm seeing, intelligent users are few and far between in this forum. So you Vista apologists think it makes more sense to force people to memorize program names and commands, and have to actually type them in rather than perform, at most, 3 mouse clicks?

Um, actually, with the new and improved 'start' menu (Windows Vista and Windows 7), you have the option of typing in the program name (not the exe but just the name which you should know anyway if you want to access a program) ASWELL as performing the 3 mouse clicks to get to the programs.

After all, it is still 3 mouse clicks to get to 'all programs' and if you have your 'start' menu organised well (if you don't, you can't blame Microsoft - I don't have a scrollbar in my start menu as everything is neatly organised into folders) then it is easier than it was in Windows XP to find things.

So, as you can do both of those things (search for a program name or 3 mouse clicks to "all programs") what was your point? :huh:

[Damarr]

:laugh:

LOL, I bet you "progressive" Vista lovers are the same employees that spend half your days playing Solitaire and hanging out by the water cooler. You elevate pretentiousness and time wasting to a high art. You're even worse than Mac fanboys - at least they arguably have a decent desktop! Laughable, just laughable.

You use an OS that I don't like; you are a waster and a loser! Your entire life is ****! How stupid do you have to be to use a keyboard AND be social with your colleagues? You people are hilariously awful! I sneer at your sort, sir!

They may have also doomed themselves to irrelevance on the desktop with Windows 7. No upgrade path from XP? Yeah, that makes really good business sense. The Linux people are looking at the crippled world economy and thanking every god they worship for Redmond's astounding arrogance in thinking they can force TWO inferior desktops on people instead of just one.

:jump: OEM distribution :jump: 99% of computer users don't log on to hot-and-saucy-linux-isos.se for their OS.

[andir]

You honestly think people are going to flock to Linux over something as trivial as the start menu? ROFL! Get a clue buddy, that's NOT going to happen. Things are evolving, so you might as well get used to it. Look at all the themes for Linux desktops which do their best to emulate the Vista start menu.

I have... mainly because I like Gnome's methods of:

a). Placing the menu up top (That's where your mouse spends most of it's time anyway... and on my work machine that's where I move the task bar)

b). Allowing the creation of separate menus for items and placing whatever launchers you want on it

c). Theme Customization Options (also from b)

I actually ran across this thread trying to find a way to revert back to the classic bar on my test box. I hate having all that crap on my screen. I keep my machine in a minimalist state and I prefer to choose what I have on my "start menu." This new Start Menu and the one from Win7 are way to huge for me. If it were customizable (ie: I could remove everything but my programs list) then it might not be so bad.

[DigitalE]

I find it incredibly faster to tap the Windows key and type in the first couple letters of the program I want to start.

[FloatingFatMan]

This new Start Menu and the one from Win7 are way to huge for me. If it were customizable (ie: I could remove everything but my programs list) then it might not be so bad.

And I say again, who has the greater market share, hmmm? It really doesn't matter HOW innovative Linux tries to get, the most used desktop builds are the ones which looks as much like Windows as possible. Why is that? Because people want Windows, not Linux.

When it comes to market presence, the tiny minority of computer enthusiasts don't even trip the radar. What counts is the OEM's and the average Joe on the street, and HE's going to buy the one he's heard of, Windows.

[andir]

I find it incredibly faster to tap the Windows key and type in the first couple letters of the program I want to start.

So why not just keep a command prompt open?

[Electric Jolt]

God! What is wrong with you people! The classic-style start menu is like last seen used by everyone in like Windows 2000, it is time to move on people. Especially because people using Windows Vista can type in a couple letters and press enter and 9 out of 10 times, they open the correct app they intended on opening. ;)

[andir]

And I say again, who has the greater market share, hmmm? It really doesn't matter HOW innovative Linux tries to get, the most used desktop builds are the ones which looks as much like Windows as possible. Why is that? Because people want Windows, not Linux.

When it comes to market presence, the tiny minority of computer enthusiasts don't even trip the radar. What counts is the OEM's and the average Joe on the street, and HE's going to buy the one he's heard of, Windows.

Whoa now... People don't necessarily WANT windows. They GET windows. They have no choice in most cases. They buy a computer and it comes with a license. I dare you to go to Dell's home page and configure a computer with something other than Windows. Yes, you can get a Dell with Linux, but you have to find a small link on the side of the page or go through hoops. How many Linux Desktops can you buy at Best Buy or Circuit City? You think my parents tried Linux and decided it wasn't for them? No. They had never heard of it... because it wasn't installed with their computer. It has nothing to do with like or dislike. That's what they get. "Regular" people don't know any better. Period. To claim it's more popular because people buy more copies is naive and ignorant.

God! What is wrong with you people! The classic-style start menu is like last seen used by everyone in like Windows 2000, it is time to move on people. Especially because people using Windows Vista can type in a couple letters and press enter and 9 out of 10 times, they open the correct app they intended on opening. ;)

Because it works. Simple as that. It lets me customize what programs show up, where they are located, and how far down they are. I can place all my common programs on it, or bury them 14 links down if I want. It may not work for you, but it works for me. The first thing I turn off on my machines is indexing, personalization, and all that garbage because I KNOW where I put my files. Yes, the Regular Joe may not, but why alienate power users by taking away options?

[FloatingFatMan]

No, like I already said. Windows it more popular because people don't even know Linux exists. They MIGHT know about Apple Macs, but most will just see them as the overpriced machines that beatniks buy. 99.9% of the average Joe out there only knows about Windows, so that's what he buys. You cannot compete against such market oversaturation, which is why many of the Linux desktop OS's are doing their best to look as much like Windows as possible. It's the ONLY way they're going to get more people using it.

Therefore, going back to the original point of this topic, it's pointless to try to retain the "classic" look and feel of Windows, as that's not what Microsoft want. They want ultra-sleek modern interfaces that are 90% eye candy, and eye candy is what Joe Public wants. What the minuscule percentage of enthusiast users want is totally irrelevant, so you might as well just get over it.

[soulburner]

Oh, come on! Can Linux users launch and play MS Flight Simulator X? No? How about Crysis? Is the Gimp better than Adobe Photoshop? No, not even close. I could go on...

Until widely known applications openly support Linux and install on it directly from the disk, Linux will remain an OS for hobbyists, servers and hackers ;)

Anyway, I thought we were fighting about the start menu here, not about which OS is better :)

edit - I didn't even know the classic start menu was still available in Vista :o