Where is the classic start menu in Windows 7


 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

And they say Microsoft isn't an anti-competitive Monopoly...

So to paraphrase:

Resistance it Futile. Assimilate or die.

I'm glad you have no problem with Windows (Microsoft) having that much power over your life. The government should have split Microsoft into separate sub companies (like they did to AT&T years ago.)

Monopolies only hurt the consumer. :angry:

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...

You can't blame Linux for that. You need to bring up that complaint with Microsoft, Adobe, and EA/Crytek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they say Microsoft isn't an anti-competitive Monopoly...

So to paraphrase:

Resistance it Futile. Assimilate or die.

I'm glad you have no problem with Windows (Microsoft) having that much power over your life. The government should have split Microsoft into separate sub companies (like they did to AT&T years ago.)

Monopolies only hurt the consumer. :angry:

They have no power over my life that I don't choose for them to have. I'm a realist, look at the reality of the situation. Windows IS the market leader, and there's zero chance any other OS has until all the software companies start to listen. Apple are overpriced, and the Linux world can't even agree with each other on distro's, leaving it nothing but a wealth of confusion which just puts people off. Windows is affordable, easy to use, and supported by everyone. You can't beat that.

Monopolies may hurt the consumer in some cases, but having TOO much choice hurts the consumer equally, as he ends up either not buying anything, or buying something that can't do what he wants. What would you tell Joe Bloggs if he wanted a desktop PC to surf the internet, do his email, and play World of Warcraft; and someone sold him a Debian box? He'd be screwed, wouldn't he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't blame Linux for that. You need to bring up that complaint with Microsoft, Adobe, and EA/Crytek.

Yeah, but very often, when I say games don't work on Linux, people claim "but there is wine, there is cedega, every game in the world runs like a charm", which is simply not true. And yes, Microsoft is fully responsible for making Direct3D so easy to program for :)

The fact that Linux has a low market share is because popular applications people are used to, and computer games, usually do not work or require a lot of knowlegde to force them to run properly.

Also, I hate how fonts look on Linux distros. They're just ugly, even when you install Tahoma, it won't look like on Windows. And there's no ClearType :p

So, from a typiucal user's standpoint, Linux has nothing to offer for me. Sure, it's free, but I have to learn to live without software I use...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you tell Joe Bloggs if he wanted a desktop PC to surf the internet, do his email, and play World of Warcraft; and someone sold him a Debian box? He'd be screwed, wouldn't he?

No, he wouldn't actually. Debian runs Firefox (Ice Weasel), has an email client and Runs WoW in Wine just fine actually. In fact, that's what my laptop does right now. There unfortunately was a bit of tweaking to do to get WoW running, but that was the only tweaking needed and it works awesomely for internet, email and games.

Now, what do I do to get Blizzard to support Linux better? Post on the support forum? (That only brings folks like those in this thread that complain about Linux market share and other nonsense...) Nope. I wrote them a letter. To which I was replied. "We currently only support Windows and Mac." And that was it. So, how do you suggest people spread Linux? You get on a forum and people jump down your throat like above... or you send a letter to some company who could care less about the 1% (or 5% according to w3c) sales revenue.

I'm open for suggestions on what you think would be a better way. It's a chicken and egg scenario and there's a lot of people out there with your viewpoint that change will/should(?) never happen. (However, you are willing to accept change from Microsoft on the interface...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I hate how fonts look on Linux distros. They're just ugly, even when you install Tahoma, it won't look like on Windows. And there's no ClearType :p

Cleartype is just Anti-Aliased fonts... Bitstream vera is an awesome font for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ClearType and Anti-Aliasing is not the same thing, at least it looks totally different. I think ClearType is using subpixels to smooth the edges and its patented, or something. Even Macs use a different method for font smoothing (grayscale antialiasing?), which also looks much, much better than what Linux (I use Ubuntu sometimes) offers.

Fonts in Linux really don't look too attractive - sure, they're readable, but I just got used to fonts looking pretty ;) But that's not all - even if a website used exactly the same font in both OSs, there will be different spacing between letters on Linux and Windows, causing word wrapping in different places and may cause websites to break their layout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ClearType and Anti-Aliasing is not the same thing, at least it looks totally different. I think ClearType is using subpixels to smooth the edges and its patented, or something. Even Macs use a different method for font smoothing (grayscale antialiasing?), which also looks much, much better than what Linux (I use Ubuntu sometimes) offers.

Fonts in Linux really don't look too attractive - sure, they're readable, but I just got used to fonts looking pretty ;) But that's not all - even if a website used exactly the same font in both OSs, there will be different spacing between letters on Linux and Windows, causing word wrapping in different places and may cause websites to break their layout.

FYI: http://www.killertechtips.com/2008/04/10/h...n-ubuntu-linux/

^ Subpixel font smoothing under Ubuntu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he wouldn't actually. Debian runs Firefox (Ice Weasel), has an email client and Runs WoW in Wine just fine actually. In fact, that's what my laptop does right now. There unfortunately was a bit of tweaking to do to get WoW running, but that was the only tweaking needed and it works awesomely for internet, email and games.

And who's going to configure Wine for Mr Joe Public, hmm? Remember, he doesn't know a thing about computers, and has bugger all chance of doing that himself.

I'm open for suggestions on what you think would be a better way. It's a chicken and egg scenario and there's a lot of people out there with your viewpoint that change will/should(?) never happen. (However, you are willing to accept change from Microsoft on the interface...)

There IS no better way.. Linux is great for server stuff, and fine for "geeks", but mainstream? Forget it. It's NEVER going to happen, so Linux should stop trying and play to their strengths instead, like keeping the internet running. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who's going to configure Wine for Mr Joe Public, hmm? Remember, he doesn't know a thing about computers, and has bugger all chance of doing that himself.

There IS no better way.. Linux is great for server stuff, and fine for "geeks", but mainstream? Forget it. It's NEVER going to happen, so Linux should stop trying and play to their strengths instead, like keeping the internet running. ;)

Really?

Check this out:

http://www.acer.com/aspireone/

http://www.linuxhaxor.net/2008/09/15/linpu...ux-lite-review/

THAT is also Linux. And it's one of its strengths. No bloat, no risk, no configuration needed. Just beautiful simplicity for everyday use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THAT is also Linux. And it's one of its strengths. No bloat, no risk, no configuration needed. Just beautiful simplicity for everyday use.

He's playing the game/application card. The Linux desktop itself can be very stable, simple, and fast (relatively easily) but through ugly/shady/immoral deals with OEMs, schools, and other organizations MS has made Windows a pervasive piece of software. On top of that, they've taken that power and abused it to create "lock-in" software APIs like DirectX instead of sticking with and expanding/improving the technologies that spawned those (OpenGL.) If they can get people to develop for Windows only by abusing their market share, they maintain their dominance. If people could run the same games and software on Linux/Mac (technically, and legally [sometimes]) then Microsoft would have to start working to keep their customers instead of changing all the interfaces around every 2 years at their whim.

Wine is VERY close to having a 100% complete (if not already) Win32 API to be able to run all those windows apps flawlessly. DirectX is coming along, but it's still a bit behind. MS is trying their hardest to get away from Win32 now more than ever to counteract that. (For better or worse) And they are trying to keep the libraries a changing goal as well.

And BTW, AT&T is NOTHING like they were before in the powerhouse industries. I would even argue that Verizon/Sprint/et al. and the cell phone revolution would not exist today had AT&T been allowed to reign. You would probably be paying more for slower internet as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?

Check this out:

http://www.acer.com/aspireone/

http://www.linuxhaxor.net/2008/09/15/linpu...ux-lite-review/

THAT is also Linux. And it's one of its strengths. No bloat, no risk, no configuration needed. Just beautiful simplicity for everyday use.

I'm well aware of Linux's success on the Netbooks. I'm also aware of the steps Microsoft are starting to take to counter their current dominance on that side of things. Once Windows 7 is released, how long do you think the Netbooks will continue to run on Linux?

Please note, I'm not AGREEING this is a good thing, it's not; but it IS inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why not just keep a command prompt open?

Using command prompt is not the same. In command prompt, you can't just type "sol", press enter, and Solitaire will open.

Surely you know this!?

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?

The newer 'start' menu also lets you customise which programs show up (using small or large icons as well - more choice than the old 'start' menu!). You are able to place them in a certain location in the list (as with the old 'start' menu) and put them how high you want them (as with the old 'start' menu). You can place all your common programs or put them 14 links down (yes, with small icons on, you are able to have 14 or more links).

How is this alienating power users? It's even adding features (allowing you to display large or small icons). It even makes the tasks you describe quicker as you don't have to click 'All Programs' to access your common programs, like you did with the 'start' menu!

Surely you know all this!?

Just to let you know, my tone in this post is on purpose. You debating with other users trying to say they are wrong when you are actually wrong and you are ignoring the features of a very well designed operating system to try and promote the one you favour.

Edited by cJr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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?

Here's a case in point: I dual-boot between Vista (with the Classic Menu) and Windows 7 (with the different menu). Both are 64-bit. Both support all my hardware. Both support all my applications. Then why is it (when it comes to day-to-day usage) that I'm in Windows 7 most of the time, when I took the extra steps to set up the Classic Start Menu in Vista (where it isn't the default)? It's not a pre-built; I installed the motherboard/drives/CPU/OS/etc. myself. Yet here YOU are accusing most users of being *sheep*. To quote you:

"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."

Have you taken a hard look at the default layouts for GNOME and KDE? Both look an awful lot like one or the other of Vista's menu options (KDE 4.1, in fact, looks a lot like the default two-panel Start Menu, which is the default in XP, Vista, and now 7, while GNOME, the default in most Linux distributions, and the default in the largest free UNIX distributions, OpenSolaris, defaults to a single-pane version of the same sort of desktop). Why is that the case? Why would a UNIX (and especially OpenSolaris) want to clone Windows?

I'll tell you why. Because, as much as they hate to admit it, the Windows Way *works*. Windows is moving away from the PC formfactor where it began and into places that you would have never even thought about seeing a GUI (mainframes, for example). How it got there is utterly irrelevant; it's there, and Linux and UNIX must face the competition.

Familiarity breeds a lot more than comtempt - it breeds *pervasiveness*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking away options from power users? Pfaw.

The classic startmenu is a 14-year old legacy that has finally met it's end in Win7. (Good riddance.) It's a poor and messy way to access your programs.

To most generic PC-users the classic startmenu has been dead since XP wrested the majority away from 98SE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm... I'm not running the beta so I don't know what the fuss is about, but I tend to be a mouser too, and dislike having to type in stuff to navigate, especially when I'm laying here in bed like I am now, or when I have my HTPC outputting to the HDTV and I just have a mouse on my lap to navigate. I hope they haven't messed with the ability to use mostly the mouse if the user wants. I don't use linux, because I detest the idea of the terminal. last thing I want is windows to go that direction... though as long as windows allows the ability to place program icons on the taskbar, and on the desktop, I don't see this ever becoming an issue.

Bottom line.. I'll adapt. I'm not all that picky.

Edited by stockwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you taken a hard look at the default layouts for GNOME and KDE? Both look an awful lot like one or the other of Vista's menu options

Uh, yes, I run Gnome.. (right now actually... in Debian Experimental [read: newest stuff]) and my Gnome menus which rest in the upper left hand of the screen (kind of like the file menus) are separated into three drop downs. Applications... where my application are. Places... where links to things like shares, recent docs, OS bookmarks (bookmark your favorite folders), and search. And system... where you configure stuff, shut down, log out, etc. It's NOTHING like Vista. It's more like if Win2k had three start menus named Applications, Places, and System.

SUSE Enterprise Desktop (AKA Novell, AKA Microsoft) however put in a custom menu to make it look kind of like Vista. I removed it the day I got my laptop and installed Debian. This is not the default Gnome tray. I think Fedora has something like this as well called bigbar or something.

If I were migrating a windows user, I might put them in KDE first because it could be customized a bit more easily to look like Windows. You know what though? That's the freaking beauty of Linux! If you want it to look like Windows, go for it. If Windows had multiple Window managers it might be the same way and people could have a choice. (That would be awesome...btw) If I remember right, Microsoft shut down the last company that tried to make an shell replacement though.

Gnome is nice and simple. That's the design philosophy behind it. You don't get as many twinkly sparkle windows as you get in KDE, but it's layout is smart and intuitive. Nothing is buried too far for experimentation failure and it's not cluttered like the default Windows installations with widgets and crap all over the screen.

Default Gnome looks a little like this: http://www.udel.edu/topics/os/unix/sunray/...-desktop-sm.jpg

There is however the option to make Gnome look like XP/Vista but you have to install a few themes to do it: http://blog.mypapit.net/wp-content/uploads...7/07/gnome2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking away options from power users? Pfaw.

The classic startmenu is a 14-year old legacy that has finally met it's end in Win7. (Good riddance.) It's a poor and messy way to access your programs.

To most generic PC-users the classic startmenu has been dead since XP wrested the majority away from 98SE.

I agree, not to mention that it's usually the same so-called "power users" who are always complaining that Microsoft hangs on to legacy designs and devices and has yet to really rebuild Windows.

Frankly, you ever notice how it's these so-called "power users" who always seem to have the most problems with Windows?

ClearType and Anti-Aliasing is not the same thing, at least it looks totally different. I think ClearType is using subpixels to smooth the edges and its patented, or something. Even Macs use a different method for font smoothing (grayscale antialiasing?), which also looks much, much better than what Linux (I use Ubuntu sometimes) offers.

Fonts in Linux really don't look too attractive - sure, they're readable, but I just got used to fonts looking pretty ;) But that's not all - even if a website used exactly the same font in both OSs, there will be different spacing between letters on Linux and Windows, causing word wrapping in different places and may cause websites to break their layout.

Correct. Anti-aliasing is a rendering technique, and Microsoft's ClearType is their proprietary method of rendering anti-aliasing on text. Apple actually uses Quartz Extreme, which is a PDF-based technology.

As for Linux, I find that it depends on the window manager. For example, GNOME never seems to produce nice anti-aliased text, whereas XFCE does. I imagine that in Linux, there is likely more settings that have to be tweaked to achieve lovely anti-aliased text than in Windows or Mac OS X, where anti-aliasing is generally "always on."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line.. I'll adapt. I'm not all that picky.

I've been enabling the classic start menu since 2001 and while I'll miss it, you said it best, I'll live. My classic start menu is always kept tidy. Shortcuts are moved to appropriate categories (Entertainment, Internet, Office, Games, etc.). "Use personalized menus" is turned off and "show small icons" is turned on.

I can't believe the elitist attitude some of the people in this thread are displaying. Just because someone does something differently than you doesn't make them wrong and certainly doesn't make them less productive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changes?? Every body love changes, for better! Change to horse is better keep quiet!

I have been work with windows since Win 3.11, 1993; the best Menu was Windows XP!

The Master is definitively retired? we can feel it! Come back Bill Gates we forgive you!!!!

... Any way, Windows 7 is better than Windows Vista!!! Return to Menu windows XP and windows 7

can be the best! Sorry... ups?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why are people still stuck on the classic menu? it's not intuitive and it looks ugly. The Vista/7 start menus are very intuitive, and easy to use, etc..... Do you guys just not like having it easy or what? :p

Because the superbar/new start menu is an awkward mess. :) It's not "easy" to me at all. You can't look and see what documents are open just by glancing at the taskbar anymore, you have to move and click the mouse more. (I'm tracking this with a mouse monitor. Windows 7 greatly increases mouse travel and clicks for me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the superbar/new start menu is an awkward mess. :) It's not "easy" to me at all. You can't look and see what documents are open just by glancing at the taskbar anymore, you have to move and click the mouse more. (I'm tracking this with a mouse monitor. Windows 7 greatly increases mouse travel and clicks for me.)

Change it so that it shows text as well instead of just icons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. A lot of problems come about because of sticking onto old features. It's nice that MS doesn't ditch old users, but at the same time, it's good to move on. Vista felt very much like a hybrid. Windows 7 feels very polished, they've cleaned off the crap of Vista, tuned it up and left us with the good.

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

That has a weird effect. Minimises all the screens. Also, typing notepad brings up OneNote's SideNote for me instead of Notepad. Not that I particularly mind, but it doesn't work exactly the way you'd expect, infact, it works really bizarrely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Change it so that it shows text as well instead of just icons.

I know how it works. It's still non-intuitive. I demoed it to my sister, mother, and roommate, who are all computer novices, and they all were horribly confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.