Windows 7 & Classic Start Menu ?

[Win2k3EE]

I've never used Windows search ever. When I need something I use the search in TC, which is more faster.

[DeathNACan]

Once again Microsoft has forgotten the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid! I have seen comments about Windows is evolving. Into what? A MAC?

Where should I start?

First the Classic Menu... what is its value?

Simple! That's it.. it's simple. The programs don't move around and you don't have to hunt as much for what you need. It's faster! Why, because you don't have less hovering and or clicking to do. I really loved it when MS decided to add their adaptive / intuitive 'lets shuffle the short-cut' menu option the liked to call "Personalized Menus". Yeah, that's what I want, to have to guess where on the menu things will be when I using my computer. So what have they done now?

They've started playing 'lets shuffle the start bar short-cuts' and it's being referred to as Superbar. Is it super to mix running apps with the ones where the Quick Launch Bar apps used to be? One of the advantages of the Quick Launch Bar was that you knew where things were. Now you have to sort through the running apps to pick out what you want. By the way, I just minimized my browser and when I clicked what I thought was the icon to Quick-Launch a second session it reopened the first one. Why again did I put the icon there in the first place?

Let's face it, the idea is to make the computer easier to use, not harder. Maybe MS should study ergonomics and think about how much extra thought and time has to go in mentally sorting out icons to find what you are looking for. Try telling someone "It's the second icon from the left next to the start button" when it isn't because now there's a running application there.

Advancement does not mean you have to change everything!

Just because you change the way something is executed does not mean you have to change the way it is done. That's forcing the user to learn something and usually unnecessary.

The idea is to make the computers both easier to use and learn, not harder. Maybe MS should study ergonomics and think about how much extra thought and time has to go in mentally sorting out icons to find what you are looking for. Sound whiny to you, wait until you had to do it several hundred times a day and then try telling someone "It's the second icon from the left next to the start button" when it isn't there anymore because now there's a running application where there used to be a Quick Launch button for it.

Okay, so Windows 7 beta runs faster than Vista, Big Woop! Oh, don't get me wrong, that's a good thing. And its always good to make cosmetic changes and improvements to the way things operate in the background... so long as it is an improvement. You know, easier to use, adds functionality. Let's face it, they changed the look for marketing reasons, not innovation. MS still thinks its customers wont believe their getting their money's worth if it doesn't look and feel different. Wrong! They still haven't learned that it's bad to change the way things are done too much at one time. With Vista, and now with Windows 7, that's what they've done. It's time MS stop thinking like IT Dweebs and started thinking like users.

Has anybody counted the number of changes to the interface from starting with Windows Vista to Windows 7? How many things got moved in the GUI? How many things got added to the GUI? Does anyone really think the average home, or business, user for that matter wants to spend the next six months taking classes just to learn how things they used to know how to do? Does that make them a happier, more productive users? Or does that make them a more PO'd customer?

By the way, I'm not an Apple user, I'm a retired Network Administrator with an MCSE and have been using a PC since 1986.

Just some food for thought.

Okay, flame away! I can take it!

Edited January 9, 2009 by DeathNACan

[Noise]

I agree 100 percent DeathNACan.

Interesting that I have about the same experience level as you. And I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Mac user. I support them, but I don't use them for the same reasons I don't use Vista. The Windows 2000/XP interface was perfect for productivity. It was fast, efficient and somewhat easy to figure out. A novice could futz around right-clicking things in XP and figure out how to change their IP Address without help.

Microsoft seriously needs to fire their marketing staff in charge of OS "humanization". Windows isn't a Mac, and it shouldn't be a Mac. Windows is popular because it had a great simple interface, one that the IT department could walk people through on the phone.

I had to use Vista recently for a deployment project (WinPE 2.1 needs Vista). After about 2 hours of configuring the god-awful eye-candy away I got it to a usable configuration. But there are two "deal killers" with me and Vista.

1. Search sucks. Call me old-school - but I have a hard drive light on my computer and I don't like it going off suddenly for no reason. It reminds me of viruses. So I disable indexing. I've never seen an OS b***h so much... constantly reminding me that indexing is off. But with it on or off, it's completely unusable to me. Vista's search function is strictly for finding MP3's and pictures - it's good for nothing else.

2. Explorer. It's horrible. They have ruined the best part of Windows. Again, Explorer is just designed to look for MP3's and Pictures. The way they did the tree structure in two-pane view is asinine, the "+"'s all over the place, no guiding lines - it hides folders on the same level you're viewing. I make me want to throw it against the wall.

If MS want to make Vista and Windows 7 an OS for MP3's and Pictures, they can count me out. It's not a professional operating system anymore. They can count me out, and they can count out all the thousands (literally) of people I support. This is their last chance with me - either make Windows 7 at least as productive to advanced users as Windows 2000 was, or I start pushing OSX and Linux.

[DeathNACan]

I wonder if they have considered the cost in dollars these changes will have?

First there is the cost of retraining, not just of IT Pros but also of end users. Do I have to mention the home users? Then there is the cost in lost productivity, all those people being trained and then having to go through the pains of trying to apply what they've learned. In today's economy, do we really need this? I wonder how many people will loose their jobs just to pay for the training the others will need when companies actually start switching to Windows 7? They have become out of touch. Gee, that sounds vaguely familiar doesn't it?

Two words: Minimal Impact!

If you can't make it faster, easier and more productive don't mess with it!

I agree 100 percent DeathNACan.

Interesting that I have about the same experience level as you. And I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Mac user. I support them, but I don't use them for the same reasons I don't use Vista. The Windows 2000/XP interface was perfect for productivity. It was fast, efficient and somewhat easy to figure out. A novice could futz around right-clicking things in XP and figure out how to change their IP Address without help.

Microsoft seriously needs to fire their marketing staff in charge of OS "humanization". Windows isn't a Mac, and it shouldn't be a Mac. Windows is popular because it had a great simple interface, one that the IT department could walk people through on the phone.

I had to use Vista recently for a deployment project (WinPE 2.1 needs Vista). After about 2 hours of configuring the god-awful eye-candy away I got it to a usable configuration. But there are two "deal killers" with me and Vista.

1. Search sucks. Call me old-school - but I have a hard drive light on my computer and I don't like it going off suddenly for no reason. It reminds me of viruses. So I disable indexing. I've never seen an OS b***h so much... constantly reminding me that indexing is off. But with it on or off, it's completely unusable to me. Vista's search function is strictly for finding MP3's and pictures - it's good for nothing else.

2. Explorer. It's horrible. They have ruined the best part of Windows. Again, Explorer is just designed to look for MP3's and Pictures. The way they did the tree structure in two-pane view is asinine, the "+"'s all over the place, no guiding lines - it hides folders on the same level you're viewing. I make me want to throw it against the wall.

If MS want to make Vista and Windows 7 an OS for MP3's and Pictures, they can count me out. It's not a professional operating system anymore. They can count me out, and they can count out all the thousands (literally) of people I support. This is their last chance with me - either make Windows 7 at least as productive to advanced users as Windows 2000 was, or I start pushing OSX and Linux.

[MagicAndre1981]

sorry with the old menu have to do more clicks to get the programs open. You're only intolerant in having new ideas. I hope they never bring those old, stupid startmenu back.

[Maleko]

people gotta move with the times

[GrofLuigi]

@DeathNACan: costs of *.* - that will go to Microsoft. Training, certification, courses... that $$$ goes to microsoft. Anyone still wonders why some spell Microsoft with a $?

I once read that Adobe makes more money from training than from products themselves. I don't see why that wouldn't apply to Microsoft.

@Maleko: but who defines the "times"? Microsoft? And if it appears they are just copying user interface from Apple... all the time? So....

GL

[studio48]

I've installed Windows 7 build 5696 and everything works fine, except one thing: I don't like the new Vista-like start menu, but the old classic start menu (Win95-98 style). Is there a registry tweak to enable it somehow?

Go to systemsettings /advance settings and choose for best performance..

You will now have the classic theme for windows 7

Good luck!

[Win2k3EE]

I knew that. I wanted classic start menu with AERO enabled.

[spacesurfer]

It's a good thing why some posters in this thread are retired. You know what they can, "Can't teach an old dog new tricks."

I guess when you get to that retirement age, you like things the way they always were.

Sooooo.... that doesn't mean keep things as they were. Some people **CAN** HANDLE change and ADAPT to new way of doing things. Hey, it might actually be faster.

Gosh, if we didn't improve, we would still be getting out of our car and winding up the engine!

So, come on. Quit posting the same old crap about MS this and MS that. If you don't like it, don't use it. Simple.

[CoffeeFiend]

Sooooo.... that doesn't mean keep things as they were. Some people **CAN** HANDLE change and ADAPT to new way of doing things. Hey, it might actually be faster.

Gosh, if we didn't improve, we would still be getting out of our car and winding up the engine!

That's basically it. Some people prefer to fight change instead of embracing it, and usually whine in the process.

If they listened to these people, we'd still be using the command line (no GUI), because "it's just as good of a program launcher" (that's what they all said in the win 3.x era anyhow) -- who needs a mouse anyways? There's always someone complaining about any minute change in the interface, something that got moved by an inch, any new way that's actually better, things placed more logically and all that -- just because it's different, and they don't want to adapt ("the old one worked! why did they do this?")

Just like if they change the GUI, people say "it's just a new skin" (whereas if they didn't change it, they'd say NOTHING as changed as they don't seem to see past the GUI).

Just like they complain about "bloat" for any new feature that's added (they don't use it, so surely nobody else does, right?), and if they added nothing, then it would be a worthless upgrade, etc.

And so on.

The good part is soon they'll stop whining about Vista. The bad part is, they'll be whining about Win 7, then Win 8, 9 and so on.

The ONLY way to please those people is to have a totally identical GUI (no changes at all, nothing moved) yet still have a new shiny GUI, has new features (yet doesn't have them), various enhancements (yet not have them), and have that run on a vic 20, and be free and open source -- and even then, they might have to pay you to run their OS before they stop complaining.

It's a good thing they don't listen to them. Not every change is for the best, but for the most part (~95%) it is.

[Atmosphere XG]

Right Click on the Task bar and, go into properties.

Go to the Start Menu tab and click on Classic Start Menu.

[DeathNACan]

sorry with the old menu have to do more clicks to get the programs open. You're only intolerant in having new ideas. I hope they never bring those old, stupid startmenu back.

Let me say first, I am not intolerant of new ideas. Otherwise, I would not have downloaded the beta. I'm sorry but you're response is typical of the attitude I have seen with too many IT professionals and Power User Amateurs who put new things to play with before user's needs. They either do not know or forget that every change made has a potential cost associated with it.

Many IT professionals overlook that fact that users either do not have ability or simply lack to learn IT technology as they do.

All ninety-nine percent of business users and most home users want to do is whatever it is they need to at the time, they way they know how to do it. They are afraid of change and for good reason. In the business world, it can cost them productivity, which can in turn cost them their jobs! In the home environment, they just don't want the hassle of changing things because most of them don't really understand what they are doing anyway.

I have seen too many IT professionals in the development end that fail to consider the impact of what they do on the user environment. They simply do not understand how in the professional world it effects the user's ability to do their jobs. What my rant was about is mostly Microsoft's failure to understand both the business and home customer's needs.

This is not an insult, but I can tell that you are either not an IT professional or are a new one. Your response did not take into consideration that new innovation should never have an unnecessary adverse effect on the user.

The reason in the business world is that it increases costs. Those costs can come many ways. Sometimes it is in the form of money, as in money spent for the software product and or the training both the IT professionals and users to use it. Other times those costs result from the of loss of productivity; and, that lost productivity can result form the time it took to train the user, the time it took them to adapt to the changes, the actual changes themselves making a given task more time consuming, or the the time it takes to develop and then implement workarounds. By the way, those workarounds are usually needed so that the change we made will work in the user's environment.

It is our jobs as IT professionals, Microsoft included, to minimize the impact of whatever changes we make into the user environment, whether that environment be professional (business) or non-professional (home). The reasons for this are:

1. Test to make sure a change works before deployment.

2. Test to make sure a change works does not adversely affect user productivity before deployment.

3: Keep the cost down in terms of money.

4. Keep the time spent training IT Professions down.

5. Keep the time spent training IT Professions down.

6. To avoid unnecessary downtime, make only those changes necessary.

7. To avoid a disaster, make only those changes necessary.

8. Make sure the change is cost effective.

9. Keep the user working.

10. Put the needs of the user first.

Again, in the business world, that means, unless there is really go reason not to, let the user do it they way want to, even if we know a better way. It's okay to suggest the better way, but we shouldn't force upon them. We don't have to do their jobs, they do!

The same can be said of the home environment, as any PC Technician will tell you.

Let me add that it is Microsoft's responsibility as a software and operating system manufacturer to do all the above. To that, they must add the following:

Consider the needs of the IT professional who must deploy and support the products they create. That means even if they think it is out dated but we think it makes our jobs easier, don't screw with it! And why?

Their business is to make our jobs easier as we see it, not as they see it not force their ideas onto us!

Finally, people are resistant to change. They are afraid of it, particularly where computers are concerned. The veteran IT Professional knows the even the smallest change can have disastrous effects. The amateur computer users is already afraid of his or her computer enough and doesn't want the added stress.

Maybe the best way to introduce new things is as "Did you know?" feature giving you the option of doing it the new way, rather than saying, "Oh, we decided you don't need that any more."

[Zxian]

All ninety-nine percent of business users and most home users want to do is whatever it is they need to at the time, they way they know how to do it. They are afraid of change and for good reason. In the business world, it can cost them productivity, which can in turn cost them their jobs! In the home environment, they just don't want the hassle of changing things because most of them don't really understand what they are doing anyway.

I don't see how making programs searchable by typing is a terrible thing. I'm currently on an XP machine (soon to be formatted to Vista) and I wish I had the built-in search that Vista provides. If you've ever used it for day-to-day work and finding documents, you'd know that it is faster, and lets users be more productive in the end. For most of my collegues and friends who have made the switch, it hasn't taken more than a couple of weeks in order to get the hang of how Vista is laid out. After the switch is made, they all say they like it more. And no, they're not in IT nor are they tech savvy.

If employees are having a really hard time making the switch from XP to Vista, they're lacking experience/training in general computer usage, and that's no fault of Microsoft.

[Win2k3EE]

Right Click on the Task bar and, go into properties.

Go to the Start Menu tab and click on Classic Start Menu.

This is not possible in Windows 7.

I begin to feel sorry for bringing up this subject. I got used to the new start menu in an hour after installing Windows 7, so I'm not disappointed anymore.

P.S. Here's a trick to open explorer in Computer rather then libraries:

make a shortcut on your desktop of explorer.exe -> right click -> properties -> shortcut tab -> target line put this C:\Windows\explorer.exe /e,::{20d04fe0-3aea-1069-a2d8-08002b30309d}.