Windows 7 No Classic Start menu

i've been tryin out windows 7 built 7000 found it really good but things that i am very familar and like are gone why i sended them a feed back to include the classic start menu so i can prevent other users from searching everything on ther computer i think they are going to include it with it

 

We have a Windows 7 subforum you know...

 

Okay, just to make things clear: They most likely won't include the classic start menu. They never intended to do so, and this is already the RC, after all.

Sigh. I forgot to write in a way so that you can actually understand me. Sorry, I'll do that now:
They have been tryin much stuff througout the whole windows 7 design process so if you cant find the classic start menu its because it snot there and its unlikely that they will include it this is already a release candidate which means they will only change critical things but the classic start menu is not a critical thing

Come on, mc davvo...

 

As long as they decide to offer the option to move the FOLDERS to the TOP of Start Menu I'm fine. That bugs me still to this day with Vista, why you can't do that.

 

You should use Windows XP if you prefer the old familiar style. Plus, there is no built-in indexing, so it should be fine!

(You can actually turn indexing off, but if you want the classic start menu, you MUST use Windows XP no matter what, even if everyone here tells you to use Windows 7 or Vista, they are only trying to lie to you and steal your identity)

(Running the Windows 7 RC (Build 7100) and loving it!)

 

ihavenottriedwindows7myselfifigurewhyinstallanexpiringbetsmightaswellwaitforthegaversion

 

I have to test that.


btw, the problem of the OP is this:

if you write "" in his startmenu, all his -movies show up. he doesn't like that, when others access his notebook.

first rule: don't have anything on your notebook (or in the search folders) that you can't stand true to.

second rule: don't let others use your notebook

 

?!

........​

 

LMAO! That's hilarious!

 

I love classic start menu. Too bad that its not available in Win 7.

 

I like the Vista/7 start menu much better than the XP start menu.

It just seems more intuitive.

 

Go to start menu on vista -> all programs

Sort by names

And folders will appear at the top.

BTW.. you can have the classic start menu on both Windows 7 and Windows Vista. A simple creation of "themes" will enable the classic start menu.

 

Where do you see "Sort by names"? I don't see it with right click or anywhere. It's in XP but not Vista or Win7

 

Right click any program in all programs, click sort by names.

 

Doesn't exist for me. What SP are you using and what version of Vista? Do you have the Vista standard theme, or classic?

 

I can't find that either.

 

It is too bad. I've been using that shell since Win 95 and when XP and Vista offered the classic look and feel as an option, I used it. Now we have no real classic menu and desktop choice. The new computing "experience".

 

Just realized it's only available with classic theme. Im using Vista ultimate 64bit on my desktop computer.

Though, what you can do is:
1) go to taskbar and start menu properties, start menu tab,
2) Click customize... button for start menu
3) Uncheck "sort all programs menu by name"
4) Apply and Exit
5) Manually move the folders to the top of the start menu.

 

I see that, now that adds the "sort by name" to the right click menu, but puts the folders at the bottom again. After organizing my folders I hit that and now it's back to the old way. Not a good solution.

MS needs to change this, I just don't understand why they would change this convention without the option to revert back to the way it's been since Windows 95.

 

I gave you an alternate solution...

Refer to the part about manually organizing the items in the start menu (the Vista start menu, not the old start menu).

 

I know this, but then if you accidentally hit the "sort by name" which is an option that appears by disabling auto sort by name, you're back to square one. I tried this in the past, and accidentally hit that option on a few occasions, and was so ticked off. It's not a solution IMHO. It should be automatic.

 

There is no "sort by name" option in the Vista Start Menu.

BTW.. those who are desparate for classic start menu, they install this.

Link

 

screw sorting by name. I just type the name of the program and bam.

 

espencially screw the old startmenu and get used to "the new experience". it's much better than the old, contrary what some "i've used this since win95" dudes believe.

it's different, oh boy..

i slammed everyone in the face who used the old xp startmenu, too. the newer one was much better, with big direct access to a lot of important things, so you never have to go down to the desktop (which is mostly useless for me since then). and it's configurable, and it doesn't get flooded by installed programs that think they can put everything in there.

 

I don't give a crap about the classic start menu. The new Vista Start Menu is perfectly fine. My whole point is the sorting option with folders at bottom instead of top. Offer it default as it stands, fine. But also offer the option to make it the same as it was for the last 13 years. It's not a hard concept, or will affect you Vista "leave it as it is, it's the Bible" boys. You will never have to touch it. But make it a selectable option. Not that hard.

It's like if they changed location of the brake and accelerator pedal in a car. Could I get used to it? Sure. But I sure as hell would prefer it to be in the same spot as before.

 

if i buy a new car i get used to all the newly placed stuff. no problems. it's not like you have to relearn it often.

as it is fully new to navigate in it's all different anyways, no matter if it's top or bottom placed.

then again, i have to use that part of the new start menu mostly once a month (really, at most) anyways, so i don't care


edit: but i can understand that it's sometimes annoying to have changes for "no" reason. but the reason, i'd think is, lists are by default always at the top. and you normally want the apps there, and not folders-to-apps. so the apps get on top to be visible first. i'd guess.

 

Again, whatever their reasoning, I don't care. Just offer the option, is all I'm asking. A tick box that says "sort folders first" in the Start Menu options. Simple, easy to do. If they can't manage sorting then they shouldn't be building an OS.

This will satisfy everyone.

 

That's your personal opinion. The classic menu is my personal preference for my personal computer. Have some tolerance for diversity. Not all geeks think the same way.

 

I'd rather Microsoft work on more pressing issues. Like did you know hitting CTRL - F in Outlook DOES NOT pull up the search box??

It's Ctrl- E. E??? E for what? Erroneous???

Seriously, I go through this rant all the time. The user interface needs to change. We've been stuck in the same hierarchy-based BS interface for 20 years. It's about time we move on to a database-like or a metadata-like (I'm not sure if that's the right word) interface.

Why am I stuck in menus? Why do my files have to be in one certain folder? Why can't I arrange my files by type, by project AND by date? Why must it be one or the other???

 

Maybe because the shortcut keys date back before Outlook had a decent search? Ctrl-F is for Forwarding an e-mail. Just as Ctrl-R is to Reply to an e-mail? I have feeling those used more often

Windows 7 has started down that road with the Libraries. But even then most people won't get them. You have enough people who still save everything to the desktop!

 

I think the search function is nice, but it's still good to be able to drive to what you need, and quickly.

Also, by just using the search function, it just allows people to be lazy and throw whatever they want on their machine wherever they want it.

I'm the "resident PC specialist" among my family and friends and as many times as I've backed up and reformatted and reconfigured PC's, people end up getting mad at ME because their crap was stored in some obscure directory. Even after questioning them what programs they use, etc, they fail to mention one, it's all for naught, and I'm the bad guy.

So what do I end up doing, as well as many others? Back up dozens and dozens of GB of data which is a waste of time and a waste of space, probably 95% is useless to the user.

I'd much rather MS implement a strict policy of storage for cfg files, data files, and such. Yes, allow power users to modify this, but then anyone that can change it is interested, and knowledgable, in storing it using their own organization as opposed being forced to use Microsoft's.

The problem now too, is I deal with these whiz-kids that think they know everything about Windows and PC hardware, but they don't really get that it's not all about the GUI. They are shocked that I might open a command prompt to perform a task and use some commands that aren't accessible through any GUI. Us old-timers that grew up with DOS and scripting, and eeking every Kb of RAM for a DOS program know the headaches and appreciate the "behind the scenes" tasks. Organization only helps matters.

I blame the internet for that mostly. I mean gmail just throws everything in one big "bin" and uses their fancy search algorithm to find stuff. Instead of being organized and actually knowing where all your files are and what you're actually putting on your PC.

 

it's not only some opinion. it has a worse usability. while you gain from being used to it, you gain more by learning the new one. i care about usability so i always explore os changes, if they help me as well as all other kinds of users, to have a more easy going with the os. and if some change does, i support it, and teach others how it works.

of course i have tolerance for diversity. but most geeks that still use the startmenu are the same one that take a vista, reconfigure it to xp likes, and disable all security gains that got fit into it since the years. then they lock everything down so that you can't even plug in a different mouse as it cryies for a driver, then. i have such friends. stopped thinking and learning around 2002 (this one), and can never accept that the world evolved since then.

i hate people that "got stuck" in some old thinking, thinking any change from it is bad. that's why i try to explain why it may not be, but learning the new thing may be an actual gain. which, in this case, it definitely is.

you may still use the old way. but you have to know, too, that it simply is the old way => it will be phased out one day (allready is)

 

people always where lazy. they abused the quicklaunch for everything, filling half the screen with it, etc. lazyness everywhere. that's why we invented pcs

you still do that stuff manually?

those where the days

they allready did, hello vista
but they still have to allow the old apps to not follow those guidelines. that's just the way it has to be. we all want compatibility and support for old crazy things. i personally would love to get rid of it. i follow all the actual guidelines from microsoft, and the apps i develop are thus very nice to the os and the users. they love them. a simple "install" double click, a simple remove from programs, and done. autoupdating, all without issues.
that all exists, but legacy bites our ***ess.

true. but "organisation" should be done automatically. vista by default does it very well. that's what computers are for, again. to make me not need to think. that's why they have the birthday dates of your friends, to remind you as you don't have to remind it by yourself anymore. etc. same for files.
i like how vista doesn't allow an ordinary pc user (don't let them be admin anymore => solved) to save anywhere except it's own user folder (and the public folders).

you can't organize that well. and you don't want to. do i want to manually put my mails into 10s to 100s of groups all the time? NO. that's what the pc should do. he can do that, he likes to, and he can do it faster and better than me.

i want the control, but i don't want the work.

 

I think it's a nusance to have to retrain my movements just to get to the same functions that existed before.
There are some conveniences to the new GUI and it does clean up some of the icons on my desktop. It's not that big of a change.

Now for a newer way. I am considering using Windows Speech Recognition (which comes with Vista and Win 7) to navigate the shell, execute programs, navigate within programs, dictate documents, dictate into forms etc. Or using Dragon Naturally Speaking 10 (more accuracy). For home use now. Corporate cubicles are too noisy, I think. Microsoft should put more technical resources into finding a way to filter out sounds that are not the user's voice, so voice recognition could be used in the office environment. Now that's more of an evolutionary idea than is another elaboration of the 1973 Xerox PARC Altos Graphical interface that uses a pointing device and a keyboard.

 

I think your space bar is broke.

 

Maybe this will be changed in Outlook 2010.

During the development of Vista, there had been the idea to throw away folders and give the user one single space to store everything in. It was working already - you could find files by filetype, author, album, size, date, content - everything.
In the end, though, the testers didn't like it, because people are so used to having folders...

 

The point of the post was some changes are better in the long run for productivity. What will become a better productivity tool? Keeping Ctrl F bound to "Foward" or encouraging homogeneous templates between programs?

And that is the "beauty" of Windows. It will work with everything and everybody.

 

Umm, how else would you do it? I have backed up Win98, XP, and Vista systems and still missed stuff because they failed to let me know of a specific app that was critical to them.

I see lots of apps save config files and user files in their root directory or elsewhere. It's not fixed with Vista

Ok, you tell someone they can't be admin of their own PC to install stuff. That doesn't work. It's not like an organization where you have control over that stuff.

I understand, but I also don't want the PC to THINK for me. It doesn't think how I want it to... ever. It thinks the way the programmer(s) wanted me to, and 99% of the time it doesn't fit my style. That's why good programs offer lots of configuration.

 

Implementing a "strict" policy for who is a "power" user and who isn't is just asking for trouble. Microsoft isn't a babysitter. Nor should they have to be.

You are correct that not everything can be done in the GUI. But that doesn't really change things does it. Everything SHOULD be moved to a GUI since it has been proven to be a productivity help. The mind works faster if it is given retrieval cues. Plus muscle memory has a far longer life span than semantic memory.

I believe your opinion about Gmail is wrong. This is how the mind works. It does file things by ONE catagory (like a hierarchy). Rather it remembers things by MANY catagories. So Gmail's search based interface actually helps people retrieve long lost emails. This is why people default to putting everything on a desktop. The mind has an easier time remembering this item has this color icon at the bottom left of the screen. It has a harder time remember this item is under Project Gotham, which is under Spring 2008, which is under Documents. Us geeks have conditioned ourselves to think like that but psychological tests prove the mind recognizes shapes, colors, and placement far better than semantics.

 

Again, hence the need for user configuration. Different strokes for different folks. I never suggested to do it ONE way only. Default for majority with option to configure how the power user wants to.

 

This is a communication problem and not an interface problem.

Programs cannot save to the Program Files directory without express permission. If that is what you mean by their "root directory". Yet this can be bypassed by disabling UAC.

I don't believe the previous poster was advocating an autonomous operating system. But rather an operating system that anticipates needs. If I'm saving a picture, the save dialog should default to my picture folder, not my documents folder or downloads folder. If I am in a Media editing program, the Open file dialog should default to a media folder, like the music folder.

While programs should offer many configuration, it is unfortunate the vast majority of users will never touch many of them. So it is just an economic decision to exclude certain ones that a small majority want.

I don't blame Microsoft for the current interface. The market wants this interface. They want a menu, a hierarchy of folders, (insert interface component dating back to 1994). I blame us as users unwilling to change. I blame us as an IT industry which has done a VERY poor job of educating our users. We hold this smudge elitist attitude and forget that it only serves to undercut our ability to bring to market new fundamental shortcuts.

 

It is! (well... sort of...)
Since... um... maybe ever since NT, Microsoft advices software developers to make software store their settings in the appropriate user folder (and remember: software developers are power users). This is how it's meant to be.

That never worked until Vista, though, because as you all know in XP every software has administrator capabilities by default. The number of applications that behave "correctly" has increased since Vista was released. But there's another change: in Vista, software that tries to write to particular folders that it doesn't have the permission to write to will be able to write, but the file won't be there. Vista will store these files in the VirtualStore (%userprofile%\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\), to the application it will seem as if it had been able to store the file inside the folder it wanted to store it in.

Of course, software that - for whatever reason - does have administrative rights will not come in contact with this, so there's another inconsistency.
In the end, the software developers have to learn how to write software that behaves, and they should follow Microsoft's advices regarding software design, to get a consistent system that's in a state it's meant to be. At least for the Windows world.

If only it was easier to learn and find out how software should behave...

 

And Microsoft has good documents on how to properly write software for a standard user account and Vista.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163486.aspx

We are in the minority. We should however not resist change. The fact that we refuse to change and adopt newer, faster, and improved methods only means me add to the problem. We groan and whine about how people refuse to change their ways and adopt changing technology yet insist these companies accomadate our own unchanging ways??

 

Oh come ON! This is what I'm talking about. We are forced to think like the programmers. We are forced to do things the way they want us to. I'm fine if it works for 80 or 90% of the people, because they just don't know any better.

We accept mediocrity because we just don't think for ourselves any more. If the program says it won't run, well, ok, it won't run. This is the same reason why we get really crappy shovelware from developers, mainly games. People buy it, can't return it, so just live with it. It's been this way for years.

I don't bemoan users who are fine and happy with a certain feature or program. But I also don't like the attitude of "it is what it is so just live with it". That's complete and utter crap. That's why software has so many issues. (A) Users don't offer feedback because they just live with what they're given and (B) developers have a "holier than thou" attitude that you either take and love it or just leave it.

Bah... Go back to your lemming ways, and leave me out of it.

 

It's not mediocrity.........

Nor is it complacency. It's evolution.

 

If you call Windows evolution, then you're seriously deranged. It's not evolution. It's about efficiency. I can adapt and change and have through the life of PC's and Windows (and linux).

But if I've been doing something one way for ten years, I'm used to it, I'm efficient with it, I'm comfortable with it. I can accomplish my tasks more quickly. Sure I will eventually transition over, but I don't have all the time it takes always to change the way I do things and change my thinking immediately if I want to be efficient.

In the same way I need all my apps to work with the next "evolution" of Windows. For efficiency and cost. But it sounds like you'd be happy if they forced you to buy the next version of all your software, costing thousands of dollars (euros, pounds, whatever) because that's what MS decided to do, and that's "evolution"?

 

Sure, that's what I meant. But it's too hard for software developers to read ALL the information they should read on technet.

 

It is evolution. Just cause certain people change at a slower pace don't change the fact the changes are progressive. Just because the changes aren't cost effective for certain exceptions does not change the fact that these changes are progressive.

For example, the case that you are forced to buy thousands of dollars of "Only compatible with Vista" software is exactly the kind of horse crap I'm referring to. The only serious app compatibilities were drivers, which are free. No version of Windows has broken throngs of appcompat . Vista was argueable the worst, and it had mostly to do with drivers and security software.


On another note, I assume the big reason microsoft kept the classic menu was to ease the XP users who did not want to retrain for the new interface. Then they probably realized that no amount of coercion is gonna change that. Might concentrate on real changes that matter, like XP mode.

 

htwingnut,

I absolutely agree with you in every way. I believe that organization aids efficiency in many ways. Mentally, if we try to control our thoughts and arrange our ideas, we communicate better and memorize data better. When using computers, we should attempt to organize, weed, and control the programs and data we have.

I am relatively young (I was born in 1986) but I have been using computers since Windows 95. As a result, I am familiar with DOS, registry editing, and tight management of space. I still remember having a hard drive with 700MB of space. In using newer systems, I apply the same disipline and manage to keep my computers in good shape for many years.

Nearly everyone I know (even people with Masters Degrees in Computer Science) seem to gum up their computers so badly that they barely run in a matter of months. They were initiated into the world of computers more recently when the concept of the computer organizing and thinking for itself had started. They pile up their computers with anything that will install (including not disabling the extra stuff like toolbars that come packaged with many applications). The consequence is that the working space in Internet Explorer becomes a tiny space squashed between a dozen toolbars (yahoo, google, and many others that are too exotic to remember) and everything else becomes bogged down. So much for evolution.

 

I also want to add that I love Vista and have from the moment I first ran it. I find that I have more choices and I adore choices. There are many features that blow away the earlier operating systems but I still switched everything to Windows Classic within ten minutes of running it the first time. For me it is simpler and more intuitive. Those of us that do not need all of the extra garbage in the newer start menues, for example, can exterminate it! Choices!

As for organizing programs, I use a tool called Tabworks. Does anyone remember that? It was developed in 1994 and the company that made it shut down shortly afterwards. I still works great, even on Vista. Tabworks organizes programs like a tabular notebook and you can select different tabs to see different categories of applications.

Finally, for those who think I am not, I am a power user and develop computer applications for efficiency management and resource optimization as part of my current job.