Is Start Menu really matter?

[mdmd]

Oops: It's WinKEY Pg-UP and Pg-DN: Sorry.
(For flipping screens)

 

[pparks1]

Ubuntu used to be the #1 Linux distro.
Since they introduced "Unity", Ubuntu has dropped from its #1 position.

Most of the articles I've read suggest that Linux Mint is now #1.

Yep, used to use Ubuntu on desktops at home...and used them a bit at work. Since they introduced Unity, I dumped them. It's been a rocky road, the experience is awful and I don't like it. Seems like same thing is coming to Windows.

 

[mdmd]

From reading your sig...

Nobody had to tell me that Windows 7 was great, it was that obvious.

Hey, Parks, IMO, never liked 7. Always seeking shell replacements.

7 was great, it was that obvious.

Not obvious to me.
I never bought Windows 7. So I have no issues with anyone that wants to skip 8.
______________________
The OP: Is Start Menu really matter?
To me: absolutely with Windows 7.

The Windows 7 Start Menu to me, was a nightmare

 

[lehnerus2000]

Ubuntu used to be the #1 Linux distro.
Since they introduced "Unity", Ubuntu has dropped from its #1 position.

Most of the articles I've read suggest that Linux Mint is now #1.

Yep, used to use Ubuntu on desktops at home...and used them a bit at work. Since they introduced Unity, I dumped them.

I'm still using Ubuntu 10 LTS as my physical Linux distro.

I've got a stack of Linux VMs:

• Ubuntu 10 LTS
• Ubuntu 11.04 & 11.10
• Ubuntu 12 LTS
• Linux Mint 13 (MATE)
• Linux Mint 14 (MATE)
• Fedora 15
• CentOS 6
• Pinguy
• Peppermint
• OpenSUSE 12

As I mentioned previously, Linux Mint (MATE) is now my favourite Linux distro.

 

[nesetceri]

I must be honest..initially I was unhappy about start menu being omitted from W8..so I tried various third party "Start" programs which W8 did not agree..it took ages to shut down-start..slowed down my system etc. So I decided to live without "Start", after overcoming withdrawal symptoms I can live happily without "Start" (same thing when I gave up smoking ) Well, if you get used to it ,W8 does everything you ask for "Search and Settings" there...having said all that I won't be surprised if Mc includes Start and Gadgets in their Service pack 1

 

[pparks1]

From reading your sig...

Nobody had to tell me that Windows 7 was great, it was that obvious.

Hey, Parks, IMO, never liked 7. Always seeking shell replacements.

7 was great, it was that obvious.

Not obvious to me.
I never bought Windows 7. So I have no issues with anyone that wants to skip 8.
______________________
The OP: Is Start Menu really matter?
To me: absolutely with Windows 7.

The Windows 7 Start Menu to me, was a nightmare

No problems with that. I was on XP, didn't care for Vista. Was very impressed with Windows 7 overall. I jumped onto it immediately, moved any Vista machine that had problems to 7 and overall things have been very smooth and problem free with Windows 7.

I just don't care for the changes in Windows 8. They don't suit me well. They don't benefit me. I don't see any point in spending my money to upgrade.

 

[Coke Robot]

I'm finding as time goes on, the majority of people that complain about not having a start menu are just people that have used it for 15 or more years, that doesn't change without people throwing their hands up in the air. Now, is the Start Screen better than the menu? From my experience personally and seeing how others have used Windows 7 shows yes. It is better. When people figured out how to pin things to the Taskbar, the need for the Most Frequently Used list of the menu becomes redundant. A typical laptop resolution can have over 16 items pinned to it, which is more than what the MFU lists can display. Most of those usually have jumplists that are used. Usually after that, the All Programs list becomes a once in a blue moon adventure, I honestly can't say if it's ever used or not from what I can gather. If something needs found, it's either in the MFU list and not pinned to the Taskbar, or just searched for with a text query. Or sometimes, people just keep shortcuts on the Desktop and use those, basically how Windows has been used since like Windows 2 and 3. I know I PERSONALLY used the start menu quite often. I preferred having items pinned to the Taskbar of the programs I used often. I didn't use the MFU list as I kept the All Programs neat and tidy and could find things pretty quickly when needed. Shoot, I was thinking about doubling the size of the Taskbar and pinning EVERY program I had installed onto it, which would make the start menu UTTERLY pointless...

Now, there are a very slim group of people that probably use the Taskbar pins and the start menu in conjunction. There is a small group of people that do use the All Programs list as they have their poop in a group and have things organized to find a program that they don't use too often. That's them, that's not the overwhelming group of everyone else.

I just helped build a budget gaming rig for a friend of mine who is a HARD CORE PC gamer, the kind that has actual shelves full of PC game disks, along with a huge collection of Steam games. He went for Windows 8 as he really doesn't get why people are complaining about a start menu that he never used. And this is true, looking at his start menu, I can see why he just used the Desktop shortcuts as that was a MESS! In a Start Screen environment, those Desktop shortcuts become tiles on the Start Screen, of which can be organized neatly, things can be unpinned if needed, grouped, and further tweaked with a couple of third party tools. The Start Screen effectively becomes the original purpose of the Desktop, of that being just being the launcher of programs. It's visual like the Desktop, except different.


But honestly, people did complain when Windows 95 came out and forced people to use the start menu. People complained about the Luna UI design of xp being crap to the old school UI. People did complain when vista condensed this preposterous fly-out start menu that took over the whole Desktop if large enough and condensed it down into this small little scroll menu. There were even people that complained about the new Taskbar in Windows 7 saying just that they didn't like it. In retrospect, people adopted the use of the start menu. People adopted the use of the newer start menu in xp. People adopted and defend the vista style start menu. People adopted the use of the new Taskbar in 7. And in all new UI changes, people just took advantage of the new over the old. Do you see people complaining and trying to disable the start menu in Windows these days like in 95? No. Was it easy to disable the start menu in 95? Yes. But did matter five years later with 98 or 2000? Not really.

 

[SIW2]

I don't suppose it matters to you that the metro UI is a disaster in usability terms for desktop/laptops.

 

[pparks1]

And this is true, looking at his start menu, I can see why he just used the Desktop shortcuts as that was a MESS!

It should have at least been an organized mess.

In a Start Screen environment, those Desktop shortcuts become tiles on the Start Screen, of which can be organized neatly, things can be unpinned if needed, grouped, and further tweaked with a couple of third party tools.

To me, the start screen looks like a box of crayons exploded...it's too busy. I hated having to remove icons from the desktop, and when programs gave an option to NOT create a shortcut, I exercised that option. Wit the start screen, I've always got clean up to do. PITA if you ask me. And having to have 3rd party tools to customize is just a drag.

The Start Screen effectively becomes the original purpose of the Desktop, of that being just being the launcher of programs. It's visual like the Desktop, except different.

But to have to jump back to a full screen listing of my icons is a real pain in the butt. I much prefer just having a menu where I can access things from and still see the desktop as well as all running apps that I use. When I go to the Start Screen, my desktop is gone. New emails are missed, instant messages are missed, and everything else on the desktop is missed for whatever period of time I am looking at the start screen. What a drag.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Agreed

I hated having to remove icons from the desktop, and when programs gave an option to NOT create a shortcut, I exercised that option. Wit the start screen, I've always got clean up to do. PITA if you ask me. And having to have 3rd party tools to customize is just a drag.

I hate those installers that don't give you the following options:

• Program: Location
• Desktop Icon: Yes/No
• Start Menu: Yes(Location)/No

 

[sgage]

I'm finding as time goes on, the majority of people that complain about not having a start menu are just people that have used it for 15 or more years, that doesn't change without people throwing their hands up in the air. Now, is the Start Screen better than the menu? From my experience personally and seeing how others have used Windows 7 shows yes. It is better. When people figured out how to pin things to the Taskbar, the need for the Most Frequently Used list of the menu becomes redundant. A typical laptop resolution can have over 16 items pinned to it, which is more than what the MFU lists can display. Most of those usually have jumplists that are used. Usually after that, the All Programs list becomes a once in a blue moon adventure, I honestly can't say if it's ever used or not from what I can gather. If something needs found, it's either in the MFU list and not pinned to the Taskbar, or just searched for with a text query. Or sometimes, people just keep shortcuts on the Desktop and use those, basically how Windows has been used since like Windows 2 and 3. I know I PERSONALLY used the start menu quite often. I preferred having items pinned to the Taskbar of the programs I used often. I didn't use the MFU list as I kept the All Programs neat and tidy and could find things pretty quickly when needed. Shoot, I was thinking about doubling the size of the Taskbar and pinning EVERY program I had installed onto it, which would make the start menu UTTERLY pointless...

Now, there are a very slim group of people that probably use the Taskbar pins and the start menu in conjunction. There is a small group of people that do use the All Programs list as they have their poop in a group and have things organized to find a program that they don't use too often. That's them, that's not the overwhelming group of everyone else.

I just helped build a budget gaming rig for a friend of mine who is a HARD CORE PC gamer, the kind that has actual shelves full of PC game disks, along with a huge collection of Steam games. He went for Windows 8 as he really doesn't get why people are complaining about a start menu that he never used. And this is true, looking at his start menu, I can see why he just used the Desktop shortcuts as that was a MESS! In a Start Screen environment, those Desktop shortcuts become tiles on the Start Screen, of which can be organized neatly, things can be unpinned if needed, grouped, and further tweaked with a couple of third party tools. The Start Screen effectively becomes the original purpose of the Desktop, of that being just being the launcher of programs. It's visual like the Desktop, except different.


But honestly, people did complain when Windows 95 came out and forced people to use the start menu. People complained about the Luna UI design of xp being crap to the old school UI. People did complain when vista condensed this preposterous fly-out start menu that took over the whole Desktop if large enough and condensed it down into this small little scroll menu. There were even people that complained about the new Taskbar in Windows 7 saying just that they didn't like it. In retrospect, people adopted the use of the start menu. People adopted the use of the newer start menu in xp. People adopted and defend the vista style start menu. People adopted the use of the new Taskbar in 7. And in all new UI changes, people just took advantage of the new over the old. Do you see people complaining and trying to disable the start menu in Windows these days like in 95? No. Was it easy to disable the start menu in 95? Yes. But did matter five years later with 98 or 2000? Not really.

You talk about majorities of people doing this, and slim minorities of people doing that. Do you have any data? I didn't think so. You are merely projecting, simply making it up. The way everyone in this useless discussion does.
Please, Metro lovers, simply leave it alone, and accept that, e.g., Metro simply doesn't work for many serious PC users. Why the constant psychoanalyzing? You do your thing your way, and I'll do my thing my way. But this constant over-analysis based on nothing is getting very, very tiresome.

Can't we just give it a rest?

 

[symbiont]

Do you see people complaining and trying to disable the start menu in Windows these days like in 95? No. Was it easy to disable the start menu in 95? Yes. But did matter five years later with 98 or 2000? Not really.

Over the course of the past 10 years the Start Menu has evolved from what we had in Win95 to a pretty condensed yet fully functional menu in Win7. Why would people complain and/or attempt to disable it in it's latest generations? It was unobtrusive and tucked away in the corner of your UI behind a tiny button. Even open it took up possibly 1/16th of your screen. If you didn't want to use it, don't click the button - and yes you could very easily disable the start button if you wanted to.

Flip forward to a forced removal of that condensed menu to what the Start Screen is. It's full screen, in it's current state it's pretty much useless, although they try to make you feel cool by feeding you "live tiles" which really do nothing but eat up bandwidth in the background since you only see them a fraction of the time you're using the OS. We went from 16px icons to 1.5 inch squares at the smallest size, with an icon floating in the middle - complete waste of space unless you are using a touchscreen or a tablet and NEED something for your fat finger to hit. I like innovation like the next guy, but in it's current state whatever they are trying to do here is downright silly on a desktop PC, unless of course you're easily susceptible to being told what is the "cool" thing and that you need to accept it.

The whole thing could've been handled much differently. They could've allowed the OPTION to have either or, or both - and then in the future once there's a point to it, then disabled the actual menu. A lot of people probably would've been completely happy if they had the choice and all this quabbling over such a boring feature would've been prevented.

But hey, at least Stardock's making money right?

 

[RobertLie]

Its kinda funny, but I actually STOPPED using the Start Menu in Windows 7.

Why?

The important programs were either in Steam (Games), on the Desktop for Shortcuts, or Pinned to the Taskbar. Rarely used configurations were usually pinned to the opening panel of the Start Menu, and I don't think I ever even tried using the Search. The main reason why I ever used the Start Menu was to either open the Control Panel or to Sleep/Shut Down/Restart the PC, followed by a rarely used program to open (or hunt down the Calculator/CMD).

Thus the main change for me in Windows 8 now, that I've gotten used to it?
Metro Start Screen keeps the Metro Apps. Taskbar/Desktop/Steam keeps Desktop ones. Only the rare non-metro app in the Metro Start Screen is the game I'm currently playing the most, just to make a quick jump after turning on the PC, or my Desktop Web browser for one less click (Desktop then Browser).

In fact, I actually USE the Metro Search now, because its not so tiny anymore and I can choose where I'm trying to search for something a touch easier.

So the loss of the Win95->Win7 generations of a Start Menu hasn't really affected me much at all.

 

[Coke Robot]

And this is true, looking at his start menu, I can see why he just used the Desktop shortcuts as that was a MESS!

It should have at least been an organized mess.

In a Start Screen environment, those Desktop shortcuts become tiles on the Start Screen, of which can be organized neatly, things can be unpinned if needed, grouped, and further tweaked with a couple of third party tools.

To me, the start screen looks like a box of crayons exploded...it's too busy. I hated having to remove icons from the desktop, and when programs gave an option to NOT create a shortcut, I exercised that option. Wit the start screen, I've always got clean up to do. PITA if you ask me. And having to have 3rd party tools to customize is just a drag.

The Start Screen effectively becomes the original purpose of the Desktop, of that being just being the launcher of programs. It's visual like the Desktop, except different.

But to have to jump back to a full screen listing of my icons is a real pain in the butt. I much prefer just having a menu where I can access things from and still see the desktop as well as all running apps that I use. When I go to the Start Screen, my desktop is gone. New emails are missed, instant messages are missed, and everything else on the desktop is missed for whatever period of time I am looking at the start screen. What a drag.

His Desktop was an organized mess, but if you're talking about organizing the start menu mess that's a REAL PITA to do over the Start Screen.

I don't really know how a light color background and a screen full of darker colored tiles looks like crayons exploded. That's the MAJOR difference between the menu and screen, you're rarely going to clean up the All Programs list. You will clean up the Start Screen and KNOW what installed and what is installed more easily.

Yeah, third party tools are kind of a drag to customize, kind of like putting a start menu in Windows 8 is a drag when something else already works better...

And you're preference is that, a preference. Why do you prefer it? It's not like new emails are missed, instant messages are missed, or anything else is missed. It's there. If you're using an email client that isn't Windows 8 built, like Outlook 2010 over 2013, you still get email notifications and everything else regardless. I can't say for sure about instant messaging on the Desktop as I let an email notification to facebook or let the Messaging app notify me regardless if I'm on the Desktop or not. Now honestly, if you were to use the start menu to find a program, unless if you have superior brain power and abilities, you can't possibly focus on finding a program and managing/watching what windows are open. Even then, if what you're opening with the start menu only takes a few seconds, it can take just a long or less with the Start Screen and then, you're back on the Desktop. A few seconds of not seeing an email isn't the end of the world.

And I thought you don't use the apps?

 

[pparks1]

At work we use Microsoft Lync for instant messaging. When I leave the desktop and hit the start screen, if Instant messages come in, there are no notifications sent to me. Thus, if I find a tile, launch an app and play with it for a bit, I have instant messages going unanswered. If I was in the desktop, i would at least see the pop ups and the flashing icon on my taskbar.

And you are right, I don't use the apps. At least none so far. Their inability to run like Windows and be resized to fit my screen are just a no-go.

 

[Coke Robot]

Do you see people complaining and trying to disable the start menu in Windows these days like in 95? No. Was it easy to disable the start menu in 95? Yes. But did matter five years later with 98 or 2000? Not really.

Over the course of the past 10 years the Start Menu has evolved from what we had in Win95 to a pretty condensed yet fully functional menu in Win7. Why would people complain and/or attempt to disable it in it's latest generations? It was unobtrusive and tucked away in the corner of your UI behind a tiny button. Even open it took up possibly 1/16th of your screen. If you didn't want to use it, don't click the button - and yes you could very easily disable the start button if you wanted to.

Flip forward to a forced removal of that condensed menu to what the Start Screen is. It's full screen, in it's current state it's pretty much useless, although they try to make you feel cool by feeding you "live tiles" which really do nothing but eat up bandwidth in the background since you only see them a fraction of the time you're using the OS. We went from 16px icons to 1.5 inch squares at the smallest size, with an icon floating in the middle - complete waste of space unless you are using a touchscreen or a tablet and NEED something for your fat finger to hit. I like innovation like the next guy, but in it's current state whatever they are trying to do here is downright silly on a desktop PC, unless of course you're easily susceptible to being told what is the "cool" thing and that you need to accept it.

The whole thing could've been handled much differently. They could've allowed the OPTION to have either or, or both - and then in the future once there's a point to it, then disabled the actual menu. A lot of people probably would've been completely happy if they had the choice and all this quabbling over such a boring feature would've been prevented.

But hey, at least Stardock's making money right?

I love how people say the Start Screen's forced. Microsoft forced the start menu down our throats for over 15 years without a consideration otherwise. And no, unless if you're using a real high resolution screen, you're not going to have the menu take up 1/16th of the screen. I don't know what resolution you're using, but this laptop I'm on when it was running 7 had the menu take up about 1/6 of the screen. Before on my desktop, it was taking up a good fourth of the screen, covering one fourth of the Desktop to show as much as it possibly could, which still wasn't enough as I still had to scroll through my All Programs list, which was neatly organized as it was. Either way, customized or defaulted, the Start Screen shows more tiles per screen than the start menu could. This is FACT.

And by eating up bandwidth, do you mean the apps are always running in the and don't ever hibernate their processes until an event is triggered that resumes that process to display the new information on the tile?

I also wonder, are you using the same screen that it is possible somehow to display the start menu to only take up 1/16 of the screen which I'm guessing would need REAL precise and tedious mouse pointer navigation, also displays 1.5 inch tiles (which is more like less than 1.25) and some how shows less on said screen than perhaps, a low resolution screen?

Now, yeah, the Start Screen could had been an option. Though it would just cause more confusion and would make people ask why have both when one or the other could work, when the eventual outcome would be using the Start Screen. Instead of doing both, and having the scenario where people were either using the classic model and others using the newer model even though the newer model is the point of focus, it'd be easier in the long run. So for example, instead of quibbling over a redundant item of debate over what's being forced and what's not, a user continues to use the classic model on Windows 8 with a start menu and staying in the Desktop. Said user can use the Start Screen, but doesn't because they prefer using the start menu replacement. Or even, the user stays with Windows 7. So by high time it comes to upgrading a PC five years down the road, or having to upgrade to a newer version of Windows because a program isn't supported on Windows 7 or 8, they will most likely encounter a new Start Screen that allows for different tiles than what they once saw in Windows 8 and refused to learn because of what they wanted to use. Probably at this time, most people that didn't like Windows 8's Start Screen have learned to use it and figured it out and have little to no desire for the start menu. So possibly, it might be difficult to track down a start menu replacement like the user was using before with Windows 8.

What happens here? They are confronted with a new UI they have never used even though it is more common place that it was five years ago. Now they have to either decide to get the newer Windows version with a newer and improved Start Screen to use a program, or simply live using without. Either way, the band aid will in fact have to be ripped off sooner or later. It doesn't really make a difference if there was a choice in UI style or not. It's just prolonging an eventual outcome of learning to use the Start Screen.

 

[Coke Robot]

I'm finding as time goes on, the majority of people that complain about not having a start menu are just people that have used it for 15 or more years, that doesn't change without people throwing their hands up in the air. Now, is the Start Screen better than the menu? From my experience personally and seeing how others have used Windows 7 shows yes. It is better. When people figured out how to pin things to the Taskbar, the need for the Most Frequently Used list of the menu becomes redundant. A typical laptop resolution can have over 16 items pinned to it, which is more than what the MFU lists can display. Most of those usually have jumplists that are used. Usually after that, the All Programs list becomes a once in a blue moon adventure, I honestly can't say if it's ever used or not from what I can gather. If something needs found, it's either in the MFU list and not pinned to the Taskbar, or just searched for with a text query. Or sometimes, people just keep shortcuts on the Desktop and use those, basically how Windows has been used since like Windows 2 and 3. I know I PERSONALLY used the start menu quite often. I preferred having items pinned to the Taskbar of the programs I used often. I didn't use the MFU list as I kept the All Programs neat and tidy and could find things pretty quickly when needed. Shoot, I was thinking about doubling the size of the Taskbar and pinning EVERY program I had installed onto it, which would make the start menu UTTERLY pointless...

Now, there are a very slim group of people that probably use the Taskbar pins and the start menu in conjunction. There is a small group of people that do use the All Programs list as they have their poop in a group and have things organized to find a program that they don't use too often. That's them, that's not the overwhelming group of everyone else.

I just helped build a budget gaming rig for a friend of mine who is a HARD CORE PC gamer, the kind that has actual shelves full of PC game disks, along with a huge collection of Steam games. He went for Windows 8 as he really doesn't get why people are complaining about a start menu that he never used. And this is true, looking at his start menu, I can see why he just used the Desktop shortcuts as that was a MESS! In a Start Screen environment, those Desktop shortcuts become tiles on the Start Screen, of which can be organized neatly, things can be unpinned if needed, grouped, and further tweaked with a couple of third party tools. The Start Screen effectively becomes the original purpose of the Desktop, of that being just being the launcher of programs. It's visual like the Desktop, except different.


But honestly, people did complain when Windows 95 came out and forced people to use the start menu. People complained about the Luna UI design of xp being crap to the old school UI. People did complain when vista condensed this preposterous fly-out start menu that took over the whole Desktop if large enough and condensed it down into this small little scroll menu. There were even people that complained about the new Taskbar in Windows 7 saying just that they didn't like it. In retrospect, people adopted the use of the start menu. People adopted the use of the newer start menu in xp. People adopted and defend the vista style start menu. People adopted the use of the new Taskbar in 7. And in all new UI changes, people just took advantage of the new over the old. Do you see people complaining and trying to disable the start menu in Windows these days like in 95? No. Was it easy to disable the start menu in 95? Yes. But did matter five years later with 98 or 2000? Not really.

You talk about majorities of people doing this, and slim minorities of people doing that. Do you have any data? I didn't think so. You are merely projecting, simply making it up. The way everyone in this useless discussion does.
Please, Metro lovers, simply leave it alone, and accept that, e.g., Metro simply doesn't work for many serious PC users. Why the constant psychoanalyzing? You do your thing your way, and I'll do my thing my way. But this constant over-analysis based on nothing is getting very, very tiresome.

Can't we just give it a rest?

I don't I need to be showing data when Microsoft, the makers of Windows, have already shown the data; of which some people call BS on just because they don't like the Start Screen.

I say the same, stop assuming you simply can't use Windows 8 for anything serious and we can be off on our merry ways. What I used to do with 7 I can do that same easier and better with 8. If you don't want to see that and state fallacies on something you're not fully aware of, then no amount of reasoning or logic or data or proof can obviously show otherwise.

 

[SIW2]

Cokie is just making it up. He can be quite entertaining, though.

I have had a pc for less than 5 years.

I am not his fantasy of an old dinosaur who refuses to change after using something for 15 plus years.

I don't know where his delusions come from - but he is entitled to them.

 

[Coke Robot]

Cokie is just making it up. He can be quite entertaining, though.

I have had a pc for less than 5 years.

I am not his fantasy of an old dinosaur who refuses to change after using something for 15 plus years.

I don't know where his delusions come from - but he is entitled to them.

What part of my delusions means I'm speaking DIRECTLY to YOU?

 

[LittleJay]

I have been using Windows 8 Pro for a few weeks now and after a period of adjustment and fine tuning have found that I can do everything I did on Windows 7. It perplexes me why those who hate Windows 8 so much feel the need to come on a forum dedicated to it, just to bash the OS.