Is Start Menu really matter?

[lehnerus2000]

You don't have to press enter twice to search in W7 (on my PC).
Usually I only have to type a few characters and then press enter (Regedit being a notable exception).

To do a search in W8, you have to:

• Get to the Start Screen.
• Access the Charms Bar.

I don't see any improvement in terms of speed of access.

I can't measure the alleged performance improvement (i.e. it may or may not be true).

 

[jimbo45]

You don't have to press enter twice to search in W7 (on my PC).
Usually I only have to type a few characters and then press enter (Regedit being a notable exception).

To do a search in W8, you have to:

• Get to the Start Screen.
• Access the Charms Bar.

I don't see any improvement in terms of speed of access.

I can't measure the alleged performance improvement (i.e. it may or may not be true).

Hi there
actually it's EVEN WORSE than that

say you have a complex application with a lot of sub menus and sub-sub menus etc.

You might not even KNOW the name of what you want by heart so doing a search won't help you -- nor will the tile scroll ==> but on a Classic menu system you see the HIERARCHIAL drop down --so you can get to it -- you probably know the higher level (say level 2) option but not all the level 3 sub sub menu options.

As I've often said the tiles are fine for a SMALL number of relatively simple applications without a load of complex choices within those applications -- rather like a typical smart phone -- and touch screen scrolling on those is fine.

But for what I've outlined above --in NO WAY is the W8 system quicker or easier to navigate.

Two totally different sets of workflow needed -- that's why the OS needs to be customisable a bit more for traditional desktop users.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[mdmd]

You don't have to press enter twice to search in W7 (on my PC).
Usually I only have to type a few characters and then press enter (Regedit being a notable exception).

To do a search in W8, you have to:
•Get to the Start Screen.
•Access the Charms Bar.

Incorrect. From the start screen, there is no requirement to access the charms bar. (It is auto activated)
When looking at the start screen, all alphanumeric keys are instantly hot keys.
(getting to the start screen = going to the corner orb)

Incorrect. You need to press enter to initiate a search. The start screen does not require pressing enter. When you find something, you need to press enter or click to launch it.

I stated that searching from the charms bar is different.

You might not even KNOW the name of what you want by heart so doing a search won't help you -- nor will the tile scroll

You don't know what you are looking for? Really?

In 8, a close approximation will present you will a full screen of possibilities. The results page from the 8 search has nothing to do with the start screen tiles layout. It basically takes one to the apps area where semantic zooming can be utilized (summarized and organized program groups). The workflow characteristics would be improved over a classical arrangement. Nesting and sub, sub, sub, sub menus are a huge distraction and very time consuming requiring extra effort. The navigational design of Windows 8 is an improvement over Windows 7 and presents a cleaner User Interface.

A desktop loaded with icons is IMO, a problem (not fit for purpose). We agree to disagree. Our views differ.
A start menu (or cascading menu) that has nested links is IMO, a problem.
(very awkward - annoying) (not fit for purpose).

 

[Howdr]

It's more than just being afraid of change, I'd it were that, I would not have even tried Windows 8.

Unintuitive and awkward are the best terms I have for describing Windows 8. Got a call from my dad, who was helping a friend who just bought a new laptop with Windows 8. Both of them have over 30 years experience with computers and have used every version of Windows, including versions before 3.1. Their problem, neither could figure out how to shut down the computer without simply pressing the power button on the computer. Both were convinced I was pulling their leg when I explained how to do it via the charms menu.

Some like Windows 8, some dislike it, but I think most are simply tolerating it.

The number one complaint on Windows 8 is not having an extra UI, but the missing of the Start Menu! I can't believe how deeply the Start Menu has already been rooted into Windows users' mind.

I don't see its importance now as it might have in the old days when you only had a maximum of 1x-2x applications/ groups. Please look into Control Panel and recall the number of items there was in Windows 95. With a large number of items, when they are organized into a nested menu, it's not easily been located and requires many clicks to expand. Those how-tos would always be guiding your clicking e.g., Control Panel -> System -> Device ->... It requires your trained memory and precise mouse movements. I guess that your applications should always be more than system control settings.


Why don't you simply input your application keyword in Search?


Ubuntu, the most popular Linux distro, has taken its step to remove the Start Menu and introduced the UI Unity about 2 years ago. Although there were complaints at the early times, the users eventually realize that the Start Menu has lost its value and the new design receives more positive reviews as time goes by.


It's sad to read posts about struggling on installing back Windows 7. I think that the missing of the Start Menu hurts only some kind of a sense of security. For me, I find myself enjoying in discovering the new experience in the Metro UI and the apps built onto. It's like I'm learning something new again. What do you think?

LOL I have found two camps with experienced experts but I have to say it annoys me to no end to be almost called an idiot because I feel the start button / menu is essential to the Windows environment.

Resorting to keyboard shortcuts and search is well, backwards, the whole revolution was POINT and CLICK not type

The start button was a Point and CLick place I liked and put back with Classic shell

Microsoft designed Windows 8 for the fingers, for Tablets and touch PC's thinking that ordinary PC's we have today are old school and will be gone........While this may happen its premature in 4th quarter 2012 it should have been released in 2nd quarter 2013 when more touch screen computers would be and will be available.

While I hat Macs and the Mac OS I'm not a PC fanboy and will not support Windows 8 is great. Its not as bad as WIndows Me or Vista but its not as good as 7 either as a release. Under the hood its better than 7 and the UI is not as good as 7 so many will stick with 7 like they stuck with XP, not what MS wanted for sure.

 

[Mark Phelps]

Well ... I just discovered that Search is "broken" in Windows 8. How?

I have Win8 Pro and read a thread about adding Windows Media Player. In that thread, it said to invoke Search and enter "Add features" and it would show a link.

I did just that -- and if found NOTHING.

So, I brought up the Charms Bar, selected Control Panel ... and there it is: "Add features to Windows 8".

I found this using the Start8 menu in one click -- by selecting Control Panel.

Telling me to simply use Search would have ended in me not finding it -- at all!

So, to me, not only is using Search to find something a step backwards, it's also a failed implementation!

 

[mdmd]

 

[Howdr]

The problem with Windows 8 is you have to tweak it so much, its not as intuitive, (Google search for Intuitive :
in·tu·i·tive/inˈt(y)o͞oitiv/

Adjective:

Using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive. (chiefly of computer software) Easy to use and understand.

Sure may be ok for a Tablet but not for a PC user

Its not easy no matter how much you want to argue

 

[mdmd]

Hello Howdr. Welcome to Eight Forums.

The problem with Windows 8 is you have to tweak it...Its not easy no matter how much you want to argue

I did not tweak 8 at all. IMO, It works great and is easy to use. No need to argue. Simply agree to disagree. Totally disagree with characterization of unintuitive. 8 is excellent for a desktop PC at home or in business. Our views differ. The Microsoft sales pitch, of which they are entitled, since 8 is their product, would completely disagree that 8 is difficult to use or backwards. Mostly, most users are not familiar with the proper procedures to make effective use of Windows 8. Opinions vary.

How many users know what semantic zooming is? (or apps area) Most are more comfortable with previous iterations of the OS. 8 is different.

 

[symbiont]

Hello Howdr. Welcome to Eight Forums.

The problem with Windows 8 is you have to tweak it...Its not easy no matter how much you want to argue

I did not tweak 8 at all. IMO, It works great and is easy to use. No need to argue. Simply agree to disagree. Totally disagree with characterization of unintuitive. 8 is excellent for a desktop PC at home or in business. Our views differ. The Microsoft sales pitch, of which they are entitled, since 8 is their product, would completely disagree that 8 is difficult to use or backwards. Mostly, most users are not familiar with the proper procedures to make effective use of Windows 8. Opinions vary.

How many users know what semantic zooming is? (or apps area) Most are more comfortable with previous iterations of the OS. 8 is different.

Therein lies one of the problems. It's advertised to be easy to use right off the bat - yet "most users are not familiar with the proper procedures to make effective use of Windows 8". You shouldn't need to explain it, someone should just be able to use it. If the majority of your user base (they're the ones that wanted to target the armchair techies of the world) are ending up not knowing the best way to do something to make it the most efficient - then a ball was dropped somewhere. I wish I could get end users to use software a particular way just because I said that's the way you're supposed to do it.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Wrong

Incorrect. From the start screen, there is no requirement to access the charms bar. (It is auto activated)
When looking at the start screen, all alphanumeric keys are instantly hot keys.
(getting to the start screen = going to the corner orb)

I know that.
I meant that you EITHER have to go to the Start Screen OR user the Charms Bar.

Incorrect. You need to press enter to initiate a search. The start screen does not require pressing enter. When you find something, you need to press enter or click to launch it.

W7 searches as you type.

Your W7 must be broken, you do not need to press enter to search:

• In the Start Menu
• In the Windows Explorer

​

(Note: Typing "sys" retrieves more appropriate results for that search.)

You need to click on the item OR press enter to activate it (just like W8).

 

[mdmd]

I do apologize as I do not use or like Windows 7. I was concerned that we might get into a quibble debate about pressing enter once or twice. So sorry. My comment was based on the quote excerpt...

Usually I only have to type a few characters and then press enter

The results page is somewhat different than in Windows 7.
By default, one must index an extra location to see results.

 

[darvin]

Okay, as my first post I am going to as they say "rise to the bait". I've been using Windows since... well too long to admit to. Let's just say I remember the first incarnation of Windows or more accurately, the first attempt at Windows.

The Start menus should have remained as an option and here is why.
Granted many regular computer users know the tricks and advantages of search but the vast majority of Windows users are NOT regular computer users. The Start menu has incorporated in to their workflow and though perhaps not as efficient as other methods, is commonly used. So Windows 8 will not get picked up by many businesses, governments, medical industry.... because it will be too complex to train that many people on the new OS.

You might enjoy figuring out new features but most people just want their computer to work the way they expect it too and they have come to expect the Start menu.

I am not saying it shouldn't change, just that the change should remain an option that can be easily turned on and off by network admins. And if Umbuntu was so great, then I would see my doctors, nurses, DMV, and other businesses.... all using it instead of Windows.

If Windows 8 fails for any reason at all, it will likely be the Start menu or Metro. If it had been an option, you wouldn't have the resistance we already see.

As for me personally, I can work with it or without it just as easily. One advantage of the Start menu is that you don't have to know the name of the app to search for it. You can rely on the icon alone.

Just my 2 cents worth. Bait taken and run with.
Darv

PS: The topic should really be called "Does the Windows Start Menu matter?" I know, nit picking but if someone doesn't tell him, he may never learn.

 

[Ray8]

There are two things about the Modern interface start menu that I think fails in intent, at least for the moment.

Firstly, there are more 'apps' or icons, than not, that take you directly to the desktop, rather than functioning inside the Modern interface. So people cannot ignore or forget the desktop, as it's always there and always required. So the Modern interface has really been 'fitted for' but not 'fitted with' all the functionality that would make the desktop redundant.

Maybe this is because the desktop can't be made redundant, or Microsoft realises that making it redundant at this point in time would kill Windows 8 at birth. It's like producing a car without a steering wheel or pedals, to be driven with a joystick and/or other hand controls. You can make the steering wheel and pedals drive by wire, but you can't easily remove an established operating system for something completely new.

Secondly, while people talk about a search function, while it might, or not, be easy to find things by starting to type anywhere, the fact is that Windows 8 Pro is fundamentally an OS, it doesn't really come with anything to get you working. You have to load programs such as Office, Adobe etc and these will be historically associated with whatever OS you used previously. Invariably, you will be totally used to the Windows Start button and cascading menus (the shortcuts) to access everything that you need.

Anyone from an era prior to Windows 8 (err, everyone), will be used to clicking on a shortcut, with a mouse somewhere on their screen, not typing in the name or description of the program and then clicking on the search result. Cascading menus have evolved for a reason, they are simple and easy to understand and to navigate. Imagine if supermarkets decided to locate all goods by manufacturer rather than by product type and you had to do your weekly shopping based on this model. With electronic shopping trolleys, all you need do is type in the product you're after and it's easy to find. That would be fun.

So I think the Windows 8 Modern and desktop interface, not Windows 8 OS itself, is something of a 'Jekyll and Hyde', or maybe a 'Jack of All Trades and Master of None'. It's going to create tension until Microsoft realises this.

 

[mdmd]

Cascading menus have evolved for a reason, they are simple and easy to understand and to navigate.

Yes, but the Windows 7 start menu is not cascading is it? Or is it? Am I wrong again? Or the classic shell is? The analysis given by Microsoft is that the cascading start menu is inefficient which is why they created the Windows 7 start menu and removed the option for a classic menu.

Evolving the Start menu - Building Windows 8 - Site Home - MSDN Blogs

All the time spent searching inside of cascaded sub levels ... that is where the controversy begins.
start screen - apps vs start menu < efficient or bogus. Which one? Or both?
Then there is the issue of scrolling inside of the Windows 7 start menu.

I think most people just want that shut down button in their face, together with control panel and other start menu features right in their face. A traditional classical approach.

 

[mdmd]

Hello Darvin. Welcome to EightForums.

There are many people here that speak other languages that post in English. I cannot speak a second language fluently. So, they are smarter than me. As far as the topic goes, I am a big fan of this topic. The start screen (and apps) is a huge deal to me. It is different. To me, a classical traditional start menu is like an old smelly shoe. Some state that the classical block style menu is essential. Others tolerate, others adapt. Many find 8 to be an offensive unusable release that will take people to the cleaners (apps - subscriptions - cloud services). The start menu definitely matters to the vast majority of 8 users. From my POV, which, by the way, does not matter, and is insignificant, the start screen and apps area is a nice break from the past IMO. My POV is irrelevant. I have always thought that the start menu was a dumping ground for installation links. My preference was always to use 3rd party launchers. I could talk about the start menu vs the start screen all day long but some folks will reply with all caps, red lettering, bolding text, enlarged text and enlarged italics as if they are shouting. 8 will probably not do very well because it is too different and people don't like it. Most like Windows 7 with a start menu and everything else that goes with it. The concept of a phone / tablet / desktop OS is unacceptable to most and unusable for many. It generates too much hostility. I would actually be surprised if Microsoft released the next version again with no start menu. That would be a shock. They probably will put in options for a block menu next time with other features but then again, they would be competing with 3rd party menu developers and that might result in another monopoly lawsuit. They tried that by making internet explorer part of the OS and got sued. They had to remove it. I am wondering if they might get sued again for bringing the start menu back. Maybe not. Many developers are interested in selling their start menus. Does the start menu matter? Yes it does, but then again, I don't need or care for nesting application links tucked away inside a scrolling block menu. Too much time is wasted inside of that little square, as far as I am concerned.

I think the search side topic was introduced as a feature of the start menu vs the start screen and we as usual make an attempt to compare and contrast the efficiency or issues about each. 8 does require a different approach to a user interface and as someone said who was new to the OS, Where is the menu? Well for certain, they won't find it in the system tray. There are a lot of folks that consider 8 to be a bogus release and will bomb so badly that Microsoft will revert to an upgraded Windows 7. I am not sure that is even possible. The question continues, can one use 8 at home or in business successfully with the metro start screen, apps and no start menu? I think so. Opinions vary. Then again there are those that feel that Microsoft should be required to provide a start menu. Why should they? 3rd party start menus and metro bypassing tools work ok. My POV is in the microscopic minority and I think most are very disappointed with Windows 8. Am I wrong again?

 

[Ray8]

Yes, but the Windows 7 start menu is not cascading is it? Or is it? Am I wrong again? Or the classic shell is? The analysis given by Microsoft is that the cascading start menu is inefficient which is why they created the Windows 7 start menu and removed the option for a classic menu.

Evolving the Start menu - Building Windows 8 - Site Home - MSDN Blogs

All the time spent searching inside of cascaded sub levels ... that is where the controversy begins.
start screen - apps vs start menu < efficient or bogus. Which one? Or both?
Then there is the issue of scrolling inside of the Windows 7 start menu.

I think most people just want that shut down button in their face, together with control panel and other start menu features right in their face. A traditional classical approach.

The Windows 7 menu (and older) is both cascading and linear, depending on how many links are pinned to the start menu or not. It would be really interesting to finding out who and how many users were evaluated to come up with the stats on the use of the taskbar and start menu that the blog described. I have 24 items permanantly pinned to my start menu and 10 to the variable one. I also have six links pinned to the task bar, so clearly I'm a complete anomaly according to Microsoft.

Yet I believe that I am not such an anomaly. Many people that I deal with, have those same links on their desktop, which I think is awkward and inefficient, but it works for them. So Microsoft has taken the messy desktop analogy used by a lot of people (you know, load a program and it asks if you want a desktop icon and the user says yes) to create the Modern interface with nothing but desktop icons. But so as not to make it look the same, it's been flattened and neutralised into the Modern interface. Most of the underlying philosphy is the same as it's always been, it just looks a little different.

 

[xpclient]

Cascading menus have evolved for a reason, they are simple and easy to understand and to navigate.

Yes, but the Windows 7 start menu is not cascading is it? Or is it? Am I wrong again? Or the classic shell is? The analysis given by Microsoft is that the cascading start menu is inefficient which is why they created the Windows 7 start menu and removed the option for a classic menu.

Evolving the Start menu - Building Windows 8 - Site Home - MSDN Blogs

All the time spent searching inside of cascaded sub levels ... that is where the controversy begins.
start screen - apps vs start menu < efficient or bogus. Which one? Or both?
Then there is the issue of scrolling inside of the Windows 7 start menu.

I think most people just want that shut down button in their face, together with control panel and other start menu features right in their face. A traditional classical approach.

Microsoft's criticism of cascading menus is that they aren't good for usability because they close as the mouse moves slightly outside the menu and the user has to start from scratch all over again. However, this is no longer a problem in the Classic Shell implementation because in our program, you can adjust the "Menu Delay" value yourself. Just set it to something like 10000 or higher and then, the cascading menus don't close even if the mouse moves away from them. You have to actually CLICK to close and open them, making them just like Microsoft's Windows 7/Vista menu minus the unnecessary scrolling.

Microsoft's mistake with the Start screen (besides poor usability) is giving less features. It doesn't have automatic frequently used programs, I have to MANUALLY pin them one by one on every PC. That MFU list also had jumplists for those MFU programs - which was just introduced in Windows 7!! It doesn't have an efficient way to shutdown. It runs fullscreen covering everything. It's search doesn't return Outlook emails or indexed folders (only the contents of folders). Special folders are not pre-pinned for you like Start menu has on right side. There is no way to see Recent Documents. It doesn't have all the context menu options. It can't launch multiple apps quickly by holding down Shift like the Classic XP style menu could. The Start screen quickly becomes a flat sea of icons as there is no organization into folders. Search results are unnecessarily split into Apps, Settings, Files. I can find a hundred different flaws with its usability. Plus, it gives the middle finger to the user by ditching all backward compatible design. Why should I use an inferior incarnation of a launcher and be accused of being scared of change when I can objectively see it's worse than the Start menu?

So what the Start screen does is it ditches familiarity for no benefit except touch-screen friendliness (well Classic Shell's menu can be touch-screen friendly too if you blow up the icon size) . It ditches mouse+keyboard usability again for touch-use. It ditches the more advanced features because Microsoft has changed their interface strategy and want to push simplicity like Apple.

 

[Chrono]

View attachment 12345

Don't know why, only one option pops up for me when I search for, "add features". "Turn Windows Features On or Off".

Its not easy no matter how much you want to argue

I don't understand why it's so difficult. The mouse works very well and hasn't been a problem. I haven't even bothered to use keyboard shortcuts or the search function lately. File Explorer/Windows Explorer pretty much works for any file exploring needs you may have (just like in 7). The left pane has most folders available at a single click. Other folders can be added to the favorites menu.

Yes, the new interface takes some getting used to, just like with any interface you're not familiar with. Windows 95 was a bit jarring at first. If MS decided to stick with what worked before, we'd still be stuck in 3.1-like land, sans any start menu whatsoever.

 

[GEM desktop]

View attachment 12345

Don't know why, only one option pops up for me when I search for, "add features". "Turn Windows Features On or Off".

Its not easy no matter how much you want to argue

I don't understand why it's so difficult. The mouse works very well and hasn't been a problem. I haven't even bothered to use keyboard shortcuts or the search function lately. File Explorer/Windows Explorer pretty much works for any file exploring needs you may have (just like in 7). The left pane has most folders available at a single click. Other folders can be added to the favorites menu.

Yes, the new interface takes some getting used to, just like with any interface you're not familiar with. Windows 95 was a bit jarring at first. If MS decided to stick with what worked before, we'd still be stuck in 3.1-like land, sans any start menu whatsoever.

--------------
This may be my first post, or close to it; I am in disbelief that Windows users are tied in knots over graphics interface arguments. Different version of Windows have lots of "hide this, expose that" going on for years. Windows 95 was a good interface, XP a great advance in stability - no claim of knowledge here but I think it was XP that used the stable NT kernel.

Sadly now we seem to have run out of things to do so we throw things out, bring in terminology like "reimagined" and my all-time favorite, "deprecate." Most of all, I had never used an Apple anything in years of computing and retired from a huge company that DID go for XP on all desktops (probably still has XP, social media integration wouldn't go over very well). It would be nice to get back to elements dropped from Vista, and go entirely back to two worlds - Metro for the portable and the underpowered, and a REAL seven improvement for PC users with powerful desktop computers. Ipads are great for checking emails, weather, etc., but do we really need to argue endlessly about colorful tiles? Does the desktop world really need to concede to total portability in its various forms, and do I have to see endless commercials that HAVE to show those colorful tiles being "swiped" left and right? I like the ipad, and I like the PC with multiple windows as well. Can't we go back to the days of new releases being involved in making our hardware do things better and faster - and NOT move toward touch screens and full screened applications (must remember, they're apps now, can't say "programs" or "executables" - with additions and improvements, not Microsoft's favorite new word, "deprecation" of the PC? I guess I'm just old/retired/old fashioned. This Windows 8 argument seems to be going nowhere except perhaps down... for PC users. Yes, I know, no one needs a PC anymore. So the marketeers say. In the television commercial blitz I've yet to see one ad that even comes close to mentioning actual work done on the new wonder devices.

- an old grouch

 

[lehnerus2000]

Ah, I see

I do apologize as I do not use or like Windows 7. I was concerned that we might get into a quibble debate about pressing enter once or twice. So sorry. My comment was based on the quote excerpt...

Usually I only have to type a few characters and then press enter

Fair enough.

The results page is somewhat different than in Windows 7.

That is indisputable.

By default, one must index an extra location to see results.

I'm not sure what you mean.