[Win2k3EE]

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?

[MagicAndre1981]

I hope not, that old Startmenu sucks and I hope MS removed it completely.

[Win2k3EE]

MagicAndre1981 I respect you choice, please respect mine.
I don't like the new start menu in WinXP, in Vista and in Windows 7, but in the first 2 mentioned OSes I can switch back to classic menu, in Windows 7, you can't...yet!
I'll dig into the registry, maybe I'll find something.

[cluberti]

Any particular reason you aren't using 6801 or 6956?

[neo]

Yeah I have noticed too. Classice start menu has been removed from Windows 7 and can't be enabled via registry settings.

[spacesurfer]

cluberti, on Dec 10 2008, 11:21 AM, said:

Any particular reason you aren't using 6801 or 6956?

Dyslexic maybe??

[cluberti]

spacesurfer, on Dec 10 2008, 08:40 PM, said:

cluberti, on Dec 10 2008, 11:21 AM, said:

Any particular reason you aren't using 6801 or 6956?

Dyslexic maybe??

I suppose

[aviv00]

maybe copying it from vista or xp would do the trick

GL

[blackhartct]

aviv00, on Dec 11 2008, 02:37 PM, said:

maybe copying it from vista or xp would do the trick

GL

huh? explain to me how u think this would work...

[Win2k3EE]

I'm using build 7000 now. I got over the classic start menu, and no, i'm not dyslexic. I thought it was nice to be able to switch between the two.

[Noise]

If Microsoft removed the classic start menu from Windows 7 I will be really p***ed. Please don't tell me they are that stupid!

Did those idiots also remove the ability to right-click a folder in Explorer and select search?
I bet the search function is all screwed up like in Vista. You will need the index service spying on all your files constantly to do simple basic searches.

Can someone try this for me, I do it all the time in XP with the standard search function (without indexing enabled): search the Windows directory and find all INI files with the term "sata" in them. In XP this would bring up the inf files that supported sata controllers.

[Kelsenellenelvian]

If you don't like it, then don't use it...

[CoffeeFiend]

Kelsenellenelvian, on Jan 6 2009, 01:36 AM, said:

If you don't like it, then don't use it...

Some people prefer to resist change (and bi*ch about it) instead of embracing it. Nothing we can do I'm afraid.

I never cared too much for XP's start menu (took too bloody long to get to any app you haven't used last), but Vista's and its search is a million times better than XP's and classic. You can start ~99% of your apps in 4-6 keystrokes, without ever touching the mouse.

[aviv00]

server 7 still have the classic theme
try use it

[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!

This post has been edited by DeathNACan: 08 January 2009 - 11:05 PM

[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!

Nois3, on Jan 9 2009, 02:36 AM, said:

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.