jim2029

Windows 7 Classic Start Menu.... is here.

74 posts in this topic

Well, I really like the Win7 Start menu, the ability to lock programs to the Task Bar and hit Start and type nero sou to locate the program much easier and faster then running through a old menu system.

I am a sys admin come developer and run/support all flavours of windows, mac os x, unix, and a lot of command line stuff... I have been using Win7 for months now and adore the interface. Its fast and easy.... Join the revolution..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I really like the Win7 Start menu, the ability to lock programs to the Task Bar and hit Start and type nero sou to locate the program much easier and faster then running through a old menu system.

I am a sys admin come developer and run/support all flavours of windows, mac os x, unix, and a lot of command line stuff... I have been using Win7 for months now and adore the interface. Its fast and easy.... Join the revolution..

I couldn't agree more. Been using Win7 since day one of the RC and have really started liking the start menu, although I use the winkey + R for everything I possibly can. But clicking the start orb and typing in the first few letters of whatever app I need is awsome. I do agree with others as far as the Windows Explorer though. god what a friggin mess.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do agree with others as far as the Windows Explorer though. god what a friggin mess.

Hmm, I like Explorer. Seems a lot faster and I switch between several different networks al the time and it's much faster adapting to the new network. With Vista and below I was having to release/renew ip and flush/register dns every network switch. Once the indexing is complete, searches are super fast.

Oh, I think I prefere it over Snow Leopard.....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first I hated W7's start menu, now when I use an XP box I curse it's very existence. I am very pleased with the current start menu.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't get it...

I was a huge fan of the "Classic" start menu but I navigate this new menu the exact same way except that the menu's dont cascade.

What am I missing here?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I really like the Win7 Start menu, the ability to lock programs to the Task Bar and hit Start and type nero sou to locate the program much easier and faster then running through a old menu system.

I am a sys admin come developer and run/support all flavours of windows, mac os x, unix, and a lot of command line stuff... I have been using Win7 for months now and adore the interface. Its fast and easy.... Join the revolution..

I couldn't agree more. Been using Win7 since day one of the RC and have really started liking the start menu, although I use the winkey + R for everything I possibly can. But clicking the start orb and typing in the first few letters of whatever app I need is awsome. I do agree with others as far as the Windows Explorer though. god what a friggin mess.

its been like that since Vista came out... I don't think it's going to get better any time soon.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some steps to have some sort of classic start menu in windows 7:

1. Right click Start Menu -->Properties--> Customize" button-->scroll down to "Documents"-->select "Display as a menu"-->Apply-->OK

2. click on "Orb" start button--> right click "Documents" --> "Properties"--> click "Include a folder". On the left via "computer" Locate "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\" and select "programs" folder --> "Include Folder" button. You will now see it in the list in the "Document Properties>Library locations:"

3.Now you will see the old style of XP/Vista "classic" as far as a real directory tree.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Include a folder". On the left via "computer" Locate "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\" and select "programs" folder --> "Include Folder" button.

But then you don't have the complete start menu. Because the start menu is merged from two locations:

For "all users":

C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs

For the "logged in user":

C:\Users\[user name]\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs

So the entries "Command Prompt", "Notepad", "Run" and "Windows Explorer" from the logged in user folder don't appear in your menu.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, I don't get it...

I was a huge fan of the "Classic" start menu but I navigate this new menu the exact same way except that the menu's dont cascade.

What am I missing here?

Same here, I know I will not downgrade to Windows 7 if the classic start menu is not there. I hate how microsoft changes everything around just to make it harder for the end user.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will just say one thing that HAS always annoyed me about OS specially.

when they say they both faster, they should mean they both faster in the same hardware, otherwise you can't really say they aren't bloated or such. sure windows 7 boots faster than windows XP, as long you are running on quad core with some insane video card. but then try this

i can boot windows XP on a pentium MMX (YES A MMX!!!) at 200 Mhz, try to even install windows 7 there and then if you succed (which i doubt) try to boot it. if it was instalable it would take about 1 month to finish booting. for what? the very same functions windows XP does, there IS NOTHING! i can't do in XP i can't do in 7.

search? ever hear of windows search? is on the taskbar and is in fact even easier and faster to access than the menu one of windows 7, eye candy? windows blinds. makes it work faster in fact and look even cooler.

rolling menus? O.o i honestly don't use this crap at all, i use win + r most of time however when i need something from the menu because i don't remember the name i often find myself more confused on the windows 7 than windows XP, sure hierarchical mode is like a diagram but you aren't takking onto the accoutn that in fact windows 7 is using it too, just with a different look.

when you click start menu u could call that, ROOT. then you go into all programs under start menu, then you see a lot of folders and then inside those folders the files or exes just exactly like in windows XP, advantage of windows XP though is that you can see who the parent is easily, as you surf on windows 7 you keep getting more and more lost since you don't know where exactly are you, also to whoever said the menu dosn't has autorganize, maybe u could go back to even windows 98 and try right clicking on the start menu, there is something called AUTOARRANGE.

ok, now, windows 7 measures how much... oh right over 8 gigs on my hard disk, while XP measures 2, and win 2000 and 98 under 1 and half gig.

what i use my computer for? 3D modelling, programmation, accounting, active directory when using server versions.

etc etc etc, fact. i can do ALL of this EXACTLY equally on windows 98 and windows 7? so where is the sooo called productivity gain on the OS?

for what it matters i ONLY upgraded OSes due to hardware support, because MS forced people to change OS and so people stop making drivers for the previous oses.

hell the candy stuff REALLY p***es me off but i have seen a windows vista theme on windows 98 even and the application for it MEASUREd 5 MEGABYTES. not the half gig code windows 7 or vista use for that.

directx 10? i have it on windows XP with just a simple hack, how? simple, microsoft just lied about it being impossible in windows XP, just with a few bytes of code you can add it, alpha blending? they said it was impossible too, yet windows blinds people (stardock) added it on winXp without any issue, (oh did i mention windows blinds only measures about 80 MB installed) and all the eye candy of windows vista and more.

aero peek? the application to do that in windows XP measures barely 1 megabyte, same for image preview. and taskswitch does a far better job than that stupid cool looking thing of windows vista.

security? why the hell corporative users have online access anyway, they are supposed to be WORKING!! NOT surfing on internet. and even if they do, safety can be handled by ANY third party program. not like it matters, hackers always find a way to bypass AVs and etc, i myself have seen a PC with avira, kaspersky, nod, ese all full 100% updated, totally dead from a virus, how it got there, no one knows.

is due to all this that i have been working trying to make a stripped version of XP that can do ANything the user wants without problems but that has no stupid useless stuff on it. so far i have stripped like 200 MB of stuff and optimized the file system for multiple partitions (coz yes yo ucan mode system folders to other places like in windows vista, just use folder redirector or the register)

sooo ugh... stop praising people for making s***ty stuff, BOTH! windows, mac and linux all suck EXACTLY equally.

YOU KNOW WHAT!? i m going back to paper if the current trend of idioticing Oses continue.

well... now that i ranted a little ill go finish fighting with some OCS 2007 server at my side.... interesting enought i just found an app of 6 MB that has ALL the features and a setup that takes 4 mins that does ALL this 600 MB server s*** does, and oh right it only needs 1 PC not 4 servers like this OCS... ugh ... not a good day..

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i can boot windows XP on a pentium MMX (YES A MMX!!!) at 200 Mhz,
Your point? Even a stripped down version of XP will crawl on that old of a processor, so why are you bothering? You can get an upgrade to that old system for free (or very cheap) through local buy-and-sells.
search? ever hear of windows search? is on the taskbar and is in fact even easier and faster to access than the menu one of windows 7
Doubtful... people keep claiming that WDS4.0 is slower than the old-style search that was included with WinXP, but I've never found this to be the case.
eye candy? windows blinds. makes it work faster in fact and look even cooler.
I can't tell you how many times WB crashed, and then the system required a reboot to get any sort of functionality back. At least in the rare case that Explorer crashes in Vista/Win7, it does it (relatively) gracefully and you're back to a useable system again within a few seconds.
when you click start menu u could call that, ROOT. then you go into all programs under start menu, then you see a lot of folders and then inside those folders the files or exes just exactly like in windows XP, advantage of windows XP though is that you can see who the parent is easily, as you surf on windows 7 you keep getting more and more lost since you don't know where exactly are you, also to whoever said the menu dosn't has autorganize, maybe u could go back to even windows 98 and try right clicking on the start menu, there is something called AUTOARRANGE.
And then have the menus cascade across half the screen, and then you can't figure out where you are, because they start moving back to the left once you've filled up the right side. Ever used XP on a netbook (1024x600 screen resolution)? Win7's UI changes are a godsend there.
ok, now, windows 7 measures how much... oh right over 8 gigs on my hard disk, while XP measures 2, and win 2000 and 98 under 1 and half gig.
How much hard drive space does that Pentium MMX have, and how much did you pay for it? Think about the $/GB cost of putting the OS on the old computer compared to a new one. 640GB = ~$60CAD where I live. That's 9 cents per GB. It just cost me a whole 72cents worth of hard drive space to install Win7. Am I really going to lose any sleep over that?
what i use my computer for? 3D modelling... so where is the sooo called productivity gain on the OS?
Hang on... what kind of 3D modelling do you do, because any sort of serious work requires more memory than WinXP can handle, let alone Win98 (with whatever crazy hacks the people in the 98 forums have got going on). There is a simple, fundamental limitation of Win98 and WinXP - the fact that they're 32-bit operating systems. XP x64 doesn't count, since many installers incorrectly label it as Server 2003. If you want proper 64-bit support, you have to move to Vista or Win7 - period.
for what it matters i ONLY upgraded OSes due to hardware support, because MS forced people to change OS and so people stop making drivers for the previous oses.
Nobody's forcing you to upgrade OSes. You can keep running Win98 for years on end if that's what makes you happy. But, you will be limited by what hardware you can use with Win98 - something that Microsoft could not have foretold over 10 years ago.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what i use my computer for? 3D modelling, programmation, accounting, active directory when using server versions.

etc etc etc, fact. i can do ALL of this EXACTLY equally on windows 98 and windows 7?

I really hope you dont use 98 as a domain client

i can boot windows XP on a pentium MMX (YES A MMX!!!) at 200 Mhz,

I probably wouldnt run anything newer then NT4, or maybe a cutdown 98se install on that but Vista RC1 runs on a K5

Vista RC1 AMD K5

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking as an old timer, who literally has been supporting Windows since 2.0, Microsoft's move away from hierarchical menu systems is a huge mistake. You see this philosophy in all new Microsoft products except the ones geared towards professionals (Exchange, SQL, Etc). The way Office 2007 has a "ribbon bar" and Windows 7's UI - these are not productive interfaces, they are fluff, they are bloat and they cripple the product. They deter you from experimenting, from looking around and finding out what you can do - from learning.

For instance, the advantage of the "classic" start menu; Say I installed Nero on my PC a few months ago and now I want to make a audio CD from an tape for the first time. I forgot the name of the program that Nero uses for this (Nero SoundTrax). A simple click in Start/Programs/Nero and I can see all the Nero products that were installed. This takes less than 5 seconds to do, and I don't have to type anything. In addition, the classic start menu is great just to view what products you have installed, and helps with cleaning out clutter later. From an IT perspective, a quick support call from someone wanting to know how to start Outlook, "Click Start/Programs/Microsoft Office/Outlook". In less than 15 seconds I have a user starting Outlook - no remote desktop necessary, no confused users - quick, simple, efficient.

I could go on and on about the classic start menu's value in the Windows OS. But it won't make a difference, Microsoft seldom listens to their support professionals when it comes to the desktop. They don't go outside of their comfort zone and mainly use marketing (who cater to fanboys) to make the decisions. It gets worse every year, and seriously p***es me off. If I wanted a Mac I'd buy a Mac, it's a better OS on the whole than Windows anyhow.

The search feature in Vista/7 is another point of contention. I hate the index service with the passion of a thousand suns. Ever wonder why Mac's don't have a Hard Drive Activity LED? It's because their users would be saying WTF is my hard drive doing? Well, I have a Hard Drive LED, and I LIKE knowing when my servers and workstations are accessing my HDD, it's a good indicator of malware and viruses. If I see my HDD LED going crazy I immediately assume the worst - and for good reason. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft made a deal to eliminate the HDD LED from all desktop OS's in the future.

I keep my data organized in directories, as any computer user should get used to doing. In previous Windows versions; If I want to find an MP3 file, I right-click my MP3 folder and search for a keyword. If I want to find the INF file my monitor is using, I right-click the Windows/INF folder and search all *inf files that contain the string "viewsonic". It's simple, efficient, and does not require the index service.

These are examples of things Microsoft has previously done "right" and removed from the latest Windows versions. For me, these things were vital, they were what separated Windows from the other OS's. Google Desktop and OSX have caused Microsoft to do stupid things - and the way they nerf the advanced power-user tools from the OS is nothing short of inexcusable.

I don't understand what you mean about a move away from a hierarchical menu. The menu is EXACTLY the same as before, except they keep it contained in a box by scrolling it. There is ABSOLUTELY no other difference in the layout of the menu system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, I don't get it...

I was a huge fan of the "Classic" start menu but I navigate this new menu the exact same way except that the menu's dont cascade.

What am I missing here?

Where are you seeing menus that don't cascade? They cascade exactly as they did in XP, except they are contained in a box with scrolling.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, I don't get it...

I was a huge fan of the "Classic" start menu but I navigate this new menu the exact same way except that the menu's dont cascade.

What am I missing here?

Same here, I know I will not downgrade to Windows 7 if the classic start menu is not there. I hate how microsoft changes everything around just to make it harder for the end user.

Windows 7 is by far the easiest operating system to learn they have ever come out with. I have been showing it to some of my older customers and they just "get it"...when they couldn't with Windows XP. The things people here are calling "eye candy" are far more than that. Sometimes you just have to pull your head outta your a** to see that not everything Microsoft does is bad.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.