Discussion on:

Put the Classic Start menu in Windows 7 with Classic Shell

Personally, I much prefer the Windows 7 interface over any Windows interface that has come before, but I know there are many who feel the exact opposite. Which do you prefer: Classic or Windows 7 default?

I feel that both Classic and 7 have good interfaces. I think that Classic has better organization, while 7's organization is certainly not horrible; it's just not as good to me. All in all though, a lot of people probably dislike 7 for the Aero effects, but they also know deep down, that they wouldn't go back to pre-Windows XP.

Seemed all right with me when testing beta and RC versions.

What I like least about the newer interfaces is the way things are buried and categorized. But since Windows defaults are something I could never abide anyway (especially regarding Explorer), I adjust the system to suit myself.

I'll give this app a whirl next time I'm using 7, though, and see if it does anything in particular I like. Thanks for pointing it out.

It's not that there's anything wrong with 7's interface, it's just not what I've become accustomed to over the last dozen or so years. I can use it, but I have to think about it more than with 'Classic'. I find the right side of the Start Menu to be between annoying and useless. I dislike the unremoveable folders stuffed into the left side pane of Windows Explorer. I've developed my own method of file management over the years, and mandatory Libraries and 'My Whatever' folders don't fit that style. I'm not annoyed enough to overlay it with something else, but I'll probably continue to ignore those 'features' that offer 'alternatives' to the way I've learned to do things.

One of the things I like about Classic are the ability to adjust the color of windows & decorations. I like to come up with something that doesn't cause eyestrain.

And the "My" stuff was old as soon as they started using it. I don't recall the mandatory/unchangeable libraries, etc., so much. I'd have to check, but if I can't change them up a bit, they will get on my nerves eventually. Kind of like the separate "All Programs" thingy does.

the only reason I don't change mine, is so I don't go cross-eyed when I'm on some one's Vista/Win7 desktop.

It is much more relaxing to go from the new to the old, than the other way around. That way I don't get disconcerted helping clients with more modern GUIs.

It sounds like you are talking about the classic display settings not the user interface.

Display Properties → Settings → Color Quality?

No.

Display Properties → Appearance → Advanced → ...

Yes.

Unless you mean something entirely different by "UI" than what I'm given to understand?

your user interface for the menu has changed. that is what this topic is about. I could care less about the themes Microsoft could get rid of them all I could care less. They have nothing to do with how I interface with my computer. The classic menu looks like the old start menu from windows 98.

In the classic I could just spend a split second hitting Win, P, J, Enter, for example, and voila, a program I need launches. Hotkeys worked. Now, everything "new" is mostly "point and click" for sensory-visual slow "drag the cursor across the screen" people. I know I can type in Win7 Start, but it takes many times longer as well as requires carefully looking if I am actually getting the program I need at the prompt. In other words, all the touted "modernization" (apparently created by the cursor-dragging newbies who never smelled DOS etc) is a degradation and leaves pros/experts/seasoned users kicked. Perhaps the new coders just have no idea about the old useful shortcuts and usability and so are very surprised when someone despises their visual 'improvements' and misses the old speed and convenience.

Click on win, enter the name of the exe you want to run and run it. Trying to find things in Win7 is not the easy way to run Win7. When you click on the Win button the cursor is ready in the box, no need to click there.

If you are a techie, add the proper identity to a folder name and you get all system configuration and maintenance tasks on one screen in the language of choice, no need to decipher icons or try to find out where any of those tasks are located. You can put that folder on the desktop and have one click access to everything. It has been written up as "god" mode but is a standard feature of Win7. You can name the folder anything you like.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc144096(VS.85).aspx#virtual

http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2010/01/04/windows-7-god-mode.aspx

programs on the computer just so you can search for them. I have tried the search feature. I installed doom 3 and tried to type it in Guess what it couldn't be found. It found many other things that have nothing to do with the game. We should have the choice of how the start menu functions. If I could get the start menu to function like it did in winxp I would be tickled pink. To me the scrolling menu is a complete waste time. Click start scroll to folder where program is located scroll to next folder where program is located scroll to program? Why just have them expand and make things point and click.

If you keep letting MS tell us how we can organize things (AKA they deny us the right to organize things, the way we want), can you imagine the superficial crap we will end up having to buy, and use ?
Stand up like a man, and stop blindly following MS.
Can I paraphrase you -
"They won't let me organize like I used to, so I will do a search every time I need something. Thank you MS for allowing me to do that."

The customer is always right, and MS no longer knows that.

We refuse (115) to move to WIN7, we are using XP and VISTA, 64bit, on reasonably speced systems it is not to bad.
And we will stay on Office 2003 (the B*%#d& RIBBON)so 2007 and 2010 are out.

We are currently evaluatiog Cloud (GOOGLE) and Linux and Open/Office.

We are finished feeding the MS beast, it never listens.

Windows 7 Start Menu is made for ppl who dont know about filemanagement and only use their pc as mediastation. The good thing of the old start menu is that it was flexible. You could arrange it, with a few clicks, to your style. And keep it ordened easely.

Windows 7 Start Menu i have to go at least 3 clicks deep to be able to click a shortcut and start a program (no, i do not want to type in names in the search box!). And it is a DISSASTER to manage it. The old one was usefull and flexible. The new one only eyecandy and time-consuming.

Also the missing of a Quick-launch is really annoying. Using Windows 7 64 for a month now but am serious thinking about switching to XP 64 bits. If i find still more annoyances than this 2 i think i switch.

I am going to give this Classic Shell a try.
Maybe it keeps me at 7...:)

I find that the classic interface makes a fair amount of sense. They got it right there.

The others work too, but there is no reason that people should not have a choice.

Does the interface a person uses make them smarter or dumber? I like the classic because, yes, I'm used to it. It gets me to my programs quickly, and if there is a problem, I know where to go to quickly, and can solve the problem quickly. Then I get my work done.... you got it, quickly!

I'm not about OS's other than thy allow me access to my applications, and then stay out of the way. One of the biggest problems in Vista was that the OS got in the way - a lot.

I'm about speed, ease of use, and rapid problem solving.

If an OS change allows me to get through things quicker, then I'll switch in a minute.

As for the switch-over, the classic menus is a big step forward. Now I'll just sit back and wait for SP1, then maybe do the switch.

Simplicity, ease of use and rapid access to what I want to do -- which is, basically, solve problems or get something done on the computer. I HATE buried options -- for example, Windows XP buried Control Panel options such as "System Restore" which were easier to find in Windows 2000. I currently use Windows 2000 and Windows XP; I can easily switch between the two, (I won't even look at Vista,) but I haven't really delved into Windows 7 yet, unless I have to (like having it installed on a computer at work!) Windows 2000 does take a LONG time to boot however, compared to XP ...

I like cascading programs instead of the window rolling blinds harder to see whats there if its not broke......

Amen to available choices!!

Changing an interface look and feel takes me out of my comfort zone and into the anger zone. As an individual, and as a member of an enterprise with too few resources, the last thing that I need is lost productive time because I have to learn to work with a new interface to access the same work tools.

After installing I saw that the old SEARCH was back instead of the worthless W7 search; unfortunately all of the categroies except Files & Folders worked great. Files was busy for a second and then just stopped
On the plus side, I had come to rely on Favorites & Recent Places in Explorer, but they suddenly quit populating a couple of weeks ago and I couldn't find a solution. After installation both of them were fully populated and working properly.

So, not entirely finished. Not even up to a major version number yet...

Maybe it will work better for you.

that the majority of responders to this article haven't bothered to learn what is available within the "Start" button menus or how to use and customize the way it displays content.
Sure the old ways and old look are what you're use to, but as long as you continue to only want what makes "YOU" comfortable then you'll always be egotistically handicapped to advancements.

duplicates features I already had methods of doing in previous versions of Windows. Libraries, for example, appear to be a file management tool for those who never had learned file management. Nothing wrong with that; most users have better things to do. But I don't want this crutch in my way. I don't listen to music or watch movies; I don't want permanent shortcuts to folders that will remain forever empty.

I've used personal computers since 1986, and I have seen the PC increase in complexity (and in problems and maintenance too;) yet I am not adverse to an update IF it improves the ease of "getting things done." I hung on to the DOS command prompt for a long time because some tasks were better for batch files. Unfortunately, in the business world, a "new release" of software doesn't make it a more "user friendly" piece of software. I jumped to Office 2000 when it was first released, and loved it. But a few years back I downloaded the Office 2007 demo from Microsoft and told myself, "what's the use of all of this new complexity?" I guess for some people it might be handy (super-techies,) but the average person on the street might find it overbearing. I'm learning the latest SQL Server interface from Microsoft, but is it more efficient? It is a lot more complex and less intuitive. Give me software that doesn't take a book to learn, that if you have had previous experience with a similar product, you can jump in and go. Why should I "relearn" how to use Windows 7 to get my job done when I XP works just fine? Microsoft should have created a lean "business edition" that doesn't have all of the excess bells and whistles that we don't need to get our work done.

Your comments are so ridiculous as to make me burst out laughing! Do you buy the computer for the operating system or so you can GET SOMETHING DONE?

I'm the consumer. The operating system needs to cater to ME - not the other way around!

And from an administration standpoint, what's the point of continuously burying the tools? Each new OS release means MORE clicks and MORE menus until I can get to the tools I need. That's NOT an advancement!

Im pleased to see the commitment to the "CLASSIC" Option, but M$ should NEVER have removed it.

NOW how do we get M$ to read this and take notice.

Well I am using my $$ buying power to try if they dont get enough uptake then they will have to listen.

NO WIN7 (115 users) and No Office 2007 or Office 2010

We have No problem with Office 2003 and XP and Vista which we will continue to use.

nt

I totally agree. Just because it is appealing to new computer users and novices does not make it appealing to us administrators, it is more of a hassle. Give us a choice.

Excuse me, but as a CUSTOMER who handed over MY hard earned cash, I submit as respectfully as I can that it is Microsoft and its developers who handicapping the rest of us with their collective egotistical handicaps.

Bet everyone thought this was a diss of the users, eh?

It's not. Microsoft is the one who is living in the past. They are living in a world where you introduce anew operating system, and the users go "ZOMG! this is so great! I can do blah blah blah with this new operating system!"

Those were the days of having to buy a new computer every year, and there weren't all that many users. Most of th eusers were happy enough to get their machines to print landscape to a printer, and there weren't all that many users to begin with.

Then success! The computer started showing up on more and more desks. Eventually almost everyone had and used one.

Guess what. In making the personal computer a universal device, and necessary for most people's work, it also brought in a big paradigm shift.

Simplest way to state it is something like.

1. I have a job to do.
2. I do it on my computer.
3. I need to do it quickly and efficiently.

Notice that there isn't a mention of operating system in there. That's because aside from us geeks, most people aren't concerned with their operating system.

But awkward changes in the interface have a tendency to interfere with item number 3 in my list. That's bad by the way. I use PowerPoint a lot, and the new interface is slower to use than the standard on that was in use for a long time.

Some people point out that the keyboard commands haven't changed. Sure. Guess who uses them. Us geeks. The "regular user"
I work with almost never uses them, even when I say "try the F5 key".

The paradigm has changed, the average user's knowledge level is lower (not a bad thing - they are smart about other stuff - and once they find something that works, they like to stick with it. Make it faster, add some options, but if you make it hard to work with, you do it at your own peril.

This is not 1995, Microsoft, you can't just change all the rules any more. Too many people use your products, and as long as they are getting their job done, that is what they are interested in, not a funny little circle in the upper left hand corner of their program that they have to use instead of the menus they've been working with.

if you could configure the UI the way you wanted from the start, wouldn't it?

Accelerated Productivity.

Get those two words into your heads folks.

You can't have that when you are constantly changing the GUI landscape. Business likes to stick with what works for no other reason than IT WORKS.

It is a collossal waste of time and MONEY to keep changing crap simply because one thinks "well, we've used it for so long". "yawn, I think we need change". Uh huh. Look at the current jackass in the Whitehouse to see how well that notion worked out. The only people that are pleased with that situation are outright Communists and Socialists.

When it comes to PC op systems, I have XP, WIN7, and Linux on my machines and I like my XP the best. Why? Simply because it gets the job done, period. For you 90's psycho-babble artists, it has nothing to do with my personality, quirks, or any other armchair progostications. To wit: the numerous screwups of M$ and their silly past of "Oh look, a new feel and look' ******** releases since 3.1?

Stick with what works, and if you really want to improve something, play with the op hard code and leave the dang GUI ALONE!!!! Honestly folks, I started in this field in 1980, when DOS and UNIX was the norm. Imagine all of the nonsense I've actually seen since then.

Lest you "change addicts" try and corner my syntax- allow me to state a premise: there's nothing wrong with change- as long as you always reserve your footing with one caveat: do not fear going back to what works. That is unless your ego won't let you admit that you've made a horrendous mistake and you end of making the entire department suffer for your blunder because you are too damned stubborn to revert.

Sadly, I've seen it over and over where that has happened and the silly geek that made the mistake is literally shown the door.

We're talking the cold hard reality of money here folks, and you'd better get used to it. Tread carefully in this realm; CFO's wield one hell of a lot of power in those board rooms.

That is unless you want to join that long line of unemployed- then please, continue on your never ending quest my Don Quixote.

ALWAYS have a plan B if your plan A goes South. Increment your change and test, test, test. When you're done testing, deploy your changes incrementally, because it is far better that one small chunk of your company has a difficulty than the entire company. You'll live longer, lose less hair, and your Boss will be much happier than if you were to destroy his profits from your monumental stupidity.

I'm the average user. From 1997 to 2007 I used Windows 96 at work. As I owrked in a prison, the internet was not possible, but I kept inmate records, projects outlines, lessons, and correspondence all on a single machine.

At hoem I upgraded to XP. There was a bit of a learning curve but it wasn't to steep. then came Vista. A slower, clunkier piece operating system amy exist, but I have yet to find it. My wife, "the least computer adept person" (her words} in out house; loved XP hates Vista.

Which brings me to Windows 7, my current system. Better than Vista by far, but not as stable as XP nor as easy to navigate as 95.

My point is that the average user could care less about hot keys, short cuts, macros, etc. We simply want a reliable machine with a faniliar look. If car makers can figure it out then MS, the open source people, and Apple should be able to as well.

their mistake.

WONT happen UNTIL 1mill PLUS or more users, refuse to upgrade or move on to MS's next level.
Office 2007 already have this problem and WIN7 will have the same problem, changes for changes sake no benifit to the user....

Us 115 users reject the Office "RIBBON", and in WIN7 MS have removed the "CLASSIC" option, a standard settting with our deployment for Support.

I looked at the Win7 shell and was intrigued. jump lists, eh? how does it work and what's good about it? And now having chased the answer to this question all week and last, I'm giving up on your "advancements" and sticking with the obvious: Win7 is a re-worked version of the concoction that was Vista, whose only purpose was selling "upgrades", just like Office2007. We rebelled against Vista, why not Win7? In my world, most improvements that come along actually look like improvements. Please show me the error of my ways?

Finding my way around in Windows 7 has been like a quail hunt...i beat enough icons with the mouse button and eventually i'll flush out what i'm looking for.

That's what I do.

That's all well and good if you have the time to mess around. I have a busy life, and don't really have the time to play around in the GUI to find what I need.

I dont like Vista's interface.
Windows 7 is better in my eyes but i prefer the old interface.

The moment i am going to switch to 7 i will download this shell and use the classic style interface.

Why should I have to purchase/buy what was already there.
The "CLASSIC" XP, VISTA was there and OPTION NOW from MS we DECIDED.... we I/we have DECIDED we can miss WIN7.
Office 2007 and 2010 have the "RIBBON" and again we can MISS this and stay with Office 2003.
If it gets to the point that we have to change and MS is still sticking to there new way we will move to Linux and Open Office.
MicroSoft will be the looser (115 users)

I use shortcuts and folders on the desktop so I don't really give a rat's a-- about the Start menu.
This way I have almost instant access to what I need for the job I am doing and setup how it works for my work style. I don't even use the Start Menu to log off, restart or shut down. I've written one liners that do the above with one click. None of that Start, Log Off or Shutdown Are you sure.... or What do you want the computer to do

Topic folders or frequently used apps are placed all around the outer perimeter of the screen leaving the centre empty.

For example I create a folder on , say D drive called "Maintenance" and then copy a short cut of it to the desktop. It then contains short cuts to Control Panel, Disk management, Device management, etc.

Having said all that yes I like the classic menu better - for what it's worth.

What is brilliant for W7 is the "GodMode"
GodMode.{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C}
I mean this is techie died and gone to heaven!!!
EVERY setting there on one screen!
All that is needed is a default setting button and then I would truely be in computer heaven.

was still by my left foot and not on the multifunction blinker switch.

Things change.

Finally! someone else who misses that button!

s2

I want that button back too... AND the classic interface.

Seems to me the screenshots are "classic XP" not Classic Windows of earlier forms ie Win 95-98.

I prefer functionality over eye-candy gloss & glitz. I prefer PULL-DOWN menus from the top of the screen (like just about every application) rather than PUSH-UP menus from the bottom (peculiar to WinXP onwards?).

I prefer simplicity in my menus, not rounded, coloured corners, etc, etc.

I prefer muted and easier on the eye colours of beiges and greys to bright blues or whatever is in Win 7.

I find it an oxymoron that I have to hit the "Start" button to close Windows. Only Microsoft could come up with that wierdo.
(I use keyboard shortcuts instead.)

Unfortunately I can't comment on Vista or Win7 simply because I don't upgrade until I am sure it is a stable and mature OS (ie SP2 or 3). Neither is there yet.

SO ...
To those who are happy with whatever Microsoft TELLS you is right for you - that's OK. I have no problem with you being mindless sheep. That's what personal choice is all about.

For me, though, yes, it is good someone has potentially returned the customisation to Windows, rather than me having to blindly accept whatever (limited?) functionality the OS has DEEMED to be right for everyone.

I have tried several other programs and tweaks to change from the Windows 7 start-menu format to try to get back to the classic format. Nothing worked until now. Although there are many features in Windows 7 I do not use they are easy to ignore or turn-off. The menu format was the one thing I hated about Windows 7. I have a well thought-out menu scheme based upon the classic format that works well for me. This program is wonderful. I will make a donation to Ivo Beltchev for this one.

The problem is when Change is done for the sake of Change and I as many have also stated over numerous internet threads & stories that this change by Microsoft in Windows 7 and more recently in their Office line of products looks to be change for the sake of change. It?s as if it?s part of a marketing ploy to help sell users on upgrading.

When you are trying to sell a customer on an upgrade and the upgraded product looks almost identical to what the customer has already, meaning that all the changes are in what they can't see, the upgrade can be a tough sell. Now if you take that some upgrade and change it visually, whether or not the visual changes are of any benefit is irrelevant. To the customer it looks like something new & different and not just a tune-up version of what they are already using.

Microsoft claims they changed the interface based on user feedback and their studies of how users work with their product but I and many more are beginning to doubt Microsoft?s ability to be truthful about anything let alone something like this. Only after having produced a replacement for Vista did Microsoft finally concede that the Vista rollout wasn?t as smooth and well received in reality as they were selling the rest of us on. And more recently we hear they?ve been caught red-handed showing Law Enforcement how they have intentionally built Windows 7 to allow for access users systems (without their knowledge) and download content ; all in the name of protecting us from the bad guys. I guess that makes being dishonest OK.

Ms should have confessed that Vista was a stuff up, and offered a free upgrade to Win 7

You are correct about the changes for change sake.
The Start Menu is a PIA
Their decision, to not offer a Classic Start Menu option, was arrogant.
And even attempts to mildly customize their new Start Menu, are now painful in the extreme.

In Office 2007 their decision regarding the Ribbon, was arrogant.