Discussion on:

You don't really need a Start Menu in Windows 8

No need for the 12 step windows/M??nchhausen deprogramming regimen... Linux is just waiting for you to start having some fun amidst the unchanging, steadfast productivity it provides...

(ok, you all may commence the flinging! )

As ever, such an article brings the predictable responses, that is, a vast range from 'Entirely agree' to 'Entirely disagree'. You might as well try to define a perfect car as a perfect OS - people use them FOR different purposes and IN different ways, because people ARE different.

Clearly, many people are going to be buying new computers which will have Windows 8 pre-installed. They can (a) get used to it exactly as it is, (b) use the many tools/shortcuts/mods described here (c) install Classic Start, or something similar or, most likely, (d) a combination of all three, particularly at first, while they have to get on with things at the same time as learning about their new UI.

There's no need to argue about it, the point to note is that evidently Windows 8 is flexible enough to allow a variety of styles of working, and hurrah for that, I say.

"Clearly, many people are going to be buying new computers which will have Windows 8 pre-installed."

That wasn't the case with Vista. Negative word-of-mouth reviews effectively killed sales of it and of equipment with it preloaded. W8 could easily go the same way.

Already happened to several of our clients.

I see Windows 8 computers on the shelves, and the majority of people are not going to zap and start again - nor need they.

The Vista effect was that it had some significant problems to start out with, it gained terrible negative press, they eventually fixed most of the problems, but by that time the name itself was so poorly perceived and the negative press so consistent that they released a fairly minor modification of Vista as Windows 7... and suddenly everybody loved it.

But there is already a LOT of positive press about Windows 8 among consumer channel reviewers - and not just the Pro-Windows ones.

I've said this before elsewhere. I have a engineer who we'll call "Mikey." Give it to Mikey, he hates *everything*. He hated Vista. Wouldn't touch it. He quickly adopted Windows 7 when it was released.

I tasked him to do some early evaluation of Windows 8 Pro using the excuse, "we're going to see clients getting these for Christmas, we need to at least have a rough understanding of how it works for the next year."

I expected him to despise it.

But he likes it. Mikey likes it!

this is a Canary in the coal-mine kind of effect. I asked him if he would consider upgrading his current laptop out-of-life-cycle to a Lenovo Thinkpad Twist with Windows 8 as his daily corporate driver at the office. He didn't hesitate for a second. He isn't afraid of that upgrade path at all.

So you've got two pretty seasoned IT veterans here who've been through the Vista era, and both of them have actually *tried* Windows 8, and both of them would use it as their main OS *professionally* in IT.

I think the predictions of Windows 8 turning into another Vista are most likely wishful thinking.

Yes, people are all different and yes, they do all like to use their computers in different ways. Which is precisely why I believe that MS should have given them the choice of whether to install the Classic Windows UI or the 'new, improved' Metro UI!

But comparing the (non) existence of an OS that is 'perfect for everyone' against the equally non-existent car that is perfect for everyone, is like saying that if every car was made the same shape and size etc, that would be better than having different shaped/sized cars... I don't think so. Wouldn't it please more of the people more of the time if MS were to offer people the choice of different versions of Windows 8 - one metro and one classic, for example?

Install Classic Shell and you can opt to skip the start screen on boot and go directly to the desktop. You hardly need be aware of the existence of the start screen.

My point is that Windows 8, unlike a car, can be 'driven' with different steering wheels.

All cars ARE the same size and shape anymore. That's why I drive a truck, which is NOT a car. It's why I use Linux, and not an iTampon or Winsucks, most of the time. If i DO use Windows, it's going to drive like windows: XP in classic mode.

While the WIN8 might the newest and greatest thing for the touchscreens, this operating system belongs on a tablet. Most consumers do not want to re-learn keyboard shortcuts. They want to click and be done with it. Yeah.....IF you learn these shortcuts, you can then say that the basics of the O/S are great.....but who wants to go backwards(learning old DOS keyboard shortcuts). Consumers have become so use to being able to go to the start menu and find the programs that they want. They don't want to re-learn a keyboard shortcut, they want to click and go.

You don't really need windows 8 either!

Windows 7 will work fine until you can learn Linux and you won't have to put up with all the microsoft bs. Really, the new Linux versions are just as good, easier and more fun give one a spin...say Ubuntu.

Hi Greg,

I had a good chuckle or your article.

Try clearing and openning your mind and reread the article.

You are giving all these key strokes to replace a simple two mouse click.

You know you sound, no offence, like a doting mother trying to explain why her dear Johnny's is not really that strange.

Regards,
Mike

And all of the items that were once in the start menu are still in a directory called, start menu off of c:/program data/Microsoft/Windows/Start Menu and you can just put an icon to that directory on your desktop OR create a menu bar for it and it acts like the old start menu.
And of course there is the question, if you are a power user which I suspect you are if you are reading this, then you should be smart enough to adapt since you probably have already adapted to no start menu on your phone or tablet.
And there is yet another way to do this, open the command prompt, and if the application is in your path (you do know how to add an application directory to your path) and just type the name of the program to run it. Full screen the command prompt and you can pretend you are in DOS if you want to pretend that computer technology isn't evolving, otherwise quit griping and trying to live in the past.

Only because we have no option! But to try and find where settings etc are, I often have to open and close several icons before I finally open the right one! Of course, that is obviously only because I am ancient. LOL. No, it isn't because I have watched my very phone-savvie daughter do exactly the same thing on many occasions! Why? Because some of us have far too many things to try and remember already, without having to try and remember what's under every icon on a mobile phone!

I have found one of the things I missed most in Windows 8 was the recently used documents and applications on the Start menu.

To work around the lack of the recent documents Start menu I added an icon on my desktop for C:\Users\UserAccount\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Recent. Then I can open that folder and see the most recently used documents.

I have not found an equivalent feature to quickly access the most recently used applications.

I read some of the things recommended in the article, but I already have the desktop that I am happy with, so I guess the best thing is just to wait around for W9 when Microsoft may come to their senses. With W8, you should have gotten the so called Metro Interface if you had a Tablet and normal Desktop Interface if you have a Desktop or Laptop. The best way to do that is to let you select which way you want it to launch. Right now they seem like a Dictator that wants to force things on you that you don't really want. Looks like they have been mesmerized by Apple and Android. Fortunately I may be able to go to my Grave with Windows 7 which is probably not going to be possible for your younger users!!!

That's a laugh. Once third party app makers start making touch-centric interfaces and people get touchscreens and trackpads for all their computers no one is going to go back to the mouse-centric setup. Just like no one is going back to rotary phones or home fax machines or cathode ray anything. I think YOU resemble a dictator for holding everyone back just so you can be more comfortable with your sedentary ways. Tsk, tsk.

Tried it on two machines. One was my own HP mini trying to install Win8 preview, the other one client's fresh out of the box Toshiba with factory installed OS surprise. Run into compatibility problems, screen resolution error, program crashes (DriverMax) and "Access denied, see your network administrator" issues to the point where I declared that Windows 7 is my Windows Last. When going to put my HP Mini back and the restored Windows 7 did not boot I discovered the cute feature that prevents any other operating system booting on Windows 8 hardware. No, thank you.

Like most, I'm new to Win 8 but I can't get over all the
hysteria. Two simple things to remember:

1. The Start Screen is just an expanded Start Menu.

2. The easiest way to get to the Desktop (and your Program Icons)
is to simply place the "Desktop" tile in the top left position of the Start Screen.
Then all you need to do is press Enter at the Start Menu, and you will
go directly to your Desktop! Simple. No 3rd party software needed,
no contorted keystrokes!

(Note: You can also place any tile in the top left position,
that you want to launch just by pressing Enter, in case you'd rather launch an app
instead of the Desktop).

1. Yes. 2. Yes. However, once folks realize the extra steps taken just to launch from a location called "desktop" they can start skipping that and launching apps directly from the Start screen. The desktop is empty real estate. I doesn't do anything.

...last statement! It makes so much sense when you really think about it.

I think I'll amend it slightly and make it my new mantra:

"The Windows desktop is empty real estate. It doesn't do anything"

The capability is there to add tiles and / or shortcuts to each as appropriate. I'm missing why one does nothing when they appear to be similar to me.

Disclaimer: I don't use desktop shortcuts, preferring 'Pin to Start Menu' and running my apps tiled or maximized so I don't see the desktop anyway.

There's still nothing but adding a Start Menu back in for a fast way to shut down the computer from the desktop. Even though I CAN organize the Start Screen, why jump to there when I can find everything so much easier from the Start Menu.

It's like Microsoft is thumbing their noses at people that use desktops... like we're too dorky to keep up with the "hip crowd". But the truth is, I USE my desktop every day to get REAL work done and not just fart around online with the toys provided in the app store.

It's like Microsoft just had a huge brain fart when it came to a large portion of those that HAVE to use a desktop and most likely will continue to for many years to come.

Groups of applications on the desktop; Geesh; just put them in a folder on the desktop and open the folder it'll be just like Windows 3.1 Program Mananger all over again. LOL

Stardock Sart8 is what I use but there are others. They are available now. Machine boots right to typical Windows 7 desktop and you still can get to Windows 8 Start screen if you want but you don't have to. Don't understand all the complaining people do about Win8. Faster and usable on any touch screen as well as desktop with mouse and keyboard. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!"

All this to work around the removal of a very useable and convenient way of using Windows. There are certain features that I just find so easy to use and which make using Windows easier, when you have the old style Start Menu. I like that it has the programs you use most often on the Start Menu, automatically. I like that I can pin items to the Start Menu and not have to have them on the Taskbar which reduces the space available on the Taskbar for running programs. I have had enough programs running that I needed a double width Taskbar but I hate losing space on the screen so much that I chose to keep it single width. I like the convenience of being able to click on the Start Menu and then click shutdown or restart, quick and easy, (yes, I know how to create a shutdown shortcut). I don't like large icons for anything. My Windows explorer is always set to display files in Detail mode, not as icons. One of the selling points, if you will, way back when, was the point and click nature of Windows. Now we are being moved in the direction of having to type to find anything? I started out when there was nothing to use but Dos and typing was a way of life so I am not afraid of the command line or typing but I am puzzled that Microsoft is moving in the direction of having to type to easily navigate Windows. So, yes, there are workarounds, but why should they be necessary. I understand that they want the ability to use one OS on tablets and computers, fine. I also think they are forcing us to the new Start Menu to get everyone used to the new Start Menu. That doesn't make me happy

I have moved from Dos to Windows 3, Windows 95/98,
XP, 7, and finally, 8. There was a learning curve for many of those moves but I don't recall any that equal this, except maybe win 3.1 to 95. I am not opposed to changes but they have to make sense and removing the Start Menu doesn't. All this is, of course, personal preference. But Windows used to be that way. It seems there was always two or three ways to do anything. But now, we are being told, one way only ? Tell me why this it necessary, please, I'm listening.

Great tips, but these personalizations fix what wasn't broken in the first place. Covering my desktop with tiles or having rows and rows of icons on the task bar (while not being able to tell what's open?) are both space and time-wasters.

And why should familiarity be a bad thing? I'm trying to work here. I frequently have 12 apps and 4 Explorer windows open, while dealing with coworkers. If the Microsoft folks were designing cars, the steering wheel would be moved and changed to a touch pad.

I have used every iteration of all Windows systems developed.
Suddenly, we do not need the Start button because a new interface is designed? Why?
Nothing to do with sticking to our guns and bibles as a Presidential cadidate indicated to those who love familiarity. As an Interface designer, I guess the Microsoft Corporation will spin out of orbit if the new interface was not made to look like a combination of a "Mondrian," painting and a " 15 tile," puzzle. A 10 year old must have said, "What is this, a Start button? My Mommy has one on her car." C'mon people, the interface is supposed to be friendly and ease of use for all. In my humble opinion, it looks more like Shopping Mall signage than an interface.

What bothers me is that MS is so arrogant that it thinks it can demand that the world wide work force using windows based products should be "re-trained" with it's miserable (non-helpful) user interface with a loss of millions, possibly billions, of man hours of productivity. ad they not been so arrogant they would have offered business/users an option of "moving forward" with their new interface or sticking with what they know. In the past they offered a choice, this time they said do it our way. It's no wonder that Android will dominate the tablet world; developers have to choose what eco-system they want to work with, Apple, Android or Windows; for years it was a no-brianer. But not so any more, given limited resources, the choice won't be all of the above and with MS raising prices on just about everything businesses will be pressuring their developers to use the next "MS forced re-development cycle" (another arrogant money grab by MS) to move to Android where costs are lower and there is more flexibility (and it getting better not worse).

Either the MS arrogance will end (with it's slow death caused by business application not being written for it's platform) or MS will make the necessary moves to improve productivity (not reduce it); another Vista, no, now there are more immediately relevant choices, MS has far less time to make this right, with a choice of interfaces and an apology (Win 8.1XP?)

I like to be able to arrange my start menus how I want them, not how MS sees fit. I run Classic Shell. http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/ I had it running in Win7, when I upgraded to Win8 I didn't even have to deal with the metro madness as my Classic style menu came right up. If I want the mess that is Win8's menu I can pop it up on either screen. After initially looking it over and trying it a bit I don't bother however. Here's a look at how Win8 could/should be: http://i.imgur.com/NONcW.jpg

I don't think anything is as bad as your computer setup. It's gods-awful. It also looks like you've never actually used Windows 8. So...

Aren't you glad it's his and not yours...

Just because some users may not "need" something does not mean you force everyone to be without. The windows 7 "Start button" was and is probably the best application launcher I have seen in any OS (That includes Mac and Gnome and KDE) . The "Start Screen" in windows 8 at its bets is a total screen stealing waste of space. Why on earth would you want to blank out totally what you are working with just to find an application you want to launch? They have totally missed the point of "working in windows" and why it has been so popular. (Looks like they missed the boat on multiple desktops AGAIN!)

People in general work at things with differing mind-sets. Why try and force one interface on a group of people. It would seem to be far better to allow the individual user to choose between the simplistic (metro), The standard (Windows 7) and something for power users (multi-screen multi-desktop) configuration. Try borrowing the "Shell" Idea from Linux and come up with a set of stable "Shell"s that people can switch between based upon user preference? You can't tell me it would take any more resources than the cluster they have created this go-round.

than the start menu of previous editions. You can customise it the same as before, you have more space to put everything you want, in groups that are logical, that have live tiles if you want them. If you put the desktop tile at top left then hit return when it first comes up and you are in the desktop. Pressing the Windows key from that point on toggles you between desktop and start screen. Overall, less keystrokes and less mouse clicks than with the previous menu once you have customised it the way you want it.

All the previous windows versions tried to keep the users desktop clean (remember the folder "unused desktop icons" in XP). Now the total contradiction!
I prefer the old fashioned start menu together with the classic quick lauch bar (yes this still exists in W8)
And compare how easy it is to logoff or shutdown your computer the old way to the new metro variant.

Windows biggest failure to date is the "clean desktop". It's Start menu system is so flawed that users, er... people had to create shortcuts until the desktop was cluttered with shortcuts. With Win7 people can pin icons to the taskbar when their desktops are full. Start button is the Worst. Idea. Ever.

A lot of people got in the mode of creating shortcuts back in W95 and even in W3's Program Manager. I don't think those people figured out how to use the Start menu effectively, or saw any reason to. (Kinda like me and Metro.) I think many people don't differentiate between programs and data, and want everything in one place. Program installers usually add shortcuts to the desktop (along with other places), but it's easier to dump a file on the desktop than add a shortcut pointing to it to the Start Menu.

Why do you find the Taskbar superior to the Start Menu? My gripe with shortcuts on the taskbar is I quickly run out of space on it when running all the apps I use at work. Using it as a menu means space is taken up by inactive shortcuts for apps I'm not running, on the off-chance I'll want to start them. Sticking them on the Start Menu means they're not taking up Taskbar space until I want them.

Inactive programs, PUT THEM ON ANOTHER TOOLBAR.

Gods of us all, I though I owned the corner lot around here on Metro disdain. I see now I wasn't even running a rented lemonade stand in the far end of a flea market.

But to respond, I don't like trading screen space for multiple taskbars. If you do, fine; that's your preference. i prefer the Start Menu. Differing ways of using a tool don't make either of us right or wrong.

Even with these suggestions it still looks like the dogs breakfast!