Trying to make the Win10 start menu work - can it do more than 5 groups?

Uultred ragnusen wrote:

Thanks Andy for that suggestion of "showing more tiles".
I don't think that button does /anything/ useful

It makes each group wide enough to fit 8 small tiles instead of 6 (or 4
medium tiles instead of 3).

Andy Burns wrote:

Thanks Andy for that suggestion of "showing more tiles".
I don't think that button does /anything/ useful

It makes each group wide enough to fit 8 small tiles instead of 6 (or 4
medium tiles instead of 3).

Thanks for that advice.
I think the only thing left for me to organize the tiles how I want them is
to now make a sub hierarchy inside the main tile hierarchy.

I'm working on that ...

On 18/03/2018 09:14:53, Uultred ragnusen wrote:
Uultred ragnusen wrote:

So now I'm working on making some of the groups hierarchical.

Wow. I just accidentally ran across this, which allows us to re-create the
well-honed cascaded hierarchical Windows start menu of the days of old
(which worked just fine as long as you stayed away from the polluted
"programs" hierarchy).
https://superuser.com/questions/9845...ll-the-folders

With this, I am able to re-create a cascaded hierarchical start menu!
http://i.cubeupload.com/6WPuYD.jpg

Start my menu editors pic {irfanview, paint, paint.net, pinta, etc.}
http://i.cubeupload.com/cB1OU0.jpg

Now all I need to do is organize that cascaded menu, and then reproduce it
in the Windows 10 default tiled grouped menu.

I cannot fathom out whether you are trying too make things complicated
or looking for problems that don't exist. :-)

Short video might help: https://micklord.com/testpage/

Treat the right hand pane like a speadsheet. You can have 3 columns
wide or 4 if you have the start menu startup as full screen.
A Group of icons can have an infinite number of rows. Each row you can
have 8 small icons wide or 4 medium icons or a mixture of both.
You can have an infinite number of Groups.

--
mick

mick wrote:

I cannot fathom out whether you are trying too make things complicated
or looking for problems that don't exist. :-)

I appreciate your candor, mick, where I just want what anyone would want,
which is the convenience of the old hierarchical cascaded menu funcionality
without the need to scroll and click through pages.

For decades, I've kept my programs in an organized hierarchy, and I simply
want single-menu hierarchical access to them (no scrolling) just like I had
with the Windows cascaded menus, which, I must state, worked just fine.

To be clear, I know some people clutter their desktop, which is flat, with
shortcuts to programs. Others clutter their taskbar (which is often flat)
with those program shortcuts. Many, like I have in the past, resort to
hacks such as the Classic Shell, just to get a cascaded hierarchical menu
back.

I had customized the hell out of Windows (WinAero & regedit et al) until
Microsoft bricked my system in January, so I've decided to try to live
under the House Rules, so to speak - which means learning to live with that
dastardly flat tiled menu.

So my only goal is to make the default (admittedly horrid) tile menu work
for a hierarchical access to about a dozen groups with sometimes two, often
three, and sometimes four levels of hierarchy.

Short video might help: https://micklord.com/testpage/

Assuming that's your two-minute video, I thank you with much sincerely for
making it, as you seem to be like I am, where you help people in need of
answers (which is why I document my solutions thoroughly).

I see you first arranged the icons on the desktop, flat (which is all a
desktop can realistically do on a desktop), and that you had some program
icons in the task bar, which you must admit, by default, from Microsoft, is
also unrealistically flat through no fault of your own but which is normal
for Windows users. [I'm not pointing out your faults but the faults of the
Microsoft coders where the flat menus are fine for quick access - but the
flat menus fail miserably for access to all installed programs.]

I see you initially accessed the program icons from the default
alphabetical listing by meaningless brand name (which everyone must admit,
is an idiotic way to access program shortcuts but that's what Microsoft
gives us, by default, so that's all we have to work with for
starters).[Again, I'm only pointing out the fault of Microsoft - as you and
I can only start with the crap they give us.]

Very much to your credit, you had created more than a dozen dummy groups in
your start menu, which is the first time in my searches I've seen more than
an unrealistic five groups in any screenshot on the net! So kudos to you
for being realistic in the number of groups seen on the screen all at the
same time [there is never a desire to scroll!].

I see you located the program shortcuts on that idiotic alphabetical start
menu (which is a realistic thing to do) and selected "pin to start", and
then moved the icon into the desired hierarchical group, which is what I
also wish to do. So this is all well and good because you have to start
with the Microsoft crap to make your own menu.

So you seem to have accomplished pretty much what I'm seeking, where I saw
one thing in your video that confuses me (because I don't see it on my
screen), and I didn't see one thing in your video which is required, which
is multi-level hierarchy. (see clarification below)

Treat the right hand pane like a speadsheet. You can have 3 columns
wide or 4 if you have the start menu startup as full screen.

It's always going to be a full screen because I want to see at least a
dozen groups at once (no scrolling), and I want it to have at least a few
levels of hierarchy.

The actual size of the icons is meaningless since the old hierarchical
cascaded start menu sizes were fine, and they were tiny compared to what we
have now, and our screens were smaller too.

So size doesn't matter - but what matters is:
a. It must show the entire menu in one screen
b. It must be multi-level (at least 3 or 4) of hierarchy
c. It must be attached to the start button (that's where it belongs).

Just like cascaded menus were (there was nothing wrong with them).

A Group of icons can have an infinite number of rows. Each row you can
have 8 small icons wide or 4 medium icons or a mixture of both.

I'm not sure what you mean by "rows" since your menu seems to be in
portrait mode (for lack of a better term) while mine seems to be in
landcape mode, but what matters is that what you call rows must also have
rows, in order to be hierarchical, as in:
Start editors picture editors batch imbatch
Start editors picture editors viewers irfanview
Start editors picture editors writers pinta
etc.
Given that hypothetical hierarchy, in your terminology, that's:
Start row1 sub-row2 sub-sub-row3 program shortcut.lnk

You can have an infinite number of Groups.

This is good news that the rows and groups can be greater than five, which
was the original issue now overcome.

I really only have two questions about the wonderful video where I'll first
provide some screenshots to help illustrate the first question:

A. http://i.cubeupload.com/qjVNBl.jpg (your menu, alphabetical + group)
B. http://i.cubeupload.com/3xLbd5.jpg (my group menu)
C. http://i.cubeupload.com/CR5puo.jpg (my alphabetical menu)
D. http://i.cubeupload.com/CAdeeW.jpg (my cascaded task-bar menu)

With those screenshots in mind, and with the goal of a single-page start
menu (no scrolling) attached to the Windows icon where the menu has at
least three or four levels of hierarchy (depending on how you count
hierarchy), my main two questions about your video a

Q1: How did you get BOTH menus to show up at the same time, and,
Q2: Can the Windows tiled menu be made hierarchical (3 or 4 levels)?

I hope this makes sense. Thank you for your help. I hope the answer helps
everyone with the same need.

Uultred ragnusen wrote:
mick wrote:

I cannot fathom out whether you are trying too make things complicated
or looking for problems that don't exist. :-)

I appreciate your candor, mick, where I just want what anyone would want,
which is the convenience of the old hierarchical cascaded menu funcionality
without the need to scroll and click through pages.

Well why don't you just put tiles within tiles?

Example create a tile group "Programming".

1) Drag some tile of a programming app on Start Screen off from others
to create a new section.

2) Click above tile to set section name "Programming"

3) Drag other programming app tiles *on top* of the first one that you
put in that section and it will now be a group tile

4) Repeat as desired.

5) When you click on a grouped tile it will expand below revealing
contained tiles.



--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

"Jonathan N. Little" wrote:

Well why don't you just put tiles within tiles?

Thanks for that suggestion, which is fair enough that hierarchy can be
"created" using the concept of "tiles within tiles".

http://i.cubeupload.com/pQjHeR.jpg


Example create a tile group "Programming".

1) Drag some tile of a programming app on Start Screen off from others
to create a new section.

2) Click above tile to set section name "Programming"

3) Drag other programming app tiles *on top* of the first one that you
put in that section and it will now be a group tile

4) Repeat as desired.

5) When you click on a grouped tile it will expand below revealing
contained tiles.

This is a great suggestion of hierarchical tiles where the only remaining
issue would be whether a hierarchical tile can go into another hierarchical
tile.
http://i.cubeupload.com/pQjHeR.jpg

So far I can't get it to work, but, like so many things on this Start Menu,
there's a trick involved in most.

What's the trick to get a hierarchical tile into another hierarchical tile?

On 19/03/2018 14:53:53, Uultred ragnusen wrote:
mick wrote:

I cannot fathom out whether you are trying too make things complicated
or looking for problems that don't exist. :-)

I appreciate your candor, mick, where I just want what anyone would want,
which is the convenience of the old hierarchical cascaded menu funcionality
without the need to scroll and click through pages.

For decades, I've kept my programs in an organized hierarchy, and I simply
want single-menu hierarchical access to them (no scrolling) just like I had
with the Windows cascaded menus, which, I must state, worked just fine.

To be clear, I know some people clutter their desktop, which is flat, with
shortcuts to programs. Others clutter their taskbar (which is often flat)
with those program shortcuts. Many, like I have in the past, resort to
hacks such as the Classic Shell, just to get a cascaded hierarchical menu
back.

I had customized the hell out of Windows (WinAero & regedit et al) until
Microsoft bricked my system in January, so I've decided to try to live
under the House Rules, so to speak - which means learning to live with that
dastardly flat tiled menu.

So my only goal is to make the default (admittedly horrid) tile menu work
for a hierarchical access to about a dozen groups with sometimes two, often
three, and sometimes four levels of hierarchy.

Short video might help: https://micklord.com/testpage/

Assuming that's your two-minute video, I thank you with much sincerely for
making it, as you seem to be like I am, where you help people in need of
answers (which is why I document my solutions thoroughly).

I see you first arranged the icons on the desktop, flat (which is all a
desktop can realistically do on a desktop), and that you had some program
icons in the task bar, which you must admit, by default, from Microsoft, is
also unrealistically flat through no fault of your own but which is normal
for Windows users. [I'm not pointing out your faults but the faults of the
Microsoft coders where the flat menus are fine for quick access - but the
flat menus fail miserably for access to all installed programs.]

I see you initially accessed the program icons from the default
alphabetical listing by meaningless brand name (which everyone must admit,
is an idiotic way to access program shortcuts but that's what Microsoft
gives us, by default, so that's all we have to work with for
starters).[Again, I'm only pointing out the fault of Microsoft - as you and
I can only start with the crap they give us.]

Very much to your credit, you had created more than a dozen dummy groups in
your start menu, which is the first time in my searches I've seen more than
an unrealistic five groups in any screenshot on the net! So kudos to you
for being realistic in the number of groups seen on the screen all at the
same time [there is never a desire to scroll!].

I see you located the program shortcuts on that idiotic alphabetical start
menu (which is a realistic thing to do) and selected "pin to start", and
then moved the icon into the desired hierarchical group, which is what I
also wish to do. So this is all well and good because you have to start
with the Microsoft crap to make your own menu.

So you seem to have accomplished pretty much what I'm seeking, where I saw
one thing in your video that confuses me (because I don't see it on my
screen), and I didn't see one thing in your video which is required, which
is multi-level hierarchy. (see clarification below)

Treat the right hand pane like a speadsheet. You can have 3 columns
wide or 4 if you have the start menu startup as full screen.

It's always going to be a full screen because I want to see at least a
dozen groups at once (no scrolling), and I want it to have at least a few
levels of hierarchy.

The actual size of the icons is meaningless since the old hierarchical
cascaded start menu sizes were fine, and they were tiny compared to what we
have now, and our screens were smaller too.

So size doesn't matter - but what matters is:
a. It must show the entire menu in one screen
b. It must be multi-level (at least 3 or 4) of hierarchy
c. It must be attached to the start button (that's where it belongs).

Just like cascaded menus were (there was nothing wrong with them).

A Group of icons can have an infinite number of rows. Each row you can
have 8 small icons wide or 4 medium icons or a mixture of both.

I'm not sure what you mean by "rows" since your menu seems to be in
portrait mode (for lack of a better term) while mine seems to be in
landcape mode, but what matters is that what you call rows must also have
rows, in order to be hierarchical, as in:
Start editors picture editors batch imbatch
Start editors picture editors viewers irfanview
Start editors picture editors writers pinta
etc.
Given that hypothetical hierarchy, in your terminology, that's:
Start row1 sub-row2 sub-sub-row3 program shortcut.lnk

You can have an infinite number of Groups.

This is good news that the rows and groups can be greater than five, which
was the original issue now overcome.

I really only have two questions about the wonderful video where I'll first
provide some screenshots to help illustrate the first question:

A. http://i.cubeupload.com/qjVNBl.jpg (your menu, alphabetical + group)
B. http://i.cubeupload.com/3xLbd5.jpg (my group menu)
C. http://i.cubeupload.com/CR5puo.jpg (my alphabetical menu)
D. http://i.cubeupload.com/CAdeeW.jpg (my cascaded task-bar menu)

With those screenshots in mind, and with the goal of a single-page start
menu (no scrolling) attached to the Windows icon where the menu has at
least three or four levels of hierarchy (depending on how you count
hierarchy), my main two questions about your video a

Q1: How did you get BOTH menus to show up at the same time, and,
Q2: Can the Windows tiled menu be made hierarchical (3 or 4 levels)?

I hope this makes sense. Thank you for your help. I hope the answer helps
everyone with the same need.

Q1:
You only get both menus showing when the start menu is not set to start
full screen. Turn it off in settings.
I am using a 24inch monitor, stretch the start menu up as far as it
will go, and to the right and you will get three columns wide on the
right hand side. It is about an inch from the top of the screen and 3.5
inch from the right.
You will always get scrolling on the alphabetical list if you have many
programs. On the right hand screen you should have enough real estate
to accommondate your icons without scrolling.

Q2:
No, not that I am aware of.
Making a tile called My Documents (wich contains many folders and
files) is just a short cut to My Documents folder. Clicking on the
tile opens up File Explorer at My Documents folder.

Screenshot D:
I cannot see any way to add that to the start menu.

FYI
I do not use the start menu other than closing down the computer.
All my programs that I use on a regular basis are on the desktop
organised in some sort of order, Disk Utilities, Music, Desktop
Publishing/Drawing, Photo, Internet.
The most popular programs are on the task bar using extensive jump
lists for regularly used files.
I don't miss the folder/file hierarchy that was present in versions of
windows before 10, probably because I have always used Directory Opus
for my file manager which opens on startup. It can be configured to
more or less do anything from within the program.

--
mick

mick wrote:

Q1:
You only get both menus showing when the start menu is not set to start
full screen. Turn it off in settings.

Ah. Thanks. I see. Worked like a charm.
http://i.cubeupload.com/lYcCoJ.jpg

I am using a 24inch monitor, stretch the start menu up as far as it
will go, and to the right and you will get three columns wide on the
right hand side. It is about an inch from the top of the screen and 3.5
inch from the right.

I streteched it as far as it will go, so thanks for that hint, as this
whole Windows grouped start menu is something that I need to wrestle until
it works right.
http://i.cubeupload.com/5CO1TI.jpg

You will always get scrolling on the alphabetical list if you have many
programs. On the right hand screen you should have enough real estate
to accommondate your icons without scrolling.

Your observation is correct in that I agree, with hundreds of programs, not
all of which you want on a start menu, the alphabetical list will scroll
but we "should" be able to create a hierarchical grouped menu that is a
single page (if it can handle hierarchy).

Q2:
No, not that I am aware of.
Making a tile called My Documents (wich contains many folders and
files) is just a short cut to My Documents folder. Clicking on the
tile opens up File Explorer at My Documents folder.

If the grouped start menu can't be made hierarchical, then that's a huge
flaw over the functionality of a cascaded menu, which has no problem with
hierarchy until you reach the end of the screen (which won't realistically
happen).

That is, if the grouped start menu has only one level of hierarchy
Group Tile
then that's a fatal flaw.

I tried to put a grouped tile inside of a grouped tile, but I have failed
so far, so if I continue to fail, that's a big nail in the coffin of the
Windows 10 start menu because hierarchy is one of the most basic
requirements of a menu system.
http://i.cubeupload.com/labOZ9.jpg

Screenshot D:
I cannot see any way to add that to the start menu.

I agree with you that I tried to create a folder that would work as a
cascade, since I already have that on my task bar, but it doesn't work like
you'd want it to work in the menu.
https://i.cubeupload.com/CAdeeW.jpg

FYI
I do not use the start menu other than closing down the computer.

I don't use it either but only because it's worthless as shipped by
Microsoft. It must be customized. But if it can't even do the most basic of
hierarchical needs, then it's pretty much worthless as a menu system.

Up until now, we've overcome all the flaws (e.g., the 5 groups, the
hierarchy inside of a single tile, etc.).

But if the menu can't handle more than a single level of hierarchy, then
it's nearly worthless as a menu. If I wanted flat, I'd put a bunch of icons
in a folder or on the destkop or on the taskbar.

Hierarchy is everything in a menu system.

All my programs that I use on a regular basis are on the desktop
organised in some sort of order, Disk Utilities, Music, Desktop
Publishing/Drawing, Photo, Internet.

Yes. I know. I do the same thing, only in the task bar.
That works well for a small subset of programs.

There are, basically, three subsets of programs (IMHO):
1. The superset (but nobody wants shortcuts to everything!)
2. The subset (these are programs you plan on using)
3. The sub-subset (these are the dozen you use the most every day)

The most popular programs are on the task bar using extensive jump
lists for regularly used files.

Yes. I know. I'm fully familiar with the sub-subset of programs where you
want single-click access. This thread was never about them, as I have them
in my task bar also, and in a menu folder.

This thread is about the Start Menu, which, IMHO, isn't designed for the
(1) superset, nor for the (3) sub-subset, but for the (2) subset of
programs that you might call.

For example, I don't burn DVDs every day so IMGBurn would be in my
sub-subset, but I do use a web browser every day so PaleMoon would be in my
sub-subset.

The Start Menu, IMHO, should have (2) the subset of programs, so, for
example the Opera browser would be in the menu:
Start Browsers Chromium-based Privacy-based Opera.lnk
while, say, SRWare iron would be in:
Start Browsers Chromium-based No Privacy Iron.lnk

Likewise, IMGBurn might be in:
Start Hardware BrCdDvd Burning Imgburn.lnk
While DeVeDe might be in:
Start Hardware BrCdDvd Authoring Devede.lnk

I don't miss the folder/file hierarchy that was present in versions of
windows before 10, probably because I have always used Directory Opus
for my file manager which opens on startup. It can be configured to
more or less do anything from within the program.

I had a well-honed cascaded start menu which mirrored my software
installation hierarchy which mirrored my software archive hierarchy which
made sense and which is exactly what you do with your socks, your tools,
your kitchen appliances, etc.

A place for everything and everything in its place is normal in the real
world, where a menu that is not hierarchical is not a menu but a toy.

So far, we've overcome all the gotchas in learning to use the Windows start
menu, but if it can't be made to have hierarchy, then it's basically
worthless as a menu system.

Are you /sure/ you can't put a grouped folder inside of another?
http://i.cubeupload.com/labOZ9.jpg

Maybe there's a registry tweak that will allow that basic functionality?

On 19/03/2018 22:21:40, Uultred ragnusen wrote:
mick wrote:

Q1:
You only get both menus showing when the start menu is not set to start
full screen. Turn it off in settings.

Ah. Thanks. I see. Worked like a charm.
http://i.cubeupload.com/lYcCoJ.jpg

I am using a 24inch monitor, stretch the start menu up as far as it
will go, and to the right and you will get three columns wide on the
right hand side. It is about an inch from the top of the screen and 3.5
inch from the right.

I streteched it as far as it will go, so thanks for that hint, as this
whole Windows grouped start menu is something that I need to wrestle until
it works right.
http://i.cubeupload.com/5CO1TI.jpg

You will always get scrolling on the alphabetical list if you have many
programs. On the right hand screen you should have enough real estate
to accommondate your icons without scrolling.

Your observation is correct in that I agree, with hundreds of programs, not
all of which you want on a start menu, the alphabetical list will scroll
but we "should" be able to create a hierarchical grouped menu that is a
single page (if it can handle hierarchy).

Q2:
No, not that I am aware of.
Making a tile called My Documents (wich contains many folders and
files) is just a short cut to My Documents folder. Clicking on the
tile opens up File Explorer at My Documents folder.

If the grouped start menu can't be made hierarchical, then that's a huge
flaw over the functionality of a cascaded menu, which has no problem with
hierarchy until you reach the end of the screen (which won't realistically
happen).

That is, if the grouped start menu has only one level of hierarchy
Group Tile
then that's a fatal flaw.

I tried to put a grouped tile inside of a grouped tile, but I have failed
so far, so if I continue to fail, that's a big nail in the coffin of the
Windows 10 start menu because hierarchy is one of the most basic
requirements of a menu system.
http://i.cubeupload.com/labOZ9.jpg

Screenshot D:
I cannot see any way to add that to the start menu.

I agree with you that I tried to create a folder that would work as a
cascade, since I already have that on my task bar, but it doesn't work like
you'd want it to work in the menu.
https://i.cubeupload.com/CAdeeW.jpg

FYI
I do not use the start menu other than closing down the computer.

I don't use it either but only because it's worthless as shipped by
Microsoft. It must be customized. But if it can't even do the most basic of
hierarchical needs, then it's pretty much worthless as a menu system.

Up until now, we've overcome all the flaws (e.g., the 5 groups, the
hierarchy inside of a single tile, etc.).

But if the menu can't handle more than a single level of hierarchy, then
it's nearly worthless as a menu. If I wanted flat, I'd put a bunch of icons
in a folder or on the destkop or on the taskbar.

Hierarchy is everything in a menu system.

All my programs that I use on a regular basis are on the desktop
organised in some sort of order, Disk Utilities, Music, Desktop
Publishing/Drawing, Photo, Internet.

Yes. I know. I do the same thing, only in the task bar.
That works well for a small subset of programs.

There are, basically, three subsets of programs (IMHO):
1. The superset (but nobody wants shortcuts to everything!)
2. The subset (these are programs you plan on using)
3. The sub-subset (these are the dozen you use the most every day)

The most popular programs are on the task bar using extensive jump
lists for regularly used files.

Yes. I know. I'm fully familiar with the sub-subset of programs where you
want single-click access. This thread was never about them, as I have them
in my task bar also, and in a menu folder.

This thread is about the Start Menu, which, IMHO, isn't designed for the
(1) superset, nor for the (3) sub-subset, but for the (2) subset of
programs that you might call.

For example, I don't burn DVDs every day so IMGBurn would be in my
sub-subset, but I do use a web browser every day so PaleMoon would be in my
sub-subset.

The Start Menu, IMHO, should have (2) the subset of programs, so, for
example the Opera browser would be in the menu:
Start Browsers Chromium-based Privacy-based Opera.lnk
while, say, SRWare iron would be in:
Start Browsers Chromium-based No Privacy Iron.lnk

Likewise, IMGBurn might be in:
Start Hardware BrCdDvd Burning Imgburn.lnk
While DeVeDe might be in:
Start Hardware BrCdDvd Authoring Devede.lnk

I don't miss the folder/file hierarchy that was present in versions of
windows before 10, probably because I have always used Directory Opus
for my file manager which opens on startup. It can be configured to
more or less do anything from within the program.

I had a well-honed cascaded start menu which mirrored my software
installation hierarchy which mirrored my software archive hierarchy which
made sense and which is exactly what you do with your socks, your tools,
your kitchen appliances, etc.

A place for everything and everything in its place is normal in the real
world, where a menu that is not hierarchical is not a menu but a toy.

So far, we've overcome all the gotchas in learning to use the Windows start
menu, but if it can't be made to have hierarchy, then it's basically
worthless as a menu system.

Are you /sure/ you can't put a grouped folder inside of another?
http://i.cubeupload.com/labOZ9.jpg

Maybe there's a registry tweak that will allow that basic functionality?

You cannot put a Group tile within another Group tile.
You cannot put a tile in a tile that is already in a Group tile,
effectively trying to make the tile already in the Group tile become
another Group tile.
Hierarchy is Group Tile AFAICS, I have searched 'tinternet without
any joy.
I've been chasing those tiles all over the screen, they have like poles
and repel each other, maybe deguassing the monitor would help ;-)

--
mick

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 08:07:53 +0000 (UTC), Uultred ragnusen
wrote:

Peter Jason wrote:

Mine works intermittently.

You're not kidding!

It's as capricious as all hell to try to create a dozen groups!

The best I can do, so far, after thirty or forty attempts is seven!
http://i.cubeupload.com/9nIoNy.jpg

There may be something wrong because I get
side-panel messages to check my SSD (which disk?) for errors but when
I run chkdsk all is well.
I'm waiting for that upgrade to fix things.

My disks are fine.
It's Windows that is flaky as hell.

There must be a /reproducible/ method for creating new groups.
It's just crazy the method I'm using, which was kindly suggested by Ralph
Fox earlier in this thread - but the mechanism is so flaky that out of
thirty or forty attempts, I'm only up to 7 groups.

Obviously, there's a trick I'm missing because only a sadistic developer
would have designed a system this capricious on purpose.

I noticed that when I log out (ctrl-alt-del) and log in straight away
I get full fuctionallity of the TaskBar & LHS notification panel. But
my custom lock-screen picture (a large Siberian tundra cat) has
disappeared.
I have changed back to the dreary MSoft lockscreen to see the effect
on the next cold boot-up.

mick wrote:

You cannot put a Group tile within another Group tile.

Drat. That's a killer limitation that you can't put a "group tile" into
another group tile.

You cannot put a tile in a tile that is already in a Group tile,
effectively trying to make the tile already in the Group tile become
another Group tile.

Darn. Same limitation, which is you can't put a tile in group tile.

Hierarchy is Group Tile AFAICS, I have searched 'tinternet without
any joy.

Thanks. I was hoping for a tweak, but, as you know, I searched before I
asked for how to create a realistic tiled start menu where all I found were
a million articles showing nothing but five groups, so, the point is that
NOBODY is actually USING this stuff in the real world.

I've been chasing those tiles all over the screen, they have like poles
and repel each other, maybe deguassing the monitor would help ;-)

I agree with you that the menu is flaky as all hell.

The funny thing is that Windows is now just like the iOS and Android
devices are, where you have to chase the icons all over the home screen to
get them to go inside of the folder they belong to.

As an example, here's my well-designed iOS screen, where the iOS app
launcher is almost as primitive as the Windows 10 tiled Start Menu, so it's
the best I can do given the severe limitations:
http://i.cubeupload.com/FjqH8M.jpg

And here's my well-defined Android screen, obviously with far more control,
which is designed to be held in my left hand which is why the icons are in
the locations that they're in.
http://i.cubeupload.com/6mHMtk.jpg

If I showed you my decade-old well-designed hierarchically cascaded WinXP
menus, you'd see they're as organized as well.

It's sad, but Windows menus are just not hierarchical it seems.

Thanks mick for all the help and patience. I think hierarchical menu
organization is important - but it's just not possible on Windows. Sigh.

Stepping on a political soapbox, what I think is happening is a dumbing
down of the user who doesn't even REALIZE what a good menu SHOULD look
like, such that we're few and far between who understand what a menu should
do.

In article news
Stepping on a political soapbox, what I think is happening is a dumbing
down of the user who doesn't even REALIZE what a good menu SHOULD look
like, such that we're few and far between who understand what a menu should
do.

You'll note, by the way, that I'm a (self-assessed!) "pro" when it comes to
app launching menus, where I pioneered (as far as I am aware among all my
associates) an organization of hierarchical menus when they first came out.

On Android, you'll note that I maintain a well-defined SINGLE SCREEN
hierarchy:
http://i.cubeupload.com/61A3dr.jpg

Where on iOS it's still SINGLE SCREEN but it isn't as well built (simply
because iOS is primitive compared to Android in that regard).
http://i.cubeupload.com/F1fbRe.jpg

The point is that I was HOPING that Window10 start menu had the basic
functionality that we had since Windows XP days which is a simple
hierarchical menu that handled the typical hierarchy of computers.

This Win10 start menu, with respect to hierarchy, is almost no better than
a mobile-device menu. Sigh.

Peter Jason wrote:

I noticed that when I log out (ctrl-alt-del) and log in straight away
I get full fuctionallity of the TaskBar & LHS notification panel. But
my custom lock-screen picture (a large Siberian tundra cat) has
disappeared.
I have changed back to the dreary MSoft lockscreen to see the effect
on the next cold boot-up.

I guess you're pointing out more inconsistencies, where, the one thing I
never bother to customize except to make it a single color when battery
life is important (either black or white, depending on the type of screen),
is the background.

I'm not saying you're like what I'm about to say, since you brought it up
with respect to flakiness, but it's been a point of amazement with me over
the decades when people think that they're "customizing" their computer by
putting on screen savers and backgrounds.

Again, I'm not saying you said that - but I am saying that I leave the
background alone, where you've seen my Windows background and this is my
Linux background on that same dual-boot machine.
http://i.cubeupload.com/rhcp1s.jpg

But back to your point, yes, the GUI is surprisingly flaky on Windows 10
for such a mature system.

Uultred ragnusen wrote:
What's the trick to get a hierarchical tile into another hierarchical tile?

I think you are over complicating it. I would not try to put
*everything* on my start page, just things for often used task. Anything
else,the once-in-a-dog's-age-app I just

WinKey + (start typing name of app)*

*not quite as handy as Ubuntu where I don't have to *know* the name of
the application, I can find it quickly via a keyword on app's
application, e.g.,

"newsgroup" finds Pan and Thunderbird...or whatever news client I have
installed. Windows 10 is almost as good, better than 7 or Vista.



--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 20/03/2018 02:38:54, Uultred ragnusen wrote:
mick wrote:

You cannot put a Group tile within another Group tile.

Drat. That's a killer limitation that you can't put a "group tile" into
another group tile.

You cannot put a tile in a tile that is already in a Group tile,
effectively trying to make the tile already in the Group tile become
another Group tile.

Darn. Same limitation, which is you can't put a tile in group tile.

Hierarchy is Group Tile AFAICS, I have searched 'tinternet without
any joy.

Thanks. I was hoping for a tweak, but, as you know, I searched before I
asked for how to create a realistic tiled start menu where all I found were
a million articles showing nothing but five groups, so, the point is that
NOBODY is actually USING this stuff in the real world.

I've been chasing those tiles all over the screen, they have like poles
and repel each other, maybe deguassing the monitor would help ;-)

I agree with you that the menu is flaky as all hell.

The funny thing is that Windows is now just like the iOS and Android
devices are, where you have to chase the icons all over the home screen to
get them to go inside of the folder they belong to.

As an example, here's my well-designed iOS screen, where the iOS app
launcher is almost as primitive as the Windows 10 tiled Start Menu, so it's
the best I can do given the severe limitations:
http://i.cubeupload.com/FjqH8M.jpg

And here's my well-defined Android screen, obviously with far more control,
which is designed to be held in my left hand which is why the icons are in
the locations that they're in.
http://i.cubeupload.com/6mHMtk.jpg

If I showed you my decade-old well-designed hierarchically cascaded WinXP
menus, you'd see they're as organized as well.

It's sad, but Windows menus are just not hierarchical it seems.

Thanks mick for all the help and patience. I think hierarchical menu
organization is important - but it's just not possible on Windows. Sigh.

Stepping on a political soapbox, what I think is happening is a dumbing
down of the user who doesn't even REALIZE what a good menu SHOULD look
like, such that we're few and far between who understand what a menu should
do.

I am not defending Win 10 but you have to realise that it is an ongoing
development and those things that you desire may well come in the
future. OK, so third party software has addressed issues a long time
ago and that is why I do and would use it in preference to any MS based
offering.
Windows on the outside is dumbed down and caters for the masses who
don't know the difference between a music file and a photo file, and
probably don't even know what a file is :-)
Take the desktop, with Linux you can have multiple desktops, each
configured how you want with individual settings. You could have one
desktop just for photo programs, one for all internet related, one for
desktop publishing, one for music and so on.
With windows 10 we have multiple desktops but you cannot configure them
individually like you can with Linux. Will win 10 eventually get the
versatile Linux way of doing desktops, maybe, maybe not.
MS Windows is like the infants Mega Bloks, to do anything really
serious you need to add the Lego Technic blocks to it.

--
mick