Is the XP classic start menu back (finally) with Windows 10?

En el artículo , Big_Al
escribió:

I found http://www.startmenux.com/index.html Start Menu X an interesting menu
replacement for windows 10.

+1. I've used it for years, first with XP and now with 7. If I go to
W10 (not very likely) it'll be coming with me.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 10/06/2015 04:11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Nil wrote in message





With Dell's help, we were able to pretty much get back our

For a while I read your text thinking 'Dell' was your PC brand. But he
is your son. Whatever you do, do not call your next offspring Assus.

Having said that, there is a lot of excellent advice in the rest of your
post.

Big_Al wrote in message

Answer that and you'll make a lot of people happy,
you won't fix it, but people will enjoy the knowledge.

I can only think of two answers which would satisfy the question
of why Microsoft hates the WinXP Classic Start menu style.

1. Maybe they don't want to look dated (so they want something new?)
2. Maybe they thought it didn't solve the problem?

I can see that they wanted to have a new menu to look *different*,
but, the menu was working just fine (for me anyway), so, all they
needed to do was enable the old menu to be re-created with a switch
if they desperately wanted to *look* different.

If they thought the old menu was a problem, the only problem I
can think of was that *anything* that has a default static location
is so filled with crap by applications that it becomes useless (and
too much work to maintain).

That goes for Program Files, Common Files, Documents and Settings,
etc., so, my simple-as-cake solution is to create my own hierarchies
outside of those.

Instead of Program Files, I have c:\apps\{my folder structure}\
Instead of Programs, I have MyMenu (again, with my folder structure)
Instead of Documents & Settings I have "d:\data" (with my structure)
etc.

No programs put crap in these locations because they don't even know
about them, except at the level of the c:\apps where I point the
installer to the location and let it do its thing at that location.

With respect to menus, the Programs menu was only a mess because
people didn't manage it. I tried (for years) to manage it, but gave
up because it was (vastly) simpler to just maintain my own menu
hierarchy (which was portable across machines with a simple mkdir
batch file).

I can only think of those two reasons why Redmond hates the classic menu:
1. They think the winxp style menu makes the OS look outdated, or,
2. They think the user never got the hang of it.

Jenny Telia wrote in message


For a while I read your text thinking 'Dell' was your PC brand. But he
is your son. Whatever you do, do not call your next offspring Assus.

Dell is the PC brand.
But, sometimes my son acts like an Assus!

In message , Dave
Doe writes
Desktop OS's don't have any monetary value anymore IMO.

I'm not sure that is really right.

I still believe that, if Microsoft made a version of Windows 10 that
pulled in all the advantages of previous MS OS's wrt what drivers were
supported etc., and that was just an OS with a basic programmable start
menu as suggested here, they could sell it.

What I don't want is a collection of weird programs and apps that in the
long term are useless. What I do want is a simple basic search function
that can find files by parts-of-name.

I can never remember what programs are called. At the moment I can
search through simple text lists until I say "Aaaah!". This usually
finds things.

In short I want an operating system rather than a glorified toy.
--
Bill

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Nil wrote in message


It was never a "fiasco" to me. It was perfectly usable. The Windows 7
menu was even handier.

To be clear, it was never a fiasco with me either as I always made
my own hierarchical menus, OUTSIDE of the Windows menu (but in the
Start Menu folder so that they show up ABOVE the "Programs" menu).

I never use the Programs menu, so, it can get as messy as it wants,
and it won't bother me one bit.

Same here. But I went one step further and created my hierarchical menus
outside the Start menu, using True Launch Bar. The only time the Start
menu opens here is when I hit the Windows key and starting typing a
program name, or restart my PC.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Slimer mentioned this nice web page in a recent thread:
http://www.itechcolumn.com/2014/10/c...indows-10.html

Which seems to indicate that Windows 10 has the ability to get back
the missing WinXp Start Menu (whose only flaw was that people didn't
know how to make their own start menu OUTSIDE of the Windows default).

Am I reading that web page correctly that the user-customized start
menu (always outside of the default start menu) is back finally in
Windows 10?

NOTE that the WinXP start menu works just fine if you create your own
hierarchy just below the top level, so that nothing goes into *your*
menu hierarchy except what *you* manually put there.

That way, the WinXP start menu style (classic style?) is extremely
manageable and functional. I had Dell set my kid up on Windows 8.1
with this classic start menu, which turned out to be a folder
hierarchy embedded in the craziest place (something about roaming
directories),
but once set up, it worked mostly like it should.

Is the Windows XP classic start menu (with a custom directory all of
your own being a requirement for usability!) back with Windows 10?

It has a taskbar.

One can add toolbars to a taskbar.

A toolbar can be any folder. In that folder can be whatever you
want...files/folders/URLs/shortcuts; any additional folders can also have
whatever you want.

Toolbars cascade.

Some reading for you...
http://www.howto-connect.com/windows...omplete-guide/

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Big_Al wrote in message


There is no XP/Win7 type menu Windows 10.

What was wrong with the XP "classic" style of menu?

Since I had absolutely no problem with it, and since it did
what I wanted, the only reason I can think of Redmond ditching
it was that *most people* (not me) couldn't figure it out.

For me, it was (super) easy to use:
0. I never (ever!) used the default "Programs" menu!
1. I created my own heirarchy and populated it manually.

It was that simple.

What I liked best was that you could right click at any point in
the XP-style cascaded menu, and that allowed you to open it up
at that level for edits.

That was very nice.

With any of the "start" modifying programs such as Classic Shell or Start8
you can easily do exactly the same thing with Windows8/8.1. The only
difference is that with XP you could have four taskbars instead of one. No
big problem as one can add toolbars to the solitary taskbar.

BTW, instead of adding on your own Programs menu, why didn't you just
organize the standard one? It is(super) easy to do.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:05:47 +0000 (UTC), Paul B. Andersen wrote:

The only other thing I want is what Windows XP called the quick menu,
which is what all Linux' have, which is a task bar (or whatever you
want to call it) with a half-dozen of the most-used programs pinned
to it.

The Quick-launch Bar. I've, ATM, 13 icons in it! Also have a useful utility
that can reduce all the opened programmes to icons in the TaskBar, so plenty
of space. BTW, this is XP - one major factor putting me off updating is that
my carefully chosen applications and utilities won't work in 7/8/10 (and
definietly not in 9!).
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 01:34:50 +0000 (UTC), "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Slimer mentioned this nice web page in a recent thread:
http://www.itechcolumn.com/2014/10/c...indows-10.html

Which seems to indicate that Windows 10 has the ability to get back
the missing WinXp Start Menu (whose only flaw was that people didn't
know how to make their own start menu OUTSIDE of the Windows default).

The best "launcher" IMHO is Toolbar

http://www.gregorybraun.com/ToolBar.html

I have over 280 programs and folders just 3 clicks max away.
It's a pity the guy ruins his software with an absurd amount
of third party encryption/debugging/protection. The stripped
executable is a tiny 94k.
No idea if it runs on Win 8
[]'s

The image on the site is from win95 days. Icons are good now.
not 8 bit.
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

"dadiOH" wrote in message

BTW, instead of adding on your own Programs menu, why didn't you just
organize the standard one? It is(super) easy to do.

That's a philosophical question, as I agree it's super easy to do.
You just right click to open and delete, rename, reorganize, as needed.

However ............

It's a lot *easier* to create your own menu tree, and just move things
one-way *into* your menu tree.

Like every default location in Windows, it is *easier* to simply avoid
them, and create your own location (same issue with "Program Files",
and especially "Documents and Settings").

In all three cases, you're better off just ignoring them:
a) Programs menu hierarchy
b) My Documents / Documents and Settings hierarchy
c) Program Files hierarchy

That way, your three hierarchies stay pristine clean:
A) progs menu (or whatever you name it)
B) c:\docs (or whatever you name it)
C) c:\apps (or whatever you name it)

In summary, yes, you can organize, rename, delete, rearrange, etc.,
your default "Programs" cascaded menus after every single installation
and update - but - it's far easier (and unidirectional) to just maintain
your own hierarchy OUTSIDE the Microsoft default hierarchy.

I've been doing this for at least a decade, and it works great!

Bill wrote in message


I still believe that, if Microsoft made a version of Windows 10 that
pulled in all the advantages of previous MS OS's wrt what drivers were
supported etc., and that was just an OS with a basic programmable start
menu as suggested here, they could sell it.

Nomex suit notwithstanding ...

Fundamentally, I think operating system desktops have value (e.g.,
Microsoft Windows or Macintosh whatever-its-called for example), but then
you have to contrast that value with the same value provided by a
"free" Linux distrubution, e.g., Ubuntu with Unity, KDE or Gnome desktops.

All do the exact same thing.

The *only* value I can find, literally, for Windows, over Linux is that
Windows is the native operating system for MS Office, which, despite the
(very) many so-called equivalents, still, for compatibility, you have to
have native.

I'm sure many people will disagree, but, I use both (dual boot) and we
all grew up on Windows (or Macintosh), so, if we use Linux, we at least
*KNOW* what the differences are.

Sure, Linux, even with the new KDE/Unity/Gnome/etc. desktops is still
more complex than Windows - but - Windows was never simple itself, so,
it really doesn't have a leg up on a modern desktop Linux for usability.

In the end, the desktop is merely a platform for running the apps, and,
all app functionality (to a more or less degree) are on all platforms.

Mike Barnes wrote in message


Same here. But I went one step further and created my hierarchical menus
outside the Start menu, using True Launch Bar. The only time the Start
menu opens here is when I hit the Windows key and starting typing a
program name, or restart my PC.

Actually, if I am to admit the truth, I do go into the default
Start Menu Programs once or twice or three times a year.

I go there, usually, to find a program that I didn't install (e.g.,
Bonjour and Quicktime come with Itunes, for example). If I never
start Bonjour or Quicktime, I wouldn't need them in "my" start menu,
but, sometimes I need to start them, and then (only then) do I
look into the default Start Menu Programs.

Other than to find stuff that I wouldn't normally execute, I let
it rot where it lies, which is fine by me as it acts like a
sacrificial anode and keeps all the other rust out of "my"
real cascaded menu (which is just a hierarchy inside of the
Start Menu anyway).

PeterC wrote in message


The Quick-launch Bar. I've, ATM, 13 icons in it! Also have a useful utility
that can reduce all the opened programmes to icons in the TaskBar, so plenty
of space. BTW, this is XP - one major factor putting me off updating is that
my carefully chosen applications and utilities won't work in 7/8/10 (and
definietly not in 9!).

While I must have about a score of app links in "my" start menu, I only
have a small handful pinned to the task bar.

For example, a browser (e.g., Firefox), and a mail user agent (e.g.,
Thunderbird) and a Usenet client (e.g., Pan) and a screenshot capture
editor (e.g., Irfanview), and a file system explorer.

That's pretty much it.

What *else* do you use every single day such that you benefit by pinning
it to the taskbar or quick launch bar?

NOTE: To open files and documents, I just click or right click on them,
e.g., to play an MP3 file I would click on it and Media Player Classic
comes up; to edit that same file, I would right click on it and I can
select Audacity, etc.

So *most* apps come up by clicking on the data file. For all those apps
(mostly viewers and editors), there is no need to pin the icon to the
taskbar.

On 6/10/2015 6:16 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Bill wrote in message


I still believe that, if Microsoft made a version of Windows 10 that
pulled in all the advantages of previous MS OS's wrt what drivers were
supported etc., and that was just an OS with a basic programmable start
menu as suggested here, they could sell it.

Nomex suit notwithstanding ...

Fundamentally, I think operating system desktops have value (e.g.,
Microsoft Windows or Macintosh whatever-its-called for example), but then
you have to contrast that value with the same value provided by a
"free" Linux distrubution, e.g., Ubuntu with Unity, KDE or Gnome desktops.

All do the exact same thing.

The *only* value I can find, literally, for Windows, over Linux is that
Windows is the native operating system for MS Office, which, despite the
(very) many so-called equivalents, still, for compatibility, you have to
have native.

I'm sure many people will disagree, but, I use both (dual boot) and we
all grew up on Windows (or Macintosh), so, if we use Linux, we at least
*KNOW* what the differences are.

Sure, Linux, even with the new KDE/Unity/Gnome/etc. desktops is still
more complex than Windows - but - Windows was never simple itself, so,
it really doesn't have a leg up on a modern desktop Linux for usability.

In the end, the desktop is merely a platform for running the apps, and,
all app functionality (to a more or less degree) are on all platforms.


In some respect you are right about the different operating system.
However in practice the simplest path is to go with MS or Apple as both
come preloaded on computers commonly available online and in the
office/computer stores.

Since MS computers are usually about half the cost of an Apple, the
cheapest is to go with the MS operating system.

Yes you do not need to fork over any cash for Linux. However your time
is worth something. In my experience to install a new operating system
find the drivers, and get it set up for your purposes, takes 3 to 4
hours. That is 3 to 4 hours you must spend to get a Linux computer vs
an Apple of MS computer.

Personally I would rather use that time playing solitaire or doing
actual work on the computer.