5 ms·

Before it arrived, Windows users could access apps through Program Manager. It was largely a basic list of apps, with no real organization. While Progra

Before it arrived, Windows users could access apps through Program Manager. It was largely a basic list of apps, with no real organization. While Program Manager did have smaller menus, most Windows users simply launched apps and used it as a list. The author doesn't address the evolving way that icons were added to the start menu. The Program Manager started with a few predefined groups: Communications, Accessories, Games, among others. Installers sometimes used one of those groups, or created it's own generically named group. This made it difficult to discover where your programs were installed. One of the purposes of the Start Menu has been to make it easier to locate newly installed programs. But even though the standard Program Manager groups were carried over to Start Menu folders (Accessories persists to this day), the most common pattern became to create folders with the name of the software vendor. Microsoft eventually made this a recommendation. But tiles reversed this recommendation, so after installing something a user would not easily find it in the large, seemingly unorganized list of tiles. That's part of why there was a demand for the return of the Start Menu.

makecheck 11y ago
I've always hated software grouped by vendor. Vendors have an inflated sense of self-importance; their name means nothing to anyone except them. And this poison has made it over to Mac OS X, as well. Bundles should be installed directly in /Applications, because you know, they're bundles that can contain as many files as the vendor wants! But no, there's always somebody like Cisco that has to go ahead and create a stupid subfolder anyway.
- derefr 11y ago
  I enjoy Launchpad precisely because it routes around this brain-damage† abstracts away application-location. It used to be a useless extra way to view the same apps to me, but after organizing it a bit (mainly moving some utilities I use often out of the pre-made Utilities folder, and grouping a few other things in) and taking a few lesser-used things off of my Dock, it really does feel like the way programs should be launched. Pinch-together to get the picker, swipe (or type) to find a program, click it. It's slowly taking over from my previous "Cmd+Space to open Spotlight, type first two characters of program name, press Enter" habit. † ...which was never a real requirement anyway. Unlike Windows' Program Files, Mac applications (both before and after the transition to being NeXTStep bundles) are meant to just live wherever you want them to live. There were some really interesting application locations in the past—putting a Font Manager in your Fonts folder, for example. And you've always been meant to be able to keep programs that'll have a short lifespan directly on the Desktop, without that making a mess of anything.
- gberger 11y ago
  I'd argue that vendor folders make sense in the case the names do mean something to the user. For example, Photoshop and Lightroom under Adobe, and Word and Excel under Microsoft Office.
  - makecheck 11y ago
    Not to me. In order to search for things, at least in some version of Windows, I remember having to type out the whole “Microsoft W” or “Microsoft E” to get it to match anything (as it would only search the beginning of a string). Fortunately the names of items in the Start menu could be customized, although I also found that updates or other Windows quirks could routinely reset any custom values. It got to the point where it wasn’t really worth it to tweak anything because I didn’t know how long my changes would last. Also, vendor names aren’t stable. What about when Flash was installed by Macromedia (but is now Adobe)? It makes no sense for products to shift around because of the company of the week.
- ryandrake 11y ago
  Yep, one of the many Windows headaches I don't miss: Compare and contrast Step 1: Install AwfulSoft. Step 2: Cool! Let's run it: START -> Program Files -> Uhh... where the hell is it? Browse, browse, browse, browse... What's that folder? "RogerSoft LLC"? Nope that's some shareware I installed a few weeks ago... Browse, browse, browse, browse... Oh, of course! "WorkerWare Inc." I think that was the company's name... Oh, another nested folder, "AwfulSoft", found it! Finally, the program launcher is a single icon inside yet another nested folder. So five clicks plus some browsing just to find this damn program...... Step 1: Install GreatSoft. Step 2: Cool! Let's run it: START -> Program Files -> GreatSoft. BAM!
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> But even though the standard Program Manager groups were carried over to Start Menu folders (Accessories persists to this day), the most common pattern became to create folders with the name of the software vendor. Microsoft eventually made this a recommendation. Huh, I didn't know they officially recommended it. Why? In my experience, the practice is counterproductive and based on publisher vanity--I have nearly as many program vendors as I do programs, so it doesn't reduce the length of the list much, and I don't generally bother memorizing who makes every one of my apps, so it makes it much harder to find anything. These days I wind up rolling my eyes and editing the destination every single time I install something.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  Its not vanity, its marketing. Its the same thing that makes Samsung and the rest modify the look and feel of the Android UI, to differentiate themselves from the other Android device vendors. Back during the Maemo years, i recall someone had asked Nokia about opening the source of their power management daemon. The answer was no, because the execs believed that it was part of their differentiation from other mobile device vendors. End result was that said devices died a slow death once Nokia abandoned them.
  - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
    > Its not vanity, its marketing. I probably should have put it that way, but that's what I meant, yeah. Either way, it's pushing their own image at the expense of their users.
digi_owl 11y ago
> But tiles reversed this recommendation, so after installing something a user would not easily find it in the large, seemingly unorganized list of tiles. That's part of why there was a demand for the return of the Start Menu. Could have sworn that new stuff got a highlight, never mind that every icon was in named groups that matched the folders of earlier menus. Nah, what most people complained about was that it "ate" their screen. Rather than a small menu off the the side, it swallowed whatever they worked on, and could be a pain to get back out of it they were not accustomed to the keyboard shortcuts or familiar with the new corner navigation. 8.1 fixed most of that by having the bar show all programs, added minimize and close buttons to the new UI programs (metro?), and made the bar be accessible everywhere. But by that time Windows 8 had gotten a rep to rival Vista.

makecheck 11y ago

I've always hated software grouped by vendor. Vendors have an inflated sense of self-importance; their name means nothing to anyone except them. And this poison has made it over to Mac OS X, as well. Bundles should be installed directly in /Applications, because you know, they're bundles that can contain as many files as the vendor wants! But no, there's always somebody like Cisco that has to go ahead and create a stupid subfolder anyway.

derefr 11y ago
I enjoy Launchpad precisely because it routes around this brain-damage† abstracts away application-location. It used to be a useless extra way to view the same apps to me, but after organizing it a bit (mainly moving some utilities I use often out of the pre-made Utilities folder, and grouping a few other things in) and taking a few lesser-used things off of my Dock, it really does feel like the way programs should be launched. Pinch-together to get the picker, swipe (or type) to find a program, click it. It's slowly taking over from my previous "Cmd+Space to open Spotlight, type first two characters of program name, press Enter" habit. † ...which was never a real requirement anyway. Unlike Windows' Program Files, Mac applications (both before and after the transition to being NeXTStep bundles) are meant to just live wherever you want them to live. There were some really interesting application locations in the past—putting a Font Manager in your Fonts folder, for example. And you've always been meant to be able to keep programs that'll have a short lifespan directly on the Desktop, without that making a mess of anything.
gberger 11y ago
I'd argue that vendor folders make sense in the case the names do mean something to the user. For example, Photoshop and Lightroom under Adobe, and Word and Excel under Microsoft Office.
- makecheck 11y ago
  Not to me. In order to search for things, at least in some version of Windows, I remember having to type out the whole “Microsoft W” or “Microsoft E” to get it to match anything (as it would only search the beginning of a string). Fortunately the names of items in the Start menu could be customized, although I also found that updates or other Windows quirks could routinely reset any custom values. It got to the point where it wasn’t really worth it to tweak anything because I didn’t know how long my changes would last. Also, vendor names aren’t stable. What about when Flash was installed by Macromedia (but is now Adobe)? It makes no sense for products to shift around because of the company of the week.
ryandrake 11y ago
Yep, one of the many Windows headaches I don't miss: Compare and contrast Step 1: Install AwfulSoft. Step 2: Cool! Let's run it: START -> Program Files -> Uhh... where the hell is it? Browse, browse, browse, browse... What's that folder? "RogerSoft LLC"? Nope that's some shareware I installed a few weeks ago... Browse, browse, browse, browse... Oh, of course! "WorkerWare Inc." I think that was the company's name... Oh, another nested folder, "AwfulSoft", found it! Finally, the program launcher is a single icon inside yet another nested folder. So five clicks plus some browsing just to find this damn program...... Step 1: Install GreatSoft. Step 2: Cool! Let's run it: START -> Program Files -> GreatSoft. BAM!

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

> But even though the standard Program Manager groups were carried over to Start Menu folders (Accessories persists to this day), the most common pattern became to create folders with the name of the software vendor. Microsoft eventually made this a recommendation. Huh, I didn't know they officially recommended it. Why? In my experience, the practice is counterproductive and based on publisher vanity--I have nearly as many program vendors as I do programs, so it doesn't reduce the length of the list much, and I don't generally bother memorizing who makes every one of my apps, so it makes it much harder to find anything. These days I wind up rolling my eyes and editing the destination every single time I install something.

digi_owl 11y ago
Its not vanity, its marketing. Its the same thing that makes Samsung and the rest modify the look and feel of the Android UI, to differentiate themselves from the other Android device vendors. Back during the Maemo years, i recall someone had asked Nokia about opening the source of their power management daemon. The answer was no, because the execs believed that it was part of their differentiation from other mobile device vendors. End result was that said devices died a slow death once Nokia abandoned them.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  > Its not vanity, its marketing. I probably should have put it that way, but that's what I meant, yeah. Either way, it's pushing their own image at the expense of their users.

digi_owl 11y ago

> But tiles reversed this recommendation, so after installing something a user would not easily find it in the large, seemingly unorganized list of tiles. That's part of why there was a demand for the return of the Start Menu. Could have sworn that new stuff got a highlight, never mind that every icon was in named groups that matched the folders of earlier menus. Nah, what most people complained about was that it "ate" their screen. Rather than a small menu off the the side, it swallowed whatever they worked on, and could be a pain to get back out of it they were not accustomed to the keyboard shortcuts or familiar with the new corner navigation. 8.1 fixed most of that by having the bar show all programs, added minimize and close buttons to the new UI programs (metro?), and made the bar be accessible everywhere. But by that time Windows 8 had gotten a rep to rival Vista.