3 ms·

Except for three, humongous improvements that the Windows 10 start menu has over 95: * It is flush bottom right with the screen, making it a true "mile button"

Except for three, humongous improvements that the Windows 10 start menu has over 95: * It is flush bottom right with the screen, making it a true "mile button". In 95, there was a tiny non-clickable border around it, so if you just slammed your mouse into the corner, it would not work; someone who worked on Mac OS described MSFT as "narrowly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" compared to the mac's menu bar, which was perfectly flush to the top of the screen and thus a "mile high bar". I think this was actually done with XP? * After clicking it, you can immediately type the name of the program you want to run, instead of having to click the "Run" entry. I switched off of Gnome onto Windows after learning that this aspect of my workflow wouldn't need to change. I think this was actually done with Vista? * Subfolders are opened by clicking instead of hovering. Nothing makes me more frustrated than accidentally mousing over the wrong part of the menu and closing a sub-sub-folder. [hyperbole]Whoever invented mouse-over menus should be shot.[/hyperbole]

tinus_hn 9y ago
> I think this was actually done with XP? XP has a hack where if you click the bottom row of pixels on the screen, your mouse cursor is magically moved up enough pixels so you hit the buttons instead of the dead area.
Nition 9y ago
If you want to be extra fast, you can set Windows to open folders with a single click instead of a double click[1]. [1] http://www.thewindowsclub.com/how-to-change-double-click-to-single-click-to-open-files-folders-in-windows http://www.thewindowsclub.com/how-to-change-double-click-to-...
ptx 9y ago
> immediately type the name of the program you want to run, instead of having to click the "Run" entry Why click anything at all if you're going to be typing anyway? Pressing Win + R has worked since the beginning, taking you directly to the "Run" dialog. > mousing over the wrong part of the menu and closing a sub-sub-folder The classic start menu (since Windows 98, or Windows 95 with IE 4) allows you to easily rearrange the entries by drag and drop. If you organize it such that it doesn't have any sub-sub-folders, it works much better. :) On the other hand, if you just let things stay where the installers put them, it's pretty terrible. Each application takes something like 5 clicks: Start -> Applications -> SomeVendor -> SomeApplication -> SomeApplication. I guess this is the way most people had it, so that's why Microsoft gave up on structure and focused on search.
- austinjp 9y ago
  > Why click anything at all if you're going to be typing anyway? Pressing Win + R has worked since the beginning, taking you directly to the "Run" dialog. Even fewer keystrokes, and less typing with Win 10: hit Win key, start typing Word (or settings, or mouse, or whatever), hit enter. The Start menu pops up, and is searched/filtered as you type. Compare this with the previous option (which still continues to work as well): Win key + R, type msword, hit enter. Not much in it with this example, but it's a neat way to access Start menu items rapidly. For reasons I haven't yet explored, it occasionally fails to find an item, which is more puzzling than annoying. An item can be right there, and the keystroke search fails to find it. I miss the simplicity others have mentioned of the 95 Start menu simply being nested folders.
  - Ascetik 9y ago
    I found that Windows 10 search is not quite as good as 8.1. I know the problem you're talking about, and it never seemed to happen to me on 8.1, only 10. They jacked the program search indexing somewhat in 10, it was perfect in 8.1.

tinus_hn 9y ago

> I think this was actually done with XP? XP has a hack where if you click the bottom row of pixels on the screen, your mouse cursor is magically moved up enough pixels so you hit the buttons instead of the dead area.

Nition 9y ago

If you want to be extra fast, you can set Windows to open folders with a single click instead of a double click[1]. [1] http://www.thewindowsclub.com/how-to-change-double-click-to-single-click-to-open-files-folders-in-windows http://www.thewindowsclub.com/how-to-change-double-click-to-...

ptx 9y ago

> immediately type the name of the program you want to run, instead of having to click the "Run" entry Why click anything at all if you're going to be typing anyway? Pressing Win + R has worked since the beginning, taking you directly to the "Run" dialog. > mousing over the wrong part of the menu and closing a sub-sub-folder The classic start menu (since Windows 98, or Windows 95 with IE 4) allows you to easily rearrange the entries by drag and drop. If you organize it such that it doesn't have any sub-sub-folders, it works much better. :) On the other hand, if you just let things stay where the installers put them, it's pretty terrible. Each application takes something like 5 clicks: Start -> Applications -> SomeVendor -> SomeApplication -> SomeApplication. I guess this is the way most people had it, so that's why Microsoft gave up on structure and focused on search.

austinjp 9y ago
> Why click anything at all if you're going to be typing anyway? Pressing Win + R has worked since the beginning, taking you directly to the "Run" dialog. Even fewer keystrokes, and less typing with Win 10: hit Win key, start typing Word (or settings, or mouse, or whatever), hit enter. The Start menu pops up, and is searched/filtered as you type. Compare this with the previous option (which still continues to work as well): Win key + R, type msword, hit enter. Not much in it with this example, but it's a neat way to access Start menu items rapidly. For reasons I haven't yet explored, it occasionally fails to find an item, which is more puzzling than annoying. An item can be right there, and the keystroke search fails to find it. I miss the simplicity others have mentioned of the 95 Start menu simply being nested folders.
- Ascetik 9y ago
  I found that Windows 10 search is not quite as good as 8.1. I know the problem you're talking about, and it never seemed to happen to me on 8.1, only 10. They jacked the program search indexing somewhat in 10, it was perfect in 8.1.