For me, the ribbon interface makes it difficult to find things, unless they happen to be on the default ribbon. The classical menu is a tree structure. The fir

For me, the ribbon interface makes it difficult to find things, unless they happen to be on the default ribbon. The classical menu is a tree structure. The first level is horizontal in the menu bar, every other level is vertical and opens when you click the previous level. You can easily go inspect the entire structure if you are looking for something that you use rarely and don't remember where it is. Also, the items are ordered by topic ("file-related things here, editing-related things here"), with ribbons it feels like "most frequently used buttons here, everything else randomly hidden somewhere else". It does not help that some ribbons are secret and only appear when you do a specific action, e.g. select an item of given type. I'd rather have a disabled menu item that I can't click, but at least I see that it exists. Shortly, with classical menu I feel in control: everything is here, neatly organized by topic, I choose what I want. With ribbons it feels like the system discourages me from doing anything that is not in the default ribbon, by making it more difficult to find. I have no idea how large part of this is simply a force of habit. But from my experience, new users who never saw a non-ribbon menu still have a problem finding things. Except now I have that problem, too. (In larger context, it feels like a typical Microsoft arbitrary change for change's sake. Just like the control panel is dramatically different in each version of Windows. It's like the more important something is, the more they love to experiment with it, where "experiment" means forcing it on all users.)