3 ms·

I fully agree: The start menu was never a good idea, we just used it. As soon as you start installing and removing things, it quickly became cumbersome. Windows

I fully agree: The start menu was never a good idea, we just used it. As soon as you start installing and removing things, it quickly became cumbersome. Windows XP (iirc?) introduced weird ideas of how to cope with the chaos in that evergrowing, 3-4 level deep list of things you might or might not want to start: The 'personalization' feature that kind of randomly hid most of your menu. The hacks to order the menu (which never really worked reliably). So the options today are fine, for my usecase, and I'm hard pressed to accept that the old solution was better in general. - Pin programs to the taskbar - Use shortcuts for common/important stuff (Win+i, Win+x, Win+w, Win+f are the ones I need) - Use the type to complete thing otherwise Most users I know moved to that workflow anyway, before Windows 8 (the start menu entry on previous Windows versions. Spotlight or maybe QuickSilver before that on OS X. Unity / Gnome Shell on Linux). In my opinion the start menu needed constant micro-management and was a hassle. (Disclaimer: I'm not happy with the ui formerly known as Metro, but I do like the 'type to launch' approach a lot)

cpleppert 13y ago
>>- Pin programs to the taskbar - Use shortcuts for common/important stuff (Win+i, Win+x, Win+w, Win+f are the ones I need) - Use the type to complete thing otherwise You can also use Win+Number to switch right to the taskbar program. quite convenient although I prefer using cap locks + home row keys to switch apps on the mac. >>Most users I know moved to that workflow anyway, before Windows 8 (the start menu entry on previous Windows versions. Spotlight or maybe QuickSilver before that on OS X. Unity / Gnome Shell on Linux). I agree. But if your workflow is shortcuts + quick search to open everything else it doesn't really matter if you use a start menu, something like metro or the mac os x dock. But I think that if you are asking what is good enough for 90% of our users, is easily discoverable and reduces confusion it is hard to beat the start menu + taskbar. It isn't really a question of functionality, all you are doing is managing graphical icons that launch programs. The key should be reducing confusion for users who will use the program launcher for everything they do. I don't hear a lot of people arguing that the metro launcher was something that microsoft should have done without a focus on touch.

cpleppert 13y ago

>>- Pin programs to the taskbar - Use shortcuts for common/important stuff (Win+i, Win+x, Win+w, Win+f are the ones I need) - Use the type to complete thing otherwise You can also use Win+Number to switch right to the taskbar program. quite convenient although I prefer using cap locks + home row keys to switch apps on the mac. >>Most users I know moved to that workflow anyway, before Windows 8 (the start menu entry on previous Windows versions. Spotlight or maybe QuickSilver before that on OS X. Unity / Gnome Shell on Linux). I agree. But if your workflow is shortcuts + quick search to open everything else it doesn't really matter if you use a start menu, something like metro or the mac os x dock. But I think that if you are asking what is good enough for 90% of our users, is easily discoverable and reduces confusion it is hard to beat the start menu + taskbar. It isn't really a question of functionality, all you are doing is managing graphical icons that launch programs. The key should be reducing confusion for users who will use the program launcher for everything they do. I don't hear a lot of people arguing that the metro launcher was something that microsoft should have done without a focus on touch.