Microsoft has tried a variety of different Start menus over the years, but the Windows 10 version is the best combination of the modern ideas the company has attempted and the classic menu. The Start menu is iconic, and it’s the identity of Windows. As long as Microsoft doesn’t have any crazy ideas, it’s probably here to stay for many, many more years.
Twenty years is a long time for any software, so let’s take a look at how exactly the Start menu, and by extension, Windows itself, has changed since Windows 95.
I am still a huge fan of the original Start menu as it existed in Windows 95 through 2000 (and as an option in XP): a simple, straightforward menu that you could organise yourself. It may not have been very pretty or user-friendly (we’ve all run into those people who never organised their Start menu), but for me personally, it was really, really great.
I’m really not a fan of the thing we have now in Windows 10, where you can’t even do any organisation, and the “All apps” button just gives you an endless alphabetical list of crap. Search obviously helps a little bit here, but applications’ Start menu folders often contain other useful tools that you might not know the name of.
In any event, it’s definitely an iconic piece of UI.
Agreed, though I definitely prefer the “predefined set of categories” improvement Linux desktops were able to enact without as much need to struggle with legacy compatibility… especially when paired with a good editor to retain full user customizability of both the category assignments and how they map to a hierarchical rendering.
Edited 2016-02-12 00:33 UTC
You don’t have fully customizability… and the XDG guys don’t care.
Just try nesting your menus 3 or 4 deep it won’t work.
So the following can’t exist… it would all just be dumped under Engineering or at best Cad tools. Which is a severe problem if you have many applications installed.
Engineering>
CAD tools >
KiCAD>
PCBNew
KiCAD HELP
Or you install Total Commander and just drag each folder/executable/document on the top bar to create permanent and immediately accessible shortcuts. Set their icon size to 32, 24 or even 16 pixels, on one of more line, and you can have 100s of ready to use links without even having to loose time with the start menu anymore.
For information, I have set two lines of 16 pixels wide icons/shortcuts, which provides me with 120+ links on my 1366 wide desktop. Far way enough for even a rather advanced usage.
2K/XP start menu was perfect but could be too easily cluttered into a nested mess that might loose its sorting when applying some desktop “optimizations”. At least with Total Commander (or any desktop replacement) things stays into place until user applied modifications.
Edited 2016-02-12 20:24 UTC
I personally thought Win 7 had the ultimate design when it came to the Start menu.
On the left you have your most recently used programs, with all programs at the bottom if you need the classic alphabetical program listing, and on the right the places you always seem to need to have access to like documents, printers, control panel, etc. It was easy to pick up for those that have used the previous versions while still having some new ideas that make navigation more efficient.
Just a really nice easy to use layout and a joy to use, especially after trying the messes that was Win 8 or the buggy spyware that is 10.
“I am still a huge fan of the original Start menu” – what is that exciting in “fixed location” icon, which comprises a link to “Start” menu? Most Window Managers for Linux have “Start Menu” anywhere you right-click on empty background. Too much freedom for you, that you’re so excited having it fixed in bottom-left corner – or what?
You can move the Windows start menu. And most popular Linux desktop environments do not have any further capabilities than that.
Actually, most desktop Environments allow for positioning the main menu button where ever you like, incl. easily changing the icon etc. Not that is necessarily a wise thing to do, but it can be done.
I like the start menu, but to be honest, I think that is only because I grew used to it. There’s nothing inherently useful about it… That is to say, finding installed software is actually a little cumbersome. You first have to go to the Start Menu, then Program, then the program’s folder and then pick which one to open. Or did you not want a program? Was is Control Panel, instead? Well, that’s in another menu. After a long while (how long has it been? 20 years?) I think we’ve just grown accustomed to it. Familiarity makes it extremely simple, particularly to those of us that were young when Windows 95 was introduced (at least both Thom and I are in that category).
I think the Windows 3.1 (and earlier) interface was also very simple once you grew accustomed to it. Program were in folders, as opposed to a central menu, and you could have other things in that folder, besides programs. The concept was interesting, but I guess it never “took off”.
I never used the original Mac’s interface, so can’t really comment, but I’m sure there are people here that would swear by it.
Classic Mac OS is still my favorite GUI. Mac OS X just rubs me the wrong way.
Used a Mac Classic running System 6 in high school before I ever used Windows. One day I’ll get a Mac SE/30 for old times’ sake.
Bidding on a Mac SE/30 on eBay. Hopefully no one will outbid me.
Ugh, couldn’t stand 3.1’s organisation. It was basically as if you selected “Explore all users” on the Start menu. It may have been simple and easy to get used to, but it wasn’t nice. The Start menu took this concept (shortcuts for everything and not letting the user interact with the actual program files) and tidied it into a neat, near-instant show/hide menu which made far more sense.
Personally I preferred the Amiga / Apple Classic way of navigating to the actual program you wanted to run and running it, with the support files semi-hidden so only the important icons were shown to the user, but the classic Start menu is an excellent shortcut manager.
I really should get my Amiga 500 fixed. Won’t power on, and something seems to be loose inside.
Edited 2016-02-12 11:57 UTC
I just need to re-install workbench and get my Amiga A4000D all set up again. Ever since my Accelerator board died on me, I’ve been saddened when I look at it
Edited 2016-02-14 20:18 UTC
I’m inclined to agree. I find the “Start Menu” concept incredibly awkward and convoluted to navigate.
Agree with other comments here, Mac Classic really was a great UI, and NeXT step was fantastic, I think they really ruined it when they went OSX.
But at least the the Windows start menus, you could just drag an app there and it would show up, unlike Gnome menus, where you have to manually edit .desktop files.
The start menu is a classic example of how Windows and actually everything Microsoft produces went downhill at the turn of the millenium.
Never understood how with Microsoft’s massive resources and hired expertise…
1. They don’t do user research and testing
2. They do it badly
Suggests instead internal politics and culture that shows itself as terrible ideas forced on users.
Having said that I think all major user facing open source projects are in need of such user needs research and experience design ..libreoffice, OSS desktops, the gimp for sure, etc …
You’re wrong that they don’t do research and testing. It’s quite the opposite, they do an exhaustive amount. In my opinion they actually want to know too much at times. Plenty of good ideas have been muddied by too many considerations & details. Sometimes you have to let a good idea be a good idea in it’s simplicity. Complicating things that don’t need to be complicated because you’re taking too much into consideration isn’t a good way forward.
> Suggests instead internal politics and culture that shows itself as terrible ideas forced on users.
Internal politics is literally the only reason cmd and the console window stayed unchanged and awful from NT4 through Windows 8.1
Is IMHO the worst thing I have ever seen.
Ok, the people who read this site are not typical users which is it clearly aimed at but honestly, how could anyone at MS sign off on it.
Thankfully we have add-ons like Start8 etc that get us back to something that most of us can live with (through gritted teeth).
I don’t like the direction MS has been taking since the relative halcyon daya od Windows 7/Server 2008-R2. since thein as far as I am concerned the usability of their UI has taken a nose dive. W10 is possibly the worst I’ve ever seen and I’ve been using graphical User interfaces since the days of Motif and DecWindows.
boy, am I glad that I won’t have to grit my teeth and use Windows for much longer. When I pull the plug and retire that’s it, Free from MS for the rest of my life. Bring it on!
Uh oh, you did the unthinkable. Don’t you know we’re all supposed to adore Windows 10? How dare you say anything critical of it. Just upgrade, man. Don’t you get it?
</sarcasm>
I’ve always hated the Start Menu. To me it’s a sign of a badly designed operating system. There’s a “Program Files” folder, but it’s a confusing mess of subfolders, various resources and DLLs. Finding the actual .exe files is a nightmare. On 64-bit systems it’s even more of a spectacular mess. The early version of the Start Menu is basically a fake file structure in menu form. “Let’s pretend we have a nicely organised OS and hide all our the historical baggage under the carpet.” Of course, once they decided that the Start Menu was the starting point for all activity on the computer they had to continue bolting additional features onto it – features that try to be “helpful” in that usual Windowsy way of trying to guess your intentions (and often failing).
It saddens me a bit that many Linux distros go in the same direction. I guess it’s kinda needed though due to its Unix-inspired underpinnings. Many of the “start menus” are little more than simple launchers for GUI applications. Still, I wish there were better integration between the command line and GUI applications. (Maybe I’m just doing it wrong?)
As you might have already guessed I’m a Mac user. I’ve been one for 25 years and I’ve always enjoyed how the system was laid bare and still easy to understand and manipulate. It’s less true of OS X but it still does a good job. While it does largely hide its Unix underpinnings I never get the feeling that it struggles against them. (Okay, there’s the pretending to be a multi-root filesystem, I’ll give you that.) I can continue interacting with files and applications directly through the file manager and there’s no start menu lying to my face.
I’ve only had limited exposure to Windows over the years. I did end up working on a Windows 7 laptop for about two years. “The best Windows yet” and “you’ll love it if you just give it a chance. Nope, still horrible. At least Cygwin made it tolerable.
With you on this. OS X can be a pain in the ass sometimes, but it’s not a result of trying to guess my intent. I really, really hate that.
I have to admin Windows systems all day. Coming home to OS X and iOS is a breath of fresh air every night.
“You can move the Windows start menu. And most popular Linux desktop environments do not have any further capabilities than that.”
I’m not sure about “most” Linux DE’s. Maybe you can’t do much more with them than you can with the DE’s Windows has gravitated to since the turn of the century. Fortunately though, “most” Linux DE’s aren’t all that’s available these days!
The Maté desktop project, the up to date fork of Gnome 2.x, retains all the flexibility and goodness we loved in Gnome 2.x while enhancing that DE without losing sight of the ability to customize it as each user sees fit.
That ability to customize it as the user saw fit, along with it’s focus on it’s traditional point and click menu system, drew multiple millions of users to Gnome 2.x in the first place. Gnome 2.x helped make Ubuntu great before Ubuntu threw the baby out with the bath water and went to their hugely unpopular Unity DE.
The traditional menuing system we knew and loved in Gnome 2.x, refined and up to date, remains at the core of the Maté project and offers what millions consider to be the best of all desktop environments.
As I said, I’m not sure about “most” Linux DE’s. Others may be far more limited in flexibility and scope than Maté is. But I do know Maté and it’s capabilities, and as long as it’s available I’ll gladly employ it as my DE of choice.
my favorite was REALLY windows 8.1 menu system.
REALLY
When I do say this usually people look at me with something in their eyes saying “he is mad”.
ModernUI Apps in the counter part is a bad idea from my opinion. Modern sounds like “no options in the apps”
Early Gnome was a mess of a UI. Gnome 2 was the result of millions of dollars and several years of usability studies back in the early 2000’s. Back in those days, there were several corporate interests pouring money into Linux desktop development so they could have a viable workstation OS.
That era has ended. That doesn’t mean the results of the usability research should have ended as well. While I don’t mind Gnome 3 on a tiny laptop (X201), and in fact praise them for not having the mess of a transition that KDE4 and KDE5 were, it doesn’t feel right on a 25″ monitor. My workstation is currently XFCE set up almost exactly like Gnome was.
https://voat.co/v/UnixPix/comments/705051
Which is kind of funny that I would end up like this, because ten years ago, my XFCE was set up exactly like CDE was (complete with Motif themed GTK).
Honestly, I don’t see why people whine about the Start menu being a mess. You can organize it any way you like. It doesn’t need to be a mess of subfolders and tons of largely unused shortcuts. The Start menu is only a mess if you never organize it to your liking. However, I will concede that organizing it can be a pain in the ass. It would be nice to not have to wrestle the Start menu into something more flowing and consolidated.
The filesystem layout is another story. Now that is a big ass mess and it’s not easily fixed like the Start menu is. Linux is no better in that department.
Anyways……
The “Start Menu” is a critical part of any operating system, whatever they call it and wherever it’s located.
Every time I turn on the computer I want there to be a list of every program I’ve installed. I don’t want it muddled with operating system configurations or hardware settings or other things that ‘belong’ in the Control Panel. Furthermore, I want to be able to organize that list of programs into categories such as Games, Office, Mapping and GPS, Photo Editing, etc. including creating new folders and sub-folders with drag-and-drop flexibility.
That’s it.
The Start menu in Windows XP an Windows 7 suit me just fine.
Edited 2016-02-13 03:00 UTC
I prefer something along the lines of NT4 or 98SE for simple customizable start menu. I wish useful folders, like STARTUP, wouldn’t keep getting demasculinated in today’s Windows.
Really? I never had the time or ambition to even consider doing that. That’s OCD to a whole other level.
I guess you never clean your room, too…
I’m a long time Linux user and I use MATE 1.12 on Linux Mint 17.3. Just like in my former Windows days, I like my task bar at the top of the screen (along with the handy Mint Menu to the far left.) For launching my favorite programs, however; I use Cairo-dock which sits at the bottom and works exactly like Mac’s OS-X dock including thumbnail window previews and the ability to stack. All of my most accessed programs and folders reside there. The only time I ever use the (equivalent to ‘Start’) Mint menu is when I need to access a settings applet or an administration tool, or some other rarely used program. While it’s true that it’s easy to add shortcuts to the task bar, just like it is on Windows, I find the added functionality of Cairo-dock (or OS-X’s dock) to be much more intuitive and user friendly.
So you use gnome. To each their own.
I always disliked how start menu items were often categorised by vendor, i frequently found myself remembering the product name but forgetting the vendor name and having to hunt through a bunch of stuff.
Use the classicshell to get back that classic start menu, Windows 10 – all sorted.