Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Windows Technology

Microsoft Killed the Start Menu Because No One Uses It 862

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the apple-responds-with-stop-menu dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft recently killed the Start Menu, and their explanation for it seems fairly straightforward: no one used it. This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but Microsoft explains that use of the Start menu dipped by 11 percent between Windows Vista and Windows 7, with many specialized Start functions — such as exploring pictures — declining as much as 61 percent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Killed the Start Menu Because No One Uses It

Comments Filter:
  • Those rare circumstances when you need something from the start menu, it's not going to be fun trying to find it.

    I feel the same way about livingroom furniture. I don't care how it is, just don't move ANYTHING!

    • If you tap the Windows key and start typing, like in previous versions it will start searching for what you typed. So that still works the same, at least.
      • by 0123456 (636235) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @05:07PM (#37604316)

        If you tap the Windows key and start typing, like in previous versions it will start searching for what you typed. So that still works the same, at least.

        Yeah, I use a GUI because I love typing commands so much.

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        ...except it's not the same at all. That's kind of the point.

        An alternative that uses different inputs are just that, an alternative. They aren't a replacement for the original.

      • If you tap the Windows key and start typing, like in previous versions it will start searching for what you typed. So that still works the same, at least.

        Wow, it's like they just completely cloned Gnome 3.

      • I read somewhere that studies found that inexperienced users are more comfortable starting applications by typing (part of) the name of the application, than they are searching for graphical icons in a nested hierarchy of menus. It makes sense: you probably already know you want Firefox, and with menus, you have to figure out where in the hierarchy Firefox will be.

        The Ubuntu Unity interface all but forces you to launch most applications that way, and I found I quickly got used to it -- then noticed it's eas

  • by denis-The-menace (471988) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @04:56PM (#37604120)

    When you can't figure out the easy way to launch stuff, look in the Start Menu.

    This is change for change's sake.

    • Eh, I don't know about that. I use FVWM, and I set up a menu, but to be honest there are only four programs I ever really needed -- so I adjusted the menu to present those programs at the top of the top level. People generally want symbolic icons, and they hate having to read through a list of things just to find what they are looking for. A combination of a short menu with just the essentials and a search box for rarely used programs is probably a better idea (in my case, xterm is one of the four progra
    • The programs are still there so it's not like GM removing the spare tire. It's more akin to a the owners manual not telling you where the spare tire is.

    • by ackthpt (218170)

      When you can't figure out the easy way to launch stuff, look in the Start Menu.

      This is change for change's sake.

      Indeed. I actually use the Start Menu dozens of times each day. I have shortcuts on the desktop, but usually the are obscured by all the work I'm doing. Because most people don't use it is a pretty poor reason to remove it.

      The way they've complicated Task Manager I can't see too many neophyte users struggling with that beast now - might as well remove it, too.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @05:06PM (#37604284)

      When you can't figure out the easy way to launch stuff, look in the Start Menu.

      You can't. Because they didn't like the look of the big, floor-to-ceiling look of the old XP system, they shrunk it all down so that it only shows 5-6 items at a time and has a scrollbar.

      In short, they made it harder to use and less functional than the XP Start Menu, and to everyone's amazement, people stopped using it, and then they claimed it was some sort of UX triumph.

      Ditto with the control panel - rather than one big screen with 100+ tiny icons on it, they reworded a few things ("Display" becaome "Personalization", and there are 2-3 different UIs rather than the tabs on the old-fashioned XP display.cpl) and made them all look like web-apps. Now that it's unnavigable with words or icons, everyone uses "search" and it "feels faster". You can't write documentation that says Start-Settings-ControlPanel-Display-Screensaver, you have to say "search for 'screen saver' and clicky on whatever pops up"... *sigh*

      This is change for change's sake.

      Much like Firefox, most UX innovation is precisely that. If you don't get the results that match your pet UI design philosophy, move the feature around, and while your users are trying to find the feature you don't want, accumulate enough telemetry to claim your users aren't using it as often, then take it away. (Status bar, full URL in the URLbar, etc.)

      • by Reziac (43301) * on Wednesday October 05, 2011 @02:22AM (#37608938) Homepage Journal

        And the problem fundamentally isn't that the Start Menu is too complicated. It's that they've never provided a good tool for *managing* it. So the average person, being unaware that it's just a bunch of directories and shortcut files, suffered with the floor-to-ceiling scrolling menu from hell. M$, on noting their complaints, responded by taking away most of the menu. This led to a different set of complaints, since now no one can find anything and the reaction is to give up on the start menu entirely.

        But it still didn't solve the real problem, which as I said is still that there's no good tool that average non-savvy users can turn to for *managing* the Start Menu. How hard could it be to make a nice little interface (not relying on drag-and-drop in the live menu, which in my observation is usually a disaster) geared toward letting average folks sort out their programs into reasonable hierarchies, so the Start Menu isn't always One Huge Mess??

  • by 0racle (667029) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @04:57PM (#37604136)
    Seriously, exactly what data and from where are they collecting it to figure this decline in usage.
    • by Meshach (578918)
      Sounds like a case for remembering that a /. reader or commenter is not a typical user to Microsoft. We do use the Start Menu and will find a way to continue using it. But "the masses" obviously do not.
      • by hedwards (940851)

        Doubtful, the start menu is an easier way of locating programs than anything else that MS has provided. The only reason I can think of for people not using it is that they already have the 3 programs they use pinned to the task bar.

      • by wierd_w (1375923)

        Ask and you shall receive.

        Set RPEnabled in:

        HK_Current_User\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer

        To "0". This disables Metro, and re-enables the win7 style start menu behavior.

        Additionally, on the win8 developer preview version, doing this enables additional scare text about being fired if you leak your copy....

        10 guesses which way microsoft employees use it.

    • by bondsbw (888959)

      Not sure, but the justification is that most people pin their most-used applications to the task bar.

      • by 0123456 (636235) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @05:11PM (#37604372)

        Not sure, but the justification is that most people pin their most-used applications to the task bar.

        Probably because the Windows 7 Start Menu is such a disaster that they can't find anything there anymore.

      • by jedidiah (1196) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @05:12PM (#37604380) Homepage

        ...that still leaves the less frequently used stuff to sort out.

        One of the key strengths of a GUI is supposed to be tasks that you do so infrequently that you are prone to forget how to do them. A good GUI helps smooth over that sort of problem. A bad one just makes it so hard that you just want to reach for a bash prompt.

        • by quixote9 (999874)
          "A bad one makes it so hard that you just want to reach for a bash prompt."

          So true in both the computerese and the English sense of the word "bash."
    • The data actually makes a lot of sense: Windows 7 gave user's the ability to pin program icons to the taskbar even when they're not running. So now your most frequently used programs don't need to be in the start menu or on the desktop to quickly get to them. I would imagine start menu usage would fall dramatically once the programs you use 90% of the time are pinned to the task bar.

      I find the new start screen to be an odd solution to this problem. For that matter, I find it odd to thing of the drop as a "p

      • by hedwards (940851)

        Yes, but the start menu is there because you don't always have room for everything on the bar. And often times you don't want to minimize all your other programs just to get to the desktop icons, which themselves are likely to be a mess.

  • People seem to want symbolic icons that represent the programs they want to run; they don't want to look through a long menu and read a bunch of text.
    • Re:Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ColdWetDog (752185) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @05:06PM (#37604290) Homepage

      People seem to want symbolic icons that represent the programs they want to run; they don't want to look through a long menu and read a bunch of text.

      Really? Seems to be a common theme and maybe I'm just abnormal but I cannot stand interfaces with a dozen geometric shapes with random squiggles and colors that are different from every other interface with a dozen geometric shapes with random squiggles and colors.

      Just put the damned labels in whatever language the system detects it's supposed to be in. Leave the squiggles and lines to the finger painting set.

    • > People seem to want symbolic icons that represent the programs they want to run;
      > they don't want to look through a long menu and read a bunch of text.

      Oh god, no. Please don't remind me about Lotus SmartSuite's Hieroglyphics from the mid-late 90s.

      Give me a nice, recognizable icon AND text, so I can recognize the icons I care about frequently, then find the remaining functions without having to play "guess what this is supposed to be symbolic of".

    • Re:Indeed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by vlm (69642) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @05:33PM (#37604712)

      People seem to want symbolic icons that represent the programs they want to run; they don't want to look through a long menu and read a bunch of text.

      Want and use are two different things.

      Its been proven by human interface design studies people have been trained to desire, even demand squigglie icons, but in actual use they simply read the text.

      Some of it is cultural. If you live in a culture where literacy = two dozen or so glyphs, you probably don't use icons and just read the text underneath them, or, frankly, guess based on location and tool tip popups. If you live in a culture where literacy = ten thousand different glyphs, then you probably actually use icons.

      Do you visually scan for an orange slime trail underneath and over a white blue circle, or the words "Firefox"? Most people look for the words.

      • by Altus (1034)

        See most of what I have seen on the subject suggested that while people initially use the text to understand what something is, the ultimately associate the icon with the activity, even if the icon isn't very representative. They also get used to the icon being in the same place from use to use and look for the icon the recognize in the place they expect it to be first.

        Of course this only happens once they have been using a device for a while and the text is still necessary but there is a reason that icons

  • by Mean Variance (913229) <mean.variance@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @04:58PM (#37604156)

    Once I started using Launchy [launchy.net] that pretty much took away my need for the Start button.

    Launchy plus the Quick Launch toolbar (for Windows XP) pretty much does the job.

    Once in awhile I go to Start and am surprised by how much stuff I have installed.

    • by bondsbw (888959)

      Anywhere in the Windows 8 Start Menu, you can start typing to bring up applications to select from. This is more akin to the Windows 7 Start Menu search box than to Launchy, but it gets the primary job done.

      I wonder if Launchy itself will still work in Windows 8. I seriously doubt it is possible to overlay it on top of Metro style apps. So I wonder if it can switch you to desktop mode, and if the hotkeys can even be picked up when inside a Metro style app.

    • Launchy on Windows and Linux. Alfred [alfredapp.com] on OS X. No mouse needed to launch stuff. I couldn't imagine going back (and hate having to use a computer with out them installed).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by roblarky (1103715)
      Am I the only one who actually spends the time to keep my Start menu organized? I have root categories (Productivity, Utilities, Internet, etc) under which I place all applications. My Programs menu pops out to a starting list of main categories, then branches out into easy to find sub-categories. The first thing I do when I'm at the "Finish" screen of a setup wizard is uncheck the "Run {program x} now" box, go to the desktop to remove any icons it put there and drag its Start Menu group into the appropri
      • by Mortimer82 (746766) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @08:09PM (#37606642)

        I used to do this a long time ago, but I found I was going against the flow. It felt like a never ending battle of me vs the default set up. And then, any time I sat on a computer with "defaults", I wouldn't be used to it.

        It would be fine if I never changed computer, or never needed to re-install the OS, however, any time you used a different computer / OS, you would need to re-organize things, go against the defaults. The other problem I had was that sometimes it was hard to perfectly categorize things.

        I used to be an IT techie and can't remember if I changed my habits before or after I got my current job in customer support for a computer game company. Our busiest times are after work when everyone is at home, so that's when we have the most people on shift. They tend to change shifts every now and again to give people a chance at the better work hours, not so often any more, but when I started it was once every 2 months. Because of that, I got very good at deciding what settings are worth customizing. I also got pretty good at making most of my important data roaming friendly.

        We don't use windows roaming profiles, but we each have our own personal network space. So, when I sit down at a new computer, I have a quick check list file for what I need to set up on new computer which is something like this:
        - Change "My Documents" to point to a location on my personal network space
        - Have Firefox use a profile which is located on my personal network space (I have a .bat file which edits a file for me automatically to set this up with one click).
        - Set up outlook.
        - Turn off keyboard layout shortcut keys. We have a multilingual office, so our system images include other language keyboard layouts like French. (Did you know that Ctrl+Shift+Left will change to a different keyboard layout on the fly, and will do it only for that current application which will confuse you even more!)
        - Turn off accessibility shortcut keys (Yes, I held down shift for 5 seconds because I was thinking about what I wanted to write, not for you to pop up a disruptive dialogue asking if I want to use sticky keys).
        - Shortcuts in quick launch for applications I use every day.
        - Installation of in house developed .NET managed and auto updating support tool.
        - And a few other little tidbits.

        I can be up and running in less than 15 minutes on a new computer.

        Although, about the start menu thing, at work on WinXP (windows 7 is coming "soon") I use Win+R to bring up the Run box to start things not on my quick launch bar, at home on my Win7 machine I use instant search.

        People on here slamming instant search obviously haven't used it. It's really great, at work it's absolutely awesome in outlook, you can search for email by recipient, time, subject or body and have results within seconds. On Windows 7 and Vista, it's really fast on the start menu. Keep in mind that by default it only indexes certain locations like your documents and start menu, to keep the index efficient and fast. It seems to update itself pretty much in real time as you save new files or install new programs.

        As for resources it uses up, can't say I feel the pinch at all, then again when I bought my Core i5, I also got 8GB of RAM at the same time as RAM is really pretty cheap these days. I absolutely love my home PC through and through. I use it for games, virtual machines, development, all sorts of stuff.

  • Maybe I really am in the minority here but I really do use the start menu all the time. I like to keep very few icons on my desktop and just use the start menu. I like to think this is a mistake but perhaps I'm just set in my ways
  • by duguk (589689) <dug@nOSPam.frag.co.uk> on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @04:58PM (#37604164) Homepage Journal
    This is why I'm still on Windows XP; I like the Start Menu and being able to group my applications by purpose in a *menu*.
    I don't want them littered over the desktop or in silly toolbars.
    • by bondsbw (888959)

      This is why I'm on Windows 7; I like the Start Menu and being able to group my applications by purpose in a pretty *menu*.

      Vista and 7 didn't take the menu or any of this away. And 7 gave you taskbar pinning, which you can turn off if you want.

    • by OzPeter (195038)

      This is why I'm still on Windows XP; I like the Start Menu and being able to group my applications by purpose in a *menu*.
      I don't want them littered over the desktop or in silly toolbars.

      This is one of my biggest complaints about OS-X (Snow Leopard, but I don't know if Lion is different) - You can't seem to be able to group stuff. There is no level of indirection between what is shown on the finder and the Application directory. I have previously asked about creating sub-dirs on under the Application directory and people have warned me that doing will can break things and it is not worth the effort.

      But in writing this I am wondering if the "proper" answer is some sort of smart fol

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Myopic (18616)

      Absolutely! And that's the same reason I am still using my abacus.

  • I see, insanity is really taking over.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I see, insanity is really taking over.

      Hey maybe the microsoft developers, gnome developers and ubuntu developers were infected by a common disease ?

  • by alphatel (1450715) * on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @05:00PM (#37604194)
    So if all blackberry users used the phone icon 11% less over a 5 year period the ability to dial would be removed? Personally I used the command on mac or start on windows button very often for a number of reasons. I cannot understand the advantage of removing either.
  • WTF? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cro Magnon (467622) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @05:02PM (#37604226) Homepage Journal

    Without the Start Menu, how do I shutdown?

  • Keyboard short cuts is what I mainly use.

    And the QuickAccess browser widget.

    Oh sorry the story was about Windows but when you get used to KDE that's sooo past tense.

    Back on-topic, I feel there'll always be a place for a menu system to access your applications, not all fit in a bar or have been assigned a short cut.

  • Someday the UX fad will go away and stop making things more 'usable' and 'discoverable'

  • ...please please please tell me that we can turn this back on.

    I've managed to make a career by avoiding having to use Windows, but I'm sure one day there will be some pain-in-the-arse employer who enforces it. If that day comes, I really hope that I'll be able to make my desktop work exactly the way Windows 2000 did...

  • It takes longer to browse in the start menu in Vista and 7, which trains people to put icons on their desktop, or learn how to use Alt+F2. Sadly both Gnome and KDE decided to follow suit with equal regressions. But it looks nicer!

    The odd thing is that Microsoft (along with KDE and Gnome developers) were adamant that people would prefer this and use it more. Now Microsoft is admitting that fewer people are.

  • The Start Menu was an innovative answer to a then-inherent lack of organisation and difficulty in finding things. Yes, you had the File Manager on Windows and Finder on OS X, but good luck if you're looking for that "client document about some paintings" if you don't remember anything in its relative path.

    Today, almost all mainstream desktops and laptops have two or more cores per CPU. Dual-core is starting to become a commodity even on phones, where it's use is starting to come to fruition quite nicely
  • by Archangel Michael (180766) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @05:15PM (#37604446) Journal

    I've found myself using the Start Menu much less, mainly because it is not functional as it is. It was much easier to drop a shortcut and clutter up my desktop than it is trying to find what I need on the start menu.

    So, it follows, make something less useful, people will use it less, then you can remove it, citing as an excuse, it is not used like it once was. Freaking Genius.

  • by rahvin112 (446269) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @05:19PM (#37604494)

    So in Windows 8 (for those that tried the demo, yes I downloaded the ISO and setup a VM to try it) they replaced the simple little menu in the start button with a whole screen monstrosity that takes the entire desktop. Taking over my whole desktop because I pushed the start button isn't the answer to this problem. IMO people don't use the start menu much because they put icons of their most used programs in the quick launch tool bar and on the desktop itself. Instead they take a simple menu, blow it up full screen and if you decide you don't want to pick a program and go back to what you have running, there is no logical way to do it (there isn't a close button that's obvious, ESC doesn't work, right click doesn't work). That's fucked up.

    Gnome3 and Ubuntu's solution to doing away with the start button is far better than what MS has cooked up and I don't really like those either but I can see them working better). If I fail that badly using their "NEW AND IMPROVED" start menu I can't even comprehend how disastrous this will be for the less computer literate. The best part is, you cannot bring back the old start menu that I could find. It's not in the control panel, the options are gone from the right click menu, etc.

    MS is making a huge mistake overlaying their Windows Phone 7 Metro interface on windows. This is a huge fuckup that's obviously being done to use the windows monopoly against the phone competition. It's going to backfire and damage windows just like Vista did.

  • by Lehk228 (705449) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @05:26PM (#37604600) Journal
    usage fell because the start menu with the scroll interface blows, to start a program that does not start with A i have to click the start menu, click all programs, drag the scroll bar looking for that shit, then click the program folder then click the program.

    it would seriously take less time usually to winkey+R then type the path.... IF m$ had not decided to separate 32 and 64 bit programs by default install folder (what the fuck?) so in order to manually launch an app i have to remember WHICH folder it's installed in

    it's a shame, aside from that BS windows 7 is overall rather nice, reliable and i like the libraries function to provide convenient lists of folders holding similar content on different drives or otherwise in different places on your drive for whatever reason
  • by IGnatius T Foobar (4328) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @05:26PM (#37604620) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft killed the Start menu because they want to force everyone to use Windows Phone, even if they aren't (initially) buying a Windows Phone. They failed for years to sell phones that look like a Windows desktop, so instead they're changing the Windows desktop to look like their phones, and hoping that iOS and Android end up looking "foreign" to phone users as a result.

    People click on the Start menu when they want to find something to Start. Imagine that. The bottom line is that the Windows 95 UI (which is to say, Microsoft's ripoff of the RiscOS UI [guidebookgallery.org]) was the pinnacle of personal computer desktop UI design. Everything that's happened since then has been change for change's sake and has only served to annoy users and get in their way.
  • by Lussarn (105276) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @05:56PM (#37605066)

    There is really nothing wrong with a start menu. Microsoft however never enforced a good practice with their start menu, the signal to noise ratio is VERY low. It's cluttered with company names, uninstallers and readme files. Why should I have to know the name of the company if I want to use a program, looks very much like advertisement to me. Instead of enforcing a good practice they have extended the start menu with "most used programs" which really doesn't cure the underlying problem, and to me it's even more cluttered. They should get rid of everything but the program starters in correct folders, Games in games folder and so on, one program has one menu entry, this was probably how it was meant to be by the original designer but never enforced. Look at Gnome, very simple, and very effective. And now MS have come to the conclusion that nobody uses their cluttered mess of a start menu, and are killing it. I say it could be fixed, but MS doesn't seem to know what's wrong with it...

  • by carrier lost (222597) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @05:58PM (#37605106) Homepage

    Curses!

    Now how am going to get to telnet so I can get back into my Sun workstation so I can reset the X server?

  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Tuesday October 04, 2011 @06:01PM (#37605136) Homepage

    The start menu was a nice one-click or one-key access to all your programs. But a combination of Microsoft watering it down + installers misusing the start menu have damaged its usefulness:

    HOW TO USE THE START MENU
    1. Don't use the start menu for branding. Example:
    Start\Symantec Applications\Norton Antivirus\Norton Antivirus.lnk
    should be
    Start\Norton Antivirus.lnk
    (*) This is usually committed with Sin #2 below

    2. Don't make a group for one icon.
    Start\Super Editor\Super Editor.lnk
    should be
    Start\Super Editor.lnk

    3. Don't place icons in 3 places
    - Quick launch
    - Desktop
    - Start menu

    Put them in the start menu, and let the user decide what applications are important enough to put on their desktop.

    4. Don't put multiple icons where 1 will do
    Start\VideoLan\Documentation.lnk
    Start\VideoLan\VLC Media Player.lnk
    Start\VideoLan\VLC Media Player Skinned.lnk
    Start\VideoLan\Readme.lnk
    Start\VideoLan\Configure VLC Media Player.lnk

    Documentation is part of the application. Skinned/non-skinned is an option within the application. Configuration is part of the application.

    5. Don't put control panel icons on the start menu.
    Ex: Start\ATI Catalyst Control Center.lnk
    should be
    Start\Control Panel\ATI Catalyst Control Center.lnk

    6. Don't modify the start menu when I run your app or update it. Ex: I move Quicktime under "Junk" but it reappears whenever it updates. Another one is FinePrint which re-adds itself when the driver starts.

    7. Microsoft: Don't limit the size of the menu menu then add a scroll bar. Windows Vista and 7 limit it to 1/2 the screen then add a scroll bar, even if everything would have fit just fine had it resized.

    8. Microsoft: The icons need to be clickable size. A 16x16 icon at 1600x1200 is inappropriate when the app provided a 128x128 icon.

    9. Don't forget keyboard support! This has gone down hill since Windows '9x.

    10. Don't place icons under Start - Programs. Everything is a program. Just place them under "Start"

    11. Don't place applications in the registry startup - place them in the start menu's startup group so that the user can remove it easily if necessary.

    • by blair1q (305137)

      3. Don't place icons in 3 places
      - Quick launch
      - Desktop
      - Start menu

      Any app that does that is lazy. The non-lazy ones give you the option during installation, and you uncheck the ones you know you won't use. Firefox gets all three. Word doesn't get Desktop. Everything should have at least a start menu entry, because that's /usr/bin on a Windows box.

  • by XPulga (1242) on Wednesday October 05, 2011 @01:56AM (#37608806) Homepage

    Let's do a quick exercise in Microsoftian design: The week has 168 hours.

    Shall we assume the typical adult male has 4x 15-minute sexual intercourses per week ? It's probably pushing a bit, but fine, let's exaggerate. That'll be 1 hour per week.

    Shall we assume the typical adult male urinates 8 times per day (once every 2 hours while awake), and each event lasts 1 minute ? That'll be 8 minutes per day, 56 minutes per week. Let's round things up and call it 1 hour. We're exaggerating anyway.

    166/168 = 0.9880. On our typical adult male, the penis is idle and unused 98.8% of the time. If the human body was designed by the Windows 8 design team, we would be dickless.

  • by MistrX (1566617) on Wednesday October 05, 2011 @04:53AM (#37609668)

    When they changed the way Start works since Vista, it sucks bigtime. Having lot's of programs installed makes that list too long and the hassle of finding your program becomes too great to bother with it. The way XP works was better to me: Expand it all over your desktop. Nice a grid of all your installed apps in one sight.
    Switching to classic isn't an option, it removes the shortcuts aswell. It really goes into primitive mode, 98 style.

    Now I use 3rd party tools to get my OS to do what I want with it. How absurd is that?

    Microsoft! Stop telling me on how to use my pc please! And bring some legacy options back that WILL enhance usability.

It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same.

Working...