Windows 7: the case for dumping the Start Menu

I would prefer a Start Menu-less interface in which the taskbar is L-shaped. By that, I mean that it runs along the bottom but also along the left-hand side. Maybe the bottom edge could be for running programs while the left-hand edge could be for program shortcuts, negating the need for a popup Start Menu. With the prevalence these days of widescreen monitors, most people will not miss the screen real-estate taken up by a left-hand taskbar.

"The thing is, how else can they (creatively) make a way for users to launch their apps? Go back to Program Manager, or MS-DOS Executive?" Exactly! The VERY FIRST thing I do in Mac OS X is make a Stack for the applications folder! You can't have ALL your applications in a bar (or a dock). Well, you could just launch applications by searching for them via Desktop Search (or Spotlight), but some users prefer using only the mouse. It's true, I use the start menu only for Desktop Search, nothing else. But, as I said, some users still prefer to click through folders in order to launch applications. What does that mean? If Microsoft removed the start menu, the Taskbar would become more and more like a Dock. And flankly, the Dock sucks. Totally. The Superbar is just a much nicer (in fact, VERY much nicer) concept for window management, than just having Expose. It's a lot of fun to work with the new Superbar. It makes working fast, easy/simple and productive. This concept is way ahead of the dock (though I like using OS X, but the dock annoys me). OK, the Superbar is still not perfect. But it's far more close to perfect than the Dock concept and they should really leave it the way it is! There's a reason for the start menu! It's the same reason that makes creating an application stack my first action in OS X.

@Paul "Why the heck is "Aero Peek" down at the right end of the taskbar (it used to be called Show Desktop and was right next to the Start button)? That should be the Recycle Bin." The reason it's at the far right lower corner, is that it's a place that you can mouse to very very quickly. It is a very large effective target. The recycle bin doesn't need to be accessed particularly often, so that doesn't need to be placed in a location such as that. That's not windows fandoyism, that's just logic (finally) dictating some windows design principles.

What about search? How would a user search for files and/or program? In Windows XP all I have in the Quick Launch bar are Show Desktop, IE and WLM; every other program I open from the Start Menu. Once I get Windows 7 though I think I'll pin more programs -- especially those that I use on a regular basis.

you can pin the control panel to the taskbar... open control panel, then right click on the icon in the taskbar and select 'pin to taskbar'

"I like the idea of keeping the start menu for infrequently used programs." It's funny you should say that. Since Windows XP, that's exactly the opposite of what the new Start Menu UI was designed for. The idea was to get icons off the desktop, and to not necessitate the use of Quick Launch. If we keep moving in a similar direction, the Start Menu will change into something different. There's 3 main navigation areas (4 if you count the Shut Down button) of the current Windows 7 Start Menu. You've got personal folder links, system links, and application links. If you create an icon to replace the personal folder links, you could just link it to "Libraries", or "My Stuff" or whatever. That one's easy. System links can be gathered together. Navigating the filesystem can be done using the Libraries link, but I would argue that having top-down filesystem access isn't a common requirement for most users. I'd imagine that the functionality of all of the system management stuff, including Control Panel, could be pruned back, while still being incorporated as a single unifying console. I could see it where the other options can just be incorporated into the already-Vista-like Control Panel for easy navigation to common options. The text links under the main Control Panel categorical links should be dynamic based on usage though. Finally, the application links could be deprecated to an "Infrequently used programs" icon. That's pretty much a given. Commonly used programs would already be on the Taskbar.

Come on people. This is the second story in a row where some 3rd party expressed an opinion and people treat it as though Bill Gates posted it on each of your screens personally.

How about a more intuitive start menu? Instead of trying to put everything into one static list, how about start menu that revolves to reveal new options? Upon pressing the start orb with a mouse click or Windows Key, the default is frequently used programs. Either using a mouse/touch based gesture/click or keyboard shortcut, it revolves over to the All Programs menu. A third flip reveals the Documents, Pictures, Music, Games, Printers, Control Panel, and Printers Menu. I would believe that the Search Bar and Shutdown/Restart options would remain static on the screen. This way you can use one gesture/click/keyboard shortcut, to revolve the menu. Over time and practice it would become quite natural as a right click or the Alt/Tab shortcut to Windows users. Similar to the 3D flip, except its a simple revolve like flipping a card. Just a thought.

@mike Why do you ALWAYS have to be negative? There is an interesting and healthy debate taking place here for a change.

Dammit, you STILL can't have the taskbar cover two screens? dammit dammit dammit.

Hmm Am I being negative? Nah Do I dislike healthy debate? Nah Do I think that for two days people have treated ideas from third parties and acted as though it was some secret plan out of Redmond? Yeah Discussing the future of MP3 players is an interesting topic. BUT Pretending that speculation from a writer in the UK is a secret sign of Microsoft's plans for an entire division of the company is just silly. It's just a writer doing a good job of getting eyeballs and a bad job of actual reporting. Discussing UI ideas is also interesting BUT Pretending that a blogger's ideas of what he'd like to see changed in the Windows UI is actually some mysterious hint dropped about some secret long term plans that Microsoft has for Windows 8 or 9 is also silly. It's just a guy spitballing some ideas of how he'd change the UI.

"There's a reason for the start menu! It's the same reason that makes creating an application stack my first action in OS X." An application stack is fine, it you like it. It's better than the hideous practice of littering a Windows desktop with shortcut icons. That's one of the cosmetic things about Windows that I can Best of all though, if you're on a Mac is to use Spotlight, Launchbar or Butler as an app launcher. This isn't ideal for everything, but for fast (really fast) access to the things you use a lot, this solution can't be beat. For access to everything, just put your applications folder in the dock. A big omission in OS X 10.5 is that stacks can be made from folders, but not Smart folders. That is, I can't create a Smart Folder of, say, every file I've accessed today and put that in the dock to become a popup list. This would be a wonderful thing, on OSX or Win 7.

And to answer Mike Halsey's question (and Paul's implied one) of " I’m looking at the Start Button in Windows 7 now and wondering when I’m ever going to press it." The same times you would in Windows XP or Windows Vista if you had your favorite apps in a "Quick Launch" toolbar. The Windows 7 changes HOW you interact with the Taskbar but doesn't change the actual targets located there. In several previous generations of Windows you had running tasks in one group on the Taskbar and favorite apps in another group on the Quick Launch. In Windows 7 you have both running tasks and favorite apps in the SAME group on the Taskbar. But in both cases the same things are on the Taskbar - Running apps and Favorite shortcuts. So, my question back is why would you use the Start menu any more or less?

The Start Menu should go away, but it probably won't for backward compatibility. Count the clicks. Less clicks == better. In OS X, the Dock is full of what Apple thinks are the most likely Applications the user would launch, including System Preferences (i.e. Control Panel). 1 click to launch all your most frequently used applications. If you need to get to your Documents, Movies, Music, Hard Drives, or other Applications, you click on the Finder, then the link (2 clicks). So to launch an Application that is not on your Dock, here are the clicks: 1. Click Finder 2. Click Applications 3. Double-click the application you want. In Windows if you have a Program that isn't on the taskbar, here are the clicks: 1. Click Start Menu 2. If it's pinned to your Start Menu, click the Program (2 clicks, all these should be on the taskbar) 2a. If not, click All Programs 3. Click Program 3a. If in folder, click folder (recursive) 4. Click Program In just this one example, you can easily replace Start Menu with Windows Explorer in Win 7 with a Programs library that flattens the list of Programs and have nearly the same experience, with some improvements. Maximize-able window for one, so you see more Programs at once. What's left for the Start Menu to do? You don't need Computer, Documents, Music, Movies, etc. because that's all in Windows Explorer with the same number of clicks as with the Start Menu. Control Panel, Help and Support, and Power Options. Not much, it might be hard to completely eliminate because Windows has one system wide bar for everything, OS X has two, one thin (aka menu bar) and the other wider (aka Dock) for high frequency targets. Power options can be a dialog that pops up when the machine physical power button is pressed, just like in OS X. Help and Support can easily be in WIndows Explorer with just a few tweaks. It's doable, but I still don't think Microsoft will do it because then as gumby74 said, the UI would be really close to just being an OS X clone. But Microsoft should do one thing MIke Halsey said, make Control Panel pinnable, and put it there by default. I also suggest loading up the taskbar with a few more things to suggest to the user that the taskbar should be full. Paint, Getting Started, problem with the lack of built-in programs now is that the amount of high use stuff included is pretty bare, and those two examples were stretches.

"So, my question back is why would you use the Start menu any more or less?" I don't use the Quick Launch bar in Vista (I find it wastes space), but if the icons for running programs can be stationary when the program is closed, I may switch to using that method in Windows 7. Currently I use the MCU/MRU portion of the Start Menu - it adapts to my usage. The Quick Launch contains only static icons though. Is there a day when this becomes a dynamic set of launch icons by predicting usage by combining MCU/MRU usage though? Leave that decision up to the UI team. You can always drop them a line though - "Send Feedback". Quick question: [How] Can you enable large icons for taskbar button icons? [How] Can you turn off text labels for taskbar buttons? If I can mirror the Windows 7 experience, I'll see how I like continuing to use the Vista Start Menu while I test the Windows 7 taskbar shortcuts.

@stimshady I just pinned the Control Panel, its not on the right-click menu for control panel in the Start Menu, only when you are running it (in OS X they call this "Keep in Dock"). I didn't suggest Calc and Notepad because I didn't think they were high use, but Calc I reconsider on, my wife has the OS X Calculator in her Dock, even though Spotlight can do math.

@mikegalos OS X's /Applications is not totally flat, I was simplifying it slightly so I didn't bogged down in OS X's implementation and unification of Application launching and their visibility in the file system. By default OS X puts all the really infrequently used stuff in /Applications/Utilities (e.g. Disk Utility). Applications can create their own folders in /Applications (e.g. MS Office 2008, iWork) to group related apps, but few apps do that because their assets are inside the application bundle, which is a folder that is treated as a single object in OS X. An analogous situation would be a Win Explorer shell extension that hide folders in C:\Program Files\ behind the icon for the main exe in that folder. Of course you can see what's in a bundle with a right-click. Browsing for Applications or Programs ( OS X or Win respectively) is nearly vestigial as well. Spotlight or Desktop Search handle scaling to large numbers of applications easily.

@hereskilled: "Am I the only one that immediately changed Windows 7's taskbar to be more like Vista " Yes!!!!!! ;)

murdocdv Right. And once you get to a hierarchic menu of applications then the benefit of the folder starts disappearing. Hence Windows XP moving from having all program hierarchies in the default Startt Menu and moving them to All Programs.

windows+r +appname works here ok.

@ Mikegalos "While having all your program launch icons in a single folder (as was done in Finder or Windows 3.0's Program Manager) is quick, it doesn't scale when you have a lot of programs. If you have more icons than can fit in a single screen with no scroll bars you lose the advantage. " I'd argue it stops scaling well even before that point. Having too much information on screen can make it harder to choose the right icon. I guess the sweet spot would probably be 5 icons across x 5 icons down, or thereabouts.

gorath No argument needed. I absolutely agree with you. A large number of icons in one UI panel hurts usability. No question. The reason for my statement was that we were discussing click counts (a small part of measuring usabilty)

tayme Even in the section you quoted the discussion isn't "Is there still a need for the Start Menu". The discussion is "Is Microsoft secretly getting rid of the Start Menu". I have no problem with the former, but the latter is just silly.

"The reason for my statement was that we were discussing click counts (a small part of measuring usabilty)" I agree. If all you want is to minimize clicks, have your most recently used program shortcuts in your quick launch bar and the rest on the desktop. Your desktop will be horribly cluttered, but at least you've minimized clicks. Isn't that easy (or simple)?

"Just try writing an email in Outlook while occasionally switching over to reference a webpage or Excel doc. It's painfully slow." I use Alt+Tab for switching mostly and it's much more useful in 7 and Vista than it is in XP. I find working with a lot of open windows pretty painful in XP. Haven't done it in 7 yet.