Vista "Start" Menu

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Too structured. However, you can do that yourself.

LOL, to structured, you've got to be kidding.

Computers are to have efficiency, and be productive. In the world of computing right now there is no such thing as being to structured, if anything there is not enough of it, and Vista is a fine example of mess everywhere.

ALOHA

 

[daniel1113]

Michael Bolton: That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.
Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea.

This would just be one more step I would have to go through to organize my start menu the way I want it. No thanks.

 

[dighn]

I think most users wouldn't care, and those who do know how to do it (through explorer)

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: DasFox

Originally posted by: VIAN
Too structured. However, you can do that yourself.

LOL, to structured, you've got to be kidding.

Computers are to have efficiency, and be productive. In the world of computing right now there is no such thing as being to structured, if anything there is not enough of it, and Vista is a fine example of mess everywhere.

ALOHA

Yes... productivity. One has to decide between high structurization and efficiency. If one creates too big a hierarchy of folders, then it would take forever to get to a simple file. Instead, one has to create the right amount of balance. In this case, I think it would be more efficient to have a large list than having a smaller list and multiple branches. However, if the list gets too large, then it would be more efficient the other way.

Vista is a mess. Vista seems to be tailored towards those people who can't organize anything. That's what all these search crazes are about. Search, search, search. We'll unfotunately for me, I happen to know where everything in my decently organized computer is.

 

[drag]

Look this isn't theoretical stuff.

Like I pointed out there actually people doing this _right_now_.

In practice it's very efficient and in practice the nested folders are only 2 or 3 deep depending how it goes.

If your using default Gnome or KDE you have a number of applications that a taylored specificly for that desktop environment. KDE vs Gnome essientially from a user's stand point are 2 different operating system user interfaces and they have their applications specificly designed to integrate seemlessly into either one.

When using Gnome menu, for instance, this is how it works:
'Start menu' ---> application catagory ---> application

_that's_it_.

That is how complicated this gets.

With Debian.. Debian provides it's own menu system that has _all_ applications you isntall in it, not just something that taylored for one environment or another.

And this is not a small number of applications. Debian, buy default has about 16,000 or so individual software packages aviable for it. Out of that several hundred, maybe a couple thousand, are desktop applications.

You can install all of them at the same time and the application menus are only nested 2 deep.
Debian Menu --> application folder --> application type --> application launcher
Debian Menu --> games folder --> game type --> game launcher


The very deepest it goes in practice is something like:
Debian Menu --> application folder --> system tools --> gnome tools --> gnome-whatever launcher
but that is pretty rare.

 

[DasFox]

Oh man you guys are really silly, and you call yourself PC geeks, and think this is to complicated, LMAO

Sorry I'm not picking on you, or really making fun, but this is stupid. You guys act like this is some really major task to do.

Obviously none of you have ever done this, and if you did, then you'd see how simple and helpful this solution is, not complicated.

It's simple enough to do yourself, but the POINT was to make some sort of front end that allows making a structured start menu, or during the install process brings this into play, so when you install an application you have the option of doing something like this, now that would of really simplified it from the users stand point of doing.

I'm a real PC geek that believes in efficiency, productivity, and -----> SIMPLICITY

Guys it doesn't get any simpler in computing, and if you think this is difficult, then I'd really hate to see us tackle something really complex.

This is so simple it's not even funny.

Funny how KDE and Gnome, and other desktops in Unix/Linux brought this idea into existence since the beginning of Unix, and now MS geeks can't even handle the concept that has been around for at least a decade in other systems.

Look at KDE and Gnome for starters if you don't know this.

http://www.kde.org/
http://www.gnome.org/

This is a VERY OLD IDEA!

ALOHA

 

[nerp]

Vista is a mess. Vista seems to be tailored towards those people who can't organize anything. That's what all these search crazes are about. Search, search, search. We'll unfotunately for me, I happen to know where everything in my decently organized computer is.

You're forgetting about me. I have a very well organized pile of news stories and notes in the form of Word documents dating back several years during my career as a reporter.

I'm often plucking cell phone numbers, names and other random pieces of information that I've accumulated during thousands of telephone and in-person interviews out of my notes. And with search tools, it?s easy.

There are transcriptions of recordings from field assignments as well as meetings. I have thousands of documents and having decent search means being able to contextually dig nuggets of information out of them quickly and easily. It really has nothing to do with the location of files themselves.

In many instances, I?ll be on the phone with someone and write down a number or name for future reference. During the conversation we discuss fishing.

Three months later, I realize I need that phone number or piece of information I recorded during that conversation. Problem is, it could be buried in one of the dozens documents I have, since I generally maintain a ?week of? note file, one for each week. Breaking notes into weeks makes sense for me, being at a weekly, etc.

I search for ?sunfish? since I remember my source referring to it specifically during that conversation. Now, I can find the week?s note file. I open it. Boom. There?s my info.

In this sense, Vista search works great. Sure, Google desktop did a good job for me on XP, but so far, Vista?s search has been doing the job just as well since I?ve switched.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Michael Bolton: That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.
Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea.

This would just be one more step I would have to go through to organize my start menu the way I want it. No thanks.

ROFL I can just hear his accent as he says it.

Edit: http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id...quote=worstidea.txt&file=worstidea.wav

 

[InlineFive]

I don't even use All Programs anymore, just type in a snippet of the program name, hit Enter and wheeee!

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: drag
When using Gnome menu, for instance, this is how it works:
'Start menu' ---> application catagory ---> application

_that's_it_.

That is how complicated this gets.

If app vendors in Windows land really did what they are supposed to it would be one of:

Start -> The thing you want
or
Start -> Programs -> The app folder -> The app/uninstaller/help/etc.


Then the next time you want it, it should be back to:
Start -> The thing you want
(via dynamically built recent list or "pin to")

 

[stash]

Yeah there are guidelines for developing a Windows app, and I believe the start menu groups are part of them. It's just that not everyone knows about or follows them.

 

[ginfest]

My .02
I used to organize XP similar to the OPs idea, the Start menu "clutter" would drive me crazylol
With Vista one of the best features is the "Start search" box, as many have stated just type the program name (most of the time just part of it works, and press enter-quick and easy!