Windows 10 - free upgrade to those with PC using Windows 7 or 8

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

An All Applications filter that shows everything alphabetically.
Most used/specific shortlist (same thing?) -- why not pin those to the taskbar?
Right-click --> Add (menu item) to Favorites --> Same Quick Start bar on the left that Windows Start Menu has. Although it doesn't automatically fill up with a Most Recently Used list... something I've never found particularly useful anyway.
If you want something more complicated, right-click the menu button and Configure it, then open the Menu Editor.

There are many other application menus, since everyone has their own idea of what they want.


I simply feel that what the OS can do itself, it should. I will grant that a good menu should be able to be overridden. Fortunately, most are.

Pinning to the taskbar doesn't work well for things you need multiple instances open. If hubby has a browser window open, I'll open one for myself so I don't mess up his open tabs. When using Explorer I almost alway need more than one window open if I need to copy files. I used the old File Manager for years after Explorer came out because you could have multiple shares or folders open at once.

Originally Posted by shalym

But what if you don't want it organized by application category? What if you want it sorted by most used, or alphabetically, or anything else? What if you want to not have it sorted at all, but only want the programs listed on there that YOU want?

Most modern Linux desktops allow you to do that, and most older Linux window managers allow such fine grained configuration options that it would drive any sane user nuts (and insane users to manical glee).

On the whole though, I believe that categories is more useful than what the typical Windows installer does. Having a submenu for a suite, such as Adobe Creative Suite or Microsoft Office, may make sense. Yet most applications use a submenu for a single application, a few documentation files, and an uninstaller. A few even go further by placing that submenu into a submenu for the vendor. That's just plain crazy for day to day use. (I'm not criticizing Microsoft themselves since the default Windows applications are divided into categories, such as Accessories and Games.)

Not that it really matters for my use. I usually just hit the Windows key and start typing the application name. Even in OS X, I hit Command-Space and start typing the application name. But I recognize that only a subset of users do that.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Not that it really matters for my use. I usually just hit the Windows key and start typing the application name. Even in OS X, I hit Command-Space and start typing the application name. But I recognize that only a subset of users do that.

I do this quite a bit, and must say, if having to deal with the metro gui has done one good thing for me, it's getting me to do this more when I work on servers. I mean, we can argue if this gui is good for the desktop or not, but MS also put it on Windows SERVER 2012. A mobile/touch optimized GUI on a SERVER?! if there was any question as to whether this interface was a sign of unrecognized genius or outright marketing stupidity, that should answer it.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

Pinning to the taskbar doesn't work well for things you need multiple instances open. If hubby has a browser window open, I'll open one for myself so I don't mess up his open tabs. When using Explorer I almost alway need more than one window open if I need to copy files. I used the old File Manager for years after Explorer came out because you could have multiple shares or folders open at once.

Linux, like Windows XP, does not stack a pinned launcher with open instances. Rather, it occupies a special drawer of its own, independent from the running-programs-drawer.

Personally, I find that approach superior, partially for that reason, partially because it is easier for me to see when a program is opened.

Wait, that isn't entirely true. As usual, Ubuntu's Unity desktop breaks that rule. I have long since lost count of the number of ways I hate Unity though.
Say, rather, that linux has a number of different options for installing a start menu that does whatever you want (and as BWinmill observed, the truly masochistic have insanely customizable options).

A lot of this is only possible, though, by using the freedesktop.org Category standards embedded in the launcher shortcuts. I am waiting for Microsoft to finally catch on to the need for something like this, but I suspect I will wait for decades.

In this one area of desktop structuring (start menus, and for that matter desktop pinning as well*), I strongly believe linux has been and is and will most probably continue to be vastly superior to Windows, in every way!

* -- whose insane idea was it to make non-privileged users unable to delete a shortcut installed to the admin-only shared desktop settings folder?

Originally Posted by eschwartz

* -- whose insane idea was it to make non-privileged users unable to delete a shortcut installed to the admin-only shared desktop settings folder?

That's likely something directed towards corporate clients, since they may want a standardized set of icons on the desktop or in the Start Menu. It doesn't have a great impact on home users simply because they have an administrative account to start with. Well, that's not entirely true. It does add a great deal of complexity that makes it more difficult to manage.

I am hesitant to agree that the Linux desktop is any better though, since it is a plurality of desktops that can differ quite dramatically between distributions. Even something like Gnome can vary significantly between distributions since a lot of maintainers will modify it to suit their audience. Then again, if you pick a distribution and stick to it, any given implementation is vastly better (at least in my opinion).

[eschwartz]

Exactly what I mean. Any one linux desktop is almost definitely vastly better, although switching between them might not be a wonderful idea, certainly not on a whim.

I expect you are right about corporate use. It still drives me vaguely nuts that I cannot delete a shortcut if I want to. Yes, it is in school, I'm not the administrator, and the staff lackey that installed a bunch of programs on each computer (they don't seem to be sophisticated enough to deploy Group Policy, although they figured out domain-based logins ) clearly didn't know enough to uncheck the option to install stupid shortcuts on the desktop.

Apparently this is supposed to be a good thing in the corporate world?

[murg]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Apparently this is supposed to be a good thing in the corporate world?

Actually, yes.

In the real world, users will do all sorts of stupid things on their PCs. Including deleting the icons on the desktop. Then they call the Help Desk, and those people spend considerable time: a) figuring out what is wrong, as the user is next to useless in helping with this, and b) restoring the icon/shortcut.

If you were meant to be able to delete the icon, you would have been given sufficient security privileges to do so.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Exactly what I mean. Any one linux desktop is almost definitely vastly better, although switching between them might not be a wonderful idea, certainly not on a whim.

In my opinion, Linux is vastly superior in most respects. Yet most users will run into issues with Linux. Inconsistency is one problem, since a lot of people who use computers don't want to spend time learning about computers. Windows is great in that respect because any system running Windows is more or less the same, providing that it runs the same version of Windows. When something is changed up, people complain. (Look at Windows 8 or Office 2007.)

There are other things that people have to deal with as well. Hardware support is a biggie. If you buy hardware, it almost certainly works with Windows. Apple gets away with lacklustre hardware support since its customers usually buy stuff which claims to work with Macs. Linux is a mixed bag. Sometimes stuff says it works with Linux. Sometimes it doesn't, but works anyhow. Sometimes it works with all sorts of contortions. Sometimes it does't work at all, or it may only work partially. Adding to the problem are users that convert their existing system over, rather than buying new (as Mac and Windows users typically do). All of that practically ensures an awful user experience.

On top of that, you have software. Commercial support is virtually non-existent under Linux, and when it does exist is is almost always for highly specialized products targeted at mathematics, engineering, and the physical sciences. Most users would probably be more than happy using open source alternatives, but they have to learn it first. A lot of people simply aren't willing to do that. (Refer to my earlier comment about the Windows 8 and Office 2007 user interface.)

Someone like myself will find Linux to be a vastly superior experience, but I have been using Linux for nearly 20 years. I look for compatible hardware, even if I am not planning to use it for Linux. I am willing to learn how to use different software, and enjoy the greater flexibility that has granted me when adapting to the new stuff. But that is rather atypical.

[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Linux, like Windows XP, does not stack a pinned launcher with open instances. Rather, it occupies a special drawer of its own, independent from the running-programs-drawer.

Personally, I find that approach superior, partially for that reason, partially because it is easier for me to see when a program is opened.

If correctly implemented (cf. Windows 7-10 or Unity), stacking running programs over pinned programs saves LOTS of space, while still making it just as easy to see what programs are open. I find the gain in space far more advantageous.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

A lot of this is only possible, though, by using the freedesktop.org Category standards embedded in the launcher shortcuts. I am waiting for Microsoft to finally catch on to the need for something like this, but I suspect I will wait for decades.

More options=more ways for the end user to break it. That said, Explorer.exe can be edited if you REALY want it to look different.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

In this one area of desktop structuring (start menus, and for that matter desktop pinning as well*), I strongly believe linux has been and is and will most probably continue to be vastly superior to Windows, in every way!

* -- whose insane idea was it to make non-privileged users unable to delete a shortcut installed to the admin-only shared desktop settings folder?

I would hazzard a guess that it was some IT department that was sick and tired of people messing up stuff and running to them.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Glorfindel

If correctly implemented (cf. Windows 7-10 or Unity), stacking running programs over pinned programs saves LOTS of space, while still making it just as easy to see what programs are open. I find the gain in space far more advantageous.

That is a matter of opinion. I have used both extensively, and I disagree. So there.

More options=more ways for the end user to break it. That said, Explorer.exe can be edited if you REALY want it to look different.

What exactly do you mean by editing explorer.exe???

And I am aware that you can manually reorganize the Start Menu, the same way you can reorganize any linux menu. But I want a certain amount of sanity by default.

[Glorfindel]

Hex editor.

[eschwartz]

Are you actually telling me you edit explorer.exe with a hex editor to modify its functionality?
I would still like to hear more details, like for example what changes you propose making.
Also, how that ties into my stated wish for a Windows emulation of freedesktop.org launcher categorization standards, encouraging Windows application developers to place metadata in their installers to enable automatic sorting of programs into sane category-based default locations in the Start Menu.

Did you by any chance manage to hook a true AI (your own invention I assume) into explorer.exe with your trusty hex editor?

[Glorfindel]

No. I said if someone REALLY wanted to change the look they COULD. I like the default interface so why would I waste time changing it?

[eschwartz]

Very well, full points for you on the technical aspect. I'd always thought reverse-engineering a closed source monolithic application was rather more difficult than "use a hex editor", but whatever.

I am not particularly bothered by the Start Menu at least on aesthetic grounds. What bothers me (as per your quote) is the lack of a standard for categorizing stuff; no diddling with explorer.exe will fix that. I might as well just manually create new folders and shortcuts anyway.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Very well, full points for you on the technical aspect. I'd always thought reverse-engineering a closed source monolithic application was rather more difficult than "use a hex editor", but whatever.

You clearly did not attended the Monty Python School of Machine Code Development.

1. Type machine code into a hex editor.
2. Save the file
Done!

Next week, Jackie will teach us to play the flute!