One of the changes to Vista in terms of user interface has been the start menu. It's been entirely redone, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It takes up more screen real estate, but that also means it can show you more information.
One change which I really like is that by default, it shows you a list of your most recently run applications. This is really handy for me since I tend to run the same apps over and over again, which means I have quicker access to them than I have before. For instance, to run REALbasic 2006r4, in XP I'd have to click Start, go to Programs, wait for it to expand, go to REAL Software, wait for it to expand, go to REALbasic 2006r4, wait for it to expand and then launch the app. In Vista, I click Start and go to REALbasic 2006r4 since it's on my recent lists. It's a nice time-saver.
However, one thing which bothers me about the new start menu is that you have to click a lot more to navigate your way around in it for things which are not on the recent items list. To address this, the MS Shell team has said "but you just need to use the search box, which has the focus by default -- it's faster." So I decided I'd give this approach a shot. I'm always interested in faster, but I was a bit skeptical.
So I picked two applications off the top of my head MS Paint and Free Cell.
So I hit my Windows key to bring up the start menu:
Then I typed MS Paint:
Oops, that's right -- it's just called Paint nowadays (my old Windows 3.1 habits are hard to break, I guess). So then I type Paint:
Alright, time to try Free Cell:
Arg!! Fine, try it without the spaces:
You may think these are contrived examples, but they literally were the first two things I tried. And they exemplify why I thought the shell team was off the mark. Search certainly can be faster. For instance, it's a breeze to find REALbasic by just typing in "REALbasic" (however, typing in "real basic" I got no relevant results) -- no huge number of clicks to master. However, there are certain things which make search slower.
- Not everyone remembers the exact way to spell a program's name. And as you can see, small mistakes which a human can easily understand and correct provide impossible lists of nonsensical options when you ask a computer. Typing in "Free Cell" instead of "FreeCell" is an honest mistake, and nowhere on that list was what I was looking for.
- Spelling mistakes are slow and costly, not only because you have to correct them, but because the list automatically updates as you type. This is both a blessing and a curse. My typing is usually very good, but because I am using a PS/2 keyboard via a PS/2->USB converter over a KVM switch, there are times when I out-type the buffer and lose key strokes. And before you say "but you're situation is one in a million, Aaron" you should realize that with a market the size of Microsoft's, one in a million means that thousands of people are annoyed by this very same thing.
I applaud the shell team for trying out new user interfaces to improve the experiences of all varieties of users. However, I don't think the start menu is quite there yet. The sanctioned "better" way to do things for power users can still be problematic. This wouldn't be such a bother, but there's no way to go back to the "XP style" of Start menu. It's either the classic variety, or the Vista variety. Unfortunately, it's the XP variety which a lot of power users have gotten used to.
My verdict on the new Start menu is that it's pretty darned good, but still needs a little bit of polish. For instance, by making the searching mechanism a bit smarter, then my complaints could be entirely eradicated. The search functionality to find applications is a good power feature, it just needs to be improved before it can be promoted as the "better" way to do things.
How did it get "win32windows.cpp" out of "MS Paint"?
Probably because the file contained MS and Paint in its text somewhere. And the double comments (which I removed) are because my hosting service sucks wank.
See the Recent Items menu in Mac OS X. It lists recently used applications and files. If you want to type in the program name instead, there's LaunchBar or the free Quicksilver. You sure get excited about little things. ;-)
I'm not excited as in "oh my gods, look at how innovate Microsoft is." Heck, Linux has had this for a decade, so it's not like this is something Apple innovated either.
I'm just talking about the problems with search not being up to snuff yet. Not everyone recalls the exact spelling of an application's name, and the inline search appears to require perfection, which isn't as helpful as it could be.
Don't get me started on the Mac way of discovering what applications are on a system. Windows has had the Mac beat for that form of discovery since Windows 95.
Look on a bright side: at least you're not back in the days of the room-sized computer - imagine doing such a search on one of those!
Apple has had recents in the OS for nearly as long as I've been using it (since 1990) It showed up in late System 6 or early system 7 builds
As for finding applications find all items that are of type application.
Command-F select kind application.
How do you do it ?
This haas been around a long time even on classic Mac OS
Of course you knew that :)
I must agree with Scott. I've started using QuickSilver, and love it. I've put it on all my Macs.
I haven't gotten around to installing RC2 of Vista yet. I think the problems I'm having with it is because I'm using the 64-bit version. *cough* VNC *cough*
@Norman -- Simple, I go Start->Programs and they're listed for me to pick from. Rather intuitive, dontcha think? No hunting around the file system, no searching... just a nice list.
Almost as intuitive as the thing in the Finder called "Applications"
Hunting around the file system ? Do you do that to find and run an app ?
That's like going to My Computer > C:\ > Program Files and locating the one you want to launch it. Or roughly that.
Apple has recommended to developers since System 7 or 8 that they put Applications in the Applications directory usually on the boot hard drive. It's 2 clicks in OS X to get there (one to bring up a Finder Window and one to click on the Applications sidebar item which is set up by default) About as difficult as navigating the Start Menu
And if you happen to want you can drag the Applications folder to the dock (and have both the Finder sidebar and the dock) and get at all your apps from either just by clicking on it and navigating the menu.
Or add it to a Finder Windows Toolbar at the top.
Or use all these interchangeably based on where your mouse is closest to like on a dual screen setup.
On XP my Start menu pretty much fills my screen when I pop it up I have so many programs installed. It is slow to open the list (it seem like it's not cached at all) and awful to navigate that enormous menu. Of all the UI things I dislike about Windows that one is certainly high on my list.
And, my favourite, is that I have programs that are NOT listed despite having been installed with an installer or Windows. YAY !!!!!!!!! Now where did that get put ? And what damned name is it ? Wanna go spelunking to find it ?
Some apps are in "Program Files" and some aren't. And DON'T try to move some that are not in there as they'll break the moment you do becuase the registry has all the program parameters stored in it and moving it will break everything and you'll have to edit the registry with ... oh .... that MS tool that is NOT listed in the Start Menu - regedit - :)
Note how many other program in the Windows directories are not listed.
The Windows Genuine Advantage checker is on mine machine but not in the Start Menu.
Apple has it's fair share of stupid things but I certainly would not hold the Windows "Start Menu" up as anything great. It works up to a point to simplify things for folks but it breaks down as the 'list of all applications" pretty quickly (especially since it does not list them all)
ok, of and for the record, isn't Quicksilver and Launchbar shareware apps NOT included with the OS? If so, why are we comparing something built into an OS with something that's not?
BTW, what's with all of this Mac stuff on Aaron's site lately?
I very much agree with your assessment of the vista start menu, and if only there were a way to enable out-expanding menus without some registry hack, i'd have no problems with it. the power buttons got to me at first as well, until I found out their functionality could be changed in the power settings control panel.
I'm confused what apple has to do with this. it figures that some other OS would have to be dragged in for a comparison war. christ.