It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:47 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Before posting a bug report or a feature request, search the forum for an older post on the same topic.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Not classic enough
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 5:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 5:27 am
Posts: 4
I want this to be a thing:



Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Not classic enough
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:38 am
Posts: 5326
What usability benefits does it give over the Windows 95 design? None whatsoever. You can create Explorer folders with those names and shortcuts and access them from your Desktop. So it's already there in the OS.

One of the big usability improvements with the introduction of the Start Menu in Windows 95 was that it appeared on top of everything else so you didn't have to minimize any windows. Just one click on the Start button was required and then some hovering to get to your program (if you used submenus). The Program Manager is objectively inferior: it requires far too many clicks to navigate between the various program groups with multiple overlapping windows and lots of clicks to launch anything if another program is focused.

Even the present day Explorer with its single document interface is better than Program Manager but the Start menu trumps them all.

Besides these arguments, coding another project that requires such a huge effort to pretty much do the same thing is out of the question.

_________________
Links to some general topics:

Compare Start Menus

Read the Search box usage guide.

I am a Windows enthusiast and Classic Shell tester.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Not classic enough
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 3:09 pm
Posts: 646
Gaurav wrote:
What usability benefits does it give over the Windows 95 design? None whatsoever. You can create Explorer folders with those names and shortcuts and access them from your Desktop. So it's already there in the OS.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds more like a nostalgia-driven request to me...

_________________
TILES WOOOOOO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Not classic enough
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 5:27 am
Posts: 4
Gaurav wrote:
What usability benefits does it give over the Windows 95 design?


First of all, it allows to have a window ("group") open if you use certain programs often. Another thing is that in huge menu that you need to enable scrolling for because it takes multiple columns otherwise it is advantageous to get to certain program quickly (well, quicker than if you'd have to scroll through all the items) as program groups are arranged in a grid instead of a list.

And while yes, I could open "programs" folder inside an explorer (it's a folder full of lnk files anyway, some of which are in subfolders), the Explorer has unnecessary clutter, even if you use classic explorer, namely ribbon and directory tree on the left. In short, if we'd go with Win3.11 comparisons, it's more of a Winfile.exe than Progman.exe.

Tbh, in part it is a nostalgia thing, but the reasons outlined above are more important.

Not to mention if "Classic Program Manager" would become a full-on shell replacement, this would mean saving some memory on lower-end machines. Not necessary by any means, but it'd be cool none-the-less.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Not classic enough
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:34 am
Posts: 217
If you want Program Manager, here it is: http://chorusofone.no-ip.org/Computerst ... ogman.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Not classic enough
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 5:27 am
Posts: 4
Sure, but this one is unsupported and may fail at any modern Windows since it was last updated circa windows xp. Also the instructions given are quite confusing.

No, what I want is something that would be a replacement written from scratch. I would do it myself, but unfortunately my coding skills are not there yet and can't learn necessary things to develop it myself in a reasonable amount of time (not to mention I'm kinda behind in work code too and need to catch up with that).

//edit: Emphasis mine.

Quote:
Another Note- October 24, 2010:

My mother recently bought a new laptop with Windows 7 64-bit. Program Manager works fine on it, I have not tried setting it as the default shell though. As Program Manager is a very old 32-bit program with it's own icon rendering system built in, it does not recognize icons in 64-bit exe and dll files in Windows 7, interestingly enough, though, it can read icons from 16-bit programs without any trouble.


That does throw it out the window for me completely since I use 64bit apps a lot.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group, Almsamim WYSIWYG Classic Shell © 2010-2016, Ivo Beltchev.
All right reserved.