back to article MORE Windows 10 bugs! Too many Start menu apps BREAK it

An issue with the new Windows 10 Start menu means that those with more than 512 application shortcuts will have missing entries. In Windows 10, the Start menu includes an All Apps list, which you can search for quick access to installed applications. Start menu shortcuts are still shortcut files placed in the same special …

Page:

  1. djstardust

    Ermmmmm

    Another good idea is to defer upgrading to Windows 10 until this kind of annoyance is fixed. ®

    No shit Sherlock.

    I'm laughing at all the people posting on FB that they will be upgrading this morning. Good luck (and don't phone me when it all goes titsup!)

    1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

      Re: Ermmmmm

      And it's a good idea not to venture out until terrorism and violence have been eradicated.

      Of course it's always wise to assess risks before doing anything, and there will always be bugs in Windows 10 just as there will be bugs in every other OS, but how likely are those bugs and how catastrophic is encountering them?

      It feels to me that insinuating it's a bad idea to upgrade to Windows 10 is driven by wanting to spoil the party and is mostly click-bait for those who want to push an anti-Microsoft agenda, would prefer people were not using Windows at all.

      1. nkuk

        Re: Ermmmmm

        Using your same analogy, you would have to be pretty foolish to visit a place where you already know there is a good chance of something bad happening.

        There's not a single thing in Windows10 I need to use my PC, no compelling "must have" feature, so to me it makes more sense to wait until there's an actual reason to upgrade rather than just upgrade for the sake of upgrading. Windows10 isnt a stable, reliable, OS, even hours before release it was in a state of flux with fixes (potentially causing their own issues) being added so the benefits to me nowhere near outweigh the risks.

        I have a stable system I'm happy with, forced updates are a problem waiting to happen (in fact even before release there have been major problems with NVidia drivers) so I lose nothing by waiting, I have a whole year to choose to update, I see no reason to rush in on day one.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ermmmmm

        I don't think he meant upgrading entirely, just upgrading too early. Wait for the service packs, maybe an incremental upgrade or two....

    2. qwarty

      Re: Ermmmmm

      It took 3 months from release for the Android 5.0 update to arrive on my Nexus 7 with little information in the meantime except what I could pick up from anecotal reports of show stopping bugs on forums from those who had received the update. Google themselves were silent on the issues and the exceptionally long delay.

      I expect we'll start to find out today how much better or worse Microsoft is performing on their dramatically higher and more varied installed base. I'm not starting to update, not even my test system, today. Will see what reports surface first. At least Microsoft seem to be keen on keeping users better informed on bugs.

    3. Someone Else Silver badge
      FAIL

      @ djstardust -- Re: Ermmmmm

      Another good idea is to defer upgrading to Windows 10 until this kind of annoyance is fixed

      There, FTFY

    4. RAMChYLD
      Facepalm

      Re: Ermmmmm

      But doesn't Windows 8 have the same issue? I put a plethora of dev programs on my lappy and then installed Visual Studio, and the darn shortcut isn't showing up in the start screen even though checking the start menu folder shows that it's there. I was in fact hoping that the problem would go away with Win10...

  2. Zog_but_not_the_first
    Holmes

    "people posting on FB that they will be upgrading"

    As night follows day...

    1. Paul J Turner

      Re: "people posting on FB that they will be upgrading"

      If we don't hear from them that there were big problems, we can assume that's because there were? ;-)

  3. JP19

    I have 600

    I have 520 in all users start menu and 80 in the user start menu and I'm rather careful about not installing crap I don't use on this PC. I also don't much use links to documents in the start menu.

    What kind of idiot coded a 512 limit, and coded an ugly fail when the limit is exceeded?

    How the did this not show up in testing or is it a new fail?

    1. Paul Shirley

      Re: I have 600

      As the fanbois keep telling us, no one has more than a dozen apps they use regularly. 512 is infinity in the Win10 world.

      1. Terry 6 Silver badge

        Re: I have 600

        It becomes very finite when the installer writes a link to the actual programme, another to the software options menu, another to the uninstaller and another to "xprogramme on the web".

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: I have 600

          Not sure about the latest versions but Office and Visual Studio have written a shitload of entries in their time.

          I initially thought the article meant TIFKAM apps only, in which case the array could be a fixed size which only covers the initial app count for all I care because I'm not installing any other app on it. When I finally am forced to use it.

    2. joed

      Re: I have 600

      How the heck. 600? That start screen/menu has to be scrolled for an hour. Live tiles on and all that your pc did is refreshing tiles.

      Is this everything they had in the "Store";)

      1. JP19

        Re: I have 600

        "start screen/menu has to be scrolled for an hour"

        I use classic shell on Win 7 and the top level of the start menu is about 110 items and occupies one and a half vertical columns of my 2560x1600 screen.

    3. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: I have 600

      "How the did this not show up in testing or is it a new fail?"

      It could easily have survived the whole beta program unless someone explicitly tests for it.

      Most beta testers are smart enough not to use their main machine as a test box. I've been running the beta on a variety of boxes, but all of them disposable and I haven't installed a full complement of apps on any of them. I'd guess also that 512 is significantly above the average -- probably several standard deviations above. It's well beyond what most of us would regard as a realistic number of installed apps, even allowing for several shortcuts per product.

      (Then again, Trevor's just told us he has 4000 tabs open in his browser. I wonder where that lies in the distribution. My first reaction was "is that even possible?" but on a 64-bit machine it probably is. (On a 32-bit kernel I think you'd start to run out of threads or processes.))

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I have 600

        Easily possible if you never close any tabs and that's when having 32GB of RAM actually comes in handy!

    4. Someone Else Silver badge
      Coat

      @JP19 -- Re: I have 600

      What kind of idiot coded a 512 limit, and coded an ugly fail when the limit is exceeded?

      The kind that work for Microsoft.

      1. rtb61

        Re: @JP19 -- I have 600

        This seems more like a management plan. That limit had to be coded in and is not by accident, unlimited is the logically size bound to memory capacity and other much larger limits. Basically M$ hate the start menu and purposefully borked it. They want the program search because each program search also triggers an idiot 'BING' search guaranteeing them more hits to sell to advertisers.

        So they tried it on to force program search to see if they could get away with it, likely windows 10 is full of crap like this waiting to be discovered.

        1. Timmy B

          Re: @JP19 -- I have 600

          I agree. As a developer I often have stupid limits like that imposed on me no matter how much I hate it. You can't simply ignore what your managers say - even if you think you know better.

        2. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: @JP19 -- I have 600

          No, it's not that. Having more than 512 entries also borks searching from the start menu.

    5. Just Enough

      Re: I have 600

      But you only need two links. One for "Edge", and one for MS Office.

      Any more than that and you are using Windows in a non-approved manner, and obviously up to no good.

    6. Lee D Silver badge

      Re: I have 600

      I have over 1000 entries, including folders however, if I count everything in my Start Menu and All Users Start Menu.

      My menu, however, looks pristine and happily fits on a 1600 x 900 screen. It's called folder organisation, people.

      Accessories, Administrative Tools, Games, Hardware, Internet, Multimedia, Office, Startup, Utilities.

      Inside each, more sub-folders (e.g. Multimedia contains Graphics, Music, etc.). Every program no more than 3-4 key presses away. Don't need no damn search to find anything, it's all there in categories. Classic Shell start menu to make it look like the menus of old (and search, if I ever need it and get rid of the Metro junk). And 99.99% (literally) of my games are not in Games, because they're all in Steam / GOG Galaxy / etc. and don't need extra specific icons for every damn one of them. Desktop contains 6 icons. But start menu has over 1000 files, easy.

      I will test in work but I know that the default image has something like 100 folders on the start menu, under various categories, and each probably has three or so icons on average. Quite possibly I have over 500 shortcuts just in a standard roll-out image of Windows 8.

      Whoever coded this literally could not have tested it on any existing system that's been upgraded, or on any system that gets actual day-to-day use. Hell, what's the standard Microsoft set of software to test against before a release? You're telling me that they don't have a list of 100 or more of the most popular apps that they have to install and test individually before any RTM version of Windows?

    7. John Tserkezis

      Re: I have 600

      "What kind of idiot coded a 512 limit, and coded an ugly fail when the limit is exceeded?"

      Bill Gates? He's been known for sprouting ideas like that before, maybe he has more of an influence than we thought?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I have 600

        "Nobody could possibly use more than 640K of memory"

        1. Fluffy Cactus

          Re: I have 600

          If I remember right, Billy boy said back then "640K of memory ought to be enough for everybody". Which is right up their with the famous IBM prognosis that went somewhat like "There is a market for may be 50 to 100 so-called personal computers, so we won't invest in that.."

          Funny, that a 512 limit would crop up again. The whole thing with the "512 limit" does remind me of the movie "The Andromeda Strain" (after the book by Michael Crichton) that came out in 1971. That was a cool movie. Awesome. Weird virus from outer space kills villagers by turning their blood into a dry corn-flake crunchy red substance. But the "US scientists" had a lab, where they did scientific research to kill the virus, and in that lab they had "computers", and those computers had an "aura of never-failing utterly fantastic scientific exactitude and invincible amazement". These computers had a working memory of 512K, and if you went beyond that, it would stop and "beep and blink an ominous neon green 512K" on the screen (both the computer and the movie screen) accompanied by scary creepy movie music, as if a "the freakishly holy limit of 512K meant that the problem was insolvable" as well as "that the computer had crashed!". And the movie actually ended on one of these "512K blinkies" and left you scared of outer space viruses, inadequate science, and what not. In 1971 Bill Gates was, uhm (thanks Google-Siri-Cortana) 16 years old. Meanwhile, today, computers and operating systems have an "aura of never ending utterly fantastic bugs and more trouble than you can shake a stick at".

          Plus the "endlessly pliable changeable promising attributes of software" have been turned into an eternal "my MSFT, Adobe, Oracle, IBM, etc software is cast in stone, and it does not play well with others", and if you don't like it, go away or pay me the big bucks.

          1. Richard Plinston

            Re: I have 600

            > Which is right up their with the famous IBM prognosis that went somewhat like "There is a market for may be 50 to 100 so-called personal computers, so we won't invest in that.."

            Completely untrue. IBM had 'personal computers' before the 'IBM 5150 PC': The 5120 and 5130. They also had the System 23 Displaywriter on which the IBM PC was based. They developed the PC because they noticed Apple II* in their mainframe sites running Visicalc and CP/M (on Z80 Softcards) with Wordstar and other software. They designed their PC to be just a bit better than the Apple II: same cassette interface, 160Kb diskettes instead of 120Kb, same BASIC in ROM, CP/M clone PC-DOS, Wordstar, Visicalc, Peach, etc.

            They also added terminal facilities (which is why the serial ports are DTE instead of DCE*) and there were versions with mainframe emulation borads.

            The intended market was mainframe sites to keep Apple (and others) out. The market there was seen as 20,000 to 50,000. It may be true that initially they did not intend to broaden their customer base by selling 5150s outside existing IBM sites, but dealers and resellers did.

            * DTE is Data Terminal Equipment. Most mini and micro computers at the type had their serial ports configured as DCE - Data Communications Equipment, to which serial terminals were connected (eg ADM-3a). Hence the IBM PC was configured to _be_ a terminal.

            * The Apple II was advertised as 'Personal Computer' in 1978.

    8. Adam 1

      Re: I have 600

      Also, 2^9? Really? You could kinda understand some numpty using the wrong type and ending up with a 256 limit. 512 is quite creative though.

    9. Phil Kingston

      Re: I have 600

      In the months of running the Technical Preview on a daily driver, I think I only opened up the Start menu once. It's only been put back to placate those who fear change. The other methods of interacting with the OS are, once mastered, better.

    10. N2

      Re: I have 600

      Perhaps it's a hang up from the days of '640Kb ought to be enough for anybody' ?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The cascade of bugs just keeps on flowing.

    Smug mode as I'm sticking with the nice and stable W7 for the next 5 years.

    1. Michael Habel

      The cascade of bugs just keeps on flowing.

      Smug mode as I'm sticking with the nice and stable W7 for the next 5 years.

      You, and every right minded thinker on this Site.... You'd have to be more daft then a brush to jump from Windows 7, to Windows (OS)X this point. But I would love to see some Tech Sites actually give a decent review of the pros & cons of this new OS... And if a jump in the interim should be possibly considered or no.

      But, my biggest gripe with Windows (OS)X would be the enforced updates... I don't much care for that. Not one little bit...

  5. OliverJ
    FAIL

    512 apps ought to be enough for anybody...!

    Move along folks nothing to see here.

    1. Grikath

      Re: 512 apps ought to be enough for anybody...!

      But people only ever use 10 at most...

      The Internet

      Email

      Facebook

      Game *7 (of which half is rarely ever used)

    2. Someone Else Silver badge
      Facepalm

      @OliverJ -- Re: 512 apps ought to be enough for anybody...!

      512 apps ought to be enough for anybody...!

      What manner of moron are you? Probably the same manner of moron that smugly stated that 640K would be all the memory anybody would ever need.

      Hint: Were that to be true, you would not be reading this post, nor would I be reading yours!

      1. VinceH
        Facepalm

        Re: @OliverJ -- 512 apps ought to be enough for anybody...!

        "What manner of moron are you?"

        I suspect the manner of moron that isn't a moron at all. He probably said that in jest, as a deliberate play on the old 640K quote.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @OliverJ -- 512 apps ought to be enough for anybody...!

          People who don't understand irony or sarcasm are the leading cause of internet discussion derailment.

          OK, second leading, after people who can't spell and/or have poor grammar and those who feel a unquenchable need to correct those people.

          1. Rich 11

            Re: @OliverJ -- 512 apps ought to be enough for anybody...!

            'an unquenchable'

            You're welcome. ;-)

  6. Terry 6 Silver badge

    Decisions

    What kind of idiot coded a 512 limit, and coded an ugly fail when the limit is exceeded?

    Forty years doing various jobs as a trainer, user, and support.

    And I can't think of a year when I haven't come across some sort of design decision that seems bound to cause far more trouble than it's worth - leading to the inevitable "Why did they do that" cry.

    1. DrXym

      Re: Decisions

      I expect it's one of those things which has a rational explanation even if doesn't seem so on the surface. e.g. perhaps to maintain responsiveness they cache info on up to 512 tiles and nobody tested the boundary condition and so it blew up.

      1. Steve Evans

        Re: Decisions

        It's got to be something like that DrXym... Nobody in their right mind would define a DB field as 9 bit unsigned (or 10 bit signed)...

        Then again, they might not be in their right mind!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Decisions

          "It's got to be something like that DrXym... Nobody in their right mind would define a DB field as 9 bit unsigned (or 10 bit signed)...

          Then again, they might not be in their right mind!"

          -----------------------------------------------

          Wow just wow, calling an unknown programmer an idiot, with a completely dumb explanation!

          way to go!!!

          or were you just proving you know binary bit lengths?

          As it's windows its more likely to be an array of objects! with the array limited in size!

          mentioning DB fields is just stupidity.

          1. Timmy B

            Re: Decisions

            I see 2 other people actually have an understanding of development.... <sigh>

  7. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Good ol' Microsoft -

    640Kb is enough for anyone

    512 apps is enough for anyone

    ...

    1. Lost In Clouds of Data
      Stop

      Except that that '640K' quote that's been attributed to Bill has never ever been verified. Not one single citation exists that can categorically confirm he stated it, just a huge amount of Internet lore that's been built up where other people have quoted it and attributed it to Billy Boy.

      It's time to let it die (though I'm under no illusions whatsoever that it will given that it just sounds soooo good).

      1. MacroRodent
        Holmes

        the 640k quote

        just a huge amount of Internet lore

        I seem to remember hearing about it long before everyone and his dog started using the Internet. I think it is a real quote (probably taken out of context, or distorted), but the original exists only on paper in some computer magazine from the early 1980's.

        1. Jediben

          Re: the 640k quote

          Come on Jake, tell us the story about that time you and Bill were kayaking on Mars and you told him that his first suggestion of 320kb wasn't enough and that he should double it...

          1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

            Re: the 640k quote

            Ironically enough, Bill's company went on to produce a real-mode memory manager for Windows that blew the 640K limit away (even on machines with only 1MB of installed memory) at a cost of only one tenth of that space (if memory serves me, the original KERNEL.EXE was a few dozen kilobytes). You didn't even need a 286. You just needed to be very patient.

            So maybe this hypothetical billg should have stuck to his guns on 320KB and used the extra space to run a proper OS kernel. But then, that would have meant finding one that he could re-badge in time. (Not to pour scorn on Bill's own programming talents, but it is well-known that he just said "yes" to IBM and *then* had just a week or two to actually come up with an OS.)

            1. thames

              Re: the 640k quote

              @Ken Hagan - "Ironically enough, Bill's company went on to produce a real-mode memory manager for Windows that blew the 640K limit away"

              There were several "extended" and "expanded" (two different things by the way) memory managers by various companies. However, they all had severe limitations compared to simply having a 32 bit address space. With some, they just swapped programs in and out of "low" memory. With others, they just swapped data in and out of "low" memory, and they had to be specially written to do this.

              I wrote a program for a company that used one of these in order to have more data space for large numerical arrays. Each array had to fit into "low" memory to be worked on, and the various arrays had to be manually swapped between high and low memory. Obviously I couldn't have an individual array which was larger than would fit into low memory, and the low memory had to shared with the quite large program had to all fit in low memory as well. It was a major pain the arse to program, although to the users it just looked like there was lots of data in RAM.

              Memory for program code wasn't the big issue in those days, since we had overlays (although designing your program to work with overlays was an issue). The big issue was having enough RAM to hold data. There was a big market for add-on expanded memory boards in order to use very large Lotus 123 spreadsheets on an 8088. Lotus had to be written to be able to use those boards, which swapped data in and out of regular RAM rather like a swap partition does (although with the application doing the swapping, rather than the OS).

              By the time 32bit hardware and 32 bit MS-Windows was available and practical in the PC world, things were long overdue for a change. Going from 32 bit to 64 bit was no big deal by comparison.

            2. Richard Plinston

              Re: the 640k quote

              > Ironically enough, Bill's company went on to produce a real-mode memory manager for Windows that blew the 640K limit away

              Microsoft may well have written one but it was by no means the first to do this, nor the best. The mechanisms had been used for years with 8085, Z80 and 6502 CPUs. For example I have a machine here with an 8085AH2 '8bit' CPU with 512Kb RAM - 256Kb for OS and programs, 256Kb for a RAM disk running MP/M II.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like