The title should be "if you fear change, you will hate Windows 7". Holy shit, no Run command (which barely anybody uses) and no default Desktop icons (which are just superfluous next to the start menu)?! WHATEVER WILL I DO!??!
It's people like this Jason character, who feel all change is either (a) bad or (b) simply for the sake of change, who completely hinder innovation. If he wants Windows to "not change anything" then he should keep using XP and stop trying to provide any sort of analysis of something he is so entirely biased against.
At least the author of the actual article gave some relevant information.
It is the installed base that is the double-edged sword hanging over any successful large-scale software product; both its greatest strength, and its greatest weakness.
In particular, the desire to maintain installed-base compatibility runs contrary to the need to make significant changes.
And even if the organization's software engineering practices and UI designs are excellent, significant changes inherently bring incompatibilities and broken applications.
The bigger and more successful your application gets, the tougher the problem.
I remember people complaining similarly when Windows 95 came out. People were happy with Windows 3.1 and many didn't want to learn the new metaphors in 95 (which have stuck right up until XP). People not wanting to leave the 95->XP way of doing things are just as luddite as those who wanted to stick with 3.1.
All I use in Windows is the Run command. All I use in Linux is the similar feature. If I can't run a program I need in one line, I add it to the path or create a shortcut in the existing path.
Why in the world would they take this out!? Can someone confirm/deny this?
What? This is totally false. Windows 7 is a great step forward from Vista. They have removed all of the crap that was bloating the OS and pissing off people who like XP. It's the XPificiation of Vista, and they managed to pull it off.
They made changes to the UI that I think, after using Beta 1 for a few days, are in the right direction. It's still Windows, of course, and it has some weird quirks, but it's still beta.
The point of this article is that one of the problems with Vista and now Windows 7 is that people were so used to the XP way of doing things, even if the XP way was stupid or unintuitive. If you take some time to learn the new UI it's a lot better. Same with Office 2007, the old Office menu system was horrible unless you knew exactly where everything was, whereas with the Ribbon/Fluent UI most of the time it adapts for the specific features you are currently using.
XPification is a stupid analogy because XP was just a paint-job on 2k to make it palatable for non-business users. Most of the people who "like" XP are just too used to it; XP was the longest running consumer version of Windows (skipping Server 2k3) and probably the first consumer version that wasn't horribly crash-prone. A few are annoyed at the increased resource usage but don't realize how much hardware specs have increased in the 5 years between XP and Vista; using the Moore's Law rule of thumb specs should have increased by over 8x so it makes sense that it uses more resources as appropriate.
Windows 7 seems to combine the relative modularity of XP with the ability to quickly access storage and transfer data, as evidenced by this informal benchmark:
I find it interesting that TFA is a response to someone harping on about the changes being made. I can see both sides of it in that there's obviously a need to provide an improved experience and at the same time reduce complexity, yet people want 'different but the same'.
The interesting thing I find about TFA though is that the arguments he's coming up with in favour of Windows 7 are all similar to the things that have been present in Linux and OSX for a while. The switch to Visa/Win7 from XP is significant in terms of experience, it's so significant that the switch to OSX/Linux may be less so for some users. I get the impression though that if Microsoft had a carbon copy of Ubuntu or OSX's desktop the guy in TFA would still be singing its praises.
The final and insuperable issue that drove me from Windows Vista to Linux a year-and-a-half ago was Windows Explorer doing away with the incredibly-useful "up" button in favor of breadcrumbs.
Yes, I understand how breadcrumbs works and I am aware of how to use it. However, what I wish to click on is always changing positions, its length varies, and is sometimes not even there at all.
Without an "up" button, I will never use Windows 7.
(And no, before someone even brings it up, the "up" and back button DO NOT do the same thing. Most of the time, yes -- but not always. Check it yourself on XP.)
"The final and insuperable issue that drove me from Windows Vista to Linux a year-and-a-half ago was Windows Explorer doing away with the incredibly-useful "up" button in favor of breadcrumbs."
They seemed to go out of their way to hide or remove useful info. Free disk space on drive? Not an easy thing to see.
Consistent, full-detailed file listings? No matter what I do, Vista will eventual decide that (this8 folder needs to not show size or last modified info.
And what's with search not showing the actual file location by default?
The keyboard shortcut Alt-up moves you up the folder hierarchy on Vista. When I discovered that, I no longer cared that the up arrow button is gone in Vista. Very handy.
I like the fact it is search reliant, figure after you make you might like losing the other clutter.. Windows 7 looks good so far; I really hope microsoft advances in user experience not becuase I like them but becuase so many people use them
i seem to recall there being a setting in windows xp to make your windows and start menu and other things have a "classic" look. isn't there something similar in windows 7 that offers this? it sounds like such a feature would have eliminated a lot of the problems this guy's colleague was complaining about.
maybe just ask the user at first boot whether they want the new windows 7 look or an old classic view, setting default preferences accordingly. make the new mode look really appealing and tell the user what new features they'll get, and discourage the old "classic" mode and make it seem old and clunky, but let the user decide.
It's not really years away. It's basically a re-branding of Vista with some tweaks thrown in. Microsoft has even stated they are really pushing to get it out the door since so many people have developed a strange aversion to the word "Vista".
The simple reality (IMHO of course) is that people have always used Windows because it was "what everyone uses" and "what the office uses" and "what my software runs on". If you see it from this perspective, the people who wanted something different have already left to some flavor of UNIX or Mac, so those remaining are looking after their cognitive investment in having learned XP.
When you think about it, its amazing that Microsoft continues to sell Windows at all. Software is free to copy (should the medium break) and never wears out, so if you have purchased and operating system and are happy with it, why should you ever pay for another one?
I've been fascinated with Microsoft defenders (fan boys? lackeys? towel boys?) for years, since they seem to gain nothing by promoting the status quo (except for those whose job is subsidized by Microsoft). So, that everyone has bought a copy of Windows XP, why Microsoft should continue to make revenue?
Also, can we please make Linux (or maybe Haiku) a viable desktop OS? While I don't mind paying Apple a premium for their OS, it must be more efficient overall to have a non-profit develop a free OS once. Most new OS features at this point are marginally useful eye candy.
I think it is not so simple. It is not enough to have a good OS. In my opinion, what Linux needs from now is:
- a stardardization of APIs (drivers, UI, etc...)
- stardard technologies (such as C#, C++)
- a very good development environment such as Visual Studio
- very good documentation
- show the world how to earn money using this
The wide audience needs straight ways to do things because most people like to execute, not to decide.
I am somewhat of an MS fanboy, I guess, because the work they put into their operating system allows me to game. Which is a significant hobby of mine. Makes it hard for me to develop too much of a bias against them, that is, unless someone comes up with a viable alternative.
Personally I think Linux is a viable desktop OS for many people. It has been my desktop for about seven years. I have moved two very non-geek users to it in the last two years and they are both quite happy too.
MS defenders vary. Some have invested time learning MS technologies. Others worship wealth and success. Others have simply had bad luck with other OSes and have lost interest in trying again.
"...people have always used Windows because it was \"what everyone uses\""
That doesn't make any sense. Obviously there was a time when nobody used Windows, so what made them buy it before it was "what everyone uses"?
"When you think about it, its amazing that Microsoft continues to sell Windows at all....why should you ever pay for another one?"
You're amazed at this? Really? After thinking about it? Do you ask yourself things like "why do we have Automobiles when a Horse and Buggy is good enough"? Obviously, improvements are made and that's why people buy new versions of things.
"I've been fascinated with Microsoft defenders...for years, since they seem to gain nothing by promoting the status quo..."
And I'm fascinated by people like yourself who are so completely out of touch with reality that you actually believe your own bullshit. The status quo is kept alive because Microsoft has the best tools for business and enterprise. Other outfits have a few pieces of the puzzle, but Microsoft's got them ALL (good desktop, good server, good developer tools and API's).
Windows has been built to be easily and centrally managed for sys-admins since the days of NT. Linux on the other side has been built modularly and to be absolutely hackable to anyone with a root/admin-account.
There is no question what I would prefer to manage. You underestimate the power of Active Directory and Group policies.
[+] [-] tdavis|17 years ago|reply
It's people like this Jason character, who feel all change is either (a) bad or (b) simply for the sake of change, who completely hinder innovation. If he wants Windows to "not change anything" then he should keep using XP and stop trying to provide any sort of analysis of something he is so entirely biased against.
At least the author of the actual article gave some relevant information.
[+] [-] Hoff|17 years ago|reply
In particular, the desire to maintain installed-base compatibility runs contrary to the need to make significant changes.
And even if the organization's software engineering practices and UI designs are excellent, significant changes inherently bring incompatibilities and broken applications.
The bigger and more successful your application gets, the tougher the problem.
[+] [-] petercooper|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mnemonik|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] creativeembassy|17 years ago|reply
Why in the world would they take this out!? Can someone confirm/deny this?
[+] [-] antidaily|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Raphael|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dcurtis|17 years ago|reply
They made changes to the UI that I think, after using Beta 1 for a few days, are in the right direction. It's still Windows, of course, and it has some weird quirks, but it's still beta.
[+] [-] iofthestorm|17 years ago|reply
XPification is a stupid analogy because XP was just a paint-job on 2k to make it palatable for non-business users. Most of the people who "like" XP are just too used to it; XP was the longest running consumer version of Windows (skipping Server 2k3) and probably the first consumer version that wasn't horribly crash-prone. A few are annoyed at the increased resource usage but don't realize how much hardware specs have increased in the 5 years between XP and Vista; using the Moore's Law rule of thumb specs should have increased by over 8x so it makes sense that it uses more resources as appropriate.
[+] [-] mattmaroon|17 years ago|reply
And the thought of Vista's UI with XP's responsiveness makes me pretty excited for 7.
[+] [-] bayareaguy|17 years ago|reply
There isn't anything for Windows 7 in the relevent section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Microsoft_Windows...
[+] [-] svjunkie|17 years ago|reply
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236
I haven't taken a look yet, but it seems promising. Is this going to keep Windows competitive with OS X?
[+] [-] wizlb|17 years ago|reply
I think you got that backwards. Windows is the one with 90% of the market share. OSuX will be playing catchup for a long, long time.
[+] [-] mnemonik|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _b8r0|17 years ago|reply
The interesting thing I find about TFA though is that the arguments he's coming up with in favour of Windows 7 are all similar to the things that have been present in Linux and OSX for a while. The switch to Visa/Win7 from XP is significant in terms of experience, it's so significant that the switch to OSX/Linux may be less so for some users. I get the impression though that if Microsoft had a carbon copy of Ubuntu or OSX's desktop the guy in TFA would still be singing its praises.
[+] [-] quoderat|17 years ago|reply
Yes, I understand how breadcrumbs works and I am aware of how to use it. However, what I wish to click on is always changing positions, its length varies, and is sometimes not even there at all.
Without an "up" button, I will never use Windows 7.
(And no, before someone even brings it up, the "up" and back button DO NOT do the same thing. Most of the time, yes -- but not always. Check it yourself on XP.)
[+] [-] jamesbritt|17 years ago|reply
They seemed to go out of their way to hide or remove useful info. Free disk space on drive? Not an easy thing to see.
Consistent, full-detailed file listings? No matter what I do, Vista will eventual decide that (this8 folder needs to not show size or last modified info.
And what's with search not showing the actual file location by default?
[+] [-] anirbas|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtw|17 years ago|reply
it's very quicksliver-like, with minimalistic ui. hope this isn't just a skin over vista, but a real overhaul/decrapifying process by MS
[+] [-] briansmith|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redorb|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] there|17 years ago|reply
maybe just ask the user at first boot whether they want the new windows 7 look or an old classic view, setting default preferences accordingly. make the new mode look really appealing and tell the user what new features they'll get, and discourage the old "classic" mode and make it seem old and clunky, but let the user decide.
[+] [-] dcurtis|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmars232|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] henryl|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shiranaihito|17 years ago|reply
Let's just wait and see what Microsoft actually delivers, and hope that the whole world will have moved on to Linux and OS X before that.
Don't forget that Microsoft has a proven track record of being rotten to the core.
[+] [-] Goronmon|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ynniv|17 years ago|reply
When you think about it, its amazing that Microsoft continues to sell Windows at all. Software is free to copy (should the medium break) and never wears out, so if you have purchased and operating system and are happy with it, why should you ever pay for another one?
I've been fascinated with Microsoft defenders (fan boys? lackeys? towel boys?) for years, since they seem to gain nothing by promoting the status quo (except for those whose job is subsidized by Microsoft). So, that everyone has bought a copy of Windows XP, why Microsoft should continue to make revenue?
Also, can we please make Linux (or maybe Haiku) a viable desktop OS? While I don't mind paying Apple a premium for their OS, it must be more efficient overall to have a non-profit develop a free OS once. Most new OS features at this point are marginally useful eye candy.
[+] [-] Gilson_Silveira|17 years ago|reply
The wide audience needs straight ways to do things because most people like to execute, not to decide.
[+] [-] Goronmon|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] graemep|17 years ago|reply
MS defenders vary. Some have invested time learning MS technologies. Others worship wealth and success. Others have simply had bad luck with other OSes and have lost interest in trying again.
[+] [-] wizlb|17 years ago|reply
That doesn't make any sense. Obviously there was a time when nobody used Windows, so what made them buy it before it was "what everyone uses"?
"When you think about it, its amazing that Microsoft continues to sell Windows at all....why should you ever pay for another one?"
You're amazed at this? Really? After thinking about it? Do you ask yourself things like "why do we have Automobiles when a Horse and Buggy is good enough"? Obviously, improvements are made and that's why people buy new versions of things.
"I've been fascinated with Microsoft defenders...for years, since they seem to gain nothing by promoting the status quo..."
And I'm fascinated by people like yourself who are so completely out of touch with reality that you actually believe your own bullshit. The status quo is kept alive because Microsoft has the best tools for business and enterprise. Other outfits have a few pieces of the puzzle, but Microsoft's got them ALL (good desktop, good server, good developer tools and API's).
[+] [-] trezor|17 years ago|reply
There is no question what I would prefer to manage. You underestimate the power of Active Directory and Group policies.