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.
Err, if you noticed he linked to the "Jason character's" blog post about Windows 7 and the guy himself was pretty active in the comments on that article (jperlow).
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?
I can confirm that the article has step-by-step instructions for enabling the run command if you really need it, as well as the global key combination to open the dialog.
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.
This is what I don't get. Why should I have to retrain my fingers to justify Microsoft's UI designers' salaries? I don't mind for myself, but I dread having to teach my parents every time, especially when I don't use the operating system myself.
Yes, you should be willing to explore new interactions as computing power increases. Many advances made over the years were due to such increases in computing power. Take for example: the mouse, the windowing UI, desktop search, and spatial navigation (this one hasn't really happened yet). Each item on that list required more power than was available to the previous OS iteration. Are you suggesting that this progression has stopped and our "WIMP" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIMP_(computing)) paradigm is the ultimate interaction with our computer?
I'm not saying that Windows 7 is leaps and bounds better than XP, but essentially that's the argument you are making. Or did I miss something?
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?
I'm fairly certain the first is an option you can show and I know for a fact that file listing are customizable under Windows Explorer. Not sure about the second. I don't have Vista in front of me to check.
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.
Why is it amazing? It's a one-checkbox option to get rid of 10 years of candyland-style aesthetic mistakes. The underlying OS has nothing to do with transparent windows and pastels.
For 99% of users, the OS is the transparent windows and colors and user flow.
No one cares about the "underlying OS" as long as the experience of using it is good.
The reason I think it's amazing is because they have managed to add all of the new effects/colors/transitions in Vista/xp/7 while maintaining compatibility with a UI that is ten years old.
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".
like with communistic propaganda - people are having weird problems not a political system that doesn't work.
Or as Easter Germany chief of communist party said in the 50s - "The Party is really disappointed with the people in this country". If M$ is disappointed with their customers reactions to their flaky products - let M$ got to hell.
You're right, I should have realized we won't have to wait for years for it. Microsoft certainly is in a bit of a hurry.
But since it's going to be a re-branding of Vista, why should anyone - especially HN - be excited about it?
It bothers me in general that hackers, 'morally enlightened' people, are excitedly discussing Microsoft, a morally corrupt company, and their offerings.
Remember that thing where Microsoft had bribed countries/companies to vote for OOXML to get it ratified by ISO?
- Maybe a month after that, it was like it never even happened. Hackers were talking about being interviewed by Microsoft, excited about a chance to work there, and so on..
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.
I think that this use falls into the "my software works on it camp". Am I correct in saying that a new Microsoft OS that is orders of magnitude easier to use would be useless to you if your games didn't run?
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.
I've had a lot of luck moving "non-geek" users to Linux. For those that cite these (once valid) points:
* Driver support
* Running windows applications (and here I'm including their equivalent, or under Wine/Crossover)
* Ease of use/installation
I'd be interested to hear what distro they tried and when they tried it. My last few installs of Debian/Ubuntu, even on non-x86 hardware has been a breeze and certainly much quicker than installing a fresh copy of XP.
"...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).
Your comment reads like a troll, but you have some good points.
"what made them buy it before it was 'what everyone uses'?"
The quick answer is that the IBM PC became popular and brought MS-DOS with it. Its popularity of the IBM PC in general was heavily based on IBM's brand and software compatibility of business applications. When other companies wanted to get into the PC market, they found it hard to sell hardware that didn't have well known software written for it (which of course is because the hardware wasn't popular, leading to a natural monopoly for the IBM PC).
Because of the clone market and the deal Microsoft had signed with IBM, the growth of the clone market meant the growth of MS-DOS, and eventually the transfer of monopoly power from IBM to Microsoft. From MS-DOS 1.0, Microsoft has always been a "Me-too" player, adding only the features necessary to prevent people from switching platforms. This trends towards a culture of letting others do the innovating.
"Do you ask yourself things like 'why do we have Automobiles when a Horse and Buggy is good enough'?"
Well, thats a good question, but I'll answer it with another one - how much does the Horse and Buggy cost? Because, if I am 10 times more productive with the car, and the car cost me less than that, yes, I should have a car. So yes, Windows XP is much better than MS-DOS 1.0. I would be more productive with XP, and it costs less than the productivity gain. When Vista came out, and it costs more than XP, and there is no "upgrade" discount, the question was very different. Businesses did not upgrade (if they weren't forced) to Vista because they didn't get their money back. Now Windows 7 is due, and we'll ask ourselves once again whether its worth the additional money.
"And I'm fascinated by people like yourself who are so completely out of touch with reality that you actually believe your own bullshit."
I think that everyone should... your much better off believing your own bullshit than someone else's. Still, I think that you might not understand the world as well as you think you do.
"The status quo is kept alive because Microsoft has the best tools for business and enterprise."
Ah, and now you hit the nail perfectly. Microsoft is alive because they have the best system for people in power to control those that they employ. Its smart catering to the basics of human nature, and control is one of them. Wouldn't we all be happier if we could control the lives of others?
The deep question is who is this better for, and who makes the decisions. I believe that Personal Computing should be, err... personal. The success of software should be derived from how much more personally efficient it makes each of us. This means that I value features like ease of use (more learning means less efficiency for non-repetitive tasks), low cost (less effort I have to expend to get the gain), organization and consistency (the opposite of which is needless stress to me), and stability (downtime is not productive, nor are interruptions).
My original comment on this submission comes from my inherit distaste for mouthpieces who defend companies against their own consumers. If Jason says that he dislikes the organization of Windows 7, then to an extent, the organization of Windows 7 is wrong. If the OS has to be customized to be useful, then it is wrong (every new Windows box I have to use gets the classic theme, hidden files visible, and a list of things that grows the more I have to use it.) When Microsoft runs an ad campaign instead of fixing Vista bugs, they have failed. Please, everyone, stop defending their failures. Defend what is worth defending and you'll feel better about yourself.
In my opinion, the goal of this article is for Ed to show that he is a better consumer than Jason, and in the end tells me that Microsoft has failed again. Amusingly, the first comment in the article's page is "I am 100pct with Jason.". The second is "Loving Windows XP". What if Windows 7 is a step backwards from XP? Have we forgotten Windows ME? How does your horse and buggy metaphor apply then?
Thanks for the history lesson, but it doesn't backup your statement that everybody uses Windows because "everybody uses Windows". Obviously there's not an objective bone in your body, but I'll continue the charade anyway just for fun.
Do you remember the lines of customers waiting to buy Windows 95 the week that it was released? Do you really think that was because "everybody was already using Windows"? No. It was because of all the improvements. Nobody even used Windows 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0. It wasn't until Windows 3.11 that anyone seriously used Windows. And it wasn't because IBM handed it to them on a silver platter.
"Microsoft has always been a "Me-too" player..."
FYI, That's complete and utter bullshit. If they were only a "me-too" player they wouldn't have a huge R&D department. They wouldn't have been the ones to make the mouse wheel popular. They wouldn't have come out with the XBox. They wouldn't have invented LINQ. Do you have any idea what you're talking about or are you just a hater with a tin-foil cap on?
"Microsoft is alive because they have the best system for people in power to control those that they employ."
Wrong. Microsoft offers the best platform for developers and users to control _the computer_. Where did you get all of this stuff about people controlling other people? You are starting to sound like a crack pot conspiracy theorist.
The reason that I use Windows, quite simply, is that it generally lets me do what I want, the way that I want to do it. And that's the same answer you'll likely get from anyone who enjoys using Windows. I can't say the same for Linux or for Apple although I have used both extensively. All that Apple offers is ultimate lock-in and Linux is way too fragmented and unorganized to be useful on anything but a server which is where I put it to use for my company.
I also love Vista _because_ of all the improvements. It runs on 3 of the HTPC's in my house because Vista Media Center pretty much kicks the ass of XP Media Center, Apple's Front Row, Linux MythTV or XBMC. So, there are definite improvements over past versions. Of course trolls like yourself won't have anything to say about that, will you?
"When Microsoft runs an ad campaign instead of fixing Vista bugs"
Gee, steal lines from Apple much? Exactly what bugs are you talking about? Can you even think of one? Like I said...I use Vista everyday and I don't have a problem with it, so no I don't think of it as a failure and I feel just fine defending it.
The horse and buggy metaphor stands up just fine because there were many failed attempts at making an automobile before someone actually did it. There's nothing wrong with failure. I love failure. I love failing. If nobody ever failed, we wouldn't know anything.
"Thanks for the history lesson, but it doesn't backup your statement that everybody uses Windows because 'everybody uses Windows'. Obviously there's not an objective bone in your body"
If you don't accept the arguments of natural monopoly based on software compatibility, and use in the workplace due to compatibility and control, thats your prerogative, but objectivity is a goal here.
"'Microsoft has always been a "Me-too" player...' FYI, That's complete and utter bullshit."
Mouse wheel : did Microsoft invent that? I'm curious to know more about the history of it. XBox : in a classic "me-too" move, they use tons of money to break in to a market with a weak product and huge marketing. Somehow, they managed to make a great team out of that and turn around a solid second generation product, so I agree that the XBox team is now innovative. LINQ : have you heard of Rails? Languages that aren't statically typed (I hear lisp is popular around here)? LINQ is nifty if you are a .Net developer, thats where it ends.
It's interesting that you bring up Windows 95 as an argument for Microsoft's innovation, since it was basically a Windows 3.1 compatible copy of Apple's System 7. Yes, lots of people lined up to get Windows 95. Yes, it was a huge improvement over Windows 3.1, and worth the money. No, it was not successful because it was better than the competition. Even worse than their blatant feature copying was the twist they put on things to make them seam original. The "Recycling Bin"? Why is the system menu called "Start"? Why are there menu bars on each window, moving all over the place and being generally harder to click on? [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts_law ]
"Where did you get all of this stuff about people controlling other people? You are starting to sound like a crack pot conspiracy theorist."
Thank you? What exactly is a "conspiracy theorist"? I suspect that you're going to tell me that its someone who dislikes the government, but what you mean is someone who has wild ideas that don't deserve attention. If you can't see the desire for control as an inherent human trait, you should really try thinking a bit more, maybe reading a book (history if possible). Anyway, control is a huge selling point of Windows. My mom has a work issued laptop that's been configured to disallow her from changing the wireless network settings to join a wireless network. That's pretty controlling in my opinion.
"Vista Media Center pretty much kicks the ass of XP Media Center"
Thats a great point, and one that Apple sometimes uses as well. It turns out that 10.5 really didn't have a lot of good features that would make everyone want to upgrade, so they added a bunch of developer frameworks that they wouldn't package for 10.4. Why should I buy a new operating system for the Media Center? In Microsoft's "Mojave" commercials they have people talk about how they like the photo stiching software. These are not OS level features, and the only reason that they don't run on XP is because Microsoft keeps them as cheese to encourage people to upgrade the entire OS. Why not sell Vista Media Center as an XP application? The bundling mindset is so engrained in our thinking that its largely invisible.
"Gee, steal lines from Apple much? Exactly what bugs are you talking about? Can you even think of one?"
Personally, I would like to see them finally solve DLL conflicts. Shared library support is a non-issue on linux and Mac, but the best solution on Windows is to pay for a capable enough version of Visual Studio to statically link OS libraries (thus defeating the point of shared libraries). Last time that I used vista there were still lots of video driver issues, and I had problems with unpredictable behavior differences between XP and Vista.
Here's the real kicker tho: they ran an entire ad campaign where they fooled people into thinking that their product was something else, and then surprising them. This is analogous to letting someone drive a mystery car around an autocross track and then telling them that its a really a Pinto (see? It was plenty powerful in this parking lot! Now don't get in any accidents!). You can be certain that they cherry picked the hardware, specifically scripted the experience to avoid any known issues, and only showcased the people who were happy.
"There's nothing wrong with failure."
This we can agree on. Without allowing for failure, we cannot succeed.
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.
This is the "what the office uses camp". Interestingly, you like Windows primarily due to the manageable power that it gives you over other people ('s computers). Fixing the user experience at the expense of centralized control would not be an improvement to you (but it probably would be to your users).
BTW, having worked IT I fully agree with you. Mac OS X has a good notion for how one might manage groups of computers (NetInfo), but it isn't as pervasive at the application level and so it isn't as powerful.
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.