If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ZDNet)   Windows 8: a design disaster   (zdnet.com) divider line 207
    More: Interesting, error messages, Windows Explorer, Start Menu, disasters, tool-bars, Windows Phones  
•       •       •

10944 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Jun 2012 at 9:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



207 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-17 03:22:06 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I actually liked 3.11 a lot. I still consider it the last fully stable and coherent version of Windows ever.


Ba ha ha ha! Oh wow...

No preemptive multitasking, no memory protection, Windows 3.1 crashed constantly. Windows 9x was better but not much. It wasn't until they switched to the NT kernel that Windows actually became stable.
 
2012-06-17 03:40:38 AM  
Then you take a look at the article author's previous articles.

He thinks that a drop test where a Galaxy S2 takes some scratches where an iP4s shatters bigtime deserves a spoiler that "they both break". I hate to read his other irelated articles.
 
2012-06-17 04:16:24 AM  
Really there isnt any reason to buy it or use it over 7 if you have a desktop..its the same as 7 but with Metro UI. Might as well all call it Windows 7.5. All I can really think it has is USB 3.0 but a service pack to 7 will fix that..I doubt a lot of people will buy it if not included with new systems. I remember the upgrade to Office 2007..not pretty..same thing with Windows 8..people will hate it because its something to relearn..well got to change something or they would have to charge $200 for a UI update..
 
2012-06-17 04:38:03 AM  
Glad I'm not the only one to think of Unity when seeing this. Came across it the other day and said to myself, "That looks like blue Ubuntu."

/likes Unity fairly well
 
2012-06-17 04:41:37 AM  

Greenbeanx: Really there isnt any reason to buy it or use it over 7 if you have a desktop..its the same as 7 but with Metro UI. Might as well all call it Windows 7.5. All I can really think it has is USB 3.0 but a service pack to 7 will fix that..I doubt a lot of people will buy it if not included with new systems. I remember the upgrade to Office 2007..not pretty..same thing with Windows 8..people will hate it because its something to relearn..well got to change something or they would have to charge $200 for a UI update..


If M$ is as evil as everyone thinks they are, they won't put it in a service pack. They'll simply stop support for Win7 and force everyone to update, citing some bullshiat "we can't program it in" nonsense. I'm actually keeping driver disks around for some stuff from the fear that Windows will pull the plug on 7 right after I bought it.

Used Vista for 5 years. I only upgraded to 7 when they pulled the plug on Vista. Had few issues with it that weren't resolved with a little homework.
 
2012-06-17 05:02:52 AM  

ajgeek:
If M$ is as evil as everyone thinks they are, they won't put it in a service pack. They'll simply stop support for Win7 and force everyone to update, citing some bullshiat "we can't program it in" nonsense.


They really havent ever made a habit of doing this though..
 
2012-06-17 05:16:28 AM  

Greenbeanx: Really there isnt any reason to buy it or use it over 7 if you have a desktop..its the same as 7 but with Metro UI. Might as well all call it Windows 7.5. All I can really think it has is USB 3.0 but a service pack to 7 will fix that..I doubt a lot of people will buy it if not included with new systems. I remember the upgrade to Office 2007..not pretty..same thing with Windows 8..people will hate it because its something to relearn..well got to change something or they would have to charge $200 for a UI update..


Buy? People buy Operating Systems? You can argue that the OEM bought a copy of the OS if the user purchases a prebuilt machine but I'd wager that far less than half of all computer users intentionally pay for an OS. Any OS.

This mess is going to drive people to other platforms or at a minimum increase the use of alternate shells. Some of those shells cost money but at least some people will gladly pay it to NOT use Metro but still use the Windows software they are familiar with.
 
2012-06-17 05:49:01 AM  
Why Don't They Do This....
Make two editions of Windows 8; Windows 8 Desktop and Windows 8 Mobile (or some crap). The naming isn't important; except that it should be simple.

Windows 8 Desktop should be like Windows 7; only with the nice things they've *improved*. That means giving people a traditional Start Button. Also allow users to launch Metro applications from Windows 8 Desktop like they would any other program; having each instance work like a virtual machine. A desktop user can now multi-task between four Metro apps and meaningfully use all of their monitors; while still enjoying the desktop environment they've known since....well....forever.

That solves like 98% of Windows 8 bad press.
 
2012-06-17 07:04:04 AM  
Windows 8, or as I like to call it, "Vista: "Miss Me Yet?".
 
2012-06-17 07:10:43 AM  
MicroCrap better have a plan for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggg service/maintenance schedule for W7 users. 8 is garbage and won't be used by very many. Except the ignorant.
 
2012-06-17 07:15:23 AM  

Bloody Templar: bootman: Bloody Templar: /Disclaimer: I am a Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent those of Microsoft.

Riddle me this: Is SCCM 2007 always a flaky, finicky, laggy rage inducer or is it just the implementation at my company (implemented by MS consultants BTW) just borked?


I'm a Premier Field Engineer in developer technologies, so I'm not really up on SCCM, but I do know that current iterations of SCCM are generally solid.


It's hella better than SMS was for sure. I prefer WSUS integrated with it than the hack job ITMU was. Although a lot of our collections (we have about 800 of them to deal with 90,000 workstations and over a 150 apps to support) are based on membership in a hierarchy and the dynamic update checkbox that was introduced has made things a bit less predictable.
 
2012-06-17 07:21:13 AM  

Somacandra: FTFA: Microsoft has thrown away this concept and instead adopted a system called the Start Screen where the links to all your apps are spread across the screen.

Wow. This was odd to read. I've done this for years anyway. I cluster app shortcuts I use 90% of the time in different screen areas. That's how I've liked it. I can't stand the Start button and scrolling through different columns. I guess its the opposite for lots of people? Actually now I cluster my working document folders on one side of the screen and the app that I need opens when I open the document. After all, who opens apps for the sake of the app? I open things I need to work on--the program its linked to is just a means to an end. Of course I use Macs personally.


Meh, Win7 has a built in search function in the start menu, so if I ever need a program, I efficiently hit the window key on the keyboard and start typing.

I've been trying to teach my friends and family the same thing but I'm the only one computer-oriented.
 
2012-06-17 07:36:18 AM  

FormlessOne: Read this slowly. The Metro interface is not required for desktops. You can turn it off.

Every time Windows 8 comes up, all you hear is "I don't want to use an interface styled for mobiles on my desktop, and that's why Windows 8 is gonna suck." See, the thing is, you don't have to use it. Metro is an option. The non-Metro desktop for Windows 8 looks remarkably similar to Windows 7, with some improvements.


I agree with the critics in one regard - i would not go out and buy Win8 to upgrade a desktop or laptop running Win7. There is not enough improvement here to justify that, for a desktop/laptop user. On the other hand, there is no reason to object to it being on the next desktop or laptop one buys. For the intents and purposes of such a user, it's essentially a slightly snappier Win7.And I'm pretty sure that at first, almost all of it's sales will be OEM.
 
2012-06-17 07:44:48 AM  

Naesen: Somacandra: FTFA: Microsoft has thrown away this concept and instead adopted a system called the Start Screen where the links to all your apps are spread across the screen.

Wow. This was odd to read. I've done this for years anyway. I cluster app shortcuts I use 90% of the time in different screen areas. That's how I've liked it. I can't stand the Start button and scrolling through different columns. I guess its the opposite for lots of people? Actually now I cluster my working document folders on one side of the screen and the app that I need opens when I open the document. After all, who opens apps for the sake of the app? I open things I need to work on--the program its linked to is just a means to an end. Of course I use Macs personally.

Meh, Win7 has a built in search function in the start menu, so if I ever need a program, I efficiently hit the window key on the keyboard and start typing.

I've been trying to teach my friends and family the same thing but I'm the only one computer-oriented.


That's great when you know exactly what you want to run.
That's terrible when you know what type of thing you want to run.

If you want to play a 'game' but don't know what games are installed - you'll be typing A LOT to find everything in the Start Menu.
If you want to start a torrent client or photo editing software or whatever else that may or may not be installed on a computer....it sucks.
 
2012-06-17 08:08:36 AM  
Some useful information here. Bookmark.
 
2012-06-17 08:34:47 AM  
I hate a cluttered desktop.

I'm on OS X, but I try to keep my desktop clear of everything except perhaps what I am immediately working on.

I cringe a little whenever I see someone's computer desktop with hundreds of files on it. How can anyone work like that?
 
2012-06-17 08:42:40 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Naesen: Somacandra: FTFA: Microsoft has thrown away this concept and instead adopted a system called the Start Screen where the links to all your apps are spread across the screen.

Wow. This was odd to read. I've done this for years anyway. I cluster app shortcuts I use 90% of the time in different screen areas. That's how I've liked it. I can't stand the Start button and scrolling through different columns. I guess its the opposite for lots of people? Actually now I cluster my working document folders on one side of the screen and the app that I need opens when I open the document. After all, who opens apps for the sake of the app? I open things I need to work on--the program its linked to is just a means to an end. Of course I use Macs personally.

Meh, Win7 has a built in search function in the start menu, so if I ever need a program, I efficiently hit the window key on the keyboard and start typing.

I've been trying to teach my friends and family the same thing but I'm the only one computer-oriented.

That's great when you know exactly what you want to run.
That's terrible when you know what type of thing you want to run.

If you want to play a 'game' but don't know what games are installed - you'll be typing A LOT to find everything in the Start Menu.
If you want to start a torrent client or photo editing software or whatever else that may or may not be installed on a computer....it sucks.


Maybe you and I are coming from different worlds, but I tend to know what is actually on MY computer, and I don't use other peoples machines, so I guess YMMV?

I mean whenever I've had to perform service, even talking people through it over the phone, it's never been an issue.
 
2012-06-17 09:26:10 AM  
"I just can't shake the feeling that Windows 8 would be better off as two separate operating systems. A 'classic' Windows 8 for regular desktop and notebook systems - which would feel more like a service pack for Windows 7 than a full release - and a separate 'Metro' version for touch-enabled hardware."

I can't help but think that I read halfway through this article just to read a sentiment I had after only having heard of Windows 8 and the method behind it's design (which was the "one OS to rule them all" principle).

So, yes, Windows 8 probably sucks, but you're not terribly insightful either there Adrian Kingsley-Hughes.
 
2012-06-17 09:29:14 AM  

Doc Daneeka: I hate a cluttered desktop.

I'm on OS X, but I try to keep my desktop clear of everything except perhaps what I am immediately working on.

I cringe a little whenever I see someone's computer desktop with hundreds of files on it. How can anyone work like that?


If a cluttered desktop signifies a cluttered mind, what does an empty desktop signify?
 
2012-06-17 09:29:47 AM  

Doc Daneeka: I cringe a little whenever I see someone's computer desktop with hundreds of files on it. How can anyone work like that?


I have no idea what's on my desktop, because I never look at it. It's perpetually covered with windows.

Now, on OSX, I do have Hazel setup to move things around on my Desktop so that it stays clean. On both Windows and OSX, I use a launcher (Launchy and Quicksilver, respectively), and that's my main access to programs and files.
 
2012-06-17 09:34:21 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: deadguyinc: Yeah, it's really not this basket of evil some people seem to think it is. Then again, neither was Vista. The Internet Hate Echo Chamber at work. Most of the people who shiat on Vista have never used it, either.

Yeah, I still don't get that, either. I used Vista and thought it was fine.


Vista was fine, but it had a few problems when it was launched:

1) MS gave it unrealistically low system requirements and OEMs actually shipped Vista computers that had 512MB of RAM and couldn't run Aero.

2) Lots of hardware didn't have proper drivers and, in the case of older hardware, never got Vista driver support at all.

3) The way UAC interrupted the user with a black screen in the foreground was annoying as hell.

The first two problems naturally sorted themselves out within six months to a year as PCs got more powerful and people stopped using old crap, and UAC was easy to fix.

I've outlined Vista's launch problems to point out that Windows 8 won't have any of them; it'll run great on any computer you can buy today. Nevertheless, Win8 is going to fail much more spectacularly than Vista did. The hate and derision Vista received is going to look like a love tap.

Microsoft wants to forcibly change the way people interact with their computers, and that's going to end badly. Worse, the reason is so transparent. Microsoft wants to cash in on an app store of its own, and the only way they can make an app store work is if they can force people to use it. Thus, Metro, where you can't install your own apps- they have to come through MS. That's why Metro is everywhere and cannot be disabled, and Win 8 begs you for credit card info.
 
2012-06-17 09:36:49 AM  

Flint Ironstag: I'm still on XP. Tried 7 for a while, but went back to XP.

Why should I change? XP runs all the programmes I want, and that's all I want an OS to do.


Well, for one because XP's built in file search is the absolute worst search ever invented by anyone or anything in the universe for all time. Windows 7's search is worlds better.
 
2012-06-17 09:49:27 AM  

Doc Daneeka: I hate a cluttered desktop.

I'm on OS X, but I try to keep my desktop clear of everything except perhaps what I am immediately working on.

I cringe a little whenever I see someone's computer desktop with hundreds of files on it. How can anyone work like that?


I see that all the time at work on other people's desktops. Cursed by their mental inability to create folders to put icons into, they continue saving things to their desktop instead of My Documents until their entire desktop is a blanket of unrelated, unorganized icons.

Even worse was the Windows XP Desktop Cleanup Wizard popping up in that balloon daring you to click yes so it could rape everything on your screen.
 
2012-06-17 09:51:46 AM  

SkunkWerks: Doc Daneeka: I hate a cluttered desktop.

I'm on OS X, but I try to keep my desktop clear of everything except perhaps what I am immediately working on.

I cringe a little whenever I see someone's computer desktop with hundreds of files on it. How can anyone work like that?

If a cluttered desktop signifies a cluttered mind, what does an empty desktop signify?


i.imgur.com

Clarity of mind.
 
2012-06-17 10:11:45 AM  

deadguyinc:
Yeah, it's really not this basket of evil some people seem to think it is. Then again, neither was Vista. The Internet Hate Echo Chamber at work. Most of the people who shiat on Vista have never used it, either.


If Microsoft had told Intel to FU and not certified the i915 chipset, IF Microsoft had made sure that there were at least some stable GPU drivers avaliable, IF Microsoft had just left XP's netcode (remember Vista RTF chocked on SMB traffic) alone and IF Microsoft had mandated a minimum of 1Gb RAM with a dual core processor THEN the hate train might not of departed so quickly.

But they didn't so you ended up with OEM's pushing out some hilariously under powered machines, GPU drivers that were uttery unstable, copying files would grind to a halt, it'd RAM out trying to get to the desktop and because it was optimised pretty much for SMP it'd choke to death on an older single core processor.

Most people never experienced Vista on low end machines of the day, they experience it on todays low end machines... which were hot stuff back then.
 
2012-06-17 10:22:05 AM  

Hand Banana: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I actually liked 3.11 a lot. I still consider it the last fully stable and coherent version of Windows ever.

Ba ha ha ha! Oh wow...

No preemptive multitasking, no memory protection, Windows 3.1 crashed constantly. Windows 9x was better but not much. It wasn't until they switched to the NT kernel that Windows actually became stable.


::shug:: I'm just going from my own experience here; yours may be different. I didn't use 3.1 much, but used 3.11 Workgroups for years, and loved it.

Was 3x technologically inferior to later 9x and NT versions? Of course, everything older is technologically inferior to what follows. Which isn't an even slightly fair basis of comparison for quality. Was ancient Roman technology objectively 'worse' than ours only because it's technologically inferior? Of course not -- it was the best available for its time. If your only basis for comparison is that later versions are more advanced, then Win8 *must* be better than *every* prior version -- *has* to be -- only because it's more advanced. That's obviously stupid. That 3x lacked advanced features of later versions is a very weak basis for comparison.

Anyway, I can say that 3.11 was very stable for *me* compared to my 9x experiences, and so that's how I evaluate it. I won't say it *never* crashed, but I will say that I don't recall it crashing, and I certainly never considered it crashy. 95 and especially 98, however, did give me the big blue finger more than occasionally. I also got a great deal of productivity out of 3.11. Less so out of 95 and 98, though I obviously appreciated the feature advancements. I spent more time and energy than I wanted futzing about with the thing itself, compared to my previous experience with 3.11, and from my perspective, that made 3.11 "more" productive and useful to me than 9x. It wasn't until I got to NT versions that I found myself routinely productive in a sensible and stable environment again. But given that NT was largely a fork of OS/2, I'm even less confident that it's fair to compare it to earlier Windows versions that were developed entirely in house.

I guess my point is that I don't feel your view is factually incorrect, just not very meaningful. I'm sorry you had bad experiences with 3.1; maybe it was less stable than 3.11, or you were driving it too hard, I can't say. It ran great for me, and ran better for me than 9x versions, sexy as they were.

/just my 2c, not trying to start an old-school argument
 
2012-06-17 10:34:27 AM  

ajgeek: Greenbeanx: Really there isnt any reason to buy it or use it over 7 if you have a desktop..its the same as 7 but with Metro UI. Might as well all call it Windows 7.5. All I can really think it has is USB 3.0 but a service pack to 7 will fix that..I doubt a lot of people will buy it if not included with new systems. I remember the upgrade to Office 2007..not pretty..same thing with Windows 8..people will hate it because its something to relearn..well got to change something or they would have to charge $200 for a UI update..

If M$ is as evil as everyone thinks they are, they won't put it in a service pack. They'll simply stop support for Win7 and force everyone to update, citing some bullshiat "we can't program it in" nonsense. I'm actually keeping driver disks around for some stuff from the fear that Windows will pull the plug on 7 right after I bought it.

Used Vista for 5 years. I only upgraded to 7 when they pulled the plug on Vista. Had few issues with it that weren't resolved with a little homework.


I think this would be a fair consideration a decade ago. But brand-supported enterprise distros of Linux (e.g, Redhat) have become so robust of late that I think MS understands the risk. If they force their hand on it, at least some MS clients are sure to abandon, and that means lost revenue that may prove difficult to get back.

As I said before, I don't think they're concerned with the (financially) much smaller home market. I think TFA is probably right, that they've got their eyes on the exploding portable touch market. Why they didn't fork this into that *and* a sane desktop option at the same time, I don't know. One might argue that it's hard or requires more resources and this is a down economy and so on, but Apple seems to be able to do it without difficulty. And as TFA and others have pointed out, something as simple as a UI reversion option would accomplish the same ends.

What Microsoft risks here is turning off loyal customers to their flagship product at exactly the same time that the market is putting more pressure on them than ever before. That's a big gamble. If TFA's description of the product is correct, then this might prove damaging for them in the long run. I don't believe they risk losing a lot of corporate business right now, but they may well be pissing a lot of money down a rathole for a product those vital customers won't accept. And some of those customers will at least ask themselves if they might have other options to consider down the road.
 
2012-06-17 10:37:11 AM  

Hacker_X: I'd wager that far less than half of all computer users intentionally pay for an OS. Any OS.


You'd really wager that? Have you met many people?
 
2012-06-17 10:51:08 AM  

Doc Daneeka: I hate a cluttered desktop.

I'm on OS X, but I try to keep my desktop clear of everything except perhaps what I am immediately working on.

I cringe a little whenever I see someone's computer desktop with hundreds of files on it. How can anyone work like that?


Everybody is different. (I learned that from Mister Rogers, by the way.) Some people, like my father, like to have everything on the desktop. I treat my own virtual desktop like a real one. I put coffee and sandwiches on it sometimes, and have once or twice had sex on it. No wait, wrong forum. I mean, I'll keep "stuff I'm working on" visible, and stow most stuff I'm not in relevant folders. (And yes, I treat my file tree like a traditional filing cabinet. I still have random access, so why would I want to choose between that and logical organisation, if I can have both?)

I know this one guy who lets his desktop fill up. There's no organisation to it at all: *everything* is there, every document and file and app. When it fills up, he creates a desktop folder called "Desktop" and puts everything else into it. Then it stays there, while the screen slowly fills up again. Wash, rinse, repeat. (And yes, this means multiple nested folders all named 'Desktop'.) And he gives files names like 'foo' and ' forbarz'. He's not stupid: this is a guy who's written O'Reilly books, and I consider him brilliant in numerous ways. And he's not insane, either, like a lot of those guys. I can only guess what explains this odd behaviour, but my theory is that he's so smart that he just has little use for our quaint ways of storing and finding things. Meanwhile, any hacker who broke into his system would probably have a very hard time figuring out what's where, and maybe go mad.
 
2012-06-17 10:52:39 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Was ancient Roman technology objectively 'worse' than ours only because it's technologically inferior?


Ummm, yes. Thats what being objectively better means.
 
2012-06-17 10:54:26 AM  

FuturePastNow: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: deadguyinc: Yeah, it's really not this basket of evil some people seem to think it is. Then again, neither was Vista. The Internet Hate Echo Chamber at work. Most of the people who shiat on Vista have never used it, either.

Yeah, I still don't get that, either. I used Vista and thought it was fine.

Vista was fine, but it had a few problems when it was launched:

1) MS gave it unrealistically low system requirements and OEMs actually shipped Vista computers that had 512MB of RAM and couldn't run Aero.

2) Lots of hardware didn't have proper drivers and, in the case of older hardware, never got Vista driver support at all.

3) The way UAC interrupted the user with a black screen in the foreground was annoying as hell.

The first two problems naturally sorted themselves out within six months to a year as PCs got more powerful and people stopped using old crap, and UAC was easy to fix.

I've outlined Vista's launch problems to point out that Windows 8 won't have any of them; it'll run great on any computer you can buy today. Nevertheless, Win8 is going to fail much more spectacularly than Vista did. The hate and derision Vista received is going to look like a love tap.

Microsoft wants to forcibly change the way people interact with their computers, and that's going to end badly. Worse, the reason is so transparent. Microsoft wants to cash in on an app store of its own, and the only way they can make an app store work is if they can force people to use it. Thus, Metro, where you can't install your own apps- they have to come through MS. That's why Metro is everywhere and cannot be disabled, and Win 8 begs you for credit card info.


This is good news.. for Linux.
 
2012-06-17 10:57:42 AM  

theurge14: SkunkWerks: Doc Daneeka: I hate a cluttered desktop.

I'm on OS X, but I try to keep my desktop clear of everything except perhaps what I am immediately working on.

I cringe a little whenever I see someone's computer desktop with hundreds of files on it. How can anyone work like that?

If a cluttered desktop signifies a cluttered mind, what does an empty desktop signify?

[i.imgur.com image 400x310]

Clarity of mind.


Maybe, but the most useful and productive people I've ever known never have empty desktops.
 
2012-06-17 10:58:18 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I think this would be a fair consideration a decade ago. But brand-supported enterprise distros of Linux (e.g, Redhat) have become so robust of late that I think MS understands the risk. If they force their hand on it, at least some MS clients are sure to abandon, and that means lost revenue that may prove difficult to get back.


The concept of changing an OS is not something that crosses the mind of the vast majority of computer users. For 99% of people changing an OS only happens when you buy a new PC (Hell, I am somewhat of a nerd and I have never purchased a non OEM copy of an OS in my life).
 
2012-06-17 11:00:50 AM  

lilplatinum: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Was ancient Roman technology objectively 'worse' than ours only because it's technologically inferior?

Ummm, yes. Thats what being objectively better means.


Oh, we're going to play dictionary wars again? Can we please not? I prefer grown-up conversations, if that's alright with you.
 
2012-06-17 11:01:57 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: lilplatinum: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Was ancient Roman technology objectively 'worse' than ours only because it's technologically inferior?

Ummm, yes. Thats what being objectively better means.

Oh, we're going to play dictionary wars again? Can we please not? I prefer grown-up conversations, if that's alright with you.


Grown ups tend to use words correctly..

..actually nevermind, they don't. Damnit.
 
2012-06-17 11:06:09 AM  

lilplatinum: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I think this would be a fair consideration a decade ago. But brand-supported enterprise distros of Linux (e.g, Redhat) have become so robust of late that I think MS understands the risk. If they force their hand on it, at least some MS clients are sure to abandon, and that means lost revenue that may prove difficult to get back.

The concept of changing an OS is not something that crosses the mind of the vast majority of computer users. For 99% of people changing an OS only happens when you buy a new PC (Hell, I am somewhat of a nerd and I have never purchased a non OEM copy of an OS in my life).


I specifically clarified *enterprise* users here. AND explained already that MS doesn't care about absolute numbers of users, they care about absolute dollars of revenue, which is a function of investment and loyalty. AND already explained that the *financially* much smaller home market (why am I forced to repeat myself?) is of much lesser concern to them. They don't care if you or your mom don't like Win8, because it's impossible for you to ever spend enough money on their products to make them care.
 
2012-06-17 11:09:55 AM  

lilplatinum: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: lilplatinum: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Was ancient Roman technology objectively 'worse' than ours only because it's technologically inferior?

Ummm, yes. Thats what being objectively better means.

Oh, we're going to play dictionary wars again? Can we please not? I prefer grown-up conversations, if that's alright with you.

Grown ups tend to use words correctly..

..actually nevermind, they don't. Damnit.


You're confusing 'correctly' with 'just like me'. And you're confusing 'grown-up' with 'irrationally pedantic like me'. And you're confusing yourself with someone worthy of the respect I'd give you if you had even one stupid greenlight after seven years. Do you know what "not even trying" means?
 
2012-06-17 11:18:45 AM  
When Vista was released there was no heir apparent. Now there are two.

You'll get over it. Or you'll move on. It's up to you.
 
2012-06-17 11:19:50 AM  

wee: cman: Hopefully Windows 8 will be such a flop that companies that make OSes stop this bullshiat mobile on desktop philosophy.

fark Windows 8, fark GNOME 3, fark Unity

I agree. And I must say, I'm digging Xfce lately. It'd been a while since Id seen it, and it's come along nicely. If Unity did one thing for me, it was getting me to come across a great alternative.


i had been using Gnome since back in the late 90s.. Gnome3 is horrible, Tried KDE for a while, something about it just seemed, I don't know.. off. Used XFCE, Fluxbox, and a couple other WM's for a while. Started using Cinnamon a few months ago, and haven't looked back. Uses most of the Gnome components, but has a much better taskbar, window manager, and settings manager.
 
2012-06-17 11:19:54 AM  
I hope that Windows 8 hides the whole file name by default instead of just hiding the extension. That would be revolutionary.
 
2012-06-17 11:20:03 AM  
How likely is a

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: You're confusing 'correctly' with 'just like me'. And you're confusing 'grown-up' with 'irrationally pedantic like me'.


I love how using words correctly makes you irrationally pedantic. You said something stupid, I made a snarky comment about it. Welcome to FARK. I am sure if you dig through my posts you can find some misuse of the English language too - especially as I am far too lazy to proofread things. The difference is, if you call me out on it I won't get sand in my vagina.

And you're confusing yourself with someone worthy of the respect I'd give you if you had even one stupid greenlight after seven years. Do you know what "not even trying" means?

So seeing as the fark profile thing says I have 9 greenlights (probably from long ago when I actually bothered to submit things), and that apparently is your method of allocating respect for people, you are now obligated to respect me.
 
2012-06-17 11:20:52 AM  

Useless Destruction of Exergy: FormlessOne: Your blog sucks.

...And you're ugly...and your mom dresses you funny...and your dad's an alcoholic...and you're on the welfare...

What else did I forget for the witty repartee?


His grandma sews socks that smell.
 
2012-06-17 11:23:37 AM  

mamoru: dennysgod: Win7 is most certainly an improvement over XP, Win7 makes XP look like Win98r2

I agree. So far, Win7 is the best Windows ever made. It's pretty much outstanding. And this is coming from a Mac user (on a MacBook Pro, I dual boot using MacOS for work and general use and Win7 for gaming).

Flint Ironstag: Why should I change? XP runs all the programmes I want, and that's all I want an OS to do.

So you can use more than 3GB of RAM? If you don't have that much, then it won't affect you, but this was the main driving force that got me to upgrade from XP to 7. And I'm glad I did. 7 had a lot of little things that it seems to do better than XP, and overall things seem more stable and at least as fast if not faster. Just my experience, though.


I have 2GB of RAM and manage quite well. I don't run any really heavy duty stuff like video editing or play any games, but I can have a bunch of windows open , like Outlook, two or three Chrome windows each with a bunch of tabs, Media Player Classic playing music or video, bittorrent downloading something and maybe Word and Photoshop open as well. They all work and I can happilt switch from one to another.
 
2012-06-17 11:30:43 AM  

somedude210:

Also remember that XP has lost it's support from Microsoft and software developers who now recognize that Vista/7 is what a majority of people have and will have for the next decade.

And if you're going the x64 route (which you should, at least in my opinion) then WinXP 64 is the last thing you should try. That was buggy as hell and no one supported it.

Arguing that XP should only be used because no one supports an OS that came out 25-30 years ago anymore is sad. Technology changes and the interfacing and software to run it has to change too, that's why you don't see Windows 95 natively support 64 bit computing because that wasn't a thing for consumer based computing back then. Hell, it wasn't even thought of for consumer based computing. Sure there may be unnecessary frills in an OS like 7 but you also get some fantastic improvements in built in programs as well, like the windows Defrag (which actually can do shiat now, unlike the XP version) or Microsoft Security (which was a joke 10 years ago).

/god, I hope you were a troll, Flint


Not at all. Not saying no one should upgrade, just that it works for me, and that's with a twin-monitor setup as well. When I tried 7 on the same PC it wasn't any faster, so what would I actually gain by upgrading?
When some software comes out that I really want that needs 7 or 8 then I'll upgrade. But for now, why bother?

When I sit here and run Word or surf the net what exactly would I be gaining if I had 7 or 8?
 
2012-06-17 11:54:53 AM  
Microsoft is trying to force a radical change in how people interact with their computers and it's not going to work.

People are used to have a "file cabinet" view of their disk contents and moving through this view in an organized folder by folder view until they get to what they want. Windows and Mac OS has worked this way for a decade.

This new "Start Menu" abandons that metaphor by jumbling everything together into a screen-space wasting bar on the bottom of the viewport.

People simply won't adopt a completely new metaphor like this. Windows 95 is doomed from the start, and an Amiga is now president.

/Have no idea if W8 is any good
//But saying that it'll fail because of a new interaction metaphor is stupid
 
2012-06-17 11:55:52 AM  
I used it for a few days, because our tech guy tried to fob us off with it rather than buying a proper license. I told my boss that he'd better remove that shiat or I would farking walk.

Right now, it feels really unpleasant. We've had 15 years of the current UI metaphors since Windows 95. We know how it works. You do shiat instinctively and now we're being expected to learn it all again, and all for the tiny number of people who are going to buy Windows Tablets.

My guess is that very few people will buy Win Tablets. Business apps are more and more about web applications rather than native, so whether you give staff iPads or a Windows tablet, it doesn't matter.

Personally, I'm going to skip it. Most businesses are now on Windows 7 and businesses typically skip every other version. With a bit of luck, Win Tablets will be a disaster and Win 9 will be a new, but better UI.
 
2012-06-17 12:04:07 PM  

What Plants Crave: 2. One of the default skins, Gnometer ....



Completely missed that obvious one!
 
2012-06-17 12:04:22 PM  

lilplatinum: How likely is aSylvia_Bandersnatch: You're confusing 'correctly' with 'just like me'. And you're confusing 'grown-up' with 'irrationally pedantic like me'.

I love how using words correctly makes you irrationally pedantic. You said something stupid, I made a snarky comment about it. Welcome to FARK. I am sure if you dig through my posts you can find some misuse of the English language too - especially as I am far too lazy to proofread things. The difference is, if you call me out on it I won't get sand in my vagina.

And you're confusing yourself with someone worthy of the respect I'd give you if you had even one stupid greenlight after seven years. Do you know what "not even trying" means?

So seeing as the fark profile thing says I have 9 greenlights (probably from long ago when I actually bothered to submit things), and that apparently is your method of allocating respect for people, you are now obligated to respect me.


By golly, you're right. That's an embarrassing mistake on my part. I still say you're being absurdly pedantic -- and in the process completely overlooking the real points I'm trying to make -- but I'm absolutely wrong in what I said about you with that misguided remark. I think that's gotta count as a freebie. So mea culpa, and carry on.
 
2012-06-17 12:06:25 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: DamnYankees: I'm confused. Are the new Windows computers touchscreen or something?

Not exactly. First, let's define 'Windows computers': Microsoft does not make general-use computers. I assume you mean new machines running Windows 8, which are just regular computers of various kinds, including some touch devices such as pads and tablets.

Windows 8 is meant to be a head-to-head challenger to extant market touch-based UIs, and so it is -- in theory -- optimised for that purpose. On the one hand, this means that it has some design changes that may confuse or frustrate traditional desktop users. On the other, it sounds from TFA that some of the features don't work well for touch use, either.

The thrust of TFA is that MS should have gone with their older model of different UIs for different users -- a more traditional UI for desktop users, especially enterprise users, and reserve the touch-optimised UI for those environments where touch use is predominant. There's a lot more, but these are the main issues.


This is what Apple has done. You see bits and pieces of iOS showing up in OSX, but the basic paradigm hasn't changed.

Perhaps we should call Win8 BobNT...
 
2012-06-17 12:14:09 PM  

ryarger: People simply won't adopt a completely new metaphor like this. Windows 95 is doomed from the start, and an Amiga is now president.


From Win95 onwards through Win7, people understood that everything revolved around the Start button. When Win95 came out, their commercials highlighted the Start button, even using The Rolling Stones "Start Me Up". Want to launch a program? Start -> Programs. Want to change a computer setting? Start -> Settings -> Control Panel. Want to set up a printer? Start -> Settings -> Printers.

Did Win95 have its issues? Yes, but that happens when you change architectures, as Win95 did going to 32-bit from Win 3.1's 16-bit. But, Win95 also made it easier for people to access the Internet as it had a built-in TCP stack. It didn't come preinstalled, but it was available to be installed and you didn't have to mess with Trumpet Winsock's settings. Win95 also introduced 'Plug-and-play', which means you didn't have to mess with IRQ and memory address settings. 'Plug-and-play' was buggy at first (having the nickname 'Plug-and-pray'), but it got better. Now, you just plug in a device, boot the machine, install the drivers and you're set. Things introduced in Win95 are things people expect today when they buy a Windows based computer.

With Windows 8, to find a program to launch, you need to right-clock and choose 'All Programs' from the Metro Start screen. Change a computer setting? You have to hover on the right side of the screen and choose 'Settings'. It's disjointed and one thing people won't like is having to learn all how to use their computers all over again. Other than Metro, there really isn't anything groundbreaking. There are no new architectures, nothing that really says "Hey, you need to get this."
 
Displayed 50 of 207 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report