Discussion on:

Does Windows 8 make you furious?

When Windows 7 came out I had been using it for a while and really looked forward to its release. Not so with Win8. I have been using it but overall I am not getting that "need" feeling like I had for XP and Windows 7.

As of this moment, will I get it?:
Phone - tbd
Tablet - yes
Notebook - only if forced
Desktop - only if forced

Not feeling the luv at the moment for Win8

In the dev preview, the start menu launched metro, this was better, I could get used to that. And in the dev preview, you had the option to completely disable metro and all the useless tablet features and use the system they way we want to use the system.
The consumer preview took away these "Correct" things.

MS seems to be fighting with itself. On one hand, they understand users don't use the OS, they use the programs on it. Metro supports this. On the other hand, they have forgotten that users need all their programs to work, and work the same way they did before. Users aren't interested in the "Experience" they just want to get work done.

Well, that might mean a new influx of users to the Apple and the "end-user linux distros" (e.g. Ubuntu, Sabayon, etc.) platforms.

The key argument that I hear from *any* Windows user about why they stay in Windows when they have had a major issue with one of their apps is: "Well, *most* of the time, it just works." If that isn't true anymore, then what does Microsoft have to offer in their OS'es?

It does work for the most part. But it's a BETA. Hence, it's clunky and beta-like and has minor issues that are being worked out.

For the most part it DOES work. It works really well on a tablet and appears that they have been designing it specifically for a tablet. Now they just have to iron out the wrinkles on the pc side. It doesn't seem like anything devastating to me. I've adapted to it really quick and only find it inconvenient in a few fixable ways that I fully expect to be resolved once it goes live.

But the real gem is the full experience of using your windows live ID between the phone, desktop and tablet. That's where people that don't have a win phone or a tablet are going to think that most of Win 8 is just unnecessary and, for them, it is. But once you buy in to even 2 of the devices in the ecosystem, it gets really slick. I expect Xbox to be fully integrated into this ecosystem as well by go live.

I'm not furious. It's just a piece of software, one that's not even out of beta yet.

Mostly I'm confused. Confused by why MS thinks this will be an adequate replacement for W7 on desktop, laptops, and other 'traditional' systems with no touch interface, especially since it brings few improvements over W7. Confused by how to use it effectively when most of my previous Windows skills seem to not apply. Confused by conflicting reports on how to do things or even if old actions are still necessary (shutting down, closing apps). Confused by a lack of information regarding what Metro means for future releases of MS's server and back-end products (if anything). Confused by what future 'traditional' products will look like when shoehorned into the Metro format.

Too many unanswered questions.

I share a lot of the same sentiments. Businesses I support are just now making the Windows 7 switch and now it's making IT pros everywhere look like they are deploying old tech. I tried the beta Windows 8 for about 10 minutes, and was nothing but confused. I do not understand Balmer's thinking on this one other than they are looking for a way to seem "fresh" again. The metro UI is polished touch screen garbage IMHO. In a way, it seems to mock the Google Play app store on my android phone.

I say they need to concentrate more on making the most of Windows 7 for the time being, barring any major technological advancements in OS's, I think Windows 7 is going to be my XP for the next 10 years.

Oooooo-kay. I don't get why people would load a test OS across multiple personal devices, but whatever floats your boat. You realize you'll eventually have to either upgrade to the release version (and pay for it) or downgrade back to whatever you were running before, right?

Care to share what that 'something extra' is?

We have windows phones. After install, you make a user id. If you use your windows live ID, it pulls your info down from the cloud. After being logged in for 5 minutes, ALL of our contacts and calendar events were synced up. Our facebook and linked in accounts were live in the people pane. Our photos were propagating and I clicked my skydrive and was able to get to all of my documents.

5 minutes out of the box and it was a fully usable machine with almost zero configuration. After some theme adjustments, I was able to log on to another machine and experience the same effect only with my backgrounds and color choices following me.

It's by no means perfect and has a few things to work out still, but this is awesome. As an IT guy, I have 5 computers that my wife, two kids and I use. I was a full time IT guy at home hooking up things for whoever and re-saving links to desktops and whatnot (my kids are 2 and 5). Now, they can log in on their own with their 4 digit code and it pulls their updated stuff down automatically no matter where they are.

It's very slick and everyone loves it.

The moral of the story is we are fully on board with Win 8. When we have to upgrade and re-install, it will be a simple re-install and 5 minutes after logging in they will have everything back again with no downtime.

After installing mine, everybody else wanted it and seeing this made it a no brainer to install it everywhere.

I don't install beta software outside test environments, and I don't consider my personal home systems as test environments. I've been burned too many times. Heck, for deployment I usually follow the 'Not before the first Service Pack' policy!

Back to W8, however. You and yours have an advantage many (most?) of us trying W8 do not - a Windows Phone background. Others neither have nor want Windows Live accounts, so those 'advantages' don't apply to us. (From a workplace point of view, we don't allow any company data to be stored off company equipment; the cloud isn't a factor.) But even if I had a web-based account of some kind, I'd still wait on the release version before slapping it on the home machine. Just me, I guess.

If you're in a windows environment, the cloud may be able to be stored on your local company equipment still even though you're using a cloud service like skydrive. Windows server 8 has a lot of baked in cloud services like this that will likely let you redirect this behavior via policy in some way.

Still, my main reason to use my home machines as guinea pigs is that I can be highly experienced in the product before it even hits which gives me a leg up in my career. It also enables my company to be more swift and move with the times quicker than most because I'm keeping pace with the technology rather than waiting for others to work out the kinks.

The old days of waiting for SP1 so all of the bugs are worked out are gone. SP1 for Windows 7 was completely insignificant and those who waited gained nothing and missed out on a great, stable OS.

Thank you for this comment.

I was a 20year Macintosh user (we owned a software company which developed Workflow Automation robots for the MacOS) and I recently switched to a Windows Phone from an iPhone 4s and I will probably not go back. Here's why: My Windows Phone (HTC Titan) is configured with my Microsoft (Live) Accounts. The Metro UI acts like a "live" dashboard of information that updates in Real-Time. Everything I need is right at my fingertips and updates all the time. All my social graphs; Facebook, Linkedin, etc. are built directly into the phone. Much like Palm's WebOS, everything is integrated through "contracts."

When the Windows 8 Consumer Preview came out, my 12 year old son and I setup his notebook with the software. Because he was the previous owner of the Titan (we traded phones cause there are WAY MORE GAMEs on iOS than WinPhone), all of his social graphs and his Xbox were configured with his MS Live Account. After we logged-in with his "Live" account, the Dashboard (Start/Metro) populated his data from the cloud (including is Xbox avatar). He was BLOWN away to say the least. He LOVES Metro and says it is WAY easier to understand the Windows 7.

Afterwards, I setup another account on his notebook with my Hotmail account, and my data populated my Dashboard from the cloud...AMAZING.

Two profiles, two completely different sets of Dashboards.

Then I loaded Office 2010 and it ran like a charm, this on a 6year old cpu with 2GB of Ram and 80GB HD. For Beta software, this stuff is very good technically.

Anyway, as a Tech Professional, I am excited to give my Executives a tool which allows them to configure a corporate Dashboard, yet still allows them to get "real work" done. As for my users, they will appreciate a system which keeps them "up-to-date" and lets them navigate to Start using only the Window's key.

Basically, the complaints that I see are from people who either don't share Microsoft's vision or have not configured their systems properly to take advantage of that vision.

As someone who has designed User Interfaces for a living, what Microsoft has done is nothing short of brilliant.

If you are reading this, don't listen to the naysayers. "Dive In, the Water's fine."

"I know this steak doesn't exist. And I know that the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After 9 years, you know what I have learned? Ignorance is bliss."

All of your existing applications require a paradigm shift ... all the real work is done behind the tile facade. The applications that are Metropolized are enormous wastes of screen real estate and don't offer anything that, e.g., Weather Bug couldn't have from your system tray.

Are you sure it's not "better" just 'cause it's new and different? Does it do anything a $30 shareware shell replacement couldn't have done?

I just wrote a lengthy post above outlining how my family uses it.

There is nothing that has provided a good strong desktop system since Panther and XP. Everything since has been razzle dazzle that primarily any addon application could have given the system.
There is truth to the saying: Software continues to improve until it ultimately becomes unusable.

Tell me, what addon application could give Windows XP 64 bit support? Yeah, I know there was a 64 bit version of XP, but no vendors ever made software or drivers to support it, so it was pretty much useless. And what addon application could give XP the impoved security that Vista and 7 have over XP? What addon could give XP full support for AHCI disk controllers, having more than 3 GB of RAM, etc.?

The bottom line here is that you are probably one of these people who only uses his computer to check email, surf the web and maybe play a game of solitaire. You find that it is too difficult to learn anything new, so you are happy to stay in the past. You criticize people who want new features and new capabilities to help them get their work done as a way to compensate for your inability to understand how to use the new features to your benefit.

Rick

... you really can't stop them from drinking the kool-aid!

If some people wish to turn a blind-eye to hard-learned past lessons, you gotta let them walk off the cliff so they might learn the lessons again. It *might* stick this time.

But, back to Win8 for a moment: We just tried the preview of Win8 Server in a test environment and found that they have a "console/text-only-install mode" now??? So, now you can have Windows with no windows??? Errr...

"Ummm... Yeah! That'd be great...! Did you get a copy of that memo? Well, you go ahead and make sure you do that, and I'll make sure you get another copy of that memo..."

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that having more options is a bad thing?

I guess you didn't know that the option to install Windows server as the "core OS," without the Windows interface has been an option since Windows Server 2008.

Rick

I agree...I've done the exact same and everyone really likes it. The roaming profile really enables each user to use whatever computer they want and feel right at home which is cool. My five year old has mastered it already and she's running on a 10 year old PC. That blows my mind in of itself.

... that it's doing EXACTLY what it was designed for: hold user's hands and keep them in the sandbox like the obedient kindergarten kids they're supposed to be.

Why not get plugged in Microsoft's Matrix directly while you're at it?

Personally I think you are out of hand here. I installed, started and hated Win8. I didn't even need ten minutes. I have it running in VM's and on my tablet. The only place it makes sense is the tablet. Server 8 is just as bad. At the moment that is. Before people start moaning, yes I know what I am doing, no I do not feel the need to state my quals. I am not an apple/linux fanboy. I like windows, I just do not like win8 yet.

Surely ten minutes is enough to know how good something is. I read your post and after a mere 10 minutes have realized that you don't know crap about anything.

These people spout off like they know all there is to know about Windows 8 after 10 minutes or less. I've spent at least 2 or 3 hours with Windows 8, and I feel like that is barely enough to have formed any strong opinions one way or the other.

But this is clearly the problem here: We have all these people who insist W2K or XP is the best, but they've never spent more than 10 minutes trying to learn anything new. They claim that the newer versions of Windows are too difficult to use, are inefficient to work with, etc., but the bottom line is they've never put more than 10 minutes worth of effort into trying to learn how to take advantage of the improvements in the newer versions of Windows.

Rick

I think a lot of people criticizing Windows 8 haven't even used it. Many people seem to have formed their opinion from looking at screenshots of Metro. How else can you explain the fact that so many complain that the desktop is gone?

I think you are probably right. They either haven't tried it all, or they didn't even try clicking the "Desktop" icon. Or maybe something that seems so simple to you and me is just way too complex for some people to figure out? Or could it be that there are just a lot of people here who like to whine and complain about everything Microsoft does, just for the sake of hearing themselves whine and complain?

Rick

First things I did after installation was add it to a domain, second things was look at the imaging tools and other consorts using the console. Same as windows 7 so why bother upgrading ? Lose the metro tiles and there is not much difference to 7. If you are looking at from an enduser view...mybe is it cool...for an Admin, nothing has changed yet, so why change ? Tried installing it yet from WDS? I have. I do believe I do actually know what I am doing and as a grown-up I am capable of forming a reasonable and reasoned opinion. I still do not like it.

Nowhere in any of my messages have I ever said that anyone SHOULD upgrade. Nowhere in any of my messages have I said that Windows 8 is in any way necessarily BETTER than Windows 7. Nowhere have I ever said that Metro is actually an IMPROVEMENT.

My only objections have been to the people who claim it is too hard to learn anything new; who claim that a few minor changes to the interface are equivalent to car makers putting the driver's seat in backwards, putting the gas pedal on the roof, etc.; who claim that W2K or XP already have everything that ANYONE needs, and newer versions of Windows offer nothing but "eye candy" or useless clutter.

Anyone who spends a few hours learning to take advantage of the new features in newer versions of Windows (such as Windows 7), will quickly see that there is a lot more there than just eye candy and useless clutter. Anyone who thinks they can spend 10 minutes looking at Windows 8 and, based on 10 minutes experience, determine that there is nothing new there that is worth anything to anyone is a fool. Anyone who thinks that just because they want to stay in the past, then everyone else should also be happy to stay in the past with them is a fool. Anyone who thinks Microsoft is somehow forcing them to upgrade is full of hot air.

Rick

Nowhere in his OP does Tony say it's too hard to learn something new. Nowhere does he make any of the claims you cite in your post.

He loaded Win8, looked at it, and didn't like it. He dug around under the hood, didn't see any significant differences from Win7 besides the Metro interface, and saw no need to proceed further. He expressed his opinion that in his (admittedly limited) experience Win8 only made sense on the tablet. He then closed with the sentence "I like windows, I just do not like win8 yet."

How does "just do not like" extrapolate to "afraid of change"?

How am I "on Tony?" I guess there is just some kind of a communication problem here. The problem seems to be that when someone says something to the effect that "I like Windows 8," or in my case "I haven't used it enough to have a strong opinion," many people here interpret that as saying "I think you should be forced to upgrade to Windows 8 immediately!"

The result is that we see these threads where, for example, one guy says that he put Windows 8 on all his family's home computers, and then he gets accused fo being "all religious" about Windows 8, and gets accused of being foolish for putting "beta" software in his "production" environment, etc. I make comments to the effect that it's absurd to think that MS will "force" anyone to upgrade to Windows 8, or that spending 10 minutes with Windows 8 is not enough time to learn enough about it to really say for sure if it is any better or any worse than Windows 7, and I am accused of being an MS fanboy, and I am accused of thinking that anything new and shiny is necessarily better, etc.

And, if I try to clarify my position, by pointing that I never said anyone should upgrade, and that my only objections all along have been to the people who make various claims about being forced to upgrade, or about it being too hard to learn anything new, then I am accused of "being on" someone.

I guess I just have to accept that there is a double standard in this forum, where it is acceptable to attack, insult and criticize people who are open to trying out new software, but people who are open to trying new software dare not say anything negative in response to people who automatically hate new software.

Rick

We have all these people who insist W2K or XP is the best, but they've never spent more than 10 minutes trying to learn anything new. They claim that the newer versions of Windows are too difficult to use, are inefficient to work with, etc., but the bottom line is they've never put more than 10 minutes worth of effort into trying to learn how to take advantage of the improvements in the newer versions of Windows.

That was in your response to glitch177k's response to tony (titled "Exactly!"). Tony said he tried it, didn't like, and felt it was suited only to a tablet. At no time did tony imply any of what you assume or state in those two sentences. The rest of your complaints are also based on reading something more into the posted words that is actually there.

If there is indeed be a communications issue here, it's not one-sided.

I know nothing. I have only been traing IT peeps up to MCSE, MCITP levels for over 10 years now, but I know nothing. Your qualified, I repeat QUALIFIED opinion is worthless. I make desisions about more important things than OS's in less than 10 Mins. WIN8 is still useless outside of a tablet environment. Only thing that could be interesting is the implementation of virt. desktops.

I guess my 35 years of IT experience is meaningless compared to your massive 10 years experience! Clearly you are a super-genius when it comes to computers and you can instantly know everything there is to know about a new version of Windows. I am sorry for doubting your superior intelligence.

Now, if you can just get over yourself, maybe you could offer some intelligent input here.

Rick

heed thyself...

Newer does not necessarily equal better. Businesses have to justify the expense of new or updated software. If what they have still meets their requirements and functions well, IT is going to have a very hard time selling an upgrade.

That's why I still use WinXP at work; not because WinXP does everything I want it to (although it does), but because none of the OEM-provided apps that flash and load the the equipment I support run under Vista, Win7, or Win8...not even in compatibility mode.

You can't even buy xp. You HAVE to buy windows 7 if you buy new computers. Sure you can try to force it onto old computers, but IT doesn't have to sell anything to management. Microsoft won't let you buy it and they won't support it soon as it is.

Your argument is a cop out. The only sales pitch you need to make is that you need to find vendors that aren't selling you 10 year old software technology. That's really sounds like your problem is that you're going the cheap route with your vendors.

First, they aren't my vendors, they are the customer's vendors.
Second, I have no control over which equipment the customer buys.
Third, I have no control over the software the vendors provide to support that equipment.

...it's NEW! It's BETTER! It's SHINY! You MUST HAVE IT!

And if you're immune to the hype, it's only because you're old.

"afraid of change"...

"It doesn't work on a tablet very well at all and the times have changed where phones and tablets are a big part of the future of IT."

No disagreement. What it ignores is that desktops and laptops aren't going away any time soon.

As to Windows Live, movement of data off company servers is a decision that will be made several managerial levels above me.

How has anything you have seen in the latest corral's that MS and Apple are trying to build an improvement over using a service in a small organisation like google's email and calendar?

What big organisation (most are still using XP workstations anyway) would want flaming apps taking up the time and desktop space of their employee's?

It was bad enough with Windows 7. There were so many changes put in for tiltbits and DRM and other razzle dazzel stuff that it crippled the ability for the OS to move huge chunks of data across various drives. Many resorted to installing a program that would move files! Something that used to be a given in any OS, now is compromised.

Now we are seeing a situation develop where we will have to install a program that will return the normal workings of a desktop to us..

With huge advances in hardware, speed in an OS and efficiency as well, a lean mean machine should be a given. Not something you have to try to achieve because it is compromised by crazy ideas that are coming out of Apple and MS right now.

We have no problem moving data and doing business using windows 7. In a properly deployed infrastructure I don't think you would have a problem. You may have some major infrastructure issues if you are having these problems...

...moving data and doing business using windows 7. In a properly deployed[...]"

The term 'properly deployed' explains exactly the basis of disagreement between those who like Windows 8 and those who don't, and why fanboys can't see these restrictions as a problem, because they simply see them as 'proper' features.

Why should anyone have to do anything properly? Everything should just magically work, right? You should be able to use an old extension cord in place of an Ethernet cable, and it should just work, right? After all, you can put cooking oil in your car engine instead of motor oil, and that will work just fine! And you can mix reds with whites in the washing machine and not turn everything pink, right? And of course, you can put any numbers you feel like putting on your tax return. The government won't come after you if you don't fill it out properly. It's only these stupid Windows computers that have these stupid requirements to do things properly. In any other aspect of life, you can do anything you want, any way you want, and everything will still be just fine.

I don't understand what you expect, and it's clear that you are not going to give a straight answer. Now you are saying that you think people who like Windows 8 are "fanboys" because they don't see doing things "properly" as being a problem? How is it a problem to have to do things properly? How should one expect anything to work properly, if it is not properly assembled/ connected/ configured/ etc.? Even your old friend, W2K will not work properly if it is not properly deployed. If it's not properly installed on proper hardware, with proper device drivers and so on, it will not work. I am not aware of ANY OS that will work properly if it is not properly installed and configured, on proper hardware, etc. So how is it such a problem that Windows 7 or Windows 8 also needs to be deployed properly, just like every other OS known to man?

It seems like you just don't understand very much about how computers work. But I guess saying that will get me accused of personal attacks... However, I just don't know what else the explanation could be. How else can you repeatedly make such absurd statements?

Rick

Rick,

Whereas I discuss ideas and points on the philosophical level and reasonably expressed how I understand your position, you feel it necessary to get in a furor over it as if my opinion was some kind of proof of disease or mental inability to grasp the fundamentals.

Like I said, you can't see my point because for you it is 'obvious' that Microsoft has made 'improvements' and that anyone who cannot see this surely must be ill-informed or simply incompetent.

If you take offense for me using the word 'fanboys' to qualify those who like Windows 8 or Microsoft, I just can't see what else to say to you.

It it obvious to me and, as I gather, others here as well, that you are on a campaign to pick a fight with anyone who doesn't conform with what you believe to be the correct point of view on this issue.

End of story.

To both participants...

Please allow this particular subject to drop.

in MS's defense(not a typical stance for me btw), essentially, Win8, is basically an optimized version of win7...with the start menu cut out of it, and metro sewn in. It DOES use less resources though, not a lot less, but enough to make a difference. Honestly MS would have been better off releasing a service pack for win7 that optimized the code, rather then making a whole new version of windows. of course that's assuming such a thing were possible. I would however recommend it to those with systems struggling to run 7 though.

It's ALL about the Benjamin's. The BOTTOMLINE! mo money....mo money. . mo money!

Isn't that the reason we all get up and go to work every day? Or are you going to tell us that you are one of those people who works for free?

Rick

Comeon now Rick, how many advances do we really need from what we have had already? I can understand MS release a new O/S with really something we can find useful in our daily lives. BUT Metro isn't it. All Metro is doing, is giving us a new way to do what we could do already. Think about it do YOU really need a separate space to do a spreadsheet on? What about another separate space do write an email? All Windows 8 is a way to do what we did already, but in a separate space. BUT then again, this might only be for the consumer, and the pro/business version will be something more productive.

How many advances do we need? I say it depends what you do with your computer. I know there are a lot of people here who do little more than check their email, surf the web, and maybe play a game of solataire once in awhile. Those people don't use a computer enough to appreciate any advances in computer technology. They might as well still have 386 CPU and Windows 3.1.

On the other hand, there are those of use who are actually willing to spend a little time to learn how to take advantage of new features to make our lives easier. There are those of us who do things like video editing or photographic work, who can benefit greatly from having a 64 bit OS, more than 3 GB of RAM, having an OS which is optimized to support video/audio playback, etc. Along the same lines are the hard-core gamers who also demand a lot from their computers to run the latest and greatest games, which also require large amounts of RAM, fast multicore CPUs, etc.

There are other features in Windows, such as Windows Media Center, which again, is something most people here wouldn't have a clue about. But for those of us who use it, it's a great feature and it has gotten better with each new release of Windows.

Just because you can't imagine having a use for anything more than what you already have in your current computer/OS doesn't mean no one else can use it.

I have to admit that I haven't used Windows 8 enough to really know exactly how it will benefit me in the long run. My initial thoughts are that the Metro interface seems like a handy way to organize things so that the applications I use most will be right there in front of me. I have also found that it is extraordinarily easy to click the Desktop icon and get right back to the good old Windows Desktop. So, I am not sure why so many people are so frightened by the Metro interface - except that it is "something new," and people are fearful of change.

Again, I haven't used Windows 8 enough to have any really strong opinions about it. Unlike a lot of people here, who think they can look at it for 10 minutes and then make a sensible, informed decision about it, I know it will take at least a few more hours of actually working with it for me to really decide what I think of it.

Finally, if you've read any of my other posts here, you know that my opinion is that no one is "forced" to upgrade. No one has to use Windows 8, if they don't want to. There is no reason for people with limited computer skills to be so fearful that Windows 8 is going to be forced upon them. There is nothing that says you have to upgrade your existing computer to Windows 8. You can keep using whatever version of Windows you use now for as long as you can keep finding hardware to run it on.

Rick

... your existing computer to Windows 8. You can keep using whatever version of Windows you use now for AS LONG AS YOU CAN KEEP FINDING HARDWARE TO RUN IT ON.[my emphasis]"

PRECISELY, my dear Watson

Instead of aggravating users forcing a new UI onto its users, why doesn't Microsoft concentrate on making an OS that works, works well and is robust and secure, instead of interfering with how users work.

But I guess empowering the user, that old precept on which the Personal Computer revolution was based, that used to drive true innovation in PC computing (remember how PC used to mean computers running DOS/Windows/x86 OS and software?), has long been abandoned at Microsoft. After all, empowering the user would be too much like Linux... What a scandalous thought.

It sounds like you want everyone in the world to be stuck with the old Windows 95/NT style interface, because that is all you know, and it is too hard for you to learn how to take advantage of any improvements in the Windows interface.

You know, if you turn off Aero, and turn off all the modern stuff, even Windows 7 ends up looking a lot like W2K. Maybe that will make you happy?

Rick

No fuss, no muss, no fluffy stuff. Just pure OS, a reliable way to get my applications running.

I can get Win7 to look just like Win2K by turning off all the eye candy? I'll remember that when corporate moves me to Win 7 from XP.

@NickNielsen: I couldn't have said it better myself. +1

Fact is, that old OS simply WORKED. I still have one that I rescued from someone's trash bin, that I fire once in a while when I'm down and blue. And when nostalgia really picks up, I fire the old Windows 3.11 on the old Thinkpad and get right in in... 11 seconds from cold boot

The point is, the interface was clean and it was uncluttered with bloat and inefficient code.

Bottom line is, as Palmetto so briliantly remarked it, Windows 8's problem is not the OS itself, but its UI. So, if it can be split into essentials, like kernel and machine level code, which undoubtedly holds great promise, and the dumbed-down UI put aside with its politically correct BS legislators and corporate lobbyists have been forcing upon users ever since the early days of the DMCA, I am sure it will hold great promise.

Who knows, hackers may ironically hold the key to Microsoft's survival after all

@vucliriel: Is that what it really comes down to? Are you longing for a past life and fearful of what the future will bring? If W2K is what you like, why don't you just keep using it? For a thousand dollars, I bet you could buy at least 10 or 20 old computers with W2K. That should be enough to last the rest of your life. Just stack up 'em up somewhere and then, as one computer dies, you can just pull out another. No need to worry about finding parts, etc.

Rick

Rick

@rick, your assumption that a preference for an older, simpler, UI implies fear of the future or an inability to learn is insulting, to say the least. I can't speak for vucliriel, but I can say for my part that I've been learning something new every day of my life and don't intend to stop until the grass starts growing out of my feet.

The function of an operating system is to provide an interface between the hardware and application software. That's it. That's all I, and apparently vucliriel, want our operating systems to do: provide a base on which our applications can run. Win2K did that, and did it very well.

That you may want something more from your OS is your choice. But my choice of an older OS does not make me a reactionary or a Luddite any more than your choice of the latest OS available makes you a fad-boy.

Well, I happen to think a lot of Vucliriel's comments addressed towards me have been uncalled for as well. He keeps accusing me of being an OS "religious zealtot," he keeps accusing me of saying things I never said, he keeps accusing me of being a troll, living in an ivory tower, not having an actual real-world IT experience, and various other things, all of which are completely untrue.

Obviously, he does not like me because I don't support his view that everyone should be stuck in the past, simply because he doesn't want to move into the future. I have said repeatedly that he can do as he pleases, yet, he keeps accusing me of trying to force Windows 8 on everyone, etc.

Rick

I can't speak for other threads in this discussion, because I have only skimmed most of it. But just above, he did agree with you: PRECISELY, my dear Watson

And you responded with an attack on his motives and skills: It sounds like you want everyone in the world to be stuck with the old Windows 95/NT style interface, because that is all you know, and it is too hard for you to learn how to take advantage of any improvements in the Windows interface.

Again, I haven't read the entire discussion, but the personal attacks I'm seeing in this particular thread are not posted by vucliriel. They may be elsewhere, but they are not here.

You have it all right there. You haven't read all the posts. You haven't seen all of his posts where he has attacked and insulted me.

You are right that two wrongs don't make a right. The bottom line with these Tech Republic forums is that there are too many people here, like Vucriel, who treat their OS preference as if it were some kind of religion. And they all seem to have the idea that anyone who does not subscribe to their religion is evil and must be attacked.

And if you think this is bad, you should have been here when Vista first came out. At that time, there were a group of Linux Dorks here who were like a group of nerds trying to get back at the world because they got picked on by bullies in high school. Those guys were truly downright mean and vicious with their insults and personal attacks against anyone who didn't subscribe to their "Linux Religion." (note that the term "Linux Dorks" does not refer to everyone who uses Linux, but only to those who feel compelled to elevate their use of Linux to some sort of a religion).

The bottom line is these forums seem to attract a lot of people who are not interested in discussing the technical merits or technical problems in the world of computing, but rather, they come here to spout off their uninformed opinions and attack anyone who disagrees with them.

Rick

But then, nothing of what you just describe requires Windows and Microsoft... and, in the past few years many people learned, primarily by being exposed to mobile devices running someone else's OS, that the OS does not really matter. What matters is if the computer you use does the job and serves your needs: not you serving the computer's needs.

So, if you have to change your computing environment, by having to use new OS (such as Windows 8), or just having to replace your computer with something new, chances are, you will end up with something other than Windows.

There is life besides Microsoft and Windows.

Isn't that justification for why we didn't need to move beyond windows 95? It did internet. It did email. It ran office and games and the like.

Do you still use 95? People made the same claims about XP that they did about vista and 7 and now 8. I had customers downgrade their free xp license to windows 98 because XP was "unnecessary and unstable".

Why do people fear change so much? I'll never understand it. Not one version of windows was worse than it's predecessor. Not one. And yes, I'm including Vista.

I think the answer comes from all the comments about how "I spent 10 minutes with (insert Windows version here) and that was enough to know I hate it!"

Some people just automatically hate anything from Microsoft. Other people are either unwilling or incapable of learning anything new. They want to stay in their comfort zone. They are scared of anything new. They don't want to expend the effort required to learn newer, better ways of doing things.

I really think in many ways, this is good news for those of us who are willing and able to learn new things, and who want to have jobs in IT. The people who refuse to keep updating their skills will soon find that their skills are obsolete, and their jobs will be the first to go to India or China. Those of us who stay on top of things will have a better chance at staying employed.

Rick

glitch said

I had customers downgrade their free xp license to windows 98 because XP was "unnecessary and unstable.

glitch they have reason behind that statement, and it will happen with Windows8 as well. It is called custom software, and mission critical applications. All companies worry about this, that is why it take anywhere from 2 years to 5 years before companies upgrade their computer to the next level of Operating Systems. The same holds true for Educational Institutes. It is the nature of the beast we call Windows.

The same could be said of Vista, or Me, or MS-DOS 4.0. Nothing wrong with making money, but they won't make much off confusing software.

They re-skinned it and sold it for millions. If anything, Windows 7 was the "just for money" OS. It didn't bring much to the table that vista couldn't already do. A SP would have sufficed but the brand of "vista" was a loser so they bailed.

As you noted, the brand fell into disfavor, mostly through poor marketing decisions. But it doesn't matter whether it was really a dog, or whether W8 is one or not. If the public perceives it as so, MS will change course.

I mean, where's the beef? Not even wasting energy wondering about where M$ is going to force working users into. Windows 8 is obviously an OS designed for etch-a-sketches. Er, I meant, tablets.

Sorry glitch177, but Vista is and was a pig that should not have been released. Win7 is what Vista was supposed to have been and would have been if bean counters would let the developers get on with their job.
I can live with Win7 in my clients environments and run it on my business workstation but at home and on my business laptop that I use for running apps to diagnose network issues etc I am still running XP and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. As an IT guy I want to be able to have granular control of certain functions - especially concerning network adapters and such that I can not get with an OS that has damn near everything done by wizard. Sure there are IT guys that will run a wizard and be happy that the issue goes away, but as a PROFESSIONAL I want to know exactly what the issue was, what caused it and how to fix it. Vista started to remove a lot if what I want and need and Win8 is going further down that path.

Microsoft is now attempting to stay abreast of the shifting OS market. Apple could have offered an iPad with their Mac OS, but they chose not to go with an established, good, but old operating system. MicroSoft is not willing to let Windows go without yet another battle. Their hope is to try and keep folks onboard before they jump ship to something else.

One of my laptops has the very latest Windows 7 and another one has the good old Windows XP. There are many things I like better about the older OS. My daughter's still has Vista (ouch). The past ten years have seen too many flavors of Windows, with very little improvement from one to the next. Still the same old problems. I say it's time to keep Windows for the corporate world and let the rest of us move into the future.

Quit holding onto the past Microsoft... you know what happens to those who can't innovate into whole new territories. Learn from your competitors or you won't be around much longer.

You're still using Windows XP and you're telling Microsoft to stop holding onto the past? Do they not teach logic anymore? [rhetorical]

I think camcost is saying that Microsoft are not really innovating Windows but with little improvement betweens versions he/she feels that there is little point in upgrading from XP. Not entirely sure I agree (because I think there have been improvements in security), but I can accept their reasoning

So if there aren't many improvements between versions, then Windows is exactly like the iPad.

And then of course if Microsoft do make changes to the GUI in their OS then the learning curve is too steep for IT execs to get their heads around (rolls eyes).

"...Getting pecked to death by ducks," ...is not my idea of security.

... because Windows 7 will be supported until 2020. This is not the same thing than not wanting to upgrade from Windows XP. Windows 7 is an excellent product and has been out for three years. If you are not there yet - you SHOULD BE!

As for the costs associated with upgrading ... the longer you wait, the more costly it becomes. The jump from XP to Vista / 7 was directly linked to the kernel re-write. The same thing happened in 2000. Seven years on a kernel is not the least unreasonable. Now it is 2012 and, if you want to stick with Windows 7 until 2020, that's fine but once Microsoft releases a new kernel, it is time to start planning for your next upgrade.

The cost of an OS upgrade from the current version to the brand new version is irrelevant. Most can buy each new upgrade at UPGRADE prices. Besides, most people do not upgrade until they replace their hardware - and hardware gets cheaper every day!

It's FULLY irrelevant because most buy a new computer every 4 to 5 years. The OS comes with it in most cases. As part of a natural cycle, upgrade when it gets here. Unless you HAVE to have the newest and greatest at which point you aren't complaining about windows 8 and using this as your justification why you won't buy it to begin with.

I guess what I'm trying to say is their reasoning is false reasoning.

Deleted it, problem solved. Too different from anything else out there. At least with Mac, or Linux it was close enough to prior Windows to pick up quickly and easily, this is just a headache in the making.

Here's what I have a hard time understanding: Consider ANY other product that people buy. Cars, TVs, shoes, washing machines, you name it. In ANY other product category, vendors come out with new versions of their products on some fairly regular basis. And in ANY other product category, consumers may buy the new versions of those products, or they may not. This is the way the world goes, and it has been this way for much longer than I have been around.

No one seems to think it is unreasonable for Ford, or Toyota, or any other car makers to introduce new versions of their cars every year. No one has fits when Maytag or GE come out with new versions of their washers and dryers every year. No one thinks they are being forced to upgrade their TV every time Sony or Samsung comes out with a new TV model. No one whines and complains about how the new Reeboks are no better than their 10 year old Reeboks, and therefore they will never ever buy a new pair of shoes ever again.

So why is it so difficult for people to accept the fact that Microsoft is just a company that makes and sells various products, and that those products will be updated from time to time? Why do people think these upgrades are being "forced" upon them? Why do people have to make a big stink about whether or not they will upgrade? And more importantly, why do people have to come across with this attitude that's like "Well, I don't like the new version of (insert Microsoft product name here), therefore, anyone is an idiot if they upgrade!"

I have plenty of clients who still have old computers running XP. There's even a handful of W2K machines around. On the other hand, when my clients decide they need new computers, they now get computers with Windows 7. Very rarely does anyone upgrade an old computer to a newer version of Windows, but when they decide they need a new computer, they get the new software too, and they are happy. In a year or two from now, they will be getting new computers with Windows 8. So what? Bill Gates doesn't go around pulling the plug on the old machines with W2K and XP. They still work as long as people want to keep using them. Microsoft does not force anyone to upgrade, any moreso than GM forces customers to buy new cars every year, or Nike forces everyone to buy new shoes every time they come out with a new style.

I just don't get why people act so weird when it comes to Microsoft updating it's product line from time to time. Are these forums just full of a lot of computer nerds who have no life outside of whining about software upgrades? Or am I missing something?

Rick

@Rick, one of the reasons people seem to feel more pressure to keep up with Micorsoft updates is that eventually new software will emerge that simply will not run on their computer because the OS isn't supported. To liken this to your washing machine analogy, I can place a new pair of jeans in a 50 year old washer and they will get washed.
Another concern is reduced productivity, for this point I will refer to your GM analogy and borrow something I have heard several times lately. If GM were to launch a new car with a Joystick to replace the Steering Wheel, and add buttons to the Joystick to replace the Brake and Gas. The new car would work, it would not require new roads to be built and some people would love driving them. However most drivers would find the new controls a hinderance to transportation.

A 50-year-old washer might still work, because if you're industrious enough, you can disassemble the motor, re-grease the bearings, have new brackets and seals made (if OEM replacements can't be sourced), and generally limp that machine along until the day you die.

New machines, maybe not so easily because everything you buy has a mini computer in it now, and that's kind of a black box. But, major appliances are still fundamentally simple devices, and there's no law saying you can't trace the connections to the relays and motor and switches and cook up your own microcontroller if you really like your 2003 Whirlpool enough to go to the trouble.

Point being, it still has a three-conductor AC inlet. It still has hot and cold water fittings. It still has a basket where you put your skivvies when dirty, and retrieve when clean. A knitted sweater from 1945 will still work in a state-of-the-art Samsung front-loader, and vice versa.

Where this analogy differs from PCs is that the OS and hardware are tightly coupled. Hardware changes require drivers, which require the API to be compatible. XP is not "too old" to run on modern hardware, but you'll probably have a tough time with your USB 3.0 peripherals, Thunderbolt displays, SAS backplanes, and CPUs in the next few years. Can this be fixed? Absolutely. Some back-porting of the core kernel components, and proper drivers, and XP will run on a computer produced in 2018. Then, your applications that depend on this particular OS will be fine.

Except -- Microsoft will not allow that happen. They won't update the kernel to support new bus topologies. They won't provide drivers. And they won't continue to patch all the buffer overflows that practically prevent you from running it, even in a VM, years from now because of the growing list of vulnerabilities in unmaintained code.

Yes, this is completely their right to stop supporting an old product.

Except, again -- with the ever-present car analogy, you can decide that you don't like hybrids and keep driving a gas engine. If Toyota decides the Prius is their only car from this day forth, you can buy a Chevy pickup that will continue to "run the same software". Your kids still fit in the back seat, you still buy tires, you still wash it once a year (needed or not) with the same bucket of soapy water. You have complete freedom of choice.

Binary compatibility makes that ability to hop vendors impossible on a software platform. This is partly why solutions providers and IT departments like web-based software. But until Flash and Java and ActiveX are bygones, and everything is using either lightning-fast dynamic code (HTML, CSS, JS) or a universal compiled format (then, problems with architecture), there's still a place for native applications. And those still require a particular platform.

So, yes, when that platform changes, we get upset. Because we DON'T have a choice if we don't like the changes.

Find a large business that doesn't have MS Office. An organization that doesn't use Exchange. There are alternatives, but not suitable replacements, so we are tied to Windows, and therefore, MS' release schedule. Those applications guarantee that we will be using Windows, and Active Directory, and Exchange, and SQL Server -- not because we want to, because we have to. Don't think for a minute MS doesn't count on, and capitalize on, that very fact.

Does Windows 7 do anything Vista couldn't with a kernel update and a service pack? Yes. It costs you money to upgrade.

Your points were extremely valid until you had to say, that everyone depends on Windows. Not everyone does.

In my business(es) I have avoided Windows for over 20 years now. Never missed for anything, except for few vendor provided software applications tied to specific hardware. No MS Office here. Never ever considered Exchange (come on, if it was that good, why it is not used as the default mail server on the Internet???). The technology, that Microsoft copied to create "Active Directory" has been around many, many years before that and is available in about any networked OS. SQL Server... well, you have to be forced to use that, while there are far superior alternatives, some of which completely free and not tied to any particular platform.

So yes, some of us not only think Microsoft is irrelevant, but we also never, ever consider Microsoft products in our business. Not that Microsoft has not tried.

In any case, there is choice. There is life beyond Microsoft and for those brave enough to get out the Matrix, that life is wonderful and colorful.
Some make the choice to stay with Microsoft, of course.

Even if we had 100% agreement from CxOs to the janitor, we couldn't completely abandon Microsoft. Many of our customers specify in their contracts the applications, versions, and file formats they require us to use. Sometimes they specify apps only available from MS; other times apps that don't have non-Windows versions.

One thing I've considered doing is devoting serious time to trying to cobble together all the very, very good open source equivalents and starting a consultancy that offers a (seat) license-free alternative.

The problem is, while you're completely right about there being alternatives to all those pieces, they are themselves just pieces. Linux, MySQL, LDAP, SAMBA, and Postfix do not replace Windows + Office + Exchange + SQL Server for your ordinary business. There's very little integration, like being able to set group policies that apply to users or computers. The things that can be integrated are fragile and difficult to get working to begin with.

If some distribution wanted to be the corporate desktop distro, I'm sure the glue and implementation details could be worked out. I would love to see this happen. However, most environments can't switch completely, so it would have to be a serious commitment on the part of the developers to keep up with all the changes from MS so that it Just Worked (tm) every day without fail.

BTW, the Internet is a very different email environment. The primary focus there is to get a message from A to B. Exchange isn't meant for that. It's more of a repository that stores and provides access to those messages once delivered. IMAP is the closest open equivalent that I know of, and it's not quite close enough.

We use Lotus Notes, dropped Exchange several years ago. (your tax dollars at work)

If you want to be able to run new software, with new features and new capabilities, then shouldn't you expect to have upgrade things in order to get those new features? Can you really expect Microsoft to have known, 10, 15, 20 years ago what people might want to do with their computers in 2012 and beyond?

As for productivity, I haven't used Windows 8 enough to comment on it. I know that there are a lot of people who pretty much refuse to try to learn to use Windows 7, or refuse to learn to use the ribbon interface in newer versions of office because they think it is too hard to learn. On the other hand, I have many clients who have spent a couple of hours trying to learn to use the new interfaces, and they all love it.

I have one client who still has office 2003 on his computers. He just hired a new secretary, and she is complaining because she has learned to use the new ribbon interface at her previous job, and now she finds it very difficult and time consuming to do things that she learned were much easier to do using the new interface.

Every time I get stuck working on a computer with XP or Office 2003, I find myself getting very aggravated because it is so much harder to do things without the new interface features in Windows 7 and Office 2010. The new interfaces are not just different for the sake of being different. They are better, and anyone who has the capability to learn something new, and the willingness to spend an hour or three learning, will almost always find that the newer interfaces are significantly improved over the older ones.

Rick

Cost To Train + Cost Of Hardware Required for Upgrade + Cost of Software Upgrade + Cost of Transitional Downtime.
If all those together can't be justified by what had better be a MASSIVE increase in productivity, it's not going to happen.
Also, I have not seen, since the move from 3.11 to 95, a significant change in the interface of windows-based machines. It's all pretty much the same, and the features are practically identical. The real difference for us has been the hardware it supports and the space it takes up on disk.

If it costs too much to upgrade, then don't do it.

I do find it interesting the way so many people claim that, on the one hand, all versions of Windows since 95 are "practically the same," yet at the same time they claim there are these tremendous costs for "retraining" and massive productivity losses due to the complexity of learning the new version.

Rick

... in functionality but they always impose massive changes in the way things are done. THAT is the problem. Typical MS marketing BS. Change the trim here and there, the shape of the sheet metal and the color and call it this year's model. But underneath it's still a klutzy, inefficient gas guzzler.

One of the most nerve racking days I spent in a good while was setting up three different laptops for a client and having to do the same things for each of them. One was XP, the other was Visa and the third was Windows 7. I was about fried after this because of the obvious degeneration in efficiency that was so blatantly obvious in the newer OS's over XP.

Everything I accomplished on the XP machine was much more lengthy and agrivating by yards of measure on each successive OS I had to repeat the process on. It just blew me away that this was what MS considered "progress".

Without knowing what exactly you had to do, I'm going to guess that you just never bothered to spend any time learning how to take advantage of the newer features in Vista and especially 7 in order to make things easier. Instead, you probably wasted a lot of time trying to force Vista and 7 to do things the way they were done in XP, because XP is all you know. You were probably fumbling around, stumbling through unfamiliar screens trying to figure out things that look a little different from what you are accustomed to in XP.

Personally, I am happy to know that there are so many people in the world of IT who are stuck in the past. I think it's job security for people like me who are able to learn new things.

Rick