If you love Windows XP, you’ll hate Windows 7

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=630

by raju • 18 years ago

47 62 18 years ago

blogs.zdnet.com

dcurtis3• 18 years ago

What? This is totally false. Windows 7 is a great step forward from Vista. They have removed all of the crap that was bloating the OS and pissing off people who like XP. It's the XPificiation of Vista, and they managed to pull it off.

They made changes to the UI that I think, after using Beta 1 for a few days, are in the right direction. It's still Windows, of course, and it has some weird quirks, but it's still beta.

iofthestorm2• 18 years ago

The point of this article is that one of the problems with Vista and now Windows 7 is that people were so used to the XP way of doing things, even if the XP way was stupid or unintuitive. If you take some time to learn the new UI it's a lot better. Same with Office 2007, the old Office menu system was horrible unless you knew exactly where everything was, whereas with the Ribbon/Fluent UI most of the time it adapts for the specific features you are currently using.

XPification is a stupid analogy because XP was just a paint-job on 2k to make it palatable for non-business users. Most of the people who "like" XP are just too used to it; XP was the longest running consumer version of Windows (skipping Server 2k3) and probably the first consumer version that wasn't horribly crash-prone. A few are annoyed at the increased resource usage but don't realize how much hardware specs have increased in the 5 years between XP and Vista; using the Moore's Law rule of thumb specs should have increased by over 8x so it makes sense that it uses more resources as appropriate.

ibsulon• 18 years ago

This is what I don't get. Why should I have to retrain my fingers to justify Microsoft's UI designers' salaries? I don't mind for myself, but I dread having to teach my parents every time, especially when I don't use the operating system myself.

bayareaguy• 18 years ago

How do the resource requirements compare?

There isn't anything for Windows 7 in the relevent section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Microsoft_Windows...

jredville3• 18 years ago

Well, when it was demo'd at PDC, it was on a Netbook, and it was still snappy, and had the eye candy. (http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/10/28/ars...)

mattmaroon• 18 years ago

What UI changes aren't in Vista? The stuff he highlights is a lot of why I prefer it to XP.

And the thought of Vista's UI with XP's responsiveness makes me pretty excited for 7.

mnemonik3• 18 years ago

Little bit of a misleading title.

there• 18 years ago

i seem to recall there being a setting in windows xp to make your windows and start menu and other things have a "classic" look. isn't there something similar in windows 7 that offers this? it sounds like such a feature would have eliminated a lot of the problems this guy's colleague was complaining about.

maybe just ask the user at first boot whether they want the new windows 7 look or an old classic view, setting default preferences accordingly. make the new mode look really appealing and tell the user what new features they'll get, and discourage the old "classic" mode and make it seem old and clunky, but let the user decide.

dcurtis3• 18 years ago

Windows 7 does, amazingly, have the same classic mode. When you switch to it, everything looks exactly like Windows 98.

dfranke• 18 years ago

To hell with 98. They got the UI right with Windows 1.0. It was a tiling window manager, just like the one I'm using now.

mynameishere• 18 years ago

Why is it amazing? It's a one-checkbox option to get rid of 10 years of candyland-style aesthetic mistakes. The underlying OS has nothing to do with transparent windows and pastels.

ivank• 18 years ago

There are some differences between the 98 and 2000 look, but it might just be the default color palette. I would imagine it looks like 2000.

tdavis• 18 years ago

The title should be "if you fear change, you will hate Windows 7". Holy shit, no Run command (which barely anybody uses) and no default Desktop icons (which are just superfluous next to the start menu)?! WHATEVER WILL I DO!??!

It's people like this Jason character, who feel all change is either (a) bad or (b) simply for the sake of change, who completely hinder innovation. If he wants Windows to "not change anything" then he should keep using XP and stop trying to provide any sort of analysis of something he is so entirely biased against.

At least the author of the actual article gave some relevant information.

Hoff• 18 years ago

It is the installed base that is the double-edged sword hanging over any successful large-scale software product; both its greatest strength, and its greatest weakness.

In particular, the desire to maintain installed-base compatibility runs contrary to the need to make significant changes.

And even if the organization's software engineering practices and UI designs are excellent, significant changes inherently bring incompatibilities and broken applications.

The bigger and more successful your application gets, the tougher the problem.

mnemonik3• 18 years ago

I feel like this Jason character is just a straw man the author created. So simplistic and so easily torn down.

iofthestorm2• 18 years ago

Err, if you noticed he linked to the "Jason character's" blog post about Windows 7 and the guy himself was pretty active in the comments on that article (jperlow).

creativeembassy• 18 years ago

All I use in Windows is the Run command. All I use in Linux is the similar feature. If I can't run a program I need in one line, I add it to the path or create a shortcut in the existing path.

Why in the world would they take this out!? Can someone confirm/deny this?

maweaver• 18 years ago

I can confirm that the article has step-by-step instructions for enabling the run command if you really need it, as well as the global key combination to open the dialog.

petercooper• 18 years ago

I remember people complaining similarly when Windows 95 came out. People were happy with Windows 3.1 and many didn't want to learn the new metaphors in 95 (which have stuck right up until XP). People not wanting to leave the 95->XP way of doing things are just as luddite as those who wanted to stick with 3.1.

antidaily• 18 years ago

Clearly what's missing is MORE ARROWS: http://i44.tinypic.com/zilyqo.gif

Raphael• 18 years ago

Well, all of those are perfectly obvious in function. Back, forward, history, up the menu hierarchy, down the hierarchy, history again, and refresh.

palish• 18 years ago

An obvious overcomplicated interface is still an overcomplicated interface.

mtw• 18 years ago

i have never used win Vista but I like the description of Windows 7, especially the fact that you launch programs with text commands.

it's very quicksliver-like, with minimalistic ui. hope this isn't just a skin over vista, but a real overhaul/decrapifying process by MS

briansmith• 18 years ago

That feature is in Windows Vista already.

pietro• 18 years ago

Yeah, as are most of the features mentioned in the article.

redorb• 18 years ago

I like the fact it is search reliant, figure after you make you might like losing the other clutter.. Windows 7 looks good so far; I really hope microsoft advances in user experience not becuase I like them but becuase so many people use them

ynniv5• 18 years ago

The simple reality (IMHO of course) is that people have always used Windows because it was "what everyone uses" and "what the office uses" and "what my software runs on". If you see it from this perspective, the people who wanted something different have already left to some flavor of UNIX or Mac, so those remaining are looking after their cognitive investment in having learned XP.

When you think about it, its amazing that Microsoft continues to sell Windows at all. Software is free to copy (should the medium break) and never wears out, so if you have purchased and operating system and are happy with it, why should you ever pay for another one?

I've been fascinated with Microsoft defenders (fan boys? lackeys? towel boys?) for years, since they seem to gain nothing by promoting the status quo (except for those whose job is subsidized by Microsoft). So, that everyone has bought a copy of Windows XP, why Microsoft should continue to make revenue?

Also, can we please make Linux (or maybe Haiku) a viable desktop OS? While I don't mind paying Apple a premium for their OS, it must be more efficient overall to have a non-profit develop a free OS once. Most new OS features at this point are marginally useful eye candy.

graemep2• 18 years ago

Personally I think Linux is a viable desktop OS for many people. It has been my desktop for about seven years. I have moved two very non-geek users to it in the last two years and they are both quite happy too.

MS defenders vary. Some have invested time learning MS technologies. Others worship wealth and success. Others have simply had bad luck with other OSes and have lost interest in trying again.

twopoint718• 18 years ago

I've had a lot of luck moving "non-geek" users to Linux. For those that cite these (once valid) points:

* Driver support

* Running windows applications (and here I'm including their equivalent, or under Wine/Crossover)

* Ease of use/installation

I'd be interested to hear what distro they tried and when they tried it. My last few installs of Debian/Ubuntu, even on non-x86 hardware has been a breeze and certainly much quicker than installing a fresh copy of XP.

Gilson_Silveira• 18 years ago

I think it is not so simple. It is not enough to have a good OS. In my opinion, what Linux needs from now is: - a stardardization of APIs (drivers, UI, etc...) - stardard technologies (such as C#, C++) - a very good development environment such as Visual Studio - very good documentation - show the world how to earn money using this

The wide audience needs straight ways to do things because most people like to execute, not to decide.

trezor• 18 years ago

Windows has been built to be easily and centrally managed for sys-admins since the days of NT. Linux on the other side has been built modularly and to be absolutely hackable to anyone with a root/admin-account.

There is no question what I would prefer to manage. You underestimate the power of Active Directory and Group policies.

ynniv5• 18 years ago

This is the "what the office uses camp". Interestingly, you like Windows primarily due to the manageable power that it gives you over other people ('s computers). Fixing the user experience at the expense of centralized control would not be an improvement to you (but it probably would be to your users).

BTW, having worked IT I fully agree with you. Mac OS X has a good notion for how one might manage groups of computers (NetInfo), but it isn't as pervasive at the application level and so it isn't as powerful.

Goronmon5• 18 years ago

I am somewhat of an MS fanboy, I guess, because the work they put into their operating system allows me to game. Which is a significant hobby of mine. Makes it hard for me to develop too much of a bias against them, that is, unless someone comes up with a viable alternative.

ynniv5• 18 years ago

I think that this use falls into the "my software works on it camp". Am I correct in saying that a new Microsoft OS that is orders of magnitude easier to use would be useless to you if your games didn't run?

wizlb3• 18 years ago

"...people have always used Windows because it was \"what everyone uses\""

That doesn't make any sense. Obviously there was a time when nobody used Windows, so what made them buy it before it was "what everyone uses"?

"When you think about it, its amazing that Microsoft continues to sell Windows at all....why should you ever pay for another one?"

You're amazed at this? Really? After thinking about it? Do you ask yourself things like "why do we have Automobiles when a Horse and Buggy is good enough"? Obviously, improvements are made and that's why people buy new versions of things.

"I've been fascinated with Microsoft defenders...for years, since they seem to gain nothing by promoting the status quo..."

And I'm fascinated by people like yourself who are so completely out of touch with reality that you actually believe your own bullshit. The status quo is kept alive because Microsoft has the best tools for business and enterprise. Other outfits have a few pieces of the puzzle, but Microsoft's got them ALL (good desktop, good server, good developer tools and API's).

pavelludiq• 18 years ago

"Obviously there was a time when nobody used Windows, so what made them buy it before it was "what everyone uses"?"

It just came with their IBM compatible PC. Oh yeah, and it ran their software.

ynniv5• 18 years ago

Your comment reads like a troll, but you have some good points.

"what made them buy it before it was 'what everyone uses'?"

The quick answer is that the IBM PC became popular and brought MS-DOS with it. Its popularity of the IBM PC in general was heavily based on IBM's brand and software compatibility of business applications. When other companies wanted to get into the PC market, they found it hard to sell hardware that didn't have well known software written for it (which of course is because the hardware wasn't popular, leading to a natural monopoly for the IBM PC).

Because of the clone market and the deal Microsoft had signed with IBM, the growth of the clone market meant the growth of MS-DOS, and eventually the transfer of monopoly power from IBM to Microsoft. From MS-DOS 1.0, Microsoft has always been a "Me-too" player, adding only the features necessary to prevent people from switching platforms. This trends towards a culture of letting others do the innovating.

"Do you ask yourself things like 'why do we have Automobiles when a Horse and Buggy is good enough'?"

Well, thats a good question, but I'll answer it with another one - how much does the Horse and Buggy cost? Because, if I am 10 times more productive with the car, and the car cost me less than that, yes, I should have a car. So yes, Windows XP is much better than MS-DOS 1.0. I would be more productive with XP, and it costs less than the productivity gain. When Vista came out, and it costs more than XP, and there is no "upgrade" discount, the question was very different. Businesses did not upgrade (if they weren't forced) to Vista because they didn't get their money back. Now Windows 7 is due, and we'll ask ourselves once again whether its worth the additional money.

"And I'm fascinated by people like yourself who are so completely out of touch with reality that you actually believe your own bullshit."

I think that everyone should... your much better off believing your own bullshit than someone else's. Still, I think that you might not understand the world as well as you think you do.

"The status quo is kept alive because Microsoft has the best tools for business and enterprise."

Ah, and now you hit the nail perfectly. Microsoft is alive because they have the best system for people in power to control those that they employ. Its smart catering to the basics of human nature, and control is one of them. Wouldn't we all be happier if we could control the lives of others?

The deep question is who is this better for, and who makes the decisions. I believe that Personal Computing should be, err... personal. The success of software should be derived from how much more personally efficient it makes each of us. This means that I value features like ease of use (more learning means less efficiency for non-repetitive tasks), low cost (less effort I have to expend to get the gain), organization and consistency (the opposite of which is needless stress to me), and stability (downtime is not productive, nor are interruptions).

My original comment on this submission comes from my inherit distaste for mouthpieces who defend companies against their own consumers. If Jason says that he dislikes the organization of Windows 7, then to an extent, the organization of Windows 7 is wrong. If the OS has to be customized to be useful, then it is wrong (every new Windows box I have to use gets the classic theme, hidden files visible, and a list of things that grows the more I have to use it.) When Microsoft runs an ad campaign instead of fixing Vista bugs, they have failed. Please, everyone, stop defending their failures. Defend what is worth defending and you'll feel better about yourself.

In my opinion, the goal of this article is for Ed to show that he is a better consumer than Jason, and in the end tells me that Microsoft has failed again. Amusingly, the first comment in the article's page is "I am 100pct with Jason.". The second is "Loving Windows XP". What if Windows 7 is a step backwards from XP? Have we forgotten Windows ME? How does your horse and buggy metaphor apply then?

[ http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm ] [ http://www.pbs.org/nerds/ ]

svjunkie• 18 years ago

Windows 7 seems to combine the relative modularity of XP with the ability to quickly access storage and transfer data, as evidenced by this informal benchmark:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236

I haven't taken a look yet, but it seems promising. Is this going to keep Windows competitive with OS X?

wizlb3• 18 years ago

"Is this going to keep Windows competitive with OS X?"

I think you got that backwards. Windows is the one with 90% of the market share. OSuX will be playing catchup for a long, long time.

quoderat2• 18 years ago

The final and insuperable issue that drove me from Windows Vista to Linux a year-and-a-half ago was Windows Explorer doing away with the incredibly-useful "up" button in favor of breadcrumbs.

Yes, I understand how breadcrumbs works and I am aware of how to use it. However, what I wish to click on is always changing positions, its length varies, and is sometimes not even there at all.

Without an "up" button, I will never use Windows 7.

(And no, before someone even brings it up, the "up" and back button DO NOT do the same thing. Most of the time, yes -- but not always. Check it yourself on XP.)

jamesbritt2• 18 years ago

"The final and insuperable issue that drove me from Windows Vista to Linux a year-and-a-half ago was Windows Explorer doing away with the incredibly-useful "up" button in favor of breadcrumbs."

They seemed to go out of their way to hide or remove useful info. Free disk space on drive? Not an easy thing to see.

Consistent, full-detailed file listings? No matter what I do, Vista will eventual decide that (this8 folder needs to not show size or last modified info.

And what's with search not showing the actual file location by default?

Goronmon5• 18 years ago

My version of Vista shows free disk space quite easily. I see it under My Computer.

You can also customize what is shown for file listings.

Goronmon5• 18 years ago

I'm fairly certain the first is an option you can show and I know for a fact that file listing are customizable under Windows Explorer. Not sure about the second. I don't have Vista in front of me to check.

anirbas• 18 years ago

The keyboard shortcut Alt-up moves you up the folder hierarchy on Vista. When I discovered that, I no longer cared that the up arrow button is gone in Vista. Very handy.

quoderat2• 18 years ago

True, but I am more a mouse type of guy. If I am mousing around, I hardly ever touch the keyboard, so this doesn't help me.

shiranaihito2• 18 years ago

I wonder why Windows 7 is creating so much buzz already, when it could still be years away.

Let's just wait and see what Microsoft actually delivers, and hope that the whole world will have moved on to Linux and OS X before that.

Don't forget that Microsoft has a proven track record of being rotten to the core.

Goronmon5• 18 years ago

It's not really years away. It's basically a re-branding of Vista with some tweaks thrown in. Microsoft has even stated they are really pushing to get it out the door since so many people have developed a strange aversion to the word "Vista".

robak• 18 years ago

like with communistic propaganda - people are having weird problems not a political system that doesn't work.

Or as Easter Germany chief of communist party said in the 50s - "The Party is really disappointed with the people in this country". If M$ is disappointed with their customers reactions to their flaky products - let M$ got to hell.

shiranaihito2• 18 years ago

You're right, I should have realized we won't have to wait for years for it. Microsoft certainly is in a bit of a hurry.

But since it's going to be a re-branding of Vista, why should anyone - especially HN - be excited about it?

It bothers me in general that hackers, 'morally enlightened' people, are excitedly discussing Microsoft, a morally corrupt company, and their offerings.

Remember that thing where Microsoft had bribed countries/companies to vote for OOXML to get it ratified by ISO?

- Maybe a month after that, it was like it never even happened. Hackers were talking about being interviewed by Microsoft, excited about a chance to work there, and so on..

</rambling>

henryl• 18 years ago

I sense a pattern.

cmars232• 18 years ago

I've tried it in a VM. I thought the taskbar behavior resembled the MacOS dock. No surprise, it feels slower than my XP VM.

_b8r0• 18 years ago

I find it interesting that TFA is a response to someone harping on about the changes being made. I can see both sides of it in that there's obviously a need to provide an improved experience and at the same time reduce complexity, yet people want 'different but the same'.

The interesting thing I find about TFA though is that the arguments he's coming up with in favour of Windows 7 are all similar to the things that have been present in Linux and OSX for a while. The switch to Visa/Win7 from XP is significant in terms of experience, it's so significant that the switch to OSX/Linux may be less so for some users. I get the impression though that if Microsoft had a carbon copy of Ubuntu or OSX's desktop the guy in TFA would still be singing its praises.

If you love Windows XP, you’ll hate Windows 7

Related Stories