

Tell HN: Even Windows 7 is a horror show - SandB0x

I'm setting up a brand new Dell computer for my grandparents. It's taken me all day and I want to vent:<p>Windows 7- It's as if we're still in 1998. Nonstop restarts to finish installing/uninstalling programs. Unnecessary and confusing messages about installing drivers when you plug in a usb stick. Over an hour of disk churning while installing 59 system updates upon shutdown. No thought given to consistency of layout and behaviour between different parts of the system. Every conceivable icon in the core programs splattered across the tab-tastic "ribbon", rather than having the most useful options displayed in a friendly and logical manner. Nothing resembling a package manager, and you have to download even the basic Microsoft apps from their website.<p>Am I just having bad luck or is it actually terrible?<p>Edit: I did use Ninite, which was undoubtedly a big help. But I've just sat through 15 minutes of "configuring updates" after the hour of "installing updates". Makes no sense. I want my Sunday afternoon back.<p>Edit2: I didn't install Windows from <i>scratch</i>. I removed some packaged bloatware, added some basic software, set up the mail client (Windows Live Essentials Mail or whatever Outlook Express is called now) and copied across their data to the new machine.
======
51Cards
Honestly I don't buy into the Windows is awful line of thought. There a couple
of key points you never see with Windows:

A. You never see forums posts on the internet saying "I have notebook XXX,
main board XXX, graphics card XXX, will Windows run?" It just does which is
why it will remain the dominant operating system for a long time to come. MS
has the unenviable job of supporting every form of PC style hardware and
adapting to it. Do they do it perfectly? Of course not but they do it better
than anyone else has ever managed to.

B. I have a small phone book application I wrote in 1993 on Windows 3. I still
use it today and it hasn't been recompiled in 15+ years at least. I doubt I
still have the source (or anything that would compile it). The app is not
command line, it's a GUI app, and it still works perfectly. MS has ensured as
best they can that any properly written Win app from 16bit on up still runs
today. Being a business app developer and seeing the legacy applications many
of my large clients have to maintain, this is beyond priceless.

I don't deny Windows problems... it's been around so long it is a bit of a
hodge podge of UI design, it has been unstable, and it is built around an
aging architecture model. Then again I also view these as byproducts of its
age and focus on legacy and hardware support. The performance of hardware is
now to a point where virtualizing older versions of the OS for legacy support
is practical and I like to think that this will work well for Windows in the
future as XP mode has in Win7. Hopefully MS will really make use of this more
going forward.

Then again, with where things are heading what operating system you use to
access the net is going to become largely irrelevant anyhow.

~~~
zdw
"MS has ensured as best they can that any properly written Win app from 16bit
on up still runs today."

Unless you're running Windows 7/Vista in 64-bit mode. Then no 16-bit apps will
run, and it's emulation time.

Being able to keep old code isn't a long term advantage. Old binary apps that
require an old software stack will eventually have to be replaced or
rewritten.

Source code that can be recompiled or ported is much better than old binaries,
as at least it can be worked on.

Worst of all is if the data is in a hard to decipher format. I did some work
with some space science data from the 70's that was basically binary files in
a pre-ASCII character set - it was a total PITA.... Old non-dumpable databases
are easily as bad.

~~~
51Cards
I agree on most aspects but also respectfully disagree on a couple.

Keeping old apps isn't always a bad thing. Yes, the source should be preserved
so the application can be ported forward as required, but from a business
expense aspect, when an application is still doing what it needs to do, it is
far more expensive to have to re-write it every OS iteration vs. getting
10,15,20? years out of the app then paying to upgrade it once and leap up 5
levels in technology. Rewrite when needed, and don't be afraid to, but it's a
good thing if it's not _needed_ very often.

And yes, agreed, that tipping point has essentially hit for 16bit apps to
avoid emulation.

The pre-ASCII project sounds like a nightmare. On that one I would say the
"needed" point was well passed!

------
endtime
You're having bad luck. I've never had a problem with Windows 7. I don't think
you should be surprised that 16 months after launch, there are a lot of
updates, and you not liking the ribbon UI doesn't make Windows a "horror
show". If you were expecting a package manager then I have to assume you were
just setting yourself up for disappointment - surely you know Windows doesn't
have one.

------
keithwarren
From disk in drive in my macbook pro, to install Win7x64 ultimate, boot camp
drivers and all the windows updates takes about 2 hours.

OSX takes about the same - though they seem to do a better job and
slipstreaming updates so you have fewer dependency cycles in the update realm.

No offense but it sounds to me like you already made up your mind and are just
bashing Microsoft for the sport of it.

------
bretthopper
I've found Windows 7 great in terms of installing drivers and updates. It's
much smarter and most don't require restarts. Obviously the first time you
update the OS they'll be a lot of them. How is that any different than an OS X
update?

Most people actually like the W7 UI. The new taskbar is better than anything
else in my opinion.

I think most of your frustration is because it's a brand new install. Once all
the setup is done, most of those annoyances are gone and what you're left with
is a fast, stable, and really usable OS.

~~~
stcredzero
_Obviously the first time you update the OS they'll be a lot of them. How is
that any different than an OS X update?_

My experience is that the disk doesn't churn an hour before you can shut down.
Instead, the disk churns a much shorter time upon restart. The latter is much
less of a bother with a laptop, as you can take it with you and let it turn on
at home. I've had the experience where I've had to leave a Windows machine at
work because you _can't_ shut it down in the middle of the updates.

Just a little thinking and a modicum of engineering, and you can avoid major
headaches for the user. Apple does a bit more of this than Microsoft.

------
richbradshaw
I just set up a new VM to test IE9 in. From fresh install to working IE9
install + usual apps (flash, acrobat, Office etc. for fonts) took almost a
whole day. Constant update after update, with restarts for each one. If you
try and install an app whilst another installing, it doesn't queue, it just
cancels itself, so you have to sit there and wait. Many updates to get the
platform previews of IE working are hotfixes can't be installed for some
reason (yep, even on a fully updated system), so had to give up trying to get
the platform preview going (which was my main aim!).

There truely isn't a package manager, or even any way of setting a list of
things to install so you can leave the computer to get on with it.

It makes you understand why so many people think they are "bad with
computers", or say things like, "when I touch computers they break"...

------
jamesaguilar
\- Restarts are required when core OS components are being updated. Linux
doesn't make you restart for things like this, but it is still insecure until
the restart has been accomplished. Microsoft just removed that option. I agree
that they ought to sometimes be consolidated and should definitely be faster
(although if it took an hour, maybe the computer is just slow), but it's a
minor thing that happens once at system install time.

\- Most people seem to think ribbons are a pretty good idea.

\- Nobody except Linux users care about package managers. Mac OS X doesn't
have one either.

Anyway, I don't see what about your review is related to 1998.

~~~
SandB0x
For package manager read "app store". People do care.

~~~
jamesaguilar
That's a fair point. I think you are right and I am wrong.

------
jmspring
Way back when, people used to argue (rightfully so) that Linux was painful to
install and not desktop ready. You had issues with X11/graphic
cards/drivers/etc. These days installing ubuntu (or any of the LiveCDs) is
actually pretty straight forward.

Having had to deal with Windows 7 in recent years, it is the most convoluted
of the three OSs as far as a desktop installation goes. For me, in order of
increasing complexity the list is: OSX, Linux, Windows.

Things getting even more extra-special with Windows, if _gasp_ you want to
upgrade from a previous version (IE, have a valid XP/Vista license) and do so
as a clean install. There are registry hacks there that sometimes work,
sometimes you have to resort to calling MSFT tech support. If you swap out
some hardware on the machine after activation and it determines you need to
reactivate? That isn't always clear cut either.

Windows 7 cleans up a number of things but system installs and maintenance
(registry, install/uninstall, updates) need serious work.

------
derefr
Microsoft doesn't care about the home/small-business user experience. Windows
is optimized for being "deployed" en-masse to a corporation, with all updates
and configuration pre-slipstreamed, and then managed remotely using Group
Policy (as that's how, you can imagine, Microsoft's own computers are set up.)
There's a package manager, but it's externalized—the sysadmin pushes packages
to you, not the other way around.

Also, the cluttered ribbons everywhere is a side-effect of the success of
Office's ribbon; there was a lot of user data-gathering put into designing
that one, but all the rest are just slapped together because "I know what
users use most in MS Paint."

~~~
J3L2404
"Microsoft doesn't care about the home/small-business user experience"

It sure seems that way. Maybe the Wintel intentional software bloat to sell
more hardware has reached a critical mass and can't be stopped.

~~~
sblom
"Maybe the Wintel intentional software bloat to sell more hardware has reached
a critical mass and can't be stopped."

Having worked on the performance team for Windows Vista (yes--it actually
exists), I can tell you first hand that there's no conspiracy here.

Instead, there are thousands of developers each solving problems in their
parts of the OS without a holistic view of the impact of their tiny little
growth in memory use or CPU consumption or processes required at startup. Each
team's impact is minuscule, but in aggregate, adds up to enough to fully use a
new generation of hardware.

The perf team can help fix some of that, but only so much. And they only
bother winning enough battles to make Windows run on the hardware that people
willing to buy an OS upgrade are going to put it on. The vast majority of
these buyers are tech freaks like us, or people buying a new machine from an
OEM, so it's not malice so much as lazily chasing the easy dollars that causes
commercial OSes to run best only on near-latest hardware.

Fwiw, Apple's similarly lazy...

------
rianjs
When I installed Windows 7, I went from no OS to functioning desktop in 17
minutes. 2 of those minutes were spent crawling around on the floor to write
down my license key. (Like an idiot, I stuck the sticker on my case before I
installed the OS. Oops.) This was faster than OS X and Ubuntu. Until Windows
7, Ubuntu was the fastest installing OS I'd ever come across.

I did the Windows updates (after enabling updates for all MS products) in 2
restarts.

Your problem is that you're restarting whenever you finish uninstalling
program X. The fact of the matter is that you can uninstall most all of the
programs one after the other and then do a single restart, even if the
uninstaller tells you differently. (The only exception I make is when removing
AV software like McAfee and Norton.) Also, you might want to check out PC De-
crapifier. ( <http://www.pcdecrapifier.com/> )

For batch installs after you've cleaned a machine, you might want to check out
ninite. ( <http://ninite.com/> ) Select the programs you want on there and
walk away.

When you run Windows update, make sure you have the option to update other
Microsoft programs ticked.

(And you can thank the Justice Dept for making you go to the MS website to
download even the most trivial of programs. Derp derp monopoly derp derp. It's
ridiculous.)

The fact of the matter is that Windows 7 is miles ahead of XP in terms of
installing updates and not requiring a reboot. XP used to take hours. Windows
7 took me about ten minutes after the initial installation.

------
bryanallen22
Microsoft won't package much with the OS because of the antitrust problems
they had ten years ago. Linux and Apple aren't afraid to do so.

Also, use ninite.com to install software to a clean install of Windows.

------
mmaro
The initial setup is a horror show, but it isn't bad after you get it set up.

FWIW: (un)installers that say you must restart are usually lying. And when
they're not, you can often avoid it by killing a lot of processes first.

------
eiji
Well, if you think Windows 7 is so bad, go and ask yourself why you did not
install one of the bazillion Linux on your grandma's Dell.

Oh right! Because you cannot leave the house anymore if you would do so.

------
ugh
Install Windows from scratch. It’s a much better experience. I recently
installed 7 from scratch on a cheap two year old Compaq laptop (that’s a HP
brand) which originally came with a lot of bloat and Vista.

I didn’t have to download any drivers (Windows Update was clever enough to
download them for me), I didn’t have to install any bloat and all the features
of the laptop (special buttons, all ports, Wlan, …) work without any problem.
I ended up with a squeaky clean fully functional laptop. Windows 7 is pretty
awesome by Windows standards.

I really don’t know why HP and other manufacturers insist on putting so much
crap on their computers when the experience with stock Windows is so much
nicer.

------
joshbert
I beg to differ. Windows 7 is among the best pieces of software I've ever
used, and it's certainly the best OS I've ever had. I signed up for the beta
when it first came out and got it as soon as it was out full.

Yes - you have to take a little while to install it and configure it, but
after that everything is a breeze.

------
pedrokost
The installation and setup process of Win 7 is much much better are more
smooth than for XP. After a fresh install my graphics were working at the
right resolution, my wireless worked and my audio too. In XP I had to install
all the drivers manually. In win7 it all installed automatically via WU.

While it s true that WU sometimes postpones your shutdown when you really dont
want it to, but it never lasted for more than 15 mins (which is quite a lot)

Can you give an example of inconsistent layout? I am not sure what you mean by
that.

I agree that the ribbon is over-bloated with buttons that I almost never use.

As for the applications, I use Ninite to automatically install some of the
most common applications. You should try it.

------
sandipagr
fresh install of windows 7 is far better IMO than even Ubuntu. There are just
way too many apps that Ubuntu installs (most useless) during installation.

Excuse me but I think you are complaining just for the heck of it. You don't
have to restart every time if you don't want to. When I plug in new usb stick,
it says "installing drivers", how is that confusing? Yeah if you would like to
know the name of the drivers as well, then W7 is not for you. You don't like
the ribbon? Microsoft is not making w7 for every individual. Most people like
it (at least in my cirle) and that's what counts. Microsoft has done more
usability studies than you can think of.

I agree with the package manager but with the amount of applications that are
available for windows, I am not sure how would they implement it but you are
right they should have some appstore kinda thing.

I feel sorry that you had to go through this. But W7 is still a great OS and
installation experience is one of the best.

------
eccp
And why did you _have to_ install Windows 7 on the first place? Any special
software requirements (ie. games)? ... if not, why not just installing Ubuntu,
the obvious restricted packages and OpenSSH server so you can connect
remotely?

