
If you love Windows XP, you’ll hate Windows 7 - raju
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=630
======
tdavis
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.

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

~~~
iofthestorm
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).

~~~
mnemonik
That's what I get for not reading thorough enough. Good catch.

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

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

~~~
palish
An obvious overcomplicated interface is still an overcomplicated interface.

------
dcurtis
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.

~~~
iofthestorm
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
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.

~~~
Goronmon
Honestly, for me it comes down to two simple facts.

1) I would like an OS would a better UI. 2) I don't care if it bugs you/others
that they need to relearn some tasks if the UI is changed.

Obviously I don't think that change for nothing but the sake of change is a
good idea, but in the case of Vista I prefer it over XP.

------
svjunkie
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?

~~~
wizlb
"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.

------
mnemonik
Little bit of a misleading title.

------
iuguy
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.

------
quoderat
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.)

~~~
jamesbritt
"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?

~~~
Goronmon
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.

~~~
jamesbritt
I got used to seeing it in the file manager no matter what directory I was in.
In Vista, sometimes I see the free space, other times I do not.

And Vista is routinely forgetting my folder settings.

------
mtw
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
That feature is in Windows Vista already.

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

------
redorb
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

------
there
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.

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

~~~
mynameishere
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.

~~~
dcurtis
For 99% of users, the OS _is_ the transparent windows and colors and user
flow.

No one cares about the "underlying OS" as long as the experience of using it
is good.

The reason I think it's amazing is because they have managed to add all of the
new effects/colors/transitions in Vista/xp/7 while maintaining compatibility
with a UI that is ten years old.

------
cmars232
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.

------
henryl
I sense a pattern.

------
shiranaihito
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.

~~~
Goronmon
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
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.

------
ynniv
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.

~~~
wizlb
"...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).

~~~
ynniv
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/> ]

~~~
wizlb
Thanks for the history lesson, but it doesn't backup your statement that
everybody uses Windows because "everybody uses Windows". Obviously there's not
an objective bone in your body, but I'll continue the charade anyway just for
fun.

Do you remember the lines of customers waiting to buy Windows 95 the week that
it was released? Do you really think that was because "everybody was already
using Windows"? No. It was because of all the improvements. Nobody even used
Windows 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0. It wasn't until Windows 3.11 that anyone seriously
used Windows. And it wasn't because IBM handed it to them on a silver platter.

"Microsoft has always been a "Me-too" player..."

FYI, That's complete and utter bullshit. If they were only a "me-too" player
they wouldn't have a huge R&D department. They wouldn't have been the ones to
make the mouse wheel popular. They wouldn't have come out with the XBox. They
wouldn't have invented LINQ. Do you have any idea what you're talking about or
are you just a hater with a tin-foil cap on?

"Microsoft is alive because they have the best system for people in power to
control those that they employ."

Wrong. Microsoft offers the best platform for developers and users to control
_the computer_. Where did you get all of this stuff about people controlling
other people? You are starting to sound like a crack pot conspiracy theorist.

The reason that I use Windows, quite simply, is that it generally lets me do
what I want, the way that I want to do it. And that's the same answer you'll
likely get from anyone who enjoys using Windows. I can't say the same for
Linux or for Apple although I have used both extensively. All that Apple
offers is ultimate lock-in and Linux is way too fragmented and unorganized to
be useful on anything but a server which is where I put it to use for my
company.

I also love Vista _because_ of all the improvements. It runs on 3 of the
HTPC's in my house because Vista Media Center pretty much kicks the ass of XP
Media Center, Apple's Front Row, Linux MythTV or XBMC. So, there are definite
improvements over past versions. Of course trolls like yourself won't have
anything to say about that, will you?

"When Microsoft runs an ad campaign instead of fixing Vista bugs"

Gee, steal lines from Apple much? Exactly what bugs are you talking about? Can
you even think of one? Like I said...I use Vista everyday and I don't have a
problem with it, so no I don't think of it as a failure and I feel just fine
defending it.

The horse and buggy metaphor stands up just fine because there were many
failed attempts at making an automobile before someone actually did it.
There's nothing wrong with failure. I love failure. I love failing. If nobody
ever failed, we wouldn't know anything.

~~~
ynniv
"Thanks for the history lesson, but it doesn't backup your statement that
everybody uses Windows because 'everybody uses Windows'. Obviously there's not
an objective bone in your body"

If you don't accept the arguments of natural monopoly based on software
compatibility, and use in the workplace due to compatibility and control,
thats your prerogative, but objectivity is a goal here.

"'Microsoft has always been a "Me-too" player...' FYI, That's complete and
utter bullshit."

Mouse wheel : did Microsoft invent that? I'm curious to know more about the
history of it. XBox : in a _classic_ "me-too" move, they use tons of money to
break in to a market with a weak product and huge marketing. Somehow, they
managed to make a great team out of that and turn around a solid second
generation product, so I agree that the XBox team is now innovative. LINQ :
have you heard of Rails? Languages that aren't statically typed (I hear lisp
is popular around here)? LINQ is nifty if you are a .Net developer, thats
where it ends.

It's interesting that you bring up Windows 95 as an argument for Microsoft's
innovation, since it was basically a Windows 3.1 compatible copy of Apple's
System 7. Yes, lots of people lined up to get Windows 95. Yes, it was a huge
improvement over Windows 3.1, and worth the money. No, it was not successful
because it was better than the competition. Even worse than their blatant
feature copying was the twist they put on things to make them seam original.
The "Recycling Bin"? Why is the system menu called "Start"? Why are there menu
bars on each window, moving all over the place and being generally harder to
click on? [ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts_law> ]

"Where did you get all of this stuff about people controlling other people?
You are starting to sound like a crack pot conspiracy theorist."

Thank you? What exactly is a "conspiracy theorist"? I suspect that you're
going to tell me that its someone who dislikes the government, but what you
mean is someone who has wild ideas that don't deserve attention. If you can't
see the desire for control as an inherent human trait, you should really try
thinking a bit more, maybe reading a book (history if possible). Anyway,
control is a huge selling point of Windows. My mom has a work issued laptop
that's been configured to disallow her from changing the wireless network
settings to join a wireless network. That's pretty controlling in my opinion.

"Vista Media Center pretty much kicks the ass of XP Media Center"

Thats a great point, and one that Apple sometimes uses as well. It turns out
that 10.5 really didn't have a lot of good features that would make everyone
want to upgrade, so they added a bunch of developer frameworks that they
wouldn't package for 10.4. Why should I buy a new operating system for the
Media Center? In Microsoft's "Mojave" commercials they have people talk about
how they like the photo stiching software. These are not OS level features,
and the only reason that they don't run on XP is because Microsoft keeps them
as cheese to encourage people to upgrade the entire OS. Why not sell Vista
Media Center as an XP application? The bundling mindset is so engrained in our
thinking that its largely invisible.

"Gee, steal lines from Apple much? Exactly what bugs are you talking about?
Can you even think of one?"

Personally, I would like to see them finally solve DLL conflicts. Shared
library support is a non-issue on linux and Mac, but the best solution on
Windows is to pay for a capable enough version of Visual Studio to statically
link OS libraries (thus defeating the point of shared libraries). Last time
that I used vista there were still lots of video driver issues, and I had
problems with unpredictable behavior differences between XP and Vista.

Here's the real kicker tho: they ran an entire ad campaign where they fooled
people into thinking that their product was something else, and then
surprising them. This is analogous to letting someone drive a mystery car
around an autocross track and then telling them that its a really a Pinto
(see? It was plenty powerful in this parking lot! Now don't get in any
accidents!). You can be certain that they cherry picked the hardware,
specifically scripted the experience to avoid any known issues, and only
showcased the people who were happy.

"There's nothing wrong with failure."

This we can agree on. Without allowing for failure, we cannot succeed.

