Windows "Next" hate is nothing new

Conventional wisdom has it that Windows 7 is destined to become the new Windows XP – the reliable old friend that you just can’t let go of because your other friend, Vista, is a total jerk. But it turns out that if you actually go back and dig into the history of XP, it seems to have a lot more in common with Windows 8 than Windows 7.

Well, at least that’s the impression we’re getting from ZDNet’s Ed Bott, who’s gone back and collected a number of articles from around the time of Windows XP’s launch.  It’s hard to believe now, but Windows XP wasn’t overwhelmingly embraced at launch, or even a year after release:

On the first anniversary of Windows XP's release, Microsoft has little to celebrate… Less than 10 percent of Microsoft's installed base has upgraded to Windows XP since its release last October.

And get this – Windows XP was so bad that businesses preferred Windows Mistake Edition – err, ME. So many people were holding on to older OSes, whether it was 98, 2000, or ME, that Microsoft had to extend support for those OSes. Kind of like they had to do with XP.

Looking back on things, what was so bad about XP? It turns out that it was that wonky interface, universally despised by the common folk. Actually, they even used the same insults that are once again all the rage:

More than 700 of you demanded its survival--as opposed to 3 who liked the new Windows XP look. Many complained about XP's "Fisher-Price interface" and noted that the first thing they do on any XP machine is switch back to Classic View. I wholeheartedly agree.

Since Bott's article is mostly focused on Windows XP, we decided to do a little digging of our own, and guess what? Windows 95 - and virtually every other release to date - has gone through something similar. Now, it's true that in a couple of cases the negativity did have some basis in reality, but we don't think that anyone would argue that Windows 95 was anything but a success.

You wouldn't know it, though, judging by some of the headlines that were being thrown around at the time. Even after the tremendously successful launch of Microsoft's overhauled OS, analysts, in all their wisdom, were still heralding the end of time:

Sales of the Microsoft Corporation's Windows 95 have fallen sharply in stores from the first week of availability, analysts and executives said yesterday.

Heck, even when Windows 2000 came out, people complained; obviously, DOS was a far superior OS. Even though naysayers who believed that it was impossible to do serious work with a GUI were a thing of the past by then (yes, graphical interfaces in general were once considered 'Fisher-Price' computing), there were still plenty of folks who moaned and groaned about Microsoft abandoning Windows' DOS heritage. As this article attests, there was a time when it was almost inconceivable that a power user could survive without a real DOS command prompt.

Does this mean that everyone is going to drop Windows 7 in favor of 8? Probably not; chances are that a ton of businesses and consumers will still be running it when Windows 9 (or even 10) comes out. But that’s not necessarily because they hate it, it’s just the way people adopt new OSes – with new hardware.

Even the folks who hate Windows 8 will probably end up using it in the end. Wouldn't it be really ironic if they ended up falling in love with it, just like they did with Windows XP, Windows 2000, and Windows 95 before it? And what about those who don't? They end up like this guy.

At any rate, Ed Bott’s article is pretty interesting stuff, and if you’re interested in checking out some of the actual articles he cites, we suggest you head over there.

Source: ZDNet | Image via ObamaPacman

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

LG reveals Windows 8 PC-hybrid lineup for Korea

Next Story

Microsoft Surface back ordered in France and Germany

146 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

the story is a load of bull
i can't stand windows 8 and i was on the fence with vista and loved xp
i came here back when xp was released and have been using pc's since the 80's as a kid.
and stupid stories like this make me sick
you wanna promote M$ and kiss their butt fine just do it don't make up dumb crap though.

this is one of those things where no one is gonna be able to prove you wrong and many are not gonna know any better so you can sit their with a grin spreading your FUD

the stories concept/premise hinges on that most smart computer users are retarded morons and we're basicly racist against M$ and we ALL gonna hate on M$ because we're haters.
BS !
gimme a bloody break
Neowin your a bloody joke with stupid insulting crap like this !
Don't you dare insult us all with some little song and dance trying make us into idiots.
We (the advanced computer users) evaluate machines and software and services carefully
to assess what we like as unbiased and factual as possible all for the sole purpose of finding what's good so implying we are morons and we just hate the "new thing" because its new is plain stupid
Gimme a break neowin who the hell do you guys think you are ?
All these people hanging out at tech web sites simply to see what comes out next and hate on it for no reason ?
LOL no sorry i don't think so !
Nice try making a story out of the favorite windows 8 fanboy defense though.

The morons are the people that buy into this FUD
If you think poor M$ is being made the villain and haters are picking on their precious windows 8 because of pure ignorance and NOT reality then so be it..

neowin sinking to new lows..

Due to the age of my processor I have been stuck on the Consumer Preview. But, that also means I have been using it since February as my primary OS and without a touchscreen connected. How in the world was I able to do that if the mouse/keyboard support is completely different from Window 7? Oh wait, it isn't.... The only thing I even touch that is Metro related is the wifi and to click to shutdown.. How could I possibly have any productivity or even survive? Hmm because I have no trouble doing everything I did in Windows 7. Period.

Windows 8 is going to flop like a fish. The success or failures of past releases has nothing to do with it.

The only big mistake I can see when MS moved to the NT branch of Windows, is not forcing a strong policy on security.

This whole "run as an admin" thing has bitten Windows in the rear since NT came out, dumping user settings all over the system and making it vulnerable for all kinds of nasties.

They tried to fix it with the new, more limited accounts and (to many) annoying popups telling you installing stuff can hurt your pc.

Other than that moving to the NT kernel has been the smartest thing MS has done with Windows. Win95 -was- a revolution, no matter how many people bitched about it. And the start menu has been copied to every wannabee OS out there ever since.

We will see how long it takes to see Metro-esque start menus will pop up soon, I know I saw the first ones already available in the Android Phone Store. And we all know 'Imitation is the ultimate form of flattery" ;-)

Windows XP have had other kinds of problems. Microsoft has stopped the 9x and moved to NT kernel, used before just for enterprises ( Windows NT versions and 2000 ). It took time for producers to adapt new drivers and patch the games in order to work as good as in 9x. Also ut was not very polished for the companies who have waited the SP1 and some even SP2 to move to it.

And about the picture in the article - there is on the net an other one, from a movie - i forget the name - where the people has become extremely stupid and use a kind of tiles as keyboards to comunicate...

i agree windows next hate is nothing new. except this time. _existing_ windows users actually hate windows 8 in ferver and in droves. that's the reality microsoft is facing. i'm pretty sure the fanboys with their tunnel vision will deny it. come launch. the sales figure will tell the truth. again and of course. the fanboys will reject the sales figure, too.

"You wouldn't know it now, but once upon a time Windows 95, 2000, and even trusty ol' XP were loathed by the tech community for being inferior, 'Fisher-Price' OSes that no one wanted."

Yeah,
No one wanted them if you listened to half the people here or most other "tech" forums where there are so many people who "think" they know what they're talking about! Most all of the hate about any OS has been around how ugly the UI is, or a stupid little missing start button, which is childish as he**!!

Only 2 OS's I've ever had a complaint about was Me and Vista, which was EASILY the worst, and it had nothing to do with the looks.

"But that's not necessarily because they hate it, it's just the way people adopt new OSes - with new hardware."

I've been saying this for the longest time. I've never upgraded to a new OS, only to new hardware that had the new OS. Then I would use the new OS and grow to like the new OS.

This is exactly what will happen with W8.

Oh, Windows 2000 had a Fisher Price UI? I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were a design expert.

Seriously though, sometimes the hate is justified, sometimes it isn't. You're right about one thing - it's nothing new!

>> Windows "Next" hate is nothing new

Amen to that. The haters just managed to rally around something more visually significant (start screen) than before. Back in the Windows 7 time frame, they were too slow to stoke the hate. By the time they tried, enough people already knew that Windows 7 was good, so it was too late. They were out ahead of W8 in plenty of time, though.

And in fairness, W8 does have its rough edges. Some system apps could be organized more intuitively. Some UI elements could still be more consistent. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, though. In a few years, we really will be laughing at people who cling to organizing all of their stuff in a small corner of the screen.

Change is good. Bad change is bad. XP may have had a controversial theme but it did many things better than Windows 2000 / 98. The start menu was an IMPROVEMENT and the OS was a big leap for 98 users (NT). It made many things easier, like networking for home users and so on and so forth.

Windows 8 does NOTHING better than Windows 7. Except when its on a Tablet. When you put it on a desktop it makes the experience worse, yeah I might be able to do everything I can in 7 on 8, but it takes me more clicks, and is less intuitive and requires re-learning. You have an obnoxious full screen 'start menu' with huge wasteful blocks of flickering pictures designed for fingers, not mouse pointers. Great on a phone. Not on 24"+ screens.

It's a bad joke. And Microsoft will see that once its out there and they get told over and over by their customers what their beta testers kept telling them....

/rage off

Edited by Joswin, Oct 22 2012, 9:03pm :

Silly article , makes the mistake people hate Windows 8. This serves as a warning.... Windows 8 is likely going to fail , the same way Windows Vista did. (Vista is still better than 7) Bad PR bad communication bad ads. Windows 7 and 8 will have to coexist. Windows 8 can't be used on computers without a touch based screen. Thats where Windows 7 will come in. Would be a desktop killer. It's not an update OS. So their marketing so far has been worse than Vista.

They were wrong with XP. However, Windows-8 on a tablet or other touch-screen device will show them they are right. Until such time as major business applications are geared to touch-screens and (miraculously) intensive data entry can be done without a full-size keyboard (voice?) Windows-7 will remain dominant. One OS, two different needs, never a good idea.

TsarNikky said,
They were wrong with XP. However, Windows-8 on a tablet or other touch-screen device will show them they are right.

Ribbon menu does not work fine with touch devices and, guess that, windows 8 uses Ribbon a lot.

Some people hate Windows 8 just because they hate Metro / Start screen.. Well, you don't have to spend all your time on the Start screen..! The desktop is right there..

newsflash,consumers dont even like the desktop interface. the sooner its gone, the sooner they will be happy. you guys are in such denial, but the desktop UI is outdated and obsolete and not needed anymore by consumers. sure the desktop will still be used for certain software that requires small window controls by certain software, but this will be a small percentage,and microsoft will either leave a "desktop" app buried somewhere, or separate it completely in the future.

tech pundits and analysts are wrong the majority of the time. i've been hearing the same **** about windows for decades,and here were are still in the %90 marketshare,and the last version of windows selling over 700 million copies in a few years.

In 30 years, I've never been wrong about a Microsoft release.

While it is fine as a touch tablet interface, Windows 8 is the New Coke of operating systems on the desktop.

A few minor adjustments would have made the difference with hundreds of millions of average, run-of-the-mill users.

vcfan said,
i've been hearing the same **** about windows for decades,and here were are still in the %90 marketshare

Just barely. Windows has been steadily losing Desktop marketshare over the past few years. We'll see whether Windows 8 will be able to stop or even reverse that trend. It seems, Microsoft right now is mainly concerned with gaining some foothold in the mobile/tablet market, which admittedly probably also should be their main concern at this point in time (if they want to stay relevant in the realm of the general consumer)

Windows 8 is the first release of windows that fills the entire screen when you hit start. The Program manager of 3.1 didn't fill the entire screen. The start menu of 95, 98, Me, 2k, XP, Vista, 7 didn't either.

warwagon said,
Windows 8 is the first release of windows that fills the entire screen when you hit start. The Program manager of 3.1 didn't fill the entire screen. The start menu of 95, 98, Me, 2k, XP, Vista, 7 didn't either.

Yes, but those OSes just displayed links.
With the right apps installed and pinned, there is a plethora of information to be gleaned from the tiles.
Using win8 as desktop daily driver, I find myself often just hitting start for status updates from my pinned Live Tiles.
Just because it's a change in behavior, doesn't mean it's all bad.

warwagon said,
Windows 8 is the first release of windows that fills the entire screen when you hit start. The Program manager of 3.1 didn't fill the entire screen. The start menu of 95, 98, Me, 2k, XP, Vista, 7 didn't either.

Ya cause instead of filling 1/4 of the screen with a popup menu, filling 100% of the screen is BAD. Once you select something from either screen, they go away, and you cannot keep the 1/4 screen size Menu open, so its size and being smaller is irrelevant.

How can people even justify this in their mind? Oh it is bigger and does more, so it is a bad design.

Wow.

Windows ME was never the preferred edition for business. If they didn't go with XP, as they shouldn't, it took till SP1 for XP to really start to shine, then they went with Windows 2000, just like many homeusers.

Also, the only chance you have at and valid comparisons is 3.x --> 95. That's the only time there has been a major change in the UI, at when it happened there, there was a solid benefit beyond just the UI to help with that change ( 32bit programs ).

Also you seem to forget there were a lot of problems with most of these OS's.. Windows 95 ( not a, b, c ) was lovingly named Plug and Prey edition, cause installing hardware was a nightmare. XP was very unstable before SP1.. Vista most of us remember.

Lastly, collecting a bunch of random, one off articles, does not tell you what the prevailing thoughts were when the OS's were released.
95 was considered a major improvement, though it had it's issues.. XP also.. There were some issues, but by and large most embraced the improvements.

Getting tired of these articles that say "Jim Bob said once that XYZ wasn't a good move, therefor anyone who says so now it just like him and clearly wrong.."

How quickly we forget, people said the same thing about Vista, and you know it, Vista was a flop..

Ryoken said,

How quickly we forget, people said the same thing about Vista, and you know it, Vista was a flop..

microsoft sold 400 million copies of windows vista, and got paid for it. if thats a flop, you're an idiot

vcfan said,
microsoft sold 400 million copies of windows vista, and got paid for it. if thats a flop, you're an idiot
Compared to 95, 98, XP, 7.. ya.. it was a flop..

Anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves.. it might have turned a profit, but it has **** poor sales numbers.. Not to mention a not-insignificant number of people who downgraded..

Wonder how many of those 400mil copies were sold to businesses on new computers, and were nuked and replaced with XP as soon as they got in the door..

Ryoken said,
Compared to 95, 98, XP, 7.. ya.. it was a flop..

Anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves.. it might have turned a profit, but it has **** poor sales numbers.. Not to mention a not-insignificant number of people who downgraded..

Wonder how many of those 400mil copies were sold to businesses on new computers, and were nuked and replaced with XP as soon as they got in the door..

Compared to...?

So if my Aunt had a Dick she would be my Uncle argument?

Vista was actually more successful than several of the OSes in your list, BTW.

So compared to Vista, Apple's Mac and OS X are a complete failure, as it sold more n a couple years than Apple managed to sell in 30 years.

By that logic everything that sells 1 copy is success because some stuff doesn't sell at all..

If you can't recognize the fact that even MS thinks Vista was a disaster then there's no point debating with you..

At it's height, Vista was ~18% Market share, took it ~2 years to get there, and it's currently less than Linux, and MacOS.. XP still hasn't fallen as low now as Vista was in it's heights.. 7 reached Vista height in under a year..

Just because something sells, doesn't make it a success. To be a success you need to meet expectations, and Vista never did, not even close..

But by all means, consider it a success.. It's why you still see Vista machines everywhere, and why it made such strong inroads into the Business market..

When are you idiots going to realize that some changes are bad? You can't constantly justify ****ty things by placing the blame on the user instead of the moronic UI designer. People hate BAD changes. Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

Indeed. Windows 8 is LESS productive on the desktop and the added confusion of INVISIBLE master controls is just going to turn average computer users (not us here) off in droves.

What is the difference between Windows Vista launch and Windows 8 launch? When Vista launched, computers were barely able to keep with requirements, hence the performance was not even close to poor.

When Windows 8 launches, systems will be much more faster than 5 years ago. Win 8 will perform with the same requirements with faster response rate than any of its NT 6.x brother.

I've been seeing people complaining about how they have no idea how to get the control panel, even though you can get to it 4 different ways.

I Remember a lot of hate for Windows Me and Vista. Idiots. Two of the best OS Microsoft ever did. I can't wait to laugh when Windows 8 is on every machine from corporate to home users.

WalterEgo404 said,
I Remember a lot of hate for Windows Me and Vista. Idiots. Two of the best OS Microsoft ever did. I can't wait to laugh when Windows 8 is on every machine from corporate to home users.

Vista & Me, the one of the best Os`es they ever made (your thinking of Win98 & W2k)
The old saying is true no matter what, you cant polish a turd.
I hope your a patient man for your laugh, every corporation will not be installing W8. FACT Dell know its a turkey for one, they are continuing to offer W7 after release to customers all the way towards 2020. Corporations will skip Win8 as us "corps" have just finalised and finished off W7 replacement. I know of one multinaitonal corp that wont touch it with a bargepole plenty more will follow suit.

WalterEgo404 said,
I Remember a lot of hate for Windows Me and Vista. Idiots. Two of the best OS Microsoft ever did. I can't wait to laugh when Windows 8 is on every machine from corporate to home users.

Vista never even reached XP market share. Windows 7 overtook it. You're wrong and Vista was ****. I don't need to wait to laugh, because I can do it already. Your favorite OS was a failure.

WalterEgo404 said,
I Remember a lot of hate for Windows Me and Vista. Idiots. Two of the best OS Microsoft ever did. I can't wait to laugh when Windows 8 is on every machine from corporate to home users.

Vista never even reached XP market share. Windows 7 overtook it. You're wrong and Vista was ****. I don't need to wait to laugh, because I can do it already. Your favorite OS was a failure.

So Windows Me and Vista got a lot of hate and were never successful? Wow. I am so stupid. But I'm sure Windows 8 with all the hate it is getting will change the cycle. But don't listen to me, I've already proven I am so stupid with these things.

AJerman said,
Oh look, another article on the Neowin front page defending Windows 8. That poor horse.

Indeed. There is NO comparison between previous iterations of Windows and the abomination that is Windows 8 on the desktop.

Microsoft have broken 30 years of best practices in GUI design by making their main control gadgets completely INVISIBLE to the base user.

While we technophiles will adapt easy enough, 95% of current Windows users are just going to look at a new Windows desktop and go "huh?!"

And IT/tech support at major companies don't like that either...not one little bit.

Relatively minor changes would have fixed this iteration, but people and corporations are going to skip Windows New Coke for a future release.

And it's going to cause a direct increase in Apple's desktop sales...a market they were close to abandoning.

People hate change, Being a skeptic lead me to try windows 8 without being a metro crybaby because I have to try something new.

Looking back I can see the advantages of the new start screen on 1080p.

Just one of min big original idea THAT FAID AOL GUI and did we forget about Compserve GUI, Prodigy oh and how about MSBoB.
Windows 8 is a disaster just waiting to happing just like Vista and WindowsME

I love the new additions to Windows explorer added in Win8. Plus my 2 year old pc boots so fast now I can hardly believe it.

I'm going to go all broken record here and link to a post I made nearly 5 years ago about a similar topic, the adopt of Vista vs XP.

http://www.neowin.net/forum/to...years-ago-stop-complaining/

After re-reading my post I can say that my predictions were a bit off (Vista, in the end, was not adopted by the masses. But I still think it is underrated.). Ultimately, though, the message is the same.

Every release of Windows leads fanboys, critics and businesses to go into a fit about how things are different. All of the trouble with XP then is now regarded as a golden age now. All of the trouble with Vista was then accepted with Win7 (which refined the changes that Vista added).

Jose_49 said,

Indeed
Vista will remain buried along with WinME

Not so quick there sparky...

WinME was a trash OS that failed to ever run properly because of the restore and other features the x86 Win9x kernel and FS could NEVER handle. It was resource hungry and very crash prone (more than Win95/Win98).

Vista, however, runs nearly as well as Windows 7 and Microsoft sold more copies of Vista than all the Macs and copies of OS X sold in the History of Apple - yes going back to 1984 and counting all the Mac and OS X sales to date.)

So Vista may have not 'dazzled' the world, but it wasn't a failed OS, just something goofs perceive as failed.

Apple would love to have a 'fail' like Vista for Macs and OS X.

Win95 and XP were pretty horrible operating systems as far as usability goes. Of course they were also prone to crashing, slow with default services enabled etc but that has been largely solved by Win 7. Win 8 takes on the performance side even more but at the same time it goes back to the same crappy UI design Windows has had for decades now. Unintuitive **** with legacy crap sprinkled right behind the corner.

Windows has the upper hand when it comes to performance but MS should really work hard to catch OSX in the usability department for Win 9 or whatever the next one is called. There are plenty of sites with Windows UI issues outlined with suggested fixes, they could start by addressing those.

LaXu said,
Win95 and XP were pretty horrible operating systems as far as usability goes. Of course they were also prone to crashing, slow with default services enabled etc but that has been largely solved by Win 7. Win 8 takes on the performance side even more but at the same time it goes back to the same crappy UI design Windows has had for decades now. Unintuitive **** with legacy crap sprinkled right behind the corner.

Windows has the upper hand when it comes to performance but MS should really work hard to catch OSX in the usability department for Win 9 or whatever the next one is called. There are plenty of sites with Windows UI issues outlined with suggested fixes, they could start by addressing those.

Just one thing about increasing performance in XP by disabling services was a Myth. I'm sorry you wasted time doing this, but it offered less than 0.02% improvement on systems with 128mb of RAM, and on systems with 64mb to 128mb of RAM it gained 0.09% improvement.

(Yes that is 0.0002 and 0.0010 improvement.)

Even disabling the 'Themes' saved less that 0.50% improvement on 'older' video cards, and video cards with 8-16mb of onboard RAM the difference was again in the 0.02% (0.0002) range.

It is like the NT early days, when people complained that a GUI running on the Server was wasting resources. In reality, the GUI was just a graphical screen and any assets for it were 'paged', meaning it was consuming 'NOTHING' unless it was actively being used.

People get caught in all these tips/tricks/myths, but any real differences the user 'feels' is psychological.

XP was "fisher price" because of the colour scheme/design of the UI (big and brightly coloured) and to this day it still is. Nothing to do with the usability.

And users always had the option to change the theme if they wanted, something which is missing in windows 8. All Microsoft had to do was put a few option in to enable and disable certain things and everyone would be happy.

Edited by exotoxic, Oct 22 2012, 4:02pm :

exotoxic said,
XP was "fisher price" because of the colour scheme/design of the UI (big and brightly coloured) and to this day it still is. Nothing to do with the usability.

And users always had the option to change the theme if they wanted, something which is missing in windows 8. All Microsoft had to do was put a few option in to enable and disable certain things and everyone would be happy.

A lot of the UI can still be changed like colour and the metro background. Just wait until people release user styles, it's early days.

exotoxic said,
XP was "fisher price" because of the colour scheme/design of the UI (big and brightly coloured) and to this day it still is. Nothing to do with the usability.

And users always had the option to change the theme if they wanted, something which is missing in windows 8. All Microsoft had to do was put a few option in to enable and disable certain things and everyone would be happy.

People complain about more than the 'Themed UI' in WindowsXP. You were not paying attention or are not using the terms in researching this.

Hit up old tech sites like CNET, and put in WindowsXP and watch their own articles roll that hated WindowsXP, and the comment boards that talked about how NT shouldn't be used for a consumer OS as it was for workstations and servers, and blah blah blah blah.

You can find tons of articles and comments TODAY on why NT should not be used in a phone or tablet too. In fact Apple's CEO is one of the biggest sources of this crap, because they couldn't get OS X light enough to fit and run well on an iPad, and they tried.

XP only became accepted because of it's lengthy lifetime, in many ways it's reasons for being "hated" are the same for Vista. New tech that needed new drivers, stuff that required IHVs to get off their asses.

So while "hate" for the next version of Windows is nothing new, to compare that to the Windows 8 situation is flawed.

I liked XP and I liked Vista, I don't like 8.

Athernar said,
XP only became accepted because of it's lengthy lifetime, in many ways it's reasons for being "hated" are the same for Vista. New tech that needed new drivers, stuff that required IHVs to get off their asses.

So while "hate" for the next version of Windows is nothing new, to compare that to the Windows 8 situation is flawed.

I liked XP and I liked Vista, I don't like 8.

10 bucks you haven't even used RTM, lets just wait and see. I bet you will use it.

S3P€hR said,
I don't remeber reading any negative comment about Windows 7. So I agree with 60 to 70% of this article/

Really? Windows 7 was initially hated because it was built off Vista (It looks like Vista, blah, blah, blah...). Many tech pundits expected Microsoft to resurrect XP and build off it again.

Dot Matrix said,

Really? Windows 7 was initially hated because it was built off Vista (It looks like Vista, blah, blah, blah...). Many tech pundits expected Microsoft to resurrect XP and build off it again.


Eh...do you have a source for that?

Dot Matrix said,

Yeah. Remember the whole major/minor argement?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/micr...-say-major-i-say-minor/1546

Then there's the whole "it looks like Vista" argument:
http://blogs.computerworld.com..._owners_wont_love_windows_7


Adding more:
Even on this forum you can find very big opposition against Windows 7 before its first Beta leaked.
Pity is that I don't have a way to show you. But it should be around page 600 back from this new post. (Thing is that the pager system died a few months ago )

Dot Matrix said,

Many tech pundits expected Microsoft to resurrect XP and build off it again.

No tech pundit said that, because that would be completely and utterly retarded.

S3P€hR said,
I don't remeber reading any negative comment about Windows 7. So I agree with 60 to 70% of this article/

People hated the Superbar not to mention Vista left a bitter taste, what actually helped Windows 7 was the amount of pre-releases that helped made people realise Windows 7 was indeed faster.

Athernar said,

No tech pundit said that, because that would be completely and utterly retarded.


Many, many "tech pundits" have said ridiculous things about Windows 8.

S3P€hR said,
I don't remeber reading any negative comment about Windows 7. So I agree with 60 to 70% of this article/

Must have missed all the hate towards,
- new taskbar
- missing quick launch
- startup sound
- UAC (i.e. why is UAC is still present?)
etc.

S3P€hR said,
I don't remeber reading any negative comment about Windows 7. So I agree with 60 to 70% of this article/

People were saying how the Superbar takes up too much vertical space. And grouping (although possible to switch between behaviors) would confuse the normal user, as they would not know where Document A vs Document B would be when it's all grouped into 1 icon, you need to hover on the button to choose, that's "so much more inefficient!"

JOHW said,
People were saying how the Superbar takes up too much vertical space.

There was a fair amount of Microsoft are ripping off the OSX dock too.
So much that the head of the windows division at that time came out and said flat out, no we got the idea from Windows 1.0

Calum said,

Many, many "tech pundits" have said ridiculous things about Windows 8.

Ridiculous? No. They just aren't interested in being told to adapt to an inferior UI constantly by sycophantic fanboys that would gladly saw their own limbs off if Microsoft said it was "the future".

I think we'll see much the same. Initially it won't be great but eventually people should change their tune. It breathed new life into my 4 year old computer. I was about to buy a new machine but I think I'll just upgrade the OS on the 26th.

I'm not sure I get it. So because Windows XP was (supposedly) hated yet became successful, Windows 8 will be successful too even though it is (supposedly) hated?

The difference is that you could switch the new XP interface off in a manner that was supported by Microsoft. You can't turn off the Metro desktop without using hacks like Start8 and even if you do you can't have the Aero Glass effect in Windows 8 at all.

Articuno said,
The difference is that you could switch the new XP interface off in a manner that was supported by Microsoft. You can't turn off the Metro desktop without using hacks like Start8 and even if you do you can't have the Aero Glass effect in Windows 8 at all.

+1 I hate not having the glass

There is no such thing as 'Metro' Desktop. Besides the start menu it's the same as in 7 and in fact it's a lot smoother. I just now re-installed Win7 to be ready for the Win8 update and boy is this jumpy and do I feel task and thread handling in Windows 8 is way, no WAY better. I also find myself hitting the windows Key all the time expecting my nicely laid out start screen to appear. Instead I get a messy Startmenu where I have to navigate through a load of folders to get anywhere.. In Windows 8 I have everything I need 1 keypress and 1mouse click away.

Can't wait

paulheu said,
Besides the start menu it's the same as in 7

No, it isn't. If Microsoft would provide a way to disable it people would be just fine with it and Windows 8 in general, but because it's forced upon you unless you use third party programs people are upset with it. It's as simple as that.

Articuno said,

No, it isn't. If Microsoft would provide a way to disable it people would be just fine with it and Windows 8 in general, but because it's forced upon you unless you use third party programs people are upset with it. It's as simple as that.

They'll adapt.

torrentthief said,

Nope, we will boycott windows 8 like we did with vista.

And you still adapted to Windows 7, no? You'll adapt to the Start Screen.

paulheu said,
There is no such thing as 'Metro' Desktop. Besides the start menu it's the same as in 7 and in fact it's a lot smoother. I just now re-installed Win7 to be ready for the Win8 update and boy is this jumpy and do I feel task and thread handling in Windows 8 is way, no WAY better. I also find myself hitting the windows Key all the time expecting my nicely laid out start screen to appear. Instead I get a messy Startmenu where I have to navigate through a load of folders to get anywhere.. In Windows 8 I have everything I need 1 keypress and 1mouse click away.

Can't wait


Truth is, for all the extra, programmable buttons on our mice these days, I'm amazed that nobody seems to have figured out they can set one of their mouse buttons to imitate the Win-key function and give them a Start button *anywhere*.

Frankly, this should be one of the first configurations any 'power user' should make upon installing. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if future certified mice have some kind of default 'Start' functionality.

For myself, I have one side button set to Start, and one set to open the charms bar. This simple configuration has made using a mouse in Windows 8 enormously productive. The hell else was I going to use them for? Forward/back in a web browser? God I hate it how those are so often defaults.

As I remember it, and I worked in retail at the time.. Nobody hated XP or even Vista on lunch.. Vista was later hated over time due to hardware driver problems, A thing that was not fixed for a stupid amount of time (if at all for some people).. XP was mocked due to its look but not how it ran.. Now 8 people have tested a whole lot more it would seem, and word is strong on the hate side before lunch (right or wrong).. That's not the same thing..

windows95isg8 said,
As I remember it, and I worked in retail at the time.. Nobody hated XP or even Vista on lunch.. Vista was later hated over time due to hardware driver problems, A thing that was not fixed for a stupid amount of time (if at all for some people).. XP was mocked due to its look but not how it ran.. Now 8 people have tested a whole lot more it would seem, and word is strong on the hate side before lunch (right or wrong).. That's not the same thing..

People can be so *grouchy* before lunch, but usually not after they eat.

windows95isg8 said,
As I remember it, and I worked in retail at the time.. Nobody hated XP or even Vista on lunch.. Vista was later hated over time due to hardware driver problems, A thing that was not fixed for a stupid amount of time (if at all for some people).. XP was mocked due to its look but not how it ran.. Now 8 people have tested a whole lot more it would seem, and word is strong on the hate side before lunch (right or wrong).. That's not the same thing..

Windows XP was hated, ALOT. In essence, Windows XP was a bigger change than Windows 7 is to Windows 8. The reason I say that was most consumer PC's at the time were Windows 95/98/Me where business based computers had Windows 2000.

The upgrade from Windows 9x to XP was painful because it broke programs, games (especially DOS based ones) and to make it worse, the increased memory requirements where memory was quite expensive and older hardware that were incompatible with the NT kernel meant a lot of people couldn't upgrade unless they got newer hardware.

I specific piece of hardware that was popular back then was 3DFX's Voodoo cards that had really bad drivers for Windows XP.

windows95isg8 said,
As I remember it, and I worked in retail at the time.. Nobody hated XP or even Vista on lunch.. Vista was later hated over time due to hardware driver problems, A thing that was not fixed for a stupid amount of time (if at all for some people).. XP was mocked due to its look but not how it ran.. Now 8 people have tested a whole lot more it would seem, and word is strong on the hate side before lunch (right or wrong).. That's not the same thing..

windows95isg8 said,
As I remember it, and I worked in retail at the time.. Nobody hated XP or even Vista on lunch.. Vista was later hated over time due to hardware driver problems, A thing that was not fixed for a stupid amount of time (if at all for some people).. XP was mocked due to its look but not how it ran.. Now 8 people have tested a whole lot more it would seem, and word is strong on the hate side before lunch (right or wrong).. That's not the same thing..

Windows XP was hated, ALOT. In essence, Windows XP was a bigger change than Windows 7 is to Windows 8. The reason I say that was most consumer PC's at the time were Windows 95/98/Me where business based computers had Windows 2000.

The upgrade from Windows 9x to XP was painful because it broke programs, games (especially DOS based ones) and to make it worse, the increased memory requirements where memory was quite expensive and older hardware that were incompatible with the NT kernel meant a lot of people couldn't upgrade unless they got newer hardware.

I specific piece of hardware that was popular back then was 3DFX's Voodoo cards that had really bad drivers for Windows XP.

windows95isg8 said,
As I remember it, and I worked in retail at the time.. Nobody hated XP or even Vista on lunch.. Vista was later hated over time due to hardware driver problems, A thing that was not fixed for a stupid amount of time (if at all for some people).. XP was mocked due to its look but not how it ran.. Now 8 people have tested a whole lot more it would seem, and word is strong on the hate side before lunch (right or wrong).. That's not the same thing..

If you didn't notice people buying computers with the XP downgrade, you weren't working in a very popular or technical retail market.

The majority of people 'knew' they were going to hate Vista before they ever seen it running in the stores. They often didn't even know why they hated it, but had read or heard it was bad. If these people had even been gamers I would have understood. However 99% of the people that hated and rejected Vista would NEVER have been affected by the driver issues that were not the best at release. They wouldn't have noticed that City Of Heroes MMO was running 5-10% slower. They however would have noticed their browser was faster and things on the desktop were drawing faster.

The same thing happened with Windows95, where people insisted on Windows 3.1. I can remember our teams putting together information training of 'why customers wanted Windows 95', so they could see the advantages.

There were a ton of built PCs in that timeframe that came with Windows 3.x, and the insane part was when companies and a lot of 'self appointed tech home builders' would put together a great PC and load Win 3.x on it. The irony being that a lot of the hardware was worthless on Windows 3.x, especially when they would load more RAM than Windows 3.x could use.

Tony. said,

Windows XP was hated, ALOT. In essence, Windows XP was a bigger change than Windows 7 is to Windows 8. The reason I say that was most consumer PC's at the time were Windows 95/98/Me where business based computers had Windows 2000.

The upgrade from Windows 9x to XP was painful because it broke programs, games (especially DOS based ones) and to make it worse, the increased memory requirements where memory was quite expensive and older hardware that were incompatible with the NT kernel meant a lot of people couldn't upgrade unless they got newer hardware.

I specific piece of hardware that was popular back then was 3DFX's Voodoo cards that had really bad drivers for Windows XP.

Moving from Win9x to Windows XP was a problem for some users. However, it also was a 'great' fix of the time, as it killed malware and incompatibilities with a simple upgrade for users.

As for the 3DFX driver issue, it wasn't so popular in 2001-2002 timeframe, and should have been replaced, considering the company was gone in 2000.

DX8/8.1 was VERY MUCH alive at this point with the Xbox release, and ATI and NVidia had compelling GPU technologies that destroyed the 3DFX numbers, and were far less expensive.

windows95isg8 said,
As I remember it, and I worked in retail at the time.. Nobody hated XP or even Vista on lunch.. Vista was later hated over time due to hardware driver problems, A thing that was not fixed for a stupid amount of time (if at all for some people).. XP was mocked due to its look but not how it ran.. Now 8 people have tested a whole lot more it would seem, and word is strong on the hate side before lunch (right or wrong).. That's not the same thing..

A lot of the hate for Windows 8 is because of the Start button. Really. People need to move on with times. Here we are landing on Mars and people are still ****ed off that MS got rid of the Start button. Like that would alter reality or something.

windows95isg8 said,
As I remember it, and I worked in retail at the time.. Nobody hated XP or even Vista on lunch.. Vista was later hated over time due to hardware driver problems, A thing that was not fixed for a stupid amount of time (if at all for some people).. XP was mocked due to its look but not how it ran.. Now 8 people have tested a whole lot more it would seem, and word is strong on the hate side before lunch (right or wrong).. That's not the same thing..

A lot of the hate for Windows 8 is because of the Start button. Really. People need to move on with times. Here we are landing on Mars and people are still ****ed off that MS got rid of the Start button. Like that would alter reality or something.

Kunal Nanda said,

A lot of the hate for Windows 8 is because of the Start button. Really. People need to move on with times. Here we are landing on Mars and people are still ****ed off that MS got rid of the Start button. Like that would alter reality or something.

dude get over the start button crap already.
no one is sayin that but people like you !
the people that make my On Screen Display software might agree with me.
They make and sell a program that has a million options for a sensors / data etc to shown on screen.. which would be conflicting with some retarded tile screen crap.
how about that for a reason other than the start menu.
seriously screw the start button destroy the damn thing for all i care just
down jam some stupid tile crap in my face when i load up windows.

good god these ignorant start menu comments are exhausting.
Start menu ? who cares get over it fanboys
quit trying to drag the damn issue into every possible windows 8 discussion
the majority of the people whiney complaining and crying about it are from the people saying we're bitching about it when we not or at least rarely at best

LMAO (that made me laugh out loud) ha I'm not even sure how that happen lol.. I know im dyslexic but normally not that bad lol

Skwerl said,

People can be so *grouchy* before lunch, but usually not after they eat.

This is nothing new. In general technology 'buffs' are the last to accept change and will in many cases do their best to convince their peers of impending doom for whatever technology is changing.

Anyone here old enough to remember way back when yEnc encoding was introduced on Usenet.. It was war of the worlds and all hell was going to break loose on the internet because of this devilish new encoding scheme. The fact that it cut transfer times on our 14k4 bps modems by a factor of five and was way more robust and reliable compared to the ancient and horrible UUencode was not relevant.

Fact of the matter is in 6-12 months most doomsayers will have switched, adapted and happily use Windows 8. If you look at it wit an open mind, forget what you had and make it your own you will quickly find there is a lot to like about Windows 8 and hardly anything to loathe.

Vista got into trouble early because it was not exactly stable (W8 is _very_ stable) and because of the new driver model and the fact that many hardware manufacturers decided to hold off on developing and updating their drivers. All that does not apply now.

no.
and seeing the polls around here and comments more people at neowin are receiving it than there are rejecting it (the latest windows) so that breaks your logic.

And yeah i always cringe and hide when ai see the new nVidia gfx cards
i think omg they are so fast i do NOT want that.
or maybe Intel's new 16 core 6gghz cpu
..no thank you sire i'll pass ..thats jsut too fast for me lol

gimme a break lol

this story is retarded

I still remember the hate that XP created when it was launched, many of the hate because of the cartoonish theme, but after some time it became the best OS for most people. Vista is a different case, not polished enough bringing performance, drivers and compatility problems, most of them fixed totally or partially with the first Service Pack but still not enough for some users, however, Vista was a neccesary step that turned into Windows 7.

daniel_rh said,
I still remember the hate that XP created when it was launched, many of the hate because of the cartoonish theme, but after some time it became the best OS for most people. Vista is a different case, not polished enough bringing performance, drivers and compatility problems, most of them fixed totally or partially with the first Service Pack but still not enough for some users, however, Vista was a neccesary step that turned into Windows 7.

Again, the service pack had nothing to do with it. All Vista service packs are patch and hotfix rollups. Vista wasn't the problem, it was OEMs that were trying to use the release of a new OS after 5 years to force people to upgrade hardware by refusing or delaying the upgrade of their drivers for older hardware.

I don't remember that much hate from Vista -> 7.

Vista deserved to be in the dumps for the first 6 months to 1 year.
- Most big software issues were fixed in Sp1
- Took time for hardware developers to program for the new driver model
- Intel pressured Microsoft (and was granted) Vista certification for their most common on-board video which wasn't capable of running Vista Aero correctly.

Jason Stillion said,
I don't remember that much hate from Vista -> 7.

Vista deserved to be in the dumps for the first 6 months to 1 year.
- Most big software issues were fixed in Sp1
- Took time for hardware developers to program for the new driver model
- Intel pressured Microsoft (and was granted) Vista certification for their most common on-board video which wasn't capable of running Vista Aero correctly.

Windows 7 was initially shunned because it was built off Vista. Many tech pundits expected Windows XP to be resurrected and used to built Windows 7. Not sure why, but I'm glad that didn't happen. The Vista codebase is so much more stable.

Dot Matrix said,

Windows 7 was initially shunned because it was built off Vista. Many tech pundits expected Windows XP to be resurrected and used to built Windows 7. Not sure why, but I'm glad that didn't happen. The Vista codebase is so much more stable.

Agreed. Even on this forum you can hunt for news article and see the bashing of Windows 7 and that horrid superbar and how it will fail on the market.

Jason Stillion said,
I don't remember that much hate from Vista -> 7.

Vista deserved to be in the dumps for the first 6 months to 1 year.
- Most big software issues were fixed in Sp1
- Took time for hardware developers to program for the new driver model
- Intel pressured Microsoft (and was granted) Vista certification for their most common on-board video which wasn't capable of running Vista Aero correctly.

SP1 was pretty much just a rollup of existing KB's that were already released at the time.

The big fix was when the OEM's got serious about driver development. Once the driver situation improved then Vista was a seriously nice OS. There are still a few things I wish they had carried over into 7.

[quote=Jason Stillion said,]I don't remember that much hate from Vista -> 7.

A LOT of people complained about the new taskbar in Windows 7 including a lot of people on this forum. People weren't happy that it was so tall, that the quicklaunch toolbar was missing and that the default setting was to hide application labels.

[quote=jakem1 said,]
This. These particular complaints were so loud and so overwhelmingly present right here on Neowin. It was a cross between the usual "List everything changing in the new Microsoft OS so I can tell you exactly why I hate it" and the popularity of thin taskbar mods at the time.

Jason Stillion said,
I don't remember that much hate from Vista -> 7.

Vista deserved to be in the dumps for the first 6 months to 1 year.
- Most big software issues were fixed in Sp1
- Took time for hardware developers to program for the new driver model
- Intel pressured Microsoft (and was granted) Vista certification for their most common on-board video which wasn't capable of running Vista Aero correctly.

Won't repeat what others have noted/corrected.

Nvidia and Intel pressured Microsoft on WDDM features. The original WDDM/WDM 1.0 was to have more OS control over scheduling. DX10 was also to have included some of the features we didn't get until DX11. There were features in the Xbox 360 subset that was left out of DX10, hurting DX10 as it didn't offer all the features console developers had been using for a couple years.

NVidia's 8xxx - first unified shader line of products didn't support the more advanced features of DX10, and they fought Microsoft so that they could get Vista/DX10 certified. This dumped features from DX10. NVidia also fought on WDM 1.0 compliance for video drivers of the FX (5xxx), 6xxx, and 7xxx Geforce product line. This where Microsoft gave them some room to wiggle for Vista's release with a timeline setup to implement the features fully. When Windows 7 came along, Microsoft gave NVidia an expiration timeframe to have full WDDM/WDM 1.1 drivers for these cards because of the wiggle room they gave them with Vista.

Intel is not innocent, but in major changes, NVidia was the company that fought Microsoft and is why features of the video WDDM was changed in the months right before the release.

It is also true SP1 was irrelevant in 'fixing' Vista, as there wasn't much wrong with Vista itself. SP1 was however timed around when new Network/Audio and Especially Video drivers were being released that fixed the crap MFRs didn't take the time to deal with in their original 'rewrites' - which some didn't even do, and instead used XP crap molded to work on Vista.

In June 07, Microsoft had it with Video Driver makers and sent their engineers to show them how to write for WDDM from the ground up properly and to quit thinking in XP (XPDM) terms. This is why around September of 07, we started to see the first generation of WDDM Vista video drivers 'beating' XP in gaming performance, which continued to increase, and is why today Vista/Win7 will outperform XP in gaming 99% of the time, which was the opposite experience people got when Vista was released.

Heck, even when Windows 2000 came out, people complained; obviously, DOS was a far superior OS.

What? When Windows 2000 came out people complained DOS was better? O.o .........

I don't see the connection. I can see it for Windows 1.0 and upwards. DOS was still much loved, and the way you still did many things. I couldn't run most applications except in DOS, using Windows 95 I still had to drop to DOS to do stuff.

JessJess said,

What? When Windows 2000 came out people complained DOS was better? O.o .........

I don't see the connection. I can see it for Windows 1.0 and upwards. DOS was still much loved, and the way you still did many things. I couldn't run most applications except in DOS, using Windows 95 I still had to drop to DOS to do stuff.

That's part of the point. Sometimes the hatred is blind, without reason.

The problem is the people doing the hating are usually the biggest fans of the OS later on when someone wants to 'move their cheese'.

Such is the circle of life

Shane Nokes said,

That's part of the point. Sometimes the hatred is blind, without reason.

The problem is the people doing the hating are usually the biggest fans of the OS later on when someone wants to 'move their cheese'.

Such is the circle of life

Yeah but what I mean is that its not really a relevant comparison. Windows 2k vs DOS. Like saying my dishwasher is better than an iPhone.

It would have made more sense if they said NT 4 or Windows 98 or something. But by Windows 2000 there had already been /many/ versions of windows. So why DOS?

Looked like a mistake to me.

JessJess said,

Yeah but what I mean is that its not really a relevant comparison. Windows 2k vs DOS. Like saying my dishwasher is better than an iPhone.

It would have made more sense if they said NT 4 or Windows 98 or something. But by Windows 2000 there had already been /many/ versions of windows. So why DOS?

Looked like a mistake to me.

It's a totally relevant comparison. They're still both computer OS's. And some people did actually still prefer DOS. I'm not THAT old but remember people still saying this in 2001.

It's like how some people still prefer the massive security risk that is named Windows XP. It's many Windows versions old, over a DECADE old, has more holes than a Micheal Bay movie, don't support loads of new hardware and features... but they still prefer it.

It's all quite sad really. Makes you lose even more faith in humanity don't it.

JessJess said,

What? When Windows 2000 came out people complained DOS was better? O.o .........

I don't see the connection. I can see it for Windows 1.0 and upwards. DOS was still much loved, and the way you still did many things. I couldn't run most applications except in DOS, using Windows 95 I still had to drop to DOS to do stuff.


It's not so much that they thought DOS was 'better'. They thought a DOS-*based* OS was better, and more backwards compatible with all their software. Suddenly expecting consumers to move to the NT side of the Windows family struck them as an attack on a huge existing market of software.

There were even accusations that Microsoft was intentionally trying to put a roadblock between users and their existing applications by giving it a date-style name (like 95 and 98) to 'trick' them into switching to NT.

JessJess said,

Yeah but what I mean is that its not really a relevant comparison. Windows 2k vs DOS. Like saying my dishwasher is better than an iPhone.

It would have made more sense if they said NT 4 or Windows 98 or something. But by Windows 2000 there had already been /many/ versions of windows. So why DOS?

Looked like a mistake to me.

To these users DOS as a simple, Light, single tasking performance CLI interface. They didn't want more, or realize they could be doing more. (Even with WIndows 3.0, power users rejected it as a 'toy interface for idiots'; however, when they found out how well it multi-tasked DOS applications, it soon became a 'must have' product for power users and they 'overlooked' the GUI aspect.

People also forget that the CLI in Windows NT was lampooned for years compared to *nixes as it was not as functional of a CLI. When Microsoft created PowerShell, this all changed.

The problem with a CLI in Windows NT, was due to it object based nature, which did not work well with traditional parameters or generic I/O or pipes or other 'constructs' that are the key elements of a *nix based OS model.

When dealing directly with an Object Based OS model, parameter passing, string parsing, generic I/O compensation, and piping are all irrelevant and wasted time when the OS (NT) can speak and work directly with aware 'objects' that are far richer, but also extensible.

Anyone that doesn't have a background in Object design/modeling/programming, this may seem like a simple an obscure difference. So let me give a basic example.

*nix and other Non-Object OS view of things:
Function computes radius of Circle
Function computes area of Circle
Function computes Circumference of Circle
Function to apply an associated color to a Circle, and the calling function has to retain that data, and manage it.
(The OS model has no concept of a circle itself.

NT or an Object Based OS
It has a Circle, and when queried the Circle knows about itself, it can inherently compute its radius, area, circumference, on the fly, etc.
The Circle can have color or another attributes added to it, and kept in the Object data structure if needed. So non-related pipes/streams/applications can ask the Circle what color it is, and it knows. Circle.Color = Red

This is why so little code has to change fundamentally in Windows NT when major changes are made in the OS and Kernel, as both old and new code can continue to work with the Circle, as there are no 'functional parameters' that change, and the old code can ask about what it needs to know about the Circle and the Circle provides the information.

And more impressively, new code can deal with the Circle and also deal with a new version of the Circle called a Sphere, that is now a 3 dimensional circle, and has new attributes like volume, mass, and other attributes like texture that can be applied to it, and it is able to manage this information and not only store, but give a real time computation about itself.

So the circle hasn't changed for old code, and doesn't break anything, and new code is dealing with a Sphere and works the same, with both old and new code sharing the Circle/Sphere even though one set of code has no idea what a Sphere is, and new code is not limited to only what Circle is.

This is the fundamentals of how Vista/Win7 added in a whole new WDDM replacing XPDM for video, yet XPDM was not removed. (The object nature of the OS allowed the OS to work with old driver model code or new driver model code, as the base objects it was dealing with provided the 'expected' interfaces for both models.)

It is the 'extensibility' and also helps the 'portability' aspect of NT and how and why it was designed 20 years ago.

Obviously NT doesn't depend on Circles and Spheres, but it uses this object model throughout the OS at the kernel level and layer after layer up throughout the OS.

This is what made a CLI hard for Windows NT to be comparable to *nix, because CLIs up until PowerShell were designed around non-object based models. This is why Powershell was and is impressive, as it is a CLI model that is the first Object Based CLI.

Anyone curious should go look up the creation of PowerShell and why it has respect even in geek circles that hate Microsoft. It has a lot to teach people about how NT works fundamentally, but also how dealing with object models at even low level aspects of an OS/Kernel can be highly beneficial.

thenetavenger said,

To these users DOS as a simple, Light, single tasking performance CLI interface. They didn't want more, or realize they could be doing more. (Even with WIndows 3.0, power users rejected it as a 'toy interface for idiots'; however, when they found out how well it multi-tasked DOS applications, it soon became a 'must have' product for power users and they 'overlooked' the GUI aspect.

People also forget that the CLI in Windows NT was lampooned for years compared to *nixes as it was not as functional of a CLI. When Microsoft created PowerShell, this all changed.

The problem with a CLI in Windows NT, was due to it object based nature, which did not work well with traditional parameters or generic I/O or pipes or other 'constructs' that are the key elements of a *nix based OS model.

When dealing directly with an Object Based OS model, parameter passing, string parsing, generic I/O compensation, and piping are all irrelevant and wasted time when the OS (NT) can speak and work directly with aware 'objects' that are far richer, but also extensible.

Anyone that doesn't have a background in Object design/modeling/programming, this may seem like a simple an obscure difference. So let me give a basic example.

*nix and other Non-Object OS view of things:
Function computes radius of Circle
Function computes area of Circle
Function computes Circumference of Circle
Function to apply an associated color to a Circle, and the calling function has to retain that data, and manage it.
(The OS model has no concept of a circle itself.

NT or an Object Based OS
It has a Circle, and when queried the Circle knows about itself, it can inherently compute its radius, area, circumference, on the fly, etc.
The Circle can have color or another attributes added to it, and kept in the Object data structure if needed. So non-related pipes/streams/applications can ask the Circle what color it is, and it knows. Circle.Color = Red

This is why so little code has to change fundamentally in Windows NT when major changes are made in the OS and Kernel, as both old and new code can continue to work with the Circle, as there are no 'functional parameters' that change, and the old code can ask about what it needs to know about the Circle and the Circle provides the information.

And more impressively, new code can deal with the Circle and also deal with a new version of the Circle called a Sphere, that is now a 3 dimensional circle, and has new attributes like volume, mass, and other attributes like texture that can be applied to it, and it is able to manage this information and not only store, but give a real time computation about itself.

So the circle hasn't changed for old code, and doesn't break anything, and new code is dealing with a Sphere and works the same, with both old and new code sharing the Circle/Sphere even though one set of code has no idea what a Sphere is, and new code is not limited to only what Circle is.

This is the fundamentals of how Vista/Win7 added in a whole new WDDM replacing XPDM for video, yet XPDM was not removed. (The object nature of the OS allowed the OS to work with old driver model code or new driver model code, as the base objects it was dealing with provided the 'expected' interfaces for both models.)

It is the 'extensibility' and also helps the 'portability' aspect of NT and how and why it was designed 20 years ago.

Obviously NT doesn't depend on Circles and Spheres, but it uses this object model throughout the OS at the kernel level and layer after layer up throughout the OS.

This is what made a CLI hard for Windows NT to be comparable to *nix, because CLIs up until PowerShell were designed around non-object based models. This is why Powershell was and is impressive, as it is a CLI model that is the first Object Based CLI.

Anyone curious should go look up the creation of PowerShell and why it has respect even in geek circles that hate Microsoft. It has a lot to teach people about how NT works fundamentally, but also how dealing with object models at even low level aspects of an OS/Kernel can be highly beneficial.

That was an amazing analogy and description about NT for the billions of people who haven't the faintest idea of how it works!

I have a few customers that still run their businesses on DOS, and it is very stable, and very fast. To each his own.

jimmyfal said,
I have a few customers that still run their businesses on DOS, and it is very stable, and very fast. To each his own.

ya i have been called in for repair work on a network many times in the last 10 years for a known company every has heard of and they are running DOS on like Pentium 2 machines lol
I think mainly because of the custom software they had made. such as the programming and flash code for the door swipe cards.

iMamoru said,
People love it deep inside. They know it and try to fight it! LOL

I couldn't agree more. The more they say they "hate" it, the more they love it secretly

I do remember people hated Windows 95, big time. Then again that was back in a day when even brand new computers rarely had enough RAM for it to run well. A lot of my friends hated Windows XP. If you came from Windows 2000 there was very little difference at the time, but I never understood people coming from Win98 or ME who hated XP. XP was so vastly better than those old DOS/Win based systems.

To be honest, I was one of the few people who stood up for Vista. It wasn't Microsoft's fault that the industry was so slow to adopt to it. I guess they had gotten lazy after so many years of Windows XP and not having to work on supporting a new OS. I find it funny that people say things like "Vista wasn't good until SP1 or SP2." What is it you think MS did in those service packs? Nothing! Read them, there are a few bug fixes and all the normal things. But no where is there a big "this is the fix that makes Vista work well." Nope, Vista working well simply came from 3rd paries finally supporting it fully. The only reason why people loved Windows 7 so much was because it was so similar to Vista that everything still worked. I promis you that had Vista never existed and Win7 came out exactly as it did, people would have hated it for all the same reasons they hated Vista.

Win 8. I don't care for it only because I don't see the point. If you don't have a touch screen what is there to get excited about? Sure the new Metro inteface looks pretty cool, but for not very few programs run in it. If I will be at the desktop most of the time anyway then who cares? From what I have seen in the betas the updates they did to the desktop are pretty minor.

Edited by sphbecker, Oct 22 2012, 3:05pm :

sphbecker said,
I do remember people hated Windows 95, big time.

I remember ICQ crashing the computer so much our SCSI drive went dead. Bet dad hated Windows 95 then =)

Deranged said,

I remember ICQ crashing the computer so much our SCSI drive went dead. Bet dad hated Windows 95 then =)

Good ol' "scuzzy"!

sphbecker said,
I do remember people hated Windows 95, big time. Then again that was back in a day when even brand new computers rarely had enough RAM for it to run well. A lot of my friends hated Windows XP. If you came from Windows 2000 there was very little difference at the time, but I never understood people coming from Win98 or ME who hated XP. XP was so vastly better than those old DOS/Win based systems.

To be honest, I was one of the few people who stood up for Vista. It wasn't Microsoft's fault that the industry was so slow to adopt to it. I guess they had gotten lazy after so many years of Windows XP and not having to work on supporting a new OS. I find it funny that people say things like "Vista wasn't good until SP1 or SP2." What is it you think MS did in those service packs? Nothing! Read them, there are a few bug fixes and all the normal things. But no where is there a big "this is the fix that makes Vista work well." Nope, Vista working well simply came from 3rd paries finally supporting it fully. The only reason why people loved Windows 7 so much was because it was so similar to Vista that everything still worked. I promis you that had Vista never existed and Win7 came out exactly as it did, people would have hated it for all the same reasons they hated Vista.

Win 8. I don't care for it only because I don't see the point. If you don't have a touch screen what is there to get excited about? Sure the new Metro inteface looks pretty cool, but for not very few programs run in it. If I will be at the desktop most of the time anyway then who cares? From what I have seen in the betas the updates they did to the desktop are pretty minor.

And the comment about Windows 8 being *all about touch* is just as condescending as all the comments about XP (or even those about Windows 2000 - which was treated just as harshly by reviewers comparing it to NT4WS, despite the differences being far less than those between 2000 and XP).

On the other hand, I went from 98SE to 2000 Professional (avoiding ME) - those primarily that preferred ME were IHVs and OEMs - they didn't consider Windows 2000 (or any NT-based OS) suitable for the average user. (The technical term for thinking like that is *pigeonholing* - and I would have thought we'd know better.)

sphbecker said,
To be honest, I was one of the few people who stood up for Vista.

Vista had some performance issues at launch. Manufacturers, however, didn't set it up for success. Single-core systems with 512MB RAM with the Google Desktop (with gadgets) ubiquitously running at start-up were shipped. Are you kidding me? Properly configured, I'd rather use Vista SP2 over XP any day.

techfreak said,

Vista had some performance issues at launch. Manufacturers, however, didn't set it up for success. Single-core systems with 512MB RAM with the Google Desktop (with gadgets) ubiquitously running at start-up were shipped. Are you kidding me? Properly configured, I'd rather use Vista SP2 over XP any day.


You forgot Acer kept putting it in Power Saver mode, despite it performing like garbage in that mode.

sphbecker said,
I do remember people hated Windows 95, big time. Then again that was back in a day when even brand new computers rarely had enough RAM for it to run well. A lot of my friends hated Windows XP. If you came from Windows 2000 there was very little difference at the time, but I never understood people coming from Win98 or ME who hated XP. XP was so vastly better than those old DOS/Win based systems.

To be honest, I was one of the few people who stood up for Vista. It wasn't Microsoft's fault that the industry was so slow to adopt to it. I guess they had gotten lazy after so many years of Windows XP and not having to work on supporting a new OS. I find it funny that people say things like "Vista wasn't good until SP1 or SP2." What is it you think MS did in those service packs? Nothing! Read them, there are a few bug fixes and all the normal things. But no where is there a big "this is the fix that makes Vista work well." Nope, Vista working well simply came from 3rd paries finally supporting it fully. The only reason why people loved Windows 7 so much was because it was so similar to Vista that everything still worked. I promis you that had Vista never existed and Win7 came out exactly as it did, people would have hated it for all the same reasons they hated Vista.

Win 8. I don't care for it only because I don't see the point. If you don't have a touch screen what is there to get excited about? Sure the new Metro inteface looks pretty cool, but for not very few programs run in it. If I will be at the desktop most of the time anyway then who cares? From what I have seen in the betas the updates they did to the desktop are pretty minor.

Use a "Touch" Mouse"

sphbecker said,
I do remember people hated Windows 95, big time. Then again that was back in a day when even brand new computers rarely had enough RAM for it to run well. A lot of my friends hated Windows XP. If you came from Windows 2000 there was very little difference at the time, but I never understood people coming from Win98 or ME who hated XP. XP was so vastly better than those old DOS/Win based systems.

To be honest, I was one of the few people who stood up for Vista. It wasn't Microsoft's fault that the industry was so slow to adopt to it. I guess they had gotten lazy after so many years of Windows XP and not having to work on supporting a new OS. I find it funny that people say things like "Vista wasn't good until SP1 or SP2." What is it you think MS did in those service packs? Nothing! Read them, there are a few bug fixes and all the normal things. But no where is there a big "this is the fix that makes Vista work well." Nope, Vista working well simply came from 3rd paries finally supporting it fully. The only reason why people loved Windows 7 so much was because it was so similar to Vista that everything still worked. I promis you that had Vista never existed and Win7 came out exactly as it did, people would have hated it for all the same reasons they hated Vista.

Win 8. I don't care for it only because I don't see the point. If you don't have a touch screen what is there to get excited about? Sure the new Metro inteface looks pretty cool, but for not very few programs run in it. If I will be at the desktop most of the time anyway then who cares? From what I have seen in the betas the updates they did to the desktop are pretty minor.


And now you are being the same as the "others" in your tale.
8 is far superior resource wise, and in many other aspects. It will not fail because you say. Also... if you are not changing to OSX or Linux... you will be using it...
(right now im waiting for bootcamp drivers fine tuned for 8 to get rid of OSX on my beautiful laptop)

sphbecker said,
Win 8. I don't care for it only because I don't see the point. If you don't have a touch screen what is there to get excited about? Sure the new Metro inteface looks pretty cool, but for not very few programs run in it. If I will be at the desktop most of the time anyway then who cares? From what I have seen in the betas the updates they did to the desktop are pretty minor.

I agreed with everything until that^ part. As pointed out, now you're just like all these other people you mentioned. Which is kind of sad really.

Win 8 has more desktop improvements than any previous Windows OS in the last 12 years or more. Can you name desktop improvements in Win 7 over Vista? Apart from the better taskbar and usual things like security improvements can you actually name some useful new features off the top of your head?

But with Win 8 compared to 7 you get loads of useful new stuff:


Build-in Anti Virus, finally. And the Smart Screen filter. Both of which do a good job and don't slow the system down like most AV software (it's still faster than Win 7 with this enabled by default).

Better multi monitor support (a taskbar on each monitor + spanned wallpapers across all displays)

Storage Spaces. To me it's worth the upgrade for this alone.

Way faster boot/shut down/sleep/wake times.

Better overall performance than 7 at most tasks, and considerably less RAM usage.

Hyper-V, previously only a Windows Server feature that which lets you run a virtualized OS (like VM Ware or Virtual Box). Basically this means you get infinite backwards compatibly. If something down work on Win 8, just install XP or even Windows 95 in Hyper-V and run it on that.

A new File History feature to recover old files.

Better file management and FINALLY the ability to pause file copying.

Built-in ISO and VHD support (Virtual Hard Drive).

Built-in RAW file format support (what DSLR's cameras use).

Support for orientation image data, so that when you take a photo with a camera/phone the thumbnail image is actually displayed in the correct orientation and not on it's side or upside down like with Win 7 and older. That was really annoying! (it's these little things that make big differences).

The new Ribbon added to the File Explorer (previously called Windows Explorer).

Completely overhauled boot system and new graphical screens that support touch, mouse and keyboard. I'm talking about things like the Windows Recovery Environment, the Dual Boot screen (for multiple OS's), and Disk Check that you can access on boot up. No more white text on a black background from the 1970's, now you get a full graphical interface.

The best Task Manager in any Windows version by miles.

Much better battery life compared to any previous Windows OS.

New Language features in the Control Panel. Download and switch between any Windows language for free.


Theres loads of other stuff but cant be bothered, i'd be here all day.

NoClipMode said,

I agreed with everything until that^ part. As pointed out, now you're just like all these other people you mentioned. Which is kind of sad really.

Win 8 has more desktop improvements than any previous Windows OS in the last 12 years or more. Can you name desktop improvements in Win 7 over Vista? Apart from the better taskbar and usual things like security improvements can you actually name some useful new features off the top of your head?

But with Win 8 compared to 7 you get loads of useful new stuff:

(snip)

Built-in ISO and VHD support (Virtual Hard Drive).

(snip)

New Language features in the Control Panel. Download and switch between any Windows language for free.

(snip)

Nice list of some features.

However, just to be clear, VHD support was in Windows 7, native ISO mounting is new.

Also to be accurate, NT going back to 1993 has always supported non-localized language features that could be changed. (NT was written without any language integrated into the OS, playing out the Unicode role it was designed to uphold.)

The confusion is that it was not released this way as there wasn't an easy way to download the language packs in 1993. In Vista and Windows 7, Ultimate users had the ability to easily add and flip languages on the fly.

Windows 8 does bring this functionality to the 'Pro' version, if I remember correctly, but don't confuse it as a 'new feature'.

It is also worth mentioning that beyond the 'perception' of the non-desktop additions to the OS, it really is designed around keyboard and mouse users.

There are more new keyboard navigation and shortcuts in Windows 8 than any previous version since Windows 95. There are faster ways to get to commands (desktop and Windows App UI) than any previous version of Windows.

For example, on the new Start Screen (Start Menu), which a keyboard user can get to by hitting the Windows key, you can fully navigate the entire screen with Arrow Keys, Tab, Enter, Menu Key, Esc. (Add in Page-Up/Page-Down/Shift-Tab/Ctrl-Home/Ctrl-End if you are a more experienced user to get around even faster.

This new level of access for keyboard users also includes virtually every (Windows App/Metro/Modern), as they are working from the same UI navigation framework. So from opening up IE10 in the new UI to games, even solitaire, you no longer need a mouse (or touch screen) whatsoever, and unlike previous desktop versions in Windows, there are no longer complex shortcuts or lack of navigation when getting into graphically rich applications.

So the 'new' level of navigation, and this also includes Desktop changes, like File Explorer, where the Ribbon and new shortcuts have been added for keyboard users. Hitting Alt, elegantly displays the new keyboard shortcut for every option available from the Ribbon, and Tabbed interface (Even when the Ribbon is hidden).

This is a marked improvement for DESKTOP 'novice users' and power users, that don't even have to remember Alt-V-etc. Instead Hitting Alt highlights F H S V 1 2, then hitting V opens the Ribbon with ALL the shortcuts highlighted again, so there is nothing that HAS to be remembered for novices, and power users can now access features that were NOT available via the keyboard in Windows 7. Example: Alt-V-P turns on and off the Preview Pane.

There are additional great features and ways to get to things that were not possible out of the box with Windows 7 or previous versions. Power Users should Try some of these keyboard shortcuts in Explorer:
Alt - F - P (Command Prompt)
Alt - F - M - A (Administrator Command Prompt)
Alt - F - R (PowerShell)
Alt - F - S - A ( Administrator PowerShell)

Notice as the letters highlight and walk users through the options. (This is the 'death' of Menus and the 'need' of Menus, which were a non-GUI UI construct that was used by Apple because of the complexity of getting a lot of commands and features into a low resolution GUI design back in 1984. We have gone past 1984, and no longer have the need for traditional 'Menus' or Menu Bars. (Menus are essentially 'Word Lists' and the opposite of what a GUI is supposed to do, eliminate the need to 'memorize' locations and word lists of commands.)


People that hate on Windows 8 have not really taken it for a spin or are the traditional 'fear change' mindset. If they gave it a change, especially the ones with only a keyboard/mouse and consider themselves 'power users' they will find that there is MORE in Windows 8 for them.

So power users get more functionality and can access it faster, and Novice users can easily see and get access to features they didn't realize existed. Which is a rather remarkable achievement in UI design.

thenetavenger said,

Nice list of some features.

However, just to be clear, VHD support was in Windows 7, native ISO mounting is new.

Also to be accurate, NT going back to 1993 has always supported non-localized language features that could be changed. (NT was written without any language integrated into the OS, playing out the Unicode role it was designed to uphold.)

The confusion is that it was not released this way as there wasn't an easy way to download the language packs in 1993. In Vista and Windows 7, Ultimate users had the ability to easily add and flip languages on the fly.

Windows 8 does bring this functionality to the 'Pro' version, if I remember correctly, but don't confuse it as a 'new feature'.

It is also worth mentioning that beyond the 'perception' of the non-desktop additions to the OS, it really is designed around keyboard and mouse users.

There are more new keyboard navigation and shortcuts in Windows 8 than any previous version since Windows 95. There are faster ways to get to commands (desktop and Windows App UI) than any previous version of Windows.

For example, on the new Start Screen (Start Menu), which a keyboard user can get to by hitting the Windows key, you can fully navigate the entire screen with Arrow Keys, Tab, Enter, Menu Key, Esc. (Add in Page-Up/Page-Down/Shift-Tab/Ctrl-Home/Ctrl-End if you are a more experienced user to get around even faster.

This new level of access for keyboard users also includes virtually every (Windows App/Metro/Modern), as they are working from the same UI navigation framework. So from opening up IE10 in the new UI to games, even solitaire, you no longer need a mouse (or touch screen) whatsoever, and unlike previous desktop versions in Windows, there are no longer complex shortcuts or lack of navigation when getting into graphically rich applications.

So the 'new' level of navigation, and this also includes Desktop changes, like File Explorer, where the Ribbon and new shortcuts have been added for keyboard users. Hitting Alt, elegantly displays the new keyboard shortcut for every option available from the Ribbon, and Tabbed interface (Even when the Ribbon is hidden).

This is a marked improvement for DESKTOP 'novice users' and power users, that don't even have to remember Alt-V-etc. Instead Hitting Alt highlights F H S V 1 2, then hitting V opens the Ribbon with ALL the shortcuts highlighted again, so there is nothing that HAS to be remembered for novices, and power users can now access features that were NOT available via the keyboard in Windows 7. Example: Alt-V-P turns on and off the Preview Pane.

There are additional great features and ways to get to things that were not possible out of the box with Windows 7 or previous versions. Power Users should Try some of these keyboard shortcuts in Explorer:
Alt - F - P (Command Prompt)
Alt - F - M - A (Administrator Command Prompt)
Alt - F - R (PowerShell)
Alt - F - S - A ( Administrator PowerShell)

Notice as the letters highlight and walk users through the options. (This is the 'death' of Menus and the 'need' of Menus, which were a non-GUI UI construct that was used by Apple because of the complexity of getting a lot of commands and features into a low resolution GUI design back in 1984. We have gone past 1984, and no longer have the need for traditional 'Menus' or Menu Bars. (Menus are essentially 'Word Lists' and the opposite of what a GUI is supposed to do, eliminate the need to 'memorize' locations and word lists of commands.)


People that hate on Windows 8 have not really taken it for a spin or are the traditional 'fear change' mindset. If they gave it a change, especially the ones with only a keyboard/mouse and consider themselves 'power users' they will find that there is MORE in Windows 8 for them.

So power users get more functionality and can access it faster, and Novice users can easily see and get access to features they didn't realize existed. Which is a rather remarkable achievement in UI design.

Exactly.

Back prior to the Developer Preview, i was very MUCH a major skeptic about Windows 8, and the new UI was, in fact, why.

However, the more I used it (and unlike a lot of folks, I did NOT try to make it another Windows 7) the less skeptical I became, until, with the Consumer Preview (after a final round of backward-compatibility testing), I demoted the losing OS to VM duties. The surprise - and especially to me - was that the losing OS was Windows 7.

The new keyboard shortcuts you posted (especially the two for wannabe PowerShell gurus) are quite new to me, and are something I've been wanting. PowerShell has a TON of untapped potential in Windows (not just 8, as it goes back to XP) and to find it basically locked away from single-PC users and largely undocumented sticks in my craw a bit.

iguanas said,
(right now im waiting for bootcamp drivers fine tuned for 8 to get rid of OSX on my beautiful laptop)
You may have a long wait...I use Windows 7 on bootcamp on a Core2 Duo iMac for work and it performs slower than my old Pentium M based Dell laptop. The only way to stop it from crashing (as much) is to completely ignore ALL Apple drivers. I once discovered that the KEYBOARD driver was causing windows to lock up!! Go with the default generic drivers and you'll have a better experience in bootcamp.
My Dells NEVER crash or lock up because they have optimized drivers. If you were cynical you'd think that Apple deliberately cripple bootcamp to make OSX look better, particularly in those reviews where clueless reviewers run performance tests on the same hardware; in reality it's probably that Apple just don't care enough to put any resources in to get it right.

thenetavenger said,
Also to be accurate, NT going back to 1993 has always supported non-localized language features that could be changed. (NT was written without any language integrated into the OS, playing out the Unicode role it was designed to uphold.)

The confusion is that it was not released this way as there wasn't an easy way to download the language packs in 1993. In Vista and Windows 7, Ultimate users had the ability to easily add and flip languages on the fly.

Windows 8 does bring this functionality to the 'Pro' version, if I remember correctly, but don't confuse it as a 'new feature'.

I mentioned language as it is pretty much a new feature, or atleast a much improved feature in 8. It now has a completely new and far easier to use interface. Look it up in Control Panel. And unlike previous Windows versions, the Language features are available on all versions of Win 8, not just the Pro version.

Subhadip said,
Two things people love to hate - Microsoft and Change.

I think a lot of the hate is coming from the fact that this OS seems to be geared toward touchscreens, while many, many people will be using it for normal desktop computing with a mouse. I'm curious to see how the reviews are for desktops. I have no problem with this OS for phones/tablets, I think it will be great!

no-sweat said,

I think a lot of the hate is coming from the fact that this OS seems to be geared toward touchscreens

I wonder if this is what people who loved DOS said when the first Windows came out.

"The new OS is made for a mouse not a keyboard. We want are keyboard and command prompt not a windows mode. Microsoft will fail."

BillyJack said,

I wonder if this is what people who loved DOS said when the first Windows came out.

"The new OS is made for a mouse not a keyboard. We want are keyboard and command prompt not a windows mode. Microsoft will fail."

I started with Win 2.0 and yes, in the early 90s I heard many people complain that they didn't need to run multiple applications and the "Fisher Price" comment was something I heard often.

BillyJack said,

I wonder if this is what people who loved DOS said when the first Windows came out.

"The new OS is made for a mouse not a keyboard. We want are keyboard and command prompt not a windows mode. Microsoft will fail."

Well, kind of, but not really. I have two 24" monitors... it will be a lot easy on my arms to use a mouse rather than to use two 24" touchscreens.

BillyJack said,

I wonder if this is what people who loved DOS said when the first Windows came out.

"The new OS is made for a mouse not a keyboard. We want are keyboard and command prompt not a windows mode. Microsoft will fail."

You do know that you can use a "touch" mouse or trackpad. That's what I plan to do.

BillyJack said,

I wonder if this is what people who loved DOS said when the first Windows came out.

"The new OS is made for a mouse not a keyboard. We want are keyboard and command prompt not a windows mode. Microsoft will fail."

Precisely.


“Mice are nice ideas, but of dubious value for business users” (George Vinall, PC Week, April 24, 1984)
“There is no evidence that people want to use these things.” (John C. Dvorak, San Francisco Examiner, February 19, 1984)
“I was having lots of fun, but in the back of my corporate mind, I couldn't help but think about productivity.” (George Vinall, PC Week, April 24, 1984)
“Does the mouse make the computer more accessible, more friendly, to certain target audiences such as executives? The answer is no.” (Computerworld, October 31, 1983)
“There is no possibility that this device will feel more comfortable to the executive than the keyboard. Because of its ‘rollability,' the mouse has the aura of a gimmick…” (Computerworld, October 31, 1983)
“The mouse and its friends are merely diversions in this process. What sounds revolutionary does not necessarily help anyone with anything, and therein lies the true test of commercial longevity.” (David A. Kay, Datamation, October 1983)

Subhadip said,
Two things people love to hate - Microsoft and Change.

Yeh, I hate having only change in my pocket after windows "upgrade" prices. lol

no-sweat said,

Well, kind of, but not really. I have two 24" monitors... it will be a lot easy on my arms to use a mouse rather than to use two 24" touchscreens.

excactly, and i use them for photography, touching monitors and making smudges that distort colors is the last thing i want.

IntelliMoo said,

Yeh, I hate having only change in my pocket after windows "upgrade" prices. lol

Are you kidding me???
$40 is dirt cheap for a new OS

Subhadip said,

Precisely.


“Mice are nice ideas, but of dubious value for business users” (George Vinall, PC Week, April 24, 1984)
“There is no evidence that people want to use these things.” (John C. Dvorak, San Francisco Examiner, February 19, 1984)
“I was having lots of fun, but in the back of my corporate mind, I couldn't help but think about productivity.” (George Vinall, PC Week, April 24, 1984)
“Does the mouse make the computer more accessible, more friendly, to certain target audiences such as executives? The answer is no.” (Computerworld, October 31, 1983)
“There is no possibility that this device will feel more comfortable to the executive than the keyboard. Because of its ‘rollability,' the mouse has the aura of a gimmick…” (Computerworld, October 31, 1983)
“The mouse and its friends are merely diversions in this process. What sounds revolutionary does not necessarily help anyone with anything, and therein lies the true test of commercial longevity.” (David A. Kay, Datamation, October 1983)


Most relevant post in the whole thread.

To many people, the mouse was just a glorified tab key, only serving to get the keyboard input cursor to another spot so they can go right back to the keyboard and continue typing. In this regard, it was annoying and distracting.

It was also often argued that too many operations were requiring you to move your whole arm away from the keyboard just to perform a mouse operation (sound familiar?). It was much more ergonomic to design these functions around keyboard commands, since your hands were on the keyboard 95% of the time anyway.

As mouse use became more mainstream, software design and UI paradigms evolved to accommodate the device, and ergonomics soon followed. Nowadays, the keyboard is the device interrupting mouse use more often than the reverse.

So yeah, mice were distracting, unnatural, and illogical at one time, and history has shown us that paradigms change to adapt. People who complain about touch input and the desktop struggle to process this historical fact. They don't allow their imaginations to take hold. They don't let themselves see technology moving toward a way to integrate touch in a more natural feeling way, even at the desktop workstation. None of this even enters the realm of possibility, and if it ultimately does come to be, these same people will defensively point out that they were still right (the paradigm "at the time" was poor) and they had no way of foreseeing how things would turn out.

Nevermind that all we ask of them is optimism when it comes to technological progress. These are old dogs while technology is about new tricks, and they have no interest in seeing things in a way other than what they're already used to.

Edited by Joshie, Oct 22 2012, 10:38pm :

nekrosoft13 said,

excactly, and i use them for photography, touching monitors and making smudges that distort colors is the last thing i want.

That is the one thing that will bother me. Having to constantly clean the screen because the smudges mess with the display. I like my screen clean.

nekrosoft13 said,

excactly, and i use them for photography, touching monitors and making smudges that distort colors is the last thing i want.

That is the one thing that will bother me. Having to constantly clean the screen because the smudges mess with the display. I like my screen clean.

BillyJack said,

That is the one thing that will bother me. Having to constantly clean the screen because the smudges mess with the display. I like my screen clean.

Well, TBQH... people who really care about color accuracy and clarity are buying high end monitors that have never come with touch functionality. The realistic scenario here is a multimonitor configuration: one for touch, one for graphical quality. And frankly, people who do this kind of work are already using multiple monitors anyway. *shrug*

I've actually been thinking about attempting a vertically 'curved' desktop setup. Instead of monitors side-by-side, I have a large, primary display at eye-level, and a smaller touchscreen display in front and below it, angled up at me, creating roughly a curve between my mouse/keyboard 'level' and the primary monitor.

I think it'd be nifty.