• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

I am sick of the Windows 95 comparisons, Win 8 is far away from the glory o

Recommended Posts

Tha Bloo Monkee    591

Why is there any comparison of Windows 8 to Windows 95? It's friggin 18 years old.

On a side note, many of you should be using Windows 95 anyways because "Windows 8 has no Start Menu", so since you like using old stuff, just stick with Win95 ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash    349

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few." It's not just about you. Windows 8 is about the ecosystem, and for that ecosystem to work, sacrifices need made. Ever since Windows 95, Microsoft got stuck between a rock and a hard place - the UI has been virtually the same since, mainly because of backwards compatibility. But that model is unsustainable. There comes a point where it becomes too much, and you have to make a clean break if you wish to move forward. What you're talking about is system hardware - something Windows 8 doesn't abandon, but we have new technologies that are going to change the way we interact with machines. New technologies Win32 can't handle. Not to mention the WinRT API is more secure and stable from the ground up from the start. Unifying devices not only reduces support, but eliminates unnecessary complexity. As development moves forward with Windows 8 apps, you're going to see less need for the desktop.

Why is it SUCH a problem that from Windows 95 to Windows 7 the basic UI is the same? Who cares. Windows 7 supports all the latest technologies like SSD TRIM, latest graphics cards, multi-core processors. How is the Windows 7 UI unsustainable? It does not have touch, but that is why I said give us an option. If it is installed on a system with touch, enable metro. If it is on a standard desktop, give us the option.

And as Metro matures, you too will be able to do this, but file management looks like it's going by the wayside, just look at how Metro apps handles files.

I highly doubt that with the way metro is now. So you are saying they will allow freely movable floating windows in the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix    7,430

Why is it SUCH a problem that from Windows 95 to Windows 7 the basic UI is the same? Who cares. Windows 7 supports all the latest technologies like SSD TRIM, latest graphics cards, multi-core processors. How is the Windows 7 UI unsustainable? It does not have touch, but that is why I said give us an option. If it is installed on a system with touch, enable metro. If it is on a standard desktop, give us the option.

Go back a read what I said. I edited it to be more clear. But long story short, Windows 8 is a clean break from the old. It's the start of a reorganization of their services, not clinging to old ones for legacy purposes. Options need not apply here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash    349

Go back a read what I said. I edited it to be more clear. But long story short, Windows 8 is a clean break from the old. It's the start of a reorganization of their services, not clinging to old ones for legacy purposes. Options need not apply here.

If you want to do you, perhaps Linux is in your future. But, you cannot sell a consumer OS, and focus on the individual. It would fail. Hard.

Did I say I wanted it built just for me? I am talking about making a damn option for regular desktops. How does that equal "building an OS that focuses on the individual"?

Again, what is so bad about a simple check box when you first install the system? EVERYBODY WINS!

I use A LOT of applications, I do not want to pin every single one of them to my taskbar and fill up my desktop. Therefore I use the Start Menu in Windows 7 constantly, and I hate being shifted to the Start Screen in Windows 8 whenever I need to launch something that is not in my "most used" pin list.

Geez what is the problem? "Give us an option to stick to the desktop", "OMG TECHNOLOGY WILL NEVER ADVANCE THEN!!!"

I am sorry, but didn't going from Windows 95 to Windows 7 support new technologies? I do not understand what you mean that if we do not ditch the old UI, technology will NEVER advance. So we got no new graphics cards, new processor technologies, SSDs are fake SINCE Windows 95?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rickkins    283

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few." It's not just about you.

Holy crap dude, you just made the 'anti-metro' argument for us. I'm certain that the billion or so desktop users out there represent the "The needs of the many" and the comparatively insignificantly tiny amount of folks who like metro represent "the needs of the few"

Game, set and match. Let us now see if you're honest enough to now admit this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon H    2,918

Holy crap dude, you just made the 'anti-metro' argument for us. I'm certain that the billion or so desktop users out there represent the "The needs of the many" and the comparatively insignificantly tiny amount of folks who like metro represent "the needs of the few"

Game, set and match. Let us now see if you're honest enough to now admit this.

i think you have it reversed, most average out there (which makes up most of the Windows user base btw) will most likely be just fine with Metro/Modern/whatever. it's just a lot of us techies that don't like it, and even if we don't directly tell people close to us not to like it, the vibe still seems to rub off on them a little. but everyone else does just fine
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dr_crabman    68

Ok. It's obvious you have a personal agenda.

Am I the only one thinking 'Anti-Kool Aid' is an alt account of some other disgruntled user? Suddenly starting strange threads and getting more and more agressive, calling people fools and brainwashed cultists that need deprogramming.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thomastmc    531

Does anyone realize how small of a part of the OS the start screen is for the user, despite the attention it's receiving? If you only use desktop apps, and usually use the apps pinned to the taskbar (like most people), you'd hardly know the new start screen was even there.

All of this whining over a new start configuration is just that, whining.

Install start8 if you want to have that crutch, and dry off your faces. You're embarrassing yourselves.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon H    2,918

Does anyone realize how small of a part of the OS the start screen is for the user, despite the attention it's receiving? If you only use desktop apps, and usually use the apps pinned to the taskbar (like most people), you'd hardly know the new start screen was even there.

All of this whining over a new start configuration is just that, whining.

Install start8 if you want to have that crutch, and dry off your faces. You're embarrassing yourselves.

thank you, i've been saying this for awhile in many threads
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix    7,430

Why is it SUCH a problem that from Windows 95 to Windows 7 the basic UI is the same? Who cares. Windows 7 supports all the latest technologies like SSD TRIM, latest graphics cards, multi-core processors. How is the Windows 7 UI unsustainable? It does not have touch, but that is why I said give us an option. If it is installed on a system with touch, enable metro. If it is on a standard desktop, give us the option.

I highly doubt that with the way metro is now. So you are saying they will allow freely movable floating windows in the future?

You're repeating the same questions, and I answered them. You're like talking to a brick wall.

What part of "clean break" don't you understand? It's like saying WP7 is unusable because there's no legacy support for Windows Mobile 6. You saw what Ballmer and co. was demonstrating on stage today - a unified ecosystem. That's huge - and the legacy Win32 desktop played little part in it. The majority of it comes from WinRT. That's only going to further develop as time moves forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thomastmc    531

thank you, i've been saying this for awhile in many threads

People are carrying on as if the desktop is gone and all that's left is the start screen. It's ridiculous.

Windows 8 proves that some people only notice the small shiny object waved in front of their face and ignore the larger, ever present, and all encompassing reality.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mystic Mungis    678

You know up until recently I thought I was the only person that liked Windows 8 because all I ever see is threads where people bash it, then I actually started talking to people in real life and reading reviews and guess what? A lot of people actually like it, the thing is we are all too busy enjoying the experience to sit on the internet all day and cry about it. "Ohh no it's different from previous versions" "Ahh the new start screen doesn't work with mouse and keyboard, it's only made for touch". I know that there are people who really don't like it and have very valid reasons not to but the majority of people just seem to complain because they can and to them I only have one thing to say... shut up and put the dummy back in your mouth.

Quote this as much as you want and call me a fanboy or an idiot but I won't be looking at this again. Windows 8 works for me so I've had it with looking at hate threads.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rickkins    283

i think you have it reversed, most average out there (which makes up most of the Windows user base btw) will most likely be just fine with Metro/Modern/whatever. it's just a lot of us techies that don't like it, and even if we don't directly tell people close to us not to like it, the vibe still seems to rub off on them a little. but everyone else does just fine

WTF are you talking about...??? The billion or so existing desktop users ARE the majority by a giant margin. There is no disputing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon H    2,918

WTF are you talking about...??? The billion or so existing desktop users ARE the majority by a giant margin. There is no disputing this.

what are YOU talking about, I'm talking average users (aka the people that only get on to check email and facebook and such). those people are the majority
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
devBrian    64

Boy, if you think Windows 8 is polarizing, you should see the Gnome community and their overall distaste for Gnome 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rickkins    283

what are YOU talking about, I'm talking average users (aka the people that only get on to check email and facebook and such). those people are the majority

Are you trying to say that the existing billion plus desktop users are not the majority...??? This is what I'm talking about, so please don't try to fudge the answer.

The billion plus current desktop users. The majority : yes or no. You can only pick yes or no. Pick one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
threetonesun    1,204

Are you trying to say that the existing billion plus desktop users are not the majority...??? This is what I'm talking about, so please don't try to fudge the answer.

The billion plus current desktop users. The majority : yes or no. You can only pick yes or no. Pick one.

... his point is that of those billion current desktop users, many do such a limited set of things with their computers that they'll only need Metro.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Colin McGregor    569

So tired of the Win8 is bigger/just like Windows 95 talk from Microsoft.

Windows 8 is the anti-95.

Win32 programs didn't gave you the feeling that something is amiss compared to Win 3.1 applications. (with Metro you have this feeling constantly). Even the first generation Win95 programs at launch felt more capable than their 3.1 precursors (Corel Draw 6, Office 95). Notro provides the complete opposite feeling.

Windows 95 came with uncrippled winfile.exe and progman.exe (the win 3.1 GUI), and you were able to boot directly into it without even seeing 95's explorer.exe at all ("shell=progman.exe" in system.ini). (works in win 98 too) There was even an official option at the Windows 95 setup for that if you upgraded from Win3.1.

You also were able to directly boot into DOS with ease (just set bootgui=0 in msdos.sys, that also worked in Win 98)

Windows 95 is the anti-thesis to Windows 8. The philosophies were completely different. The team had enough courage to provide all these options because it truly seemed as if they were proud and confident about the system to stand on its own. Windows 8 on the other hand comes across as coward's darling - "the users are too stupid to appreciate our beautiful hippster GUI, let's cripple the desktop as much as we can to force them to this". Windows 95 didn't need any crippling, users have chosen explorer.exe because it was better, and they had the ability to use the old GUI without compromise If they wished to do so.

Windows 95 is confidence. Windows 8 is cowardice.

am I the only one that though it was weird someone named anti-koolaid is drinking the "Windows 8 sucks" koolaid??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obi-Wan Kenobi    1,116

Touche, Collin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CentralDogma    145

... his point is that of those billion current desktop users, many do such a limited set of things with their computers that they'll only need Metro.

If that?s the case, why hasn?t Linux taken off as a viable alternative to Windows as a desktop OS?

It can do the most common things normal users require (web surfing, email, media playback, word processing, ect.), yet it has failed to take hold.

Simply being capable isn?t enough to make an OS successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
threetonesun    1,204

If that?s the case, why hasn?t Linux taken off as a viable alternative to Windows as a desktop OS?

It can do the most common things normal users require (web surfing, email, media playback, word processing, ect.), yet it has failed to take hold.

Simply being capable isn?t enough to make an OS successful.

Marketing, not pre-installed on new PCs, and Microsoft Office.

Mostly the second one. It's pretty hard to find a desktop PC that comes with Linux as the default. But, Chrome OS is Linux, and it could catch on in the near future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CentralDogma    145

Marketing, not pre-installed on new PCs, and Microsoft Office.

Mostly the second one. It's pretty hard to find a desktop PC that comes with Linux as the default. But, Chrome OS is Linux, and it could catch on in the near future.

That?s all certainly true, and I think we can assume Microsoft has most of that tied up. But I?m not sure if those things can bring Windows 8 ?success?.

Let me ask you about Vista then. I hate to be the one to bring Vista up, but keep in mind I?m not comparing it to Windows 8 I a technical and usability standpoint, but rather from a business standpoint. So, indulge me for a moment.

Vista sold about 384 million units. That?s not really a failure financially. That?s even with the bad press it received at the time. I don?t think anyone here is arguing that Windows 8 would put Microsoft in the red, that?s very unlikely.

What really determines the success of Windows 8, from a business standpoint, is the adoption of the Windows Store. That?s clearly what Microsoft is betting on. They?ve made huge strides in usability on tablets and they have had a usable phone OS for more than a year and are moving to unify that all around a common framework for apps. But all of that will be absolutely meaningless if the Windows Store fails.

To Microsoft, whether Windows 8 sells in Vista?s numbers or XP?s numbers is irrelevant, it?s ephemeral pocket change. Success is weather people are buying from the Windows Store and cultivating a framework that can be built upon in subsequent years on mobile platforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skin    299

It's the in thing to hate and disparage all that is new... it's like hipsters have taken over the world and replaced all rational thinkers with, well, hipster doofuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash    349

You're repeating the same questions, and I answered them. You're like talking to a brick wall.

What part of "clean break" don't you understand? It's like saying WP7 is unusable because there's no legacy support for Windows Mobile 6. You saw what Ballmer and co. was demonstrating on stage today - a unified ecosystem. That's huge - and the legacy Win32 desktop played little part in it. The majority of it comes from WinRT. That's only going to further develop as time moves forward.

And you have not answered me as to why the desktop version needs to have a UI shift just because of tablets. The modern UI is needed for a tablet and a phone, but not for my desktop computer that has no touch peripherals.

"Because they need to be the same" is not a valid reason as to why the desktop OS needs to have its UI changed. All we are asking for is a damn option to never see the modern stuff if we choose. "Why not stick with Windows 7?", because Windows 8 has a lot of nice features added to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skin    299

And you have not answered me as to why the desktop version needs to have a UI shift just because of tablets. The modern UI is needed for a tablet and a phone, but not for my desktop computer that has no touch peripherals.

"Because they need to be the same" is not a valid reason as to why the desktop OS needs to have its UI changed. All we are asking for is a damn option to never see the modern stuff if we choose. "Why not stick with Windows 7?", because Windows 8 has a lot of nice features added to it.

The UI shift brings the desktop more in-line with what people will be seeing across their tablets, which in case you don't know, are becoming more widely used, and are the wave of the future. People will want a transparent environment to move from device to device... so, did they HAVE to switch the UI, no... is it in the best interest of everyone...yes.

Also, it took me all of 4 minutes to learn the new UI. I know, I know, for a lot of folks that is like a lifetime. They'd rather stare at the screen and whine that they can't figure it out... then go blog about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.