Is Microsoft ignoring the desktop again?

[PGHammer]

I find it likely that when you repeatedly do the same thing that has failed numbers of times in the past, success is far from assured. But good luck to MS with that.

There is a tug-of-war between two polar opposites - those that wish to advance, and the complacent.

 

The complacent are of the opinion that Windows reached its zenith with 7 - and should not advance further.  (Problem - where do you go if you can't go forward?)

 

What honestly scares me about that is there are all too many cases of a stalled or complacent OS first losing developers, then losing the user base, and finally outright dying.

 

Apparently, the complacent largely don't care.  (That is, in fact, why I wonder what their real motive is - I doubt they are stupid; still, I doubt they are being all that honest, either.)

Daring to advance is not exactly safe, but it's a lot safer in a business sense than standing still.

[Knife Party]

It's a part of this discussion and directly related to the fud you were going to spread. Either discuss or don't bother replying... Oh wait you can't discuss it further because you'll just dig yourself in to a deeper hole.

The truth hurts, no wonder you dug up my reply from how many pages back just to rehash something that is so true. Deal with it mate, just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you are entitled to make sarcastic replies and using the word "FUD" to take me on.

[Rickkins]

There is a tug-of-war between two polar opposites - those that wish to advance, and the complacent.

I would submit that both camps want to advance equally. The problem is they disagree on what the term "advance" actually means.

[MikeChipshop Member]

The truth hurts, no wonder you dug up my reply from how many pages back just to rehash something that is so true. Deal with it mate, just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you are entitled to make sarcastic replies and using the word "FUD" to take me on.

Or, bear with me on this, I was reading through the thread and saw your post and replied, pretty sure that's how these community forum things work

The long and short of it all is all OS's have inconsistencies, learn to live with it. And stop getting upset over such minor things.

[Knife Party]

Or, bear with me on this, I was reading through the thread and saw your post and replied, pretty sure that's how these community forum things work

The long and short of it all is all OS's have inconsistencies, learn to live with it. And stop getting upset over such minor things.

So if you are reading through the thread as you so rightfully claim to , why don't I even see you try to take on PGhammer, Dotmatrix or them folk like how you do with me? See what I'm getting at? I don't need to reply to you, because honestly..... there is no point.

[Dot Matrix]

I find it likely that when you repeatedly do the same thing that has failed numbers of times in the past, success is far from assured. But good luck to MS with that.

They're on the right track with unifying everything. A responsive, universal OS is better than multiple OSs, that have little in common.

[onewarmslime]

Dot Matrix, on 15 Feb 2015 - 17:08, said:

They're on the right track with unifying everything. A responsive, universal OS is better than multiple OSs, that have little in common.

 

Multiple OSes that fit the form factor they're made for are better than a universal, "lowest common denominator" OS... in my opinion of course...

[MikeChipshop Member]

So if you are reading through the thread as you so rightfully claim to , why don't I even see you try to take on PGhammer, Dotmatrix or them folk like how you do with me? See what I'm getting at? I don't need to reply to you, because honestly..... there is no point.

Again, stop taking it so personally. What you said was inaccurate, i pulled you up on that fact, you get upset. That's not a mature response, the mature response would be to discuss these inconsistencies. Clearly you're not going to do that so there's little point you continuing to reply to me.

As for why i didn;t reply to Dot or PG etc, it's really none of your business who i choose to reply to or why, however i shall let you know in this case, it was mainly because i recently had a very similar discussion with another person, therefore it was of interest to me, not any more.

[patseguin Global Moderator]

It seems like the biggest point of debate in Windows 10 is the UI. I loved the new of Vista and then really loved Windows 7 when it came out. They had a beautiful UI that was pleasant to look at and fun to use. While a step backwards, Winows 8's UI was still alright. Now they have this blocky, God-awful looking start menu and hiring, flat, single color Winow graphics. People seem to be suffering from some mass hysteria that dictates this boring flat look is cool and more productive.mi even went as war as to post a picture of Windiws 3.1 as a joke and people respond that it looks great. Whoever is in charge of designing the he GUI at MS must be good because they have the majority of users brainwashed. They clearly have no idea how to build a UI though. They took the modern looking icons of Vista/7 and turned them into ugly pixelated Windows 3.1 style icons. As for window graphics, they got rid of the nice looking elements with a 3D look, gradients, and glowing and turned them into dumbed down 1 color flat simple images. Someone explain to me how making the UI boring and ugly makes it more productive.

[Dot Matrix]

Multiple OSes that fit the form factor they're made for are better than a universal, "lowest common denominator" OS... in my opinion of course...

Why is Windows 10 an LCD? It's still a full featured OS. Responsive design doesn't take anything away from that.

[PGHammer]

Multiple OSes that fit the form factor they're made for are better than a universal, "lowest common denominator" OS... in my opinion of course...

"Fit the formfactor" - sounds like a niche OS to me.  Like WindowsRT as OS - which failed due to being way late.  Android has capabilities beyond its formfactor - this is proven every day.  iOS?  It has multiple form-factors - the only thing keeping it from taking on OS X directly are the legions of OS X fanatics that would have a collective herd of cattle should that happen.  (Apple itself could care less.)  How it appears to me (and please - let me know if I'm wrong about it - and why) they basically want Windows to remain as it was with 7 - support only for keyboards and mice.

[Dot Matrix]

It seems like the biggest point of debate in Windows 10 is the UI. I loved the new of Vista and then really loved Windows 7 when it came out. They had a beautiful UI that was pleasant to look at and fun to use. While a step backwards, Winows 8's UI was still alright. Now they have this blocky, God-awful looking start menu and hiring, flat, single color Winow graphics. People seem to be suffering from some mass hysteria that dictates this boring flat look is cool and more productive.mi even went as war as to post a picture of Windiws 3.1 as a joke and people respond that it looks great. Whoever is in charge of designing the he GUI at MS must be good because they have the majority of users brainwashed. They clearly have no idea how to build a UI though. They took the modern looking icons of Vista/7 and turned them into ugly pixelated Windows 3.1 style icons. As for window graphics, they got rid of the nice looking elements with a 3D look, gradients, and glowing and turned them into dumbed down 1 color flat simple images. Someone explain to me how making the UI boring and ugly makes it more productive.

Explain to me how the icons are pixelated? Flat, minimalist design is the "in' thing right now. Everything from personalized business cards, to interior decorating is using these design concepts. Microsoft and Google adapting these concepts for their operating systems are merely an extension of that. Simplistic design is helping make technology more accessible to people that would otherwise find it too complex. It's also helping create professional looking, but relaxed business applications, as evidenced by the Surface Hub, Modern Office templates, etc that are easy to understand and use.

 

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/stories/design/

[onewarmslime]

Dot Matrix, on 15 Feb 2015 - 17:50, said:Dot Matrix, on 15 Feb 2015 - 17:50, said:

Why is Windows 10 an LCD? It's still a full featured OS. Responsive design doesn't take anything away from that.

 

We'll see. Windows 8 the day it came out was definitely an "LCD". I hope W10 will be great on desktops but the new calculator is not a good indication. And please don't compare living rooms with computer UI, it's not a great comparison

[Dot Matrix]

We'll see. Windows 8 the day it came out was definitely an "LCD". I hope W10 will be great on desktops but the new calculator is not a good indication. And please don't compare living rooms with computer UI, it's not a great comparison

What's wrong with the new Calculator? And yes, I am comparing the computer UI to living rooms (and more), because that is where the designers are pulling their designs from. Metro was initially conceived based on the numerous typography, and iconography we see in the world around us.

[Knife Party]

Again, stop taking it so personally. What you said was inaccurate, i pulled you up on that fact, you get upset. That's not a mature response, the mature response would be to discuss these inconsistencies. Clearly you're not going to do that so there's little point you continuing to reply to me.

As for why i didn;t reply to Dot or PG etc, it's really none of your business who i choose to reply to or why, however i shall let you know in this case, it was mainly because i recently had a very similar discussion with another person, therefore it was of interest to me, not any more.

Ok cool Mikechipshop. Still don't know why you'd think you are making me upset. I get upset at real world problems, not at someone on Neowin in a desktop thread who thinks he has a point.

[nosense]

It seems like the biggest point of debate in Windows 10 is the UI. I loved the new of Vista and then really loved Windows 7 when it came out. They had a beautiful UI that was pleasant to look at and fun to use. While a step backwards, Winows 8's UI was still alright. Now they have this blocky, God-awful looking start menu and hiring, flat, single color Winow graphics. People seem to be suffering from some mass hysteria that dictates this boring flat look is cool and more productive.mi even went as war as to post a picture of Windiws 3.1 as a joke and people respond that it looks great. Whoever is in charge of designing the he GUI at MS must be good because they have the majority of users brainwashed. They clearly have no idea how to build a UI though. They took the modern looking icons of Vista/7 and turned them into ugly pixelated Windows 3.1 style icons. As for window graphics, they got rid of the nice looking elements with a 3D look, gradients, and glowing and turned them into dumbed down 1 color flat simple images. Someone explain to me how making the UI boring and ugly makes it more productive.

LOL i stopped reading at "I love the new of vista" "They had a beautiful UI".

 

God, I hated the rounded corners of windows in both vista\7. Than again im more into simple design and not into blingy,gaudy looking design.

 

Win 10 is not even done with the UI, taskbar transparency and menu transparency is coming in the next couple builds.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Yawn....

[sinetheo]

There is a tug-of-war between two polar opposites - those that wish to advance, and the complacent.

The complacent are of the opinion that Windows reached its zenith with 7 - and should not advance further. (Problem - where do you go if you can't go forward?)

What honestly scares me about that is there are all too many cases of a stalled or complacent OS first losing developers, then losing the user base, and finally outright dying.

Apparently, the complacent largely don't care. (That is, in fact, why I wonder what their real motive is - I doubt they are stupid; still, I doubt they are being all that honest, either.)

Daring to advance is not exactly safe, but it's a lot safer in a business sense than standing still.

A decade ago I walked into the break room and a zdnet magazine maybe pcmag.com had a cover with longhorn. I saw aero and thought cool. Then sat down and a strange thought I never would think entered my head. Windows XP does everything anyone can ever want.

XP has security, groups, real multitasking, acl, NT kernel etc.

Longhorn was just eye candy and bloat which would use more resources for the same tasks now since winfs was gone.

I became sad and shocked. A geek shouldnt be like thi??

I was right. 2 years later in 2007 I got a laptop with Vista. OMG UGH. XP couldn't have been put on so fast. Thought hard disk would spin out of control.It had 2 gigs of ram too and still??!

Win 7 has instant search and better security.

But stay behind you say? XP works and so does 7. Why upgrade? They are like cars now. No difference between them 10 years old or current. They run the same and only replace them when they die.

Does Joe Six pack really need 50,000 mips i5 to run word and do his taxes? No. Therefore he will keep old hardware with whatever OS came with it.

Sorry little reason to leave 7.

[Dot Matrix]

XP has security

 

Stop.... Stop! The laughing, it HURTS!

 

 

 

Does Joe Six pack really need 50,000 mips i5 to run word and do his taxes? No. Therefore he will keep old hardware with whatever OS came with it.

 

Joe "six pack" does a lot more with tech than Word or taxes. In fact, these can be done on a tab - Better news for Windows 10!

[Joshie]

A decade ago I walked into the break room and a zdnet magazine maybe pcmag.com had a cover with longhorn. I saw aero and thought cool. Then sat down and a strange thought I never would think entered my head. Windows XP does everything anyone can ever want.

XP has security, groups, real multitasking, acl, NT kernel etc.

Longhorn was just eye candy and bloat which would use more resources for the same tasks now since winfs was gone.

I became sad and shocked. A geek shouldnt be like thi??

I was right. 2 years later in 2007 I got a laptop with Vista. OMG UGH. XP couldn't have been put on so fast. Thought hard disk would spin out of control.It had 2 gigs of ram too and still??!

Win 7 has instant search and better security.

But stay behind you say? XP works and so does 7. Why upgrade? They are like cars now. No difference between them 10 years old or current. They run the same and only replace them when they die.

Does Joe Six pack really need 50,000 mips i5 to run word and do his taxes? No. Therefore he will keep old hardware with whatever OS came with it.

Sorry little reason to leave 7.

 

You were right. A geek shouldn't be like that. A technology enthusiast shouldn't have looked at Longhorn/Vista and only seen the shine. It laid the groundwork for major changes in how the OS worked behind the scenes. An enthusiast would've seen that.

 

An educated enthusiast would also have figured out a decade ago that WinFS was a unicorn. It was just some magical concept people never really understood but wholeheartedly believed was The Future

[sinetheo]

Joshie, on 15 Feb 2015 - 15:50, said:

You were right. A geek shouldn't be like that. A technology enthusiast shouldn't have looked at Longhorn/Vista and only seen the shine. It laid the groundwork for major changes in how the OS worked behind the scenes. An enthusiast would've seen that.

 

An educated enthusiast would also have figured out a decade ago that WinFS was a unicorn. It was just some magical concept people never really understood but wholeheartedly believed was The Future

[adrynalyne]

 

But 8 is just a cell phone on a desktop. 

 

 

I develop on Windows 8.1.  I tried on my cell phone, but it didn't work.  I think you are lying, sir.

[Dot Matrix]

... and in the end XP was still the better OS which just worked and wasn't buggy and didn't run like crap back in

Are you kidding? XP had next to no stability. It ran worse than a drunk and tired driver. Even now on the network I support, XP has a pretty cruddy track record of being the worst to troubleshoot. Most times, the PC just gets reimaged rather than have someone troubleshoot the OS.

[Joshie]

Are you kidding? XP had next to no stability. It ran worse than a drunk and tired driver.

 

The kid part of "kidding" sounds about right. I'm getting the impression this is someone who simply wasn't around or aware yet of XP during its first 2-3 years on the market. Aside from being a significant jump in hardware requirements over the Windows 2000 it was built from, and aside from being panned as a "Fisher Price" OS, aside from the vitriolic hatred spewed by users introduced to product activation for the first time in Windows, aside from people declaring there was no reason to upgrade because Windows 2000 was the better choice and worked just fine (sound familiar?), aside from gamers sticking to Windows 9x for its superior DOS compatibility well into the 200x's, aside from all of that, well... No, that's pretty much all that needs to be said. The Cult of XP Nostalgia has been soundly and thoroughly mocked into irrelevance over the years, and the only confusing thing happening here is that for someone to be too young to remember the early days of XP, it makes no sense for them to have an old geezer attitude about technology only needing to be good-enough-for-grandma.

 

Some people out there simply have no idea what the markets are out there. They can't see beyond their own bubble of needs and wants. When a technology company starts doing something that they can't relate to, it makes them angry, and they declare it stupid and pointless and, speaking for all these imaginary people just-like-them, insist "nobody wants this". These are like the political nutcases who believe their opinions match those of the silent majority they speak for.

 

If nothing else, this guy is ready to age into dementia at his future talk radio show on an AM frequency in fly-over country.

[sinetheo]

Joshie, on 15 Feb 2015 - 18:28, said:

The kid part of "kidding" sounds about right. I'm getting the impression this is someone who simply wasn't around or aware yet of XP during its first 2-3 years on the market. Aside from being a significant jump in hardware requirements over the Windows 2000 it was built from, and aside from being panned as a "Fisher Price" OS, aside from the vitriolic hatred spewed by users introduced to product activation for the first time in Windows, aside from people declaring there was no reason to upgrade because Windows 2000 was the better choice and worked just fine (sound familiar?), aside from gamers sticking to Windows 9x for its superior DOS compatibility well into the 200x's, aside from all of that, well... No, that's pretty much all that needs to be said. The Cult of XP Nostalgia has been soundly and thoroughly mocked into irrelevance over the years, and the only confusing thing happening here is that for someone to be too young to remember the early days of XP, it makes no sense for them to have an old geezer attitude about technology only needing to be good-enough-for-grandma.

 

Some people out there simply have no idea what the markets are out there. They can't see beyond their own bubble of needs and wants. When a technology company starts doing something that they can't relate to, it makes them angry, and they declare it stupid and pointless and, speaking for all these imaginary people just-like-them, insist "nobody wants this". These are like the political nutcases who believe their opinions match those of the silent majority they speak for.

 

If nothing else, this guy is ready to age into dementia at his future talk radio show on an AM frequency in fly-over country.

 

I bought XP when it 1st came out. I put Windows 2000 back on my system ... err roommate stole my XP cd. Windows 2000 worked fine until around 2006.

 

.. and DOT XP has a NT kernel making it super reliable and during 2005 it was hot stuff! Windows 98 was on its way out then but still kicking. I loved XP and yes I do not remember any issues at all with it expect Trojans before Sp 2 put some DEP and hardened some of the c libraries.

 

Sorry good enough for Grandma is good enough for 90% of all users. FYI I moved off XP by 2009 to Vista then all to 7 by 2010. I have not run it on my home computers for a half decade now as it has security issues compared to Windows 7 and it lacks instant search.

 

But as angry as you and DOT want to be for 8.x not taking off the marketshare does not lie. Users want 7 and XP and only will upgrade when their hardware dies. Yes using Word and opening a tab or two is what 85% of users do. The fact that I remember Pentium IVs with 512 megs of ram as late as 2013 ring testament that the users found them acceptable.

 

Iphones and Androids make upgrading pcs less of an issue as these suite their needs better than a pc for browsing which is all a pc is used for. Office professionals make up just 1/3 of the work force believe it or not. No need for a pc besides a consumption device.

 

So no I am defending the user here. Not that I love XP but rather it meets their needs and if MS didn't stop providing security updates would not recommend changing them. Truth is truth.