Old icons from windows 3.11 and 95 still on Windows 7!

[MasterC]

They most likely have their reasons - or quite simply can't be bothered to change them. I'd personally rather they spent an extra hour optimizing some other code than designing/changing icons that you never see.

Just a thought, but isn't the design team different than the coding team? I don't think they would have the same person who coded something design an icon.

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

"who cares?"

[+John. Subscriber¹]

Just a thought, but isn't the design team different than the coding team? I don't think they would have the same person who coded something design an icon.

They most likely are different teams. However, as someone said earlier in this thread, why design an refreshed icon for something that the vast majority of users are never going to see?

[svnO.o]

I agree that those icons don't really NEED to be updated though it would be nice (although pretty useless). I think some people just want everything to be exactly the way they want it (perfectionists or whatever).

[MasterC]

They most likely are different teams. However, as someone said earlier in this thread, why design an refreshed icon for something that the vast majority of users are never going to see?

I agree with that, but it wouldn't necessarily be wasting time since different teams work on it.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

You're missing the point. Nobody will ever see them. Why give a pretty icon to an application that nobody will ever see?

If I may take your ball and run with it?

Why even alter in ANY way, what is a tried and tested piece of an OS - even if it never see's the light of day?

And, of that 0.05% of the userbase that will see it, most will understand and appreciate why it's never been changed.

[Calum Veteran]

...why design an refreshed icon for something that the vast majority of users are never going to see?

To maintain consistency throughout the operating system, allowing for all icons to updated to the 'Windows 7 style' icons. I'm sure it wouldn't take long for even a couple of these icons to be updated with each release maybe? Especially certain folder icons like the "Offline Webpages" folder icon. That isn't even for an application, but a folder :blink:

There are many people out there who are perfectionists and even a lot of people who aren't perfectionists like to maintain consistency whether the end user will see that part of the project or not.

I mean, I even like to have my code all consistent, indented right, spaces where they should be, curly braces where they should be, comments consistent throughout... these are all things the end user will not see, but it has to be done; not only will this allow for the code to look better and for it to be clearer, but it just makes the project consistent throughout.

People can't even see the source code, yet anybody can see these icons if they are curious enough to venture into the "WINDOWS" folder. I even remember seeing these before I was even into computers much, back when I used to just mess about on my computer, like many other users will do; more than 0.05%, njlouch...

Edited December 15, 2008 by cJr.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

It would be nice for the small things like this to be updated, but man, I have no idea why we have 8 pages ranting about icons on the go :laugh:

[lunarworks]

And also, it's easy to say that people who need older programs should just keep running Windows 95 or XP or whatever, but those operating systems eventually become unsupported by both Microsoft and hardware manufacturers.

So what? The old programs they insist on using became unsupported 15 years ago... yet, they still use them.

What do you do when the computer breaks?

1) Use a new computer and a VM.

2) I could find parts for and repair an old computer within a day or two if the need came up. Any semi-competent IT person should be able to do the same.

There are also a lot of people who want to run their older programs and, say, a recent version of Office side-by-side on the same machine.

Some things in life just aren't meant to happen. For example: Someone at my office desperately wants a Mac, but also needs to run this horribly-programmed Windows-only booking software. As a result, they're stuck on Windows. (But, I'm looking into running it on a VM for them.)

Microsoft wants to cater for these customers as much as possible.

And that is one of the reasons why they will ultimately fail. If you try to please everyone, you'll end up pleasing no one.

[Vykranth]

There are many people out there who are perfectionists and even a lot of people who aren't perfectionists like to maintain consistency whether the end user will see that part of the project or not.

Too bad, but perfectionism lost against time/cost/scope constraints and projects prioritization.

Globally, Microsoft may look like a large company with a ******** of cash available but the Windows Operating System division is much smaller and does not have an infinite supply of developers, technical writers, graphic designers at its disposal.

Remember the beginning of 2007 with the release of Vista. What was the major and almost-constant complaint everyone made against Vista? Was it not speed or crashes of hardware drivers?

This is the decision the Windows project management made: to address the most critical problems a good proportion of their customers experienced. Microsoft wants to have their customers to have a good out-of-the-box experience using everyday features.

Do you really think that changing the icons in hh.exe or removing grpconv.exe is going to be a good point for a Microsoft sales-person to sell Windows 7? No, if one want to sell Windows 7 over XP or Vista, let's hear about recent hardware support, about ease of integration of computers into network, about protection of Internet malware, things that are going to affect a majority of end-users or make a huge difference like libraries.

So what? The old programs they insist on using became unsupported 15 years ago... yet, they still use them.

Some of my former colleagues are battling with a 2 million lines Cobol spaghetti that was written before they touched their first computer.

Did you know that Intel sells Visual Fortran 11.0 a Fortran development environment that still supports Fortran 77 or even Fortran IV? Fortran IV was released in 1962

And that is one of the reasons why they will ultimately fail. If you try to please everyone, you'll end up pleasing no one.

Microsoft will please the end-users if they make Windows 7 works out of the box for its everyday usage: home usage and business usage.

[LTD]

Globally, Microsoft may look like a large company with a ******** of cash available but the Windows Operating System division is much smaller and does not have an infinite supply of developers, technical writers, graphic designers at its disposal.

That's pretty scary, actually, if true.

I'd hope that a company like MS would make "attention to detail" a priority. All the time. In everything they do.

[Vykranth]

That's pretty scary, actually, if true.

I'd hope that a company like MS would make "attention to detail" a priority. All the time. In everything they do.

Looking for information about it, I found this nice page Fast facts about Microsoft

As of September 30, 2008, Microsoft employs worldwide 94,286 employees in 105 countries.

But they are divided: 48,552 in the Business Group, 35,567 in the Sales & Marketing Support Group and 10,166 for the Operations Group.

I will suppose that the Windows OS division belongs to the Business Group but, given the wide specturm of products Microsoft works on, I find it difficult to imagine

that the Windows 7 team represents more than a few percent.

I'll admit that is puzzling me.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Vykranth

[Andre]

Use http://www.windows7taskforce.com/ to report this kind of inconsistency.

[lunarworks]

Some of my former colleagues are battling with a 2 million lines Cobol spaghetti that was written before they touched their first computer.

Did you know that Intel sells Visual Fortran 11.0 a Fortran development environment that still supports Fortran 77 or even Fortran IV? Fortran IV was released in 1962

That's good. But, is it installed by default on my computer? No. Will I, or most people, likely ever encounter it? No.

Windows' legacy cruft is installed by default on everyone's computers. Not just those few who need it.

[hdood]

So are 800 megabytes of printer drivers.

The problematic legacy cruft isn't the few old .exe files with ugly icons. It's 25 years of evolving APIs. Some API calls now exist in seven different variants because the original couldn't be changed without breaking compatibility. The old and new isn't clearly seperated, it's not something you can easily split out. It's a big confusing intertwined mess. People say they don't need legacy cruft, but do they actually have any way of knowing whether a program they use all the time incorrectly calls a Win16-era function instead of the correct "modern" (in 1994 terms) equivalent? Nope.

[magik]

This comes up with every release of Windows.

They most likely have their reasons - or quite simply can't be bothered to change them. I'd personally rather they spent an extra hour optimizing some other code than designing/changing icons that you never see.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Surely Microsoft has enough resources to go around, no?

[C++]

I think anyone who would still use those tools would not only be fine with the old icons, but would actually be put off by new icons. You start changing familiar things and people begin to wonder whether it's still the same program and will still function the same old way you expect it to function.

[Axel]

One feature I would like to see. When a non-recognised filetype is displayed... rather than just using the flat peice of paper they presently do, it'd go good for the OS to write the file extension in the middle of the paper to make more clear what the file is.

[LTD]

I think anyone who would still use those tools would not only be fine with the old icons, but would actually be put off by new icons. You start changing familiar things and people begin to wonder whether it's still the same program and will still function the same old way you expect it to function.

Part of the problem is that the Windows user base is holding Windows back.

They need to start letting go, and MS needs to to start making some unilateral decisions and cut out all the focus groups. Everyone and their dog wants to hang on to their pet programs from years ago.

Sometimes what we want isn't necessarily the best for us, or the product.

[lunarworks]

The problematic legacy cruft isn't the few old .exe files with ugly icons. It's 25 years of evolving APIs. Some API calls now exist in seven different variants because the original couldn't be changed without breaking compatibility. The old and new isn't clearly seperated, it's not something you can easily split out. It's a big confusing intertwined mess. People say they don't need legacy cruft, but do they actually have any way of knowing whether a program they use all the time incorrectly calls a Win16-era function instead of the correct "modern" (in 1994 terms) equivalent? Nope.

Sloppy programmers. The same that still keep configuration files and stuff in the Program Files directory, causing Vista to freak-out and prompt you left and right.

(I admit, I'm a sloppy programmer too, if you count HTML. My web code is still full of all kinds of horrible old techniques from around 1998, but I don't develop enterprise apps and I am currently working on bringing my skill set to modern levels.)

[hdood]

Maybe, but that's the reality of things. It can't be wished away.

[Kristian]

Updating these icons could have a side-effect leading to more people starting to use them, and that is unfortunate. If anything, I would rather remove these programs and then educate the developers when they complain about missing functionality.

[Preppy Veteran]

It's hard to educate developers of companies that don't exist anymore. :)

[lunarworks]

It's hard to educate developers of companies that don't exist anymore. :)

It's not that we have to worry about. It's the developers who still rely on archaic, deprecated, and undocumented APIs and methods in their new software.

They'll keep programming that garbage until Microsoft takes their crutches out of the OS.

[Preppy Veteran]

Isn't that called "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"? :)

People who rely on the things you said often find that their software doesn't work. Your example isn't *particularly* interesting. Don't make the mistake of having a kneejerk reaction to things you don't like. You can take a principled stand against the things wot you loathe, but remember that these things get thought through and the Most Right thing needs to happen. If *your* Most Right scenario doesn't happen (read: your particular "crutch" wasn't removed), that's probably because it wasn't viewed by the people who have good knowledge of that area as actually being the Most Right thing. :)

This discussion probably doesn't really lead anywhere. There's artifacts in most major codebases, especially ones that are exposed to outside people relying upon that codebase. If you decided to pull the plug on EVERYBODY WHO DID NOT COMPLY TO SUPER AWESOME WINDOWS VERSION 1337 STANDARDS and magickally every developer joined in and updated their software, you'd hit this same problem in Version 1338. :)

So, yeah, good to point this stuff out, but hopefully most peoples there have higher priority cooler things to focus on. <3