3 ms·

I recommend not buying into this narrative. 7 really was not that much different from Vista, but people persist in this perception that Vista was an abomination

by funkah 15y ago

I recommend not buying into this narrative. 7 really was not that much different from Vista, but people persist in this perception that Vista was an abomination whereas 7 is somehow incredible. The truth is, Windows has a huge obligation to legacy and backward compatibility, and MS has to pay homage to that instead of breaking with the past and starting something new. That's not to say that if they did do that the results would be any good, but they can't even try at this point. They are attempting to sorta-kinda do that with the Metro experience stuff, but I think this approach is ultimately doomed. Computing is changing, rapidly, and a mish-mash of old and new probably won't work very well. I hope I am wrong about this.

georgieporgie 15y ago
From what I've seen of Metro in videos, it feels a lot like the old DOS-based menu systems we used to run. In other words, it just looks like an application running on Real Windows, which provides a fancy UI and shopping gateway. Not unlike Media Center or, in a sense, iTunes. Aside from tablets, I just don't foresee consumers "getting it".
wink 15y ago
I absolutely do not agree here. Fun fact, we've had a discussion of windows versions at work today and this is basically exactly what I said about good and bad windows versions (not his conclusions, though). We're a 70 people software shop with highly mixed infrastructure, and we've had much, much, much fewer problems with XP and 7 than with Vista. (Of maybe 20 people not running Linux or OS X).
rst 15y ago
Windows back-compatibility support has its limits these days. The advertised vehicle for old enterprise XP apps that you just can't upgrade is "Windows XP Mode" (duckduckgo it), which is XP itself running under Virtual PC. (Yes, "well behaved" XP apps are supposed to be able to run on Windows 7 natively, but the mere existence of this other thing is a concession that many apps of interest are not that well behaved.) The same strategy could be used to maintain back-compatibility across much more drastic transitions, if they were of a mood to make them.

by funkah 15y ago

georgieporgie 15y ago

From what I've seen of Metro in videos, it feels a lot like the old DOS-based menu systems we used to run. In other words, it just looks like an application running on Real Windows, which provides a fancy UI and shopping gateway. Not unlike Media Center or, in a sense, iTunes. Aside from tablets, I just don't foresee consumers "getting it".

wink 15y ago

I absolutely do not agree here. Fun fact, we've had a discussion of windows versions at work today and this is basically exactly what I said about good and bad windows versions (not his conclusions, though). We're a 70 people software shop with highly mixed infrastructure, and we've had much, much, much fewer problems with XP and 7 than with Vista. (Of maybe 20 people not running Linux or OS X).

rst 15y ago

Windows back-compatibility support has its limits these days. The advertised vehicle for old enterprise XP apps that you just can't upgrade is "Windows XP Mode" (duckduckgo it), which is XP itself running under Virtual PC. (Yes, "well behaved" XP apps are supposed to be able to run on Windows 7 natively, but the mere existence of this other thing is a concession that many apps of interest are not that well behaved.) The same strategy could be used to maintain back-compatibility across much more drastic transitions, if they were of a mood to make them.