6 ms·

If you love Windows XP, you’ll hate Windows 7

47 points by raju 18y ago

dcurtis 18y ago
What? This is totally false. Windows 7 is a great step forward from Vista. They have removed all of the crap that was bloating the OS and pissing off people who like XP. It's the XPificiation of Vista, and they managed to pull it off. They made changes to the UI that I think, after using Beta 1 for a few days, are in the right direction. It's still Windows, of course, and it has some weird quirks, but it's still beta.
- iofthestorm 18y ago
  The point of this article is that one of the problems with Vista and now Windows 7 is that people were so used to the XP way of doing things, even if the XP way was stupid or unintuitive. If you take some time to learn the new UI it's a lot better. Same with Office 2007, the old Office menu system was horrible unless you knew exactly where everything was, whereas with the Ribbon/Fluent UI most of the time it adapts for the specific features you are currently using. XPification is a stupid analogy because XP was just a paint-job on 2k to make it palatable for non-business users. Most of the people who "like" XP are just too used to it; XP was the longest running consumer version of Windows (skipping Server 2k3) and probably the first consumer version that wasn't horribly crash-prone. A few are annoyed at the increased resource usage but don't realize how much hardware specs have increased in the 5 years between XP and Vista; using the Moore's Law rule of thumb specs should have increased by over 8x so it makes sense that it uses more resources as appropriate.
  - ibsulon 18y ago
    This is what I don't get. Why should I have to retrain my fingers to justify Microsoft's UI designers' salaries? I don't mind for myself, but I dread having to teach my parents every time, especially when I don't use the operating system myself.
    - graemep 18y ago
      Tell them you do not know it and cannot help. Offer to help with the OS you do use. My father is very happy using Linux (Mandriva).
    - jredville 18y ago
      As the article points out, you can set everything to act like XP. It also gives good rationalization for all of the changes discussed.
    - Goronmon 18y ago
      Honestly, for me it comes down to two simple facts. 1) I would like an OS would a better UI. 2) I don't care if it bugs you/others that they need to relearn some tasks if the UI is changed. Obviously I don't think that change for nothing but the sake of change is a good idea, but in the case of Vista I prefer it over XP.
    - chadgeidel 18y ago
      Yes, you should be willing to explore new interactions as computing power increases. Many advances made over the years were due to such increases in computing power. Take for example: the mouse, the windowing UI, desktop search, and spatial navigation (this one hasn't really happened yet). Each item on that list required more power than was available to the previous OS iteration. Are you suggesting that this progression has stopped and our "WIMP" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIMP_(computing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIMP_(computing)) paradigm is the ultimate interaction with our computer? I'm not saying that Windows 7 is leaps and bounds better than XP, but essentially that's the argument you are making. Or did I miss something?
- bayareaguy 18y ago
  How do the resource requirements compare? There isn't anything for Windows 7 in the relevent section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions#Hardware_requirements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Microsoft_Windows...
  - jredville 18y ago
    Well, when it was demo'd at PDC, it was on a Netbook, and it was still snappy, and had the eye candy. (http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/10/28/arspdc-steven-sinofsky-on-windows-7-and-netbooks http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/10/28/ars...)
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  What UI changes aren't in Vista? The stuff he highlights is a lot of why I prefer it to XP. And the thought of Vista's UI with XP's responsiveness makes me pretty excited for 7.
mnemonik 18y ago
Little bit of a misleading title.
there 18y ago
i seem to recall there being a setting in windows xp to make your windows and start menu and other things have a "classic" look. isn't there something similar in windows 7 that offers this? it sounds like such a feature would have eliminated a lot of the problems this guy's colleague was complaining about. maybe just ask the user at first boot whether they want the new windows 7 look or an old classic view, setting default preferences accordingly. make the new mode look really appealing and tell the user what new features they'll get, and discourage the old "classic" mode and make it seem old and clunky, but let the user decide.
- dcurtis 18y ago
  Windows 7 does, amazingly, have the same classic mode. When you switch to it, everything looks exactly like Windows 98.
  - dfranke 18y ago
    To hell with 98. They got the UI right with Windows 1.0. It was a tiling window manager, just like the one I'm using now.
    - jredville 18y ago
      http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/11/20/happy-anniversary-windows-on-the-evolution-of-the-taskbar.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/11/20/happy-anniversar... They were inspired by some of the things in Windows 1.0
  - mynameishere 18y ago
    Why is it amazing? It's a one-checkbox option to get rid of 10 years of candyland-style aesthetic mistakes. The underlying OS has nothing to do with transparent windows and pastels.
    - dcurtis 18y ago
      For 99% of users, the OS is the transparent windows and colors and user flow. No one cares about the "underlying OS" as long as the experience of using it is good. The reason I think it's amazing is because they have managed to add all of the new effects/colors/transitions in Vista/xp/7 while maintaining compatibility with a UI that is ten years old.
tdavis 18y ago
The title should be "if you fear change, you will hate Windows 7". Holy shit, no Run command (which barely anybody uses) and no default Desktop icons (which are just superfluous next to the start menu)?! WHATEVER WILL I DO!??! It's people like this Jason character, who feel all change is either (a) bad or (b) simply for the sake of change, who completely hinder innovation. If he wants Windows to "not change anything" then he should keep using XP and stop trying to provide any sort of analysis of something he is so entirely biased against. At least the author of the actual article gave some relevant information.
- Hoff 18y ago
  It is the installed base that is the double-edged sword hanging over any successful large-scale software product; both its greatest strength, and its greatest weakness. In particular, the desire to maintain installed-base compatibility runs contrary to the need to make significant changes. And even if the organization's software engineering practices and UI designs are excellent, significant changes inherently bring incompatibilities and broken applications. The bigger and more successful your application gets, the tougher the problem.
- mnemonik 18y ago
  I feel like this Jason character is just a straw man the author created. So simplistic and so easily torn down.
  - iofthestorm 18y ago
    Err, if you noticed he linked to the "Jason character's" blog post about Windows 7 and the guy himself was pretty active in the comments on that article (jperlow).
    - mnemonik 18y ago
      That's what I get for not reading thorough enough. Good catch.
- creativeembassy 18y ago
antidaily 18y ago
Clearly what's missing is MORE ARROWS: http://i44.tinypic.com/zilyqo.gif http://i44.tinypic.com/zilyqo.gif
- Raphael 18y ago
  Well, all of those are perfectly obvious in function. Back, forward, history, up the menu hierarchy, down the hierarchy, history again, and refresh.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - palish 18y ago
    An obvious overcomplicated interface is still an overcomplicated interface.
mtw 18y ago
i have never used win Vista but I like the description of Windows 7, especially the fact that you launch programs with text commands. it's very quicksliver-like, with minimalistic ui. hope this isn't just a skin over vista, but a real overhaul/decrapifying process by MS
- briansmith 18y ago
  That feature is in Windows Vista already.
  - pietro 18y ago
    Yeah, as are most of the features mentioned in the article.
redorb 18y ago
I like the fact it is search reliant, figure after you make you might like losing the other clutter.. Windows 7 looks good so far; I really hope microsoft advances in user experience not becuase I like them but becuase so many people use them
ynniv 18y ago
The simple reality (IMHO of course) is that people have always used Windows because it was "what everyone uses" and "what the office uses" and "what my software runs on". If you see it from this perspective, the people who wanted something different have already left to some flavor of UNIX or Mac, so those remaining are looking after their cognitive investment in having learned XP. When you think about it, its amazing that Microsoft continues to sell Windows at all. Software is free to copy (should the medium break) and never wears out, so if you have purchased and operating system and are happy with it, why should you ever pay for another one? I've been fascinated with Microsoft defenders (fan boys? lackeys? towel boys?) for years, since they seem to gain nothing by promoting the status quo (except for those whose job is subsidized by Microsoft). So, that everyone has bought a copy of Windows XP, why Microsoft should continue to make revenue? Also, can we please make Linux (or maybe Haiku) a viable desktop OS? While I don't mind paying Apple a premium for their OS, it must be more efficient overall to have a non-profit develop a free OS once. Most new OS features at this point are marginally useful eye candy.
- graemep 18y ago
  Personally I think Linux is a viable desktop OS for many people. It has been my desktop for about seven years. I have moved two very non-geek users to it in the last two years and they are both quite happy too. MS defenders vary. Some have invested time learning MS technologies. Others worship wealth and success. Others have simply had bad luck with other OSes and have lost interest in trying again.
  - twopoint718 18y ago
    I've had a lot of luck moving "non-geek" users to Linux. For those that cite these (once valid) points: * Driver support * Running windows applications (and here I'm including their equivalent, or under Wine/Crossover) * Ease of use/installation I'd be interested to hear what distro they tried and when they tried it. My last few installs of Debian/Ubuntu, even on non-x86 hardware has been a breeze and certainly much quicker than installing a fresh copy of XP.
- Gilson_Silveira 18y ago
svjunkie 18y ago
Windows 7 seems to combine the relative modularity of XP with the ability to quickly access storage and transfer data, as evidenced by this informal benchmark: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236 http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236 I haven't taken a look yet, but it seems promising. Is this going to keep Windows competitive with OS X?
- wizlb 18y ago
  "Is this going to keep Windows competitive with OS X?" I think you got that backwards. Windows is the one with 90% of the market share. OSuX will be playing catchup for a long, long time.
quoderat 18y ago
The final and insuperable issue that drove me from Windows Vista to Linux a year-and-a-half ago was Windows Explorer doing away with the incredibly-useful "up" button in favor of breadcrumbs. Yes, I understand how breadcrumbs works and I am aware of how to use it. However, what I wish to click on is always changing positions, its length varies, and is sometimes not even there at all. Without an "up" button, I will never use Windows 7. (And no, before someone even brings it up, the "up" and back button DO NOT do the same thing. Most of the time, yes -- but not always. Check it yourself on XP.)
- jamesbritt 18y ago
  "The final and insuperable issue that drove me from Windows Vista to Linux a year-and-a-half ago was Windows Explorer doing away with the incredibly-useful "up" button in favor of breadcrumbs." They seemed to go out of their way to hide or remove useful info. Free disk space on drive? Not an easy thing to see. Consistent, full-detailed file listings? No matter what I do, Vista will eventual decide that (this8 folder needs to not show size or last modified info. And what's with search not showing the actual file location by default?
  - Goronmon 18y ago
    My version of Vista shows free disk space quite easily. I see it under My Computer. You can also customize what is shown for file listings.
    - jamesbritt 18y ago
      I got used to seeing it in the file manager no matter what directory I was in. In Vista, sometimes I see the free space, other times I do not. And Vista is routinely forgetting my folder settings.
  - Goronmon 18y ago
    I'm fairly certain the first is an option you can show and I know for a fact that file listing are customizable under Windows Explorer. Not sure about the second. I don't have Vista in front of me to check.
shiranaihito 18y ago
I wonder why Windows 7 is creating so much buzz already, when it could still be years away. Let's just wait and see what Microsoft actually delivers, and hope that the whole world will have moved on to Linux and OS X before that. Don't forget that Microsoft has a proven track record of being rotten to the core.
- Goronmon 18y ago
  It's not really years away. It's basically a re-branding of Vista with some tweaks thrown in. Microsoft has even stated they are really pushing to get it out the door since so many people have developed a strange aversion to the word "Vista".
  - robak 18y ago
    like with communistic propaganda - people are having weird problems not a political system that doesn't work. Or as Easter Germany chief of communist party said in the 50s - "The Party is really disappointed with the people in this country". If M$ is disappointed with their customers reactions to their flaky products - let M$ got to hell.
  - shiranaihito 18y ago
    You're right, I should have realized we won't have to wait for years for it. Microsoft certainly is in a bit of a hurry. But since it's going to be a re-branding of Vista, why should anyone - especially HN - be excited about it? It bothers me in general that hackers, 'morally enlightened' people, are excitedly discussing Microsoft, a morally corrupt company, and their offerings. Remember that thing where Microsoft had bribed countries/companies to vote for OOXML to get it ratified by ISO? - Maybe a month after that, it was like it never even happened. Hackers were talking about being interviewed by Microsoft, excited about a chance to work there, and so on.. </rambling>
henryl 18y ago
I sense a pattern.
cmars232 18y ago
I've tried it in a VM. I thought the taskbar behavior resembled the MacOS dock. No surprise, it feels slower than my XP VM.
iuguy 18y ago
I find it interesting that TFA is a response to someone harping on about the changes being made. I can see both sides of it in that there's obviously a need to provide an improved experience and at the same time reduce complexity, yet people want 'different but the same'. The interesting thing I find about TFA though is that the arguments he's coming up with in favour of Windows 7 are all similar to the things that have been present in Linux and OSX for a while. The switch to Visa/Win7 from XP is significant in terms of experience, it's so significant that the switch to OSX/Linux may be less so for some users. I get the impression though that if Microsoft had a carbon copy of Ubuntu or OSX's desktop the guy in TFA would still be singing its praises.

47 points by raju 18y ago

What? This is totally false. Windows 7 is a great step forward from Vista. They have removed all of the crap that was bloating the OS and pissing off people who like XP. It's the XPificiation of Vista, and they managed to pull it off. They made changes to the UI that I think, after using Beta 1 for a few days, are in the right direction. It's still Windows, of course, and it has some weird quirks, but it's still beta.

iofthestorm 18y ago
The point of this article is that one of the problems with Vista and now Windows 7 is that people were so used to the XP way of doing things, even if the XP way was stupid or unintuitive. If you take some time to learn the new UI it's a lot better. Same with Office 2007, the old Office menu system was horrible unless you knew exactly where everything was, whereas with the Ribbon/Fluent UI most of the time it adapts for the specific features you are currently using. XPification is a stupid analogy because XP was just a paint-job on 2k to make it palatable for non-business users. Most of the people who "like" XP are just too used to it; XP was the longest running consumer version of Windows (skipping Server 2k3) and probably the first consumer version that wasn't horribly crash-prone. A few are annoyed at the increased resource usage but don't realize how much hardware specs have increased in the 5 years between XP and Vista; using the Moore's Law rule of thumb specs should have increased by over 8x so it makes sense that it uses more resources as appropriate.
- ibsulon 18y ago
  This is what I don't get. Why should I have to retrain my fingers to justify Microsoft's UI designers' salaries? I don't mind for myself, but I dread having to teach my parents every time, especially when I don't use the operating system myself.
  - graemep 18y ago
    Tell them you do not know it and cannot help. Offer to help with the OS you do use. My father is very happy using Linux (Mandriva).
  - jredville 18y ago
    As the article points out, you can set everything to act like XP. It also gives good rationalization for all of the changes discussed.
  - Goronmon 18y ago
    Honestly, for me it comes down to two simple facts. 1) I would like an OS would a better UI. 2) I don't care if it bugs you/others that they need to relearn some tasks if the UI is changed. Obviously I don't think that change for nothing but the sake of change is a good idea, but in the case of Vista I prefer it over XP.
  - chadgeidel 18y ago
    Yes, you should be willing to explore new interactions as computing power increases. Many advances made over the years were due to such increases in computing power. Take for example: the mouse, the windowing UI, desktop search, and spatial navigation (this one hasn't really happened yet). Each item on that list required more power than was available to the previous OS iteration. Are you suggesting that this progression has stopped and our "WIMP" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIMP_(computing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIMP_(computing)) paradigm is the ultimate interaction with our computer? I'm not saying that Windows 7 is leaps and bounds better than XP, but essentially that's the argument you are making. Or did I miss something?
bayareaguy 18y ago
How do the resource requirements compare? There isn't anything for Windows 7 in the relevent section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions#Hardware_requirements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Microsoft_Windows...
- jredville 18y ago
  Well, when it was demo'd at PDC, it was on a Netbook, and it was still snappy, and had the eye candy. (http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/10/28/arspdc-steven-sinofsky-on-windows-7-and-netbooks http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/10/28/ars...)
mattmaroon 18y ago
What UI changes aren't in Vista? The stuff he highlights is a lot of why I prefer it to XP. And the thought of Vista's UI with XP's responsiveness makes me pretty excited for 7.

mnemonik 18y ago

Little bit of a misleading title.

there 18y ago

i seem to recall there being a setting in windows xp to make your windows and start menu and other things have a "classic" look. isn't there something similar in windows 7 that offers this? it sounds like such a feature would have eliminated a lot of the problems this guy's colleague was complaining about. maybe just ask the user at first boot whether they want the new windows 7 look or an old classic view, setting default preferences accordingly. make the new mode look really appealing and tell the user what new features they'll get, and discourage the old "classic" mode and make it seem old and clunky, but let the user decide.

dcurtis 18y ago
Windows 7 does, amazingly, have the same classic mode. When you switch to it, everything looks exactly like Windows 98.
- dfranke 18y ago
  To hell with 98. They got the UI right with Windows 1.0. It was a tiling window manager, just like the one I'm using now.
  - jredville 18y ago
    http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/11/20/happy-anniversary-windows-on-the-evolution-of-the-taskbar.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/11/20/happy-anniversar... They were inspired by some of the things in Windows 1.0
- mynameishere 18y ago
  Why is it amazing? It's a one-checkbox option to get rid of 10 years of candyland-style aesthetic mistakes. The underlying OS has nothing to do with transparent windows and pastels.
  - dcurtis 18y ago
    For 99% of users, the OS is the transparent windows and colors and user flow. No one cares about the "underlying OS" as long as the experience of using it is good. The reason I think it's amazing is because they have managed to add all of the new effects/colors/transitions in Vista/xp/7 while maintaining compatibility with a UI that is ten years old.

tdavis 18y ago

The title should be "if you fear change, you will hate Windows 7". Holy shit, no Run command (which barely anybody uses) and no default Desktop icons (which are just superfluous next to the start menu)?! WHATEVER WILL I DO!??! It's people like this Jason character, who feel all change is either (a) bad or (b) simply for the sake of change, who completely hinder innovation. If he wants Windows to "not change anything" then he should keep using XP and stop trying to provide any sort of analysis of something he is so entirely biased against. At least the author of the actual article gave some relevant information.

Hoff 18y ago
It is the installed base that is the double-edged sword hanging over any successful large-scale software product; both its greatest strength, and its greatest weakness. In particular, the desire to maintain installed-base compatibility runs contrary to the need to make significant changes. And even if the organization's software engineering practices and UI designs are excellent, significant changes inherently bring incompatibilities and broken applications. The bigger and more successful your application gets, the tougher the problem.
mnemonik 18y ago
I feel like this Jason character is just a straw man the author created. So simplistic and so easily torn down.
- iofthestorm 18y ago
  Err, if you noticed he linked to the "Jason character's" blog post about Windows 7 and the guy himself was pretty active in the comments on that article (jperlow).
  - mnemonik 18y ago
    That's what I get for not reading thorough enough. Good catch.
creativeembassy 18y ago

antidaily 18y ago

Clearly what's missing is MORE ARROWS: http://i44.tinypic.com/zilyqo.gif http://i44.tinypic.com/zilyqo.gif

Raphael 18y ago
Well, all of those are perfectly obvious in function. Back, forward, history, up the menu hierarchy, down the hierarchy, history again, and refresh.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- palish 18y ago
  An obvious overcomplicated interface is still an overcomplicated interface.

mtw 18y ago

i have never used win Vista but I like the description of Windows 7, especially the fact that you launch programs with text commands. it's very quicksliver-like, with minimalistic ui. hope this isn't just a skin over vista, but a real overhaul/decrapifying process by MS

briansmith 18y ago
That feature is in Windows Vista already.
- pietro 18y ago
  Yeah, as are most of the features mentioned in the article.

redorb 18y ago

I like the fact it is search reliant, figure after you make you might like losing the other clutter.. Windows 7 looks good so far; I really hope microsoft advances in user experience not becuase I like them but becuase so many people use them

ynniv 18y ago

The simple reality (IMHO of course) is that people have always used Windows because it was "what everyone uses" and "what the office uses" and "what my software runs on". If you see it from this perspective, the people who wanted something different have already left to some flavor of UNIX or Mac, so those remaining are looking after their cognitive investment in having learned XP. When you think about it, its amazing that Microsoft continues to sell Windows at all. Software is free to copy (should the medium break) and never wears out, so if you have purchased and operating system and are happy with it, why should you ever pay for another one? I've been fascinated with Microsoft defenders (fan boys? lackeys? towel boys?) for years, since they seem to gain nothing by promoting the status quo (except for those whose job is subsidized by Microsoft). So, that everyone has bought a copy of Windows XP, why Microsoft should continue to make revenue? Also, can we please make Linux (or maybe Haiku) a viable desktop OS? While I don't mind paying Apple a premium for their OS, it must be more efficient overall to have a non-profit develop a free OS once. Most new OS features at this point are marginally useful eye candy.

graemep 18y ago
Personally I think Linux is a viable desktop OS for many people. It has been my desktop for about seven years. I have moved two very non-geek users to it in the last two years and they are both quite happy too. MS defenders vary. Some have invested time learning MS technologies. Others worship wealth and success. Others have simply had bad luck with other OSes and have lost interest in trying again.
- twopoint718 18y ago
  I've had a lot of luck moving "non-geek" users to Linux. For those that cite these (once valid) points: * Driver support * Running windows applications (and here I'm including their equivalent, or under Wine/Crossover) * Ease of use/installation I'd be interested to hear what distro they tried and when they tried it. My last few installs of Debian/Ubuntu, even on non-x86 hardware has been a breeze and certainly much quicker than installing a fresh copy of XP.
Gilson_Silveira 18y ago

svjunkie 18y ago

Windows 7 seems to combine the relative modularity of XP with the ability to quickly access storage and transfer data, as evidenced by this informal benchmark: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236 http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236 I haven't taken a look yet, but it seems promising. Is this going to keep Windows competitive with OS X?

wizlb 18y ago
"Is this going to keep Windows competitive with OS X?" I think you got that backwards. Windows is the one with 90% of the market share. OSuX will be playing catchup for a long, long time.

quoderat 18y ago

The final and insuperable issue that drove me from Windows Vista to Linux a year-and-a-half ago was Windows Explorer doing away with the incredibly-useful "up" button in favor of breadcrumbs. Yes, I understand how breadcrumbs works and I am aware of how to use it. However, what I wish to click on is always changing positions, its length varies, and is sometimes not even there at all. Without an "up" button, I will never use Windows 7. (And no, before someone even brings it up, the "up" and back button DO NOT do the same thing. Most of the time, yes -- but not always. Check it yourself on XP.)

jamesbritt 18y ago
"The final and insuperable issue that drove me from Windows Vista to Linux a year-and-a-half ago was Windows Explorer doing away with the incredibly-useful "up" button in favor of breadcrumbs." They seemed to go out of their way to hide or remove useful info. Free disk space on drive? Not an easy thing to see. Consistent, full-detailed file listings? No matter what I do, Vista will eventual decide that (this8 folder needs to not show size or last modified info. And what's with search not showing the actual file location by default?
- Goronmon 18y ago
  My version of Vista shows free disk space quite easily. I see it under My Computer. You can also customize what is shown for file listings.
  - jamesbritt 18y ago
    I got used to seeing it in the file manager no matter what directory I was in. In Vista, sometimes I see the free space, other times I do not. And Vista is routinely forgetting my folder settings.
- Goronmon 18y ago
  I'm fairly certain the first is an option you can show and I know for a fact that file listing are customizable under Windows Explorer. Not sure about the second. I don't have Vista in front of me to check.

shiranaihito 18y ago

I wonder why Windows 7 is creating so much buzz already, when it could still be years away. Let's just wait and see what Microsoft actually delivers, and hope that the whole world will have moved on to Linux and OS X before that. Don't forget that Microsoft has a proven track record of being rotten to the core.

Goronmon 18y ago
It's not really years away. It's basically a re-branding of Vista with some tweaks thrown in. Microsoft has even stated they are really pushing to get it out the door since so many people have developed a strange aversion to the word "Vista".
- robak 18y ago
  like with communistic propaganda - people are having weird problems not a political system that doesn't work. Or as Easter Germany chief of communist party said in the 50s - "The Party is really disappointed with the people in this country". If M$ is disappointed with their customers reactions to their flaky products - let M$ got to hell.
- shiranaihito 18y ago
  You're right, I should have realized we won't have to wait for years for it. Microsoft certainly is in a bit of a hurry. But since it's going to be a re-branding of Vista, why should anyone - especially HN - be excited about it? It bothers me in general that hackers, 'morally enlightened' people, are excitedly discussing Microsoft, a morally corrupt company, and their offerings. Remember that thing where Microsoft had bribed countries/companies to vote for OOXML to get it ratified by ISO? - Maybe a month after that, it was like it never even happened. Hackers were talking about being interviewed by Microsoft, excited about a chance to work there, and so on.. </rambling>

henryl 18y ago

I sense a pattern.

cmars232 18y ago

I've tried it in a VM. I thought the taskbar behavior resembled the MacOS dock. No surprise, it feels slower than my XP VM.

iuguy 18y ago

I find it interesting that TFA is a response to someone harping on about the changes being made. I can see both sides of it in that there's obviously a need to provide an improved experience and at the same time reduce complexity, yet people want 'different but the same'. The interesting thing I find about TFA though is that the arguments he's coming up with in favour of Windows 7 are all similar to the things that have been present in Linux and OSX for a while. The switch to Visa/Win7 from XP is significant in terms of experience, it's so significant that the switch to OSX/Linux may be less so for some users. I get the impression though that if Microsoft had a carbon copy of Ubuntu or OSX's desktop the guy in TFA would still be singing its praises.