Oh, no. Every time you turn up something monumental and terrible happens.
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
It's typical of Microsoft, not caring about how much they'll confuse so many of their customers. I HATE it when a new version of Windows is vomited out by M$, as it means I have to spend so much of my professional and free time explaining to less techy people how to do something that they knew how to do on the older version of the OS, to say nothing of the desktops and laptops I'm sometimes asked to put the new OS on (or put an earlier OS on, in the case of Windows 8 and especially Vista).
Sorry for the moan, I imagine that many of you share my feelings and so don't need to waste time reading about it.
They can't even count - how are they gonna make a good OS? lol!!
Seriously though, they'll mess it up. For as long as they try to change things and force people to do things the "Microsoft way", nobody is gonna like it.
It's typical of Microsoft, not caring about how much they'll confuse so many of their customers.
Its customers literally do not care what it is called, most of them couldn't tell you what the version they're using is called (at least half will maybe give you the version of Office they're using, assuming that's the same thing)
Skipping a version will guarantee a bunch of jokes floating around about Microsoft not being able to count or Windows 9 being so bad they didn't even bother to release it and went straight to 10.
It's viral marketing 101 and you can already see it working all over the place....
Sorry for the moan, I imagine that many of you share my feelings and so don't need to waste time reading about it.
It's typical of Microsoft, not caring about how much they'll confuse so many of their customers. I HATE it when a new version of Windows is vomited out by M$, as it means I have to spend so much of my professional and free time explaining to less techy people how to do something that they knew how to do on the older version of the OS, to say nothing of the desktops and laptops I'm sometimes asked to put the new OS on (or put an earlier OS on, in the case of Windows 8 and especially Vista).
That way up might have worked better.
Isn't this all to do with odd numbered Windows version being poo or something? Aren't they just saying that if they keep the numbers even then by default they should be good??
Isn't this all to do with odd numbered Windows version being poo or something? Aren't they just saying that if they keep the numbers even then by default they should be good??
I expect after Win10 there'll be Win12.
Well that's completely wrong then because Windows 7 is very very good. Windows 8 is poo if anything.
IMO Windows 7 is the best version.
It's just a number FFS. They could have called it Windows 360 for all I care. What remains to be seen is whether this version will appease the Windows 8 haters. I look forward to it even though I'm just fine with Windows 8.1, because a Windows 7 + 8 (hey, maybe they should have called it Windows 15) mashup sounds intriguing if nothing else.
I suspect they're again trying to copy Apple with OS 10 (OSX) and trying to cash in on something someone else already made.
But should be interesting to see what the final version looks like nonetheless.
It's just a number FFS. They could have called it Windows 360 for all I care. What remains to be seen is whether this version will appease the Windows 8 haters. I look forward to it even though I'm just fine with Windows 8.1, because a Windows 7 + 8 (hey, maybe they should have called it Windows 15) mashup sounds intriguing if nothing else.
I agree. In fact given the Xbox naming conventions, I'm surprised they didn't go the 360 or similar route. Also there's very strong rumours they'll eventually be releasing it like OSX, a major upgrade for a nominal amount, so why not simply rename it Windows and then go for a sub-name ala Snow Leopard, etc.
Windows 7 is definitely the best version IMO, but I recently installed 8.1 and I'm very happy with it. I rarely touch the Metro interface, and to be fair, it flicks between the two seamlessly anyway. The speed increase alone is remarkable, and 7 wasn't exactly a slouch. I thought I would miss the Start button, but I'm not, and I particularly like the flat design. Some of the changes to core apps are long overdue - file copying and Task Manager in particular.
Windows 7 is definitely the best version IMO, but I recently installed 8.1 and I'm very happy with it. I rarely touch the Metro interface, and to be fair, it flicks between the two seamlessly anyway. The speed increase alone is remarkable, and 7 wasn't exactly a slouch. I thought I would miss the Start button, but I'm not, and I particularly like the flat design. Some of the changes to core apps are long overdue - file copying and Task Manager in particular.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who has made the transition to 8.1 and hasn't had too bad an experience. I agree with al the points you make. The speed and ease of use is remarkable considering I was so used to Windows 7's interface. That's not to say I've had some problems trying to find something that was hidden away in the Charms menu. In fact, the full screen feature of Windows 8 apps (let me decide!) and Charms (opening it is contrived) are my only two grouses.
Well actually I have a third one but I'm not sure if it's just me not "getting" it: I have two profiles on my PC - one for me and the wife. But every time you install an app from the app store, it has to be installed twice - one for each profile (more if you have more profiles I suppose). I have found even the desktop apps need to be setup separately for each profile. Didn't we have a user wide setup before in Windows 7?
Anyway, I almost always use Windows + S to launch apps and stuff from the desktop. It's a lot faster and easier than digging through the Start menu of Windows 7. I also like the Ribbon feature of Explorer although I was sure I would hate it when I first saw it. Turns out it's quite handy to have around.
At work we use Windows 7 and some older machines are running Vista
Windows 8 is not as intuitive on a desktop PC, and a lot of the metro styling and interaction does not translate well to desktop monitors. I have a windows phone though and I really like WinRT.
So, for me, Windows 8 is great on a touch device and Windows 7 is great on a traditional desktop or laptop with mouse/keyboard setup.
I think Microsoft tried to be all things to all men, and Windows 8 really did alienate a lot of business users. The minimalist styling on modern versions of software such as Office and Visual Studio is also pretty horrendous looking on a large flat monitor. Registry hacks go some way to correcting this.
Is Steve Balmer still in charge? Things did seem to go down hill when he took over as CEO.
I use 8.1 on my main PC and I actually like it too! It's really fast to use, boots quickly(it used to boot up really fast, but has slowed down a little recently) and if you avoid the time l e interface, works a lot like the older Windows.
I boot directly to the desktop and the rarely use the tiles, if at all. I like the fast searching too. Just goto the tile screen and start typing what you want and it'll appear on the right. That's really fast too.
So yeah, I actually like Windows 8.1 :-)
Its customers literally do not care what it is called, most of them couldn't tell you what the version they're using is called (at least half will maybe give you the version of Office they're using, assuming that's the same thing)
It's not that the customers care what it's called, it's that it confuses them when either they are trying to tell which version does what, or when I'm trying to tell them that they should stick with an earlier version of Windows when they have the not unreasonable expectation that the newer version should be better for them. And since I'm not much cop at explaining things, and the person(s) I'm explaining to often aren't too technically minded (or they wouldn't be asking me), then explaining things like Vista needs much more resources than XP and so would be much slower on their particular desktop/laptop, or that Windows 8 offers no real advantage for them, or (with any version of Windows) it's possible that their peripherals might not work with the new version of Windows (scanners especially, for some reason, though printers are another common area of problems here) is both difficult and often doomed to failure.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who has made the transition to 8.1 and hasn't had too bad an experience.
Oh Windows 8 is mostly great, if you take the trouble to get used to it. It's just that the user shouldn't have to take any trouble at all, since Windows's GUI offers nothing of real value over Windows 7, so 8 should have retained 7's GUI as default, and offered the touchscreen tiles dashboard as an option so that mostly only people who had and wanted to use a touchscreen monitor would have chosen it. GUI aside, 8 is very good, being a slightly streamlined version of 7, but I can't like it for the simple reason that M$ gave manufacturers the ability to control when safe mode is accessible, meaning that I have had to sort out a lot of Windows 8 machines that wouldn't go to safe mode when you press F8 when booting. This is more of an annoyance if the manufacturer's factory default partition hasn't been altered (or destroyed by malware or a 'friend' of the user) so you can just use the built in repair feature, but if things are bad then the lack of booting > F8 > safe mode is really irritating. Not fatal, of course, but frustrating.
Isn't this all to do with odd numbered Windows version being poo or something? Aren't they just saying that if they keep the numbers even then by default they should be good??
I expect after Win10 there'll be Win12.
The rule seems to be that every other version of Windows is rubbish, though since Microsoft don't adhere to sequential numbering, then the odd/even numbers don't apply.
Here's my assessment (which is based on my memories, and done to prove the good/bad sequence idea, and leaves out Windows NT and Windows 2000 as I can't remember when they came out, plus misses out any other PC versions of Windows that escape my memory, so all in all the following list is still much more accurate than an official Microsoft press release) :
Windows 95 - Bad (not bad as such, just unreliable, prone to crashes, and since it was built on DOS it was necessarily compromised in it's abilities).
Windows 98 - Good (more stable than 95).
Windows ME - Bad (well, more pointless than anything)
Windows XP - Good (IMHO the first OS M$ got nearly right, though that was only when they got the important patches and service packs out).
Windows Vista - Bad (really bad, not only due to the many bugs and incompatabilities, but also due to it being pre-installed on many desktops and laptops that were too slow (or had too little memory) to really run it, since microsoft allowed anyone to slap a "Vista Compatible" sticker on any PC made since about 1287 BC).
Windows 7 - Good (Yay! M$'s best OS to date, though like every M$ OS with "Windows" in the title, you can't help thinking that it's got loads of bloat-ware).
Windows 8 - Bad (well, not bad, but flawed by M$'s desperation to do something different to make the new OS look like we need it, so 8 is lumbered with a GUI that most people don't want).
I'd downgrade ME from "Bad" to "horrifically shlt and should be nuked from orbit". It had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It was the most bug-ridden mess of an OS it has ever been my misfortune to use. I think I spent more time looking at the BSOD than the desktop.
Oh, Windows 2000 was released in very early 2000. And it was a "good" OS, and the server versions were a vast improvement over NT - Active Directory was a very good technology. IIRC Windows XP was basically a re-skinned job of 2000, at least initially.
I used Windows NT 3.5 and 4.0 as well as 2000 for work, and they were all generally very good, being far more reliable than 95, 98 and ME which were their contemporaries. You very rarely got the BSOD with any of them, although they did tend to require a lot of rebooting even for some seemingly trivial settings changes.
They just weren't very good at running old DOS software, especially games, and as such were never pushed that hard towards the home market.
I'd downgrade ME from "Bad" to "horrifically shlt and should be nuked from orbit". It had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It was the most bug-ridden mess of an OS it has ever been my misfortune to use. I think I spent more time looking at the BSOD than the desktop.
I think I must have blanked out most of my ME experience, thankfully! I don't think I used it much, certainly not for work, though I do seem to recall driver problems being common with ME.
I started with Windows 3.1 and 3.1.1 (can't remember why 3.1.1 was necessary where I worked at the time, but it was), but I don't have too much experience of 3.x (and none at all with Windows 1 and 2, I assume they did exist?). That was less of an OS, and more of a fancy (for the time) DOS front-end. I know nothing of PC usage before Windows 3.1/DOS 6.22 (I think), so I don't know if even back then new versions of Windows caused problems for users.
Windows ME. *shudder* I lost count of the number of times I re-installed the OS on my home PC because it liked BSOD so much. It was pure evil I tell you! I finally gave up one and reverted to Windows 98 SE, and sanity prevailed. When XP came out soon after, I nearly wept with joy. Lol
Windows ME. *shudder* I lost count of the number of times I re-installed the OS on my home PC because it liked BSOD so much. It was pure evil I tell you! I finally gave up one and reverted to Windows 98 SE, and sanity prevailed. When XP came out soon after, I nearly wept with joy. Lol
Ah yes, Windows 98 SE (was basically Windows 99) was a very good OS.
That was the first 'smooth sailing' proper Windowed OS from MS.
They had ironed out pretty much all of the issues with '98 original.
I think I ran it for about five years without issue until I upgraded to XP.
Comments
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
https://www.youtube.com/user/VincentTSFP
Aye, I reckon it would have gone down well hehe
Sorry for the moan, I imagine that many of you share my feelings and so don't need to waste time reading about it.
Seriously though, they'll mess it up. For as long as they try to change things and force people to do things the "Microsoft way", nobody is gonna like it.
Its customers literally do not care what it is called, most of them couldn't tell you what the version they're using is called (at least half will maybe give you the version of Office they're using, assuming that's the same thing)
Skipping a version will guarantee a bunch of jokes floating around about Microsoft not being able to count or Windows 9 being so bad they didn't even bother to release it and went straight to 10.
It's viral marketing 101 and you can already see it working all over the place....
That way up might have worked better.
Isn't this all to do with odd numbered Windows version being poo or something? Aren't they just saying that if they keep the numbers even then by default they should be good??
I expect after Win10 there'll be Win12.
IMO Windows 7 is the best version.
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
But should be interesting to see what the final version looks like nonetheless.
I agree. In fact given the Xbox naming conventions, I'm surprised they didn't go the 360 or similar route. Also there's very strong rumours they'll eventually be releasing it like OSX, a major upgrade for a nominal amount, so why not simply rename it Windows and then go for a sub-name ala Snow Leopard, etc.
Windows 7 is definitely the best version IMO, but I recently installed 8.1 and I'm very happy with it. I rarely touch the Metro interface, and to be fair, it flicks between the two seamlessly anyway. The speed increase alone is remarkable, and 7 wasn't exactly a slouch. I thought I would miss the Start button, but I'm not, and I particularly like the flat design. Some of the changes to core apps are long overdue - file copying and Task Manager in particular.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who has made the transition to 8.1 and hasn't had too bad an experience. I agree with al the points you make. The speed and ease of use is remarkable considering I was so used to Windows 7's interface. That's not to say I've had some problems trying to find something that was hidden away in the Charms menu. In fact, the full screen feature of Windows 8 apps (let me decide!) and Charms (opening it is contrived) are my only two grouses.
Well actually I have a third one but I'm not sure if it's just me not "getting" it: I have two profiles on my PC - one for me and the wife. But every time you install an app from the app store, it has to be installed twice - one for each profile (more if you have more profiles I suppose). I have found even the desktop apps need to be setup separately for each profile. Didn't we have a user wide setup before in Windows 7?
Anyway, I almost always use Windows + S to launch apps and stuff from the desktop. It's a lot faster and easier than digging through the Start menu of Windows 7. I also like the Ribbon feature of Explorer although I was sure I would hate it when I first saw it. Turns out it's quite handy to have around.
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
Windows 8 is not as intuitive on a desktop PC, and a lot of the metro styling and interaction does not translate well to desktop monitors. I have a windows phone though and I really like WinRT.
So, for me, Windows 8 is great on a touch device and Windows 7 is great on a traditional desktop or laptop with mouse/keyboard setup.
I think Microsoft tried to be all things to all men, and Windows 8 really did alienate a lot of business users. The minimalist styling on modern versions of software such as Office and Visual Studio is also pretty horrendous looking on a large flat monitor. Registry hacks go some way to correcting this.
Is Steve Balmer still in charge? Things did seem to go down hill when he took over as CEO.
I boot directly to the desktop and the rarely use the tiles, if at all. I like the fast searching too. Just goto the tile screen and start typing what you want and it'll appear on the right. That's really fast too.
So yeah, I actually like Windows 8.1 :-)
It's not that the customers care what it's called, it's that it confuses them when either they are trying to tell which version does what, or when I'm trying to tell them that they should stick with an earlier version of Windows when they have the not unreasonable expectation that the newer version should be better for them. And since I'm not much cop at explaining things, and the person(s) I'm explaining to often aren't too technically minded (or they wouldn't be asking me), then explaining things like Vista needs much more resources than XP and so would be much slower on their particular desktop/laptop, or that Windows 8 offers no real advantage for them, or (with any version of Windows) it's possible that their peripherals might not work with the new version of Windows (scanners especially, for some reason, though printers are another common area of problems here) is both difficult and often doomed to failure.
Oh Windows 8 is mostly great, if you take the trouble to get used to it. It's just that the user shouldn't have to take any trouble at all, since Windows's GUI offers nothing of real value over Windows 7, so 8 should have retained 7's GUI as default, and offered the touchscreen tiles dashboard as an option so that mostly only people who had and wanted to use a touchscreen monitor would have chosen it. GUI aside, 8 is very good, being a slightly streamlined version of 7, but I can't like it for the simple reason that M$ gave manufacturers the ability to control when safe mode is accessible, meaning that I have had to sort out a lot of Windows 8 machines that wouldn't go to safe mode when you press F8 when booting. This is more of an annoyance if the manufacturer's factory default partition hasn't been altered (or destroyed by malware or a 'friend' of the user) so you can just use the built in repair feature, but if things are bad then the lack of booting > F8 > safe mode is really irritating. Not fatal, of course, but frustrating.
The rule seems to be that every other version of Windows is rubbish, though since Microsoft don't adhere to sequential numbering, then the odd/even numbers don't apply.
Here's my assessment (which is based on my memories, and done to prove the good/bad sequence idea, and leaves out Windows NT and Windows 2000 as I can't remember when they came out, plus misses out any other PC versions of Windows that escape my memory, so all in all the following list is still much more accurate than an official Microsoft press release) :
Windows 95 - Bad (not bad as such, just unreliable, prone to crashes, and since it was built on DOS it was necessarily compromised in it's abilities).
Windows 98 - Good (more stable than 95).
Windows ME - Bad (well, more pointless than anything)
Windows XP - Good (IMHO the first OS M$ got nearly right, though that was only when they got the important patches and service packs out).
Windows Vista - Bad (really bad, not only due to the many bugs and incompatabilities, but also due to it being pre-installed on many desktops and laptops that were too slow (or had too little memory) to really run it, since microsoft allowed anyone to slap a "Vista Compatible" sticker on any PC made since about 1287 BC).
Windows 7 - Good (Yay! M$'s best OS to date, though like every M$ OS with "Windows" in the title, you can't help thinking that it's got loads of bloat-ware).
Windows 8 - Bad (well, not bad, but flawed by M$'s desperation to do something different to make the new OS look like we need it, so 8 is lumbered with a GUI that most people don't want).
Oh, Windows 2000 was released in very early 2000. And it was a "good" OS, and the server versions were a vast improvement over NT - Active Directory was a very good technology. IIRC Windows XP was basically a re-skinned job of 2000, at least initially.
They just weren't very good at running old DOS software, especially games, and as such were never pushed that hard towards the home market.
Conversely 8 is considered a lucky number there and look where that got us.
I think I must have blanked out most of my ME experience, thankfully! I don't think I used it much, certainly not for work, though I do seem to recall driver problems being common with ME.
I started with Windows 3.1 and 3.1.1 (can't remember why 3.1.1 was necessary where I worked at the time, but it was), but I don't have too much experience of 3.x (and none at all with Windows 1 and 2, I assume they did exist?). That was less of an OS, and more of a fancy (for the time) DOS front-end. I know nothing of PC usage before Windows 3.1/DOS 6.22 (I think), so I don't know if even back then new versions of Windows caused problems for users.
:)
Or Windows 2004, with the tag line "Back to when it worked for you".
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
EDIT: Just spent 20 mins playing with Win10TP, seems ok tbh, although I do use Win8 anyway, :)
pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p
Yes, that rings a bell, thanks.
Ah yes, Windows 98 SE (was basically Windows 99) was a very good OS.
That was the first 'smooth sailing' proper Windowed OS from MS.
They had ironed out pretty much all of the issues with '98 original.
I think I ran it for about five years without issue until I upgraded to XP.