GitHub for Windows

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 10:42:09 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:

> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wevablddeav7ka at steves-laptop...
>>
>> I find this feature is *vastly* superior to the old "group all buttons
>> together into one taskbar button, then pop a list of the titles"  
>> mechanism.
>>
>
> *shrug* I find the thumbnail popups vastly inferior. Actually, I find it
> useful literally 0% of the time, and both annoying and distracting 100%  
> of
> the time. Not exaggerating.
>
> Just because some people like it doesn't mean it was a sensible move to
> force it on *everyone*.

But you said you don't use windows 7...

0% of no time isn't saying much :)

>> You mean you don't just start typing the program name you want and have  
>> it
>> appear?  I haven't browsed programs in a long time.
>>
>
> Of course not. Why bother with the typing when I can just skip straight  
> to
> the "click on it" part?

I don't know about you, but when I go into my start menu on XP, I have  
about 50 folders I have to look at to find the right one.  Sometimes I  
forget what folder it's in (quick! where's hyperterminal!).

It's sooo much easier to click on the start menu and type what I want.

>
>> Can't please everybody, and it's really difficult to design and support  
>> a
>> product that is configurable enough to try and please everybody.
>>
>
> All they have to do is just not remove the old way, leave it in as an
> option. It's not as hard as some make it out to be. Problem solved,
> everyone's pleased.

I think you know this is very false.  It's not like a completely new OS  
can just pop in the old GUI shell.  So many things in Windows depend on  
the shell.

And the start menu/dock is part of the shell.

And if you *did* port the old shell to the new OS, you'd then have to  
support that style, for the few people who would use it.

> And it's downright false to categorize this as a mere matter of "not
> pleasing everybody". They're "not pleasing" nearly *half* of their  
> userbase.
>
>> I'd guess that a high majority of users for windows 7 like the new
>> interface better than XP.
>>
>
> ??? Of *course* most Win7 users like Win7 better, the ones who don't are  
> XP
> users. Likewise, I can confidently say that a high majority of users for  
> XP
> like the old interface better than Win7. So I don't see what that really
> means.

LOL, I didn't really say this right!   I meant majority of users who  
*tried* Windows 7 liked the interface.I

> But what I think *is* significant is that XP *continues* to be nearly  
> half
> the Windows market. If MS did such an _objectively_ good job on Win7,  
> then
> why did it create such a huge, lasting division among Windows users?

These are misleading statistics:

1. Most PCs that were built for XP *cannot* be upgraded to Win7.  People  
are *very* unlikely to throw away perfectly working equipment just so they  
can upgrade to Win7.  I only upgraded because my motherboard died.
2. Many corporate XP users have no choice of which OS they run.  I'd say  
IT departments are reluctant to switch to Win7 because they have a)  
already built a whole organization around XP, b) do not want to have to  
upgrade installation scripts, etc. and c) Yes, MS moved a lot of stuff  
around, so now an IT guy has to relearn how to manage a PC.  Remember, XP  
has been around since 2002.  Windows 7 came out in 2010.  So that's 8  
years of solidifying infrastructure and knowledge that now has to be  
undone.  Not to mention any legacy programs their users require that might  
not run well on Windows 7.

Now, look at Vista.  When Vista was unleashed, people who bought *new*  
computers *specifically requested* to have XP and not Vista installed.   
That is not an option anymore, yet people still buy windows PCs.

-Steve