GitHub for Windows

Nick Sabalausky SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com
Fri May 25 13:45:43 PDT 2012


"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.wevd5ooieav7ka at steves-laptop...
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 10:42:09 -0400, Nick Sabalausky 
> <SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> *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 :)
>

Not as on my *own* computer, but of course I've used it from time to 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.
>

To be fair, I don't have a problem with the "search all programs" feature. I 
*do* have a problem with it being used as an excuse for not allowing me to 
have my All Programs menu operate in the way that works well for me.

And I keep my All Programs menu relatively organized.

>>
>>> 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.
>

I really have to call "total strawman" on that. There is *no* reason any of 
this needs to be a whole separate shell. It just needs to be a 
*configurable* shell.

A *single* UI can be configurable, just look at pretty much any Linux UI 
system. Even MS has proven they know how to do this, too: Right click on the 
XP start menu or taskbar and go to "properties". All sorts of configurations 
there, and none of it requires a separate shell. This whole "maintaining the 
old shell" thing is a complete non-argument.

And I still don't think it's accurate to consider this a matter of just "a 
few people". (Again, I'm not referring to any once specific elemnt of the UI 
here, but just the overall theme of not allowing most changes other than the 
skin to be reverted.)

>> 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
>

Heh, ok, that makes more sence ;) But I still think you're very much 
underestimating the number of people who prefer XP style.

Keep in mind, too, this sort of thing is FAR less relevent on Linux, for 
example, since Linux UIs are usually highly configurable. Point is, it's not 
like "configurable UI" is a big complicated problem. If MS were to decide, 
"Oh wait, that's right, one size does *not* fit all!" than this entire 
discussion would completely dissapear.

>> 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.

I've heard a LOT of drum-banging about Win7 being faster and more efficient 
that XP. (Not rhetorical:) Was that all just a load of crap?

> 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.
>

I agree that the UI changes don't account for 100% of the XP group, but I 
don't believe for a second that "I like XP better" makes up a portion that's 
remotely insignificant.

> 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.
>

That's a rediculous argument: Back in the Vista era, plenty of people would 
have still bought new PCs even if XP wasn't offered as a pre-loaded option.

This is how it worked: "I'm going to buy a new PC. Oh, I can get it with XP 
instead of Vista? Well, that's nice! I'll go with that option, then!"

This is NOT how it worked: "I'll only buy a new PC if XP is preloaded. This 
is because I'm enough of a power user that I actually comprehend *and* care 
about the difference between XP and Vista (and yes, it *does* take a power 
user to notice and care about the non-skin differences), and yet, 
paradoxically, I'm too stupid to be capable of inserting an XP disc and 
following basic instructions."




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list