GitHub for Windows

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:45:43 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:


> 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.

I confess that the times I've tried clicking on the "All Programs" menu  
were not pleasant...

> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> 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.

It's a strawman either way.  Neither of us know the complications that  
would ensue if MS were to make it configurable.  Maybe they completely  
rewrote the whole task bar into something else, and in order to make it  
more like XP they'd have to write it from scratch.

> 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.)

Most of the taskbar features are in there.  You can still do quicklaunch,  
the task tray is still there, I'm pretty sure you can change the buttons  
to title strings, etc.

I don't think my or your opinion really is representative of all of the  
Windows 7 users.  We must consider all the non-computer-experts who have  
never experienced configurable UIs :)

So it's really difficult to say how many users are "offended" by the new  
dock based on our opinions.


>> 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?

No.  First, it requires more RAM.  XP required 64MB, Windows 7 requires  
1GB (and that's going to be pretty damned slow).  Some systems can't even  
*accept* 1GB, I know I have a laptop that can't have more than 512MB.

Second, they *vastly* improved the startup and shutdown process.  I  
remember when I was on XP, I'd log in, then go get a drink or something,  
because it would be another 2-3 minutes before I could run anything.  Win7  
is usable immediately.

>> 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.

I would be curious how much of that crowd is "I've never tried 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.
>>
>
> 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.

I'm not so sure.  I think people would have gone to barebones systems and  
bought XP separately.

For sure, corporate customers would have gone for that, but I'm sure the  
OEMs of the world would much rather have the revenue from installing XP  
than not.

-Steve