The Year Windows Died at Home and Nobody Cared

Mazzspeed said:
Without having to navigate the GUI to the other screen under MS Office.
Click to expand...
ok, thats not what you said. if they do use the menu they are presented with the key combos next to the menu choices. so if 90% dont know its there, they arent paying attention OR the other menu is good enough for them.
 
Ididar said:
Used it since DOS and disagree with all your points except the control panel / settings. That's a hot mess. But, the rest of the UI? I get along with it fine especially since most of my computer use at home these days is either sitting on a couch with a gaming PC hooked up to a TV ... or using a Surface Pro. At work I hardly ever look at the start menu as the windows are open for weeks at a time.
Click to expand...
If I only used one program at a time, I would agree with you. But then that's how we worked in dos.
But when doing real work, I have 6 to 12 programs running at the same time, spread across multiple displays.
Having to take my hand off the mouse to type in a search for a program is stupid - for me. Having to fumble on a window border when trying to resize (because it is invisible ) is stupid- for me.
Shutting down at the end of the work day is a best practice for my particular situation. That aint going to change no matter the os.
 
Wat said:
If I only used one program at a time, I would agree with you. But then that's how we worked in dos.
But when doing real work, I have 6 to 12 programs running at the same time, spread across multiple displays.
Having to take my hand off the mouse to type in a search for a program is stupid - for me. Having to fumble on a window border when trying to resize (because it is invisible ) is stupid- for me.
Shutting down at the end of the work day is a best practice for my particular situation. That aint going to change no matter the os.
Click to expand...
If the workflow requires a lot of typing, it's best to use keyboard shortcuts. If the workflow requires mouse use, it's best designed of it doesn't require a lot of typing. Switching back and forth slows down work.

Unfortunately, I'm weeks away at work from changing from a keyboard workflow to a KB/ mouse back-and-forth. It will not be a smooth transition for the organization.
 
Mazzspeed said:
Windows 7 was a metric tonne faster on 4GB of ram and a mechanical HDD than Windows 10, you can't argue that it wasn't. I run Linux on a Pi400 with 4GB of ram as do many other people, it runs great! In fact it's a totally recommended device for most of your daily tasks.

The average person could get by on something like a Pi400 just fine.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't know, because I never was never running a Windows 10 PC on 4GB and only ran 7 with 4GB at work and it was painful, just like XP. Fact is that at home I was running 8GB with Vista in 2007. My then 70 something mother was running 8 GB around that time too. It's 2021, not 2007. Once you left XP, there wasn't a 4GB limit.
Mazzspeed said:
Perhaps Microsoft should put that in the title bar? As about 90% of all Windows users (fairly average Joe's) have no idea that exists! All they see is the GUI and the GUI is poor from a desktop screen real estate perspective.
Click to expand...
Control p has been a thing for a long time (probably pre 2007) and is the same in most programs, including, but not limited to, Foxit, Firefox, Waterfox, Edge, Chrome, photoshop, H&R Block tax software, Keepass, and likely every other program that allows printing.
 
nilepez said:
I wouldn't know, because I never was never running a Windows 10 PC on 4GB and only ran 7 with 4GB at work and it was painful, just like XP. Fact is that at home I was running 8GB with Vista in 2007. My then 70 something mother was running 8 GB around that time too. It's 2021, not 2007. Once you left XP, there wasn't a 4GB limit.
Click to expand...
But you're an enthusiast, and that's something most on these forums fail to consider. Either that or they try to compare their experiences with bulk numbers of Windows systems with corporate networks where the Windows core network is locked down and hidden neatly behind Linux servers and the users dont run administrator accounts relying on nothing more than UAC to keep the nasties out.

Also consider that I'm not taking past tense, these 4GB/mechanical HDD systems are still being sold and are quite popular. Until the user gets one home, installs third party AV as the salesperson upsold them on it, and the machine virtually struggles to process the OS alone.
 
Mazzspeed said:
Also consider that I'm not taking past tense, these 4GB/mechanical HDD systems are still being sold and are quite popular. Until the user gets one home, installs third party AV as the salesperson upsold them on it, and the machine virtually struggles to process the OS alone.
Click to expand...
SSDs are extremely low cost now, and are no longer hyper expensive like they were a decade ago - even a Samsung 980 500GB m.2 NVMe SSD can be had for less than $70USD on Amazon.
It might actually be cheaper to purchase said computer with a HDD, then replace it with a SSD after the fact.

I do know what you are saying, though, and agree, especially after the AV software has been installed.
Modern AV solutions absolutely destroy whatever performance a HDD would have had, even for basic functionality.
 
Red Falcon said:
SSDs are extremely low cost now, and are no longer hyper expensive like they were a decade ago - even a Samsung 980 500GB m.2 NVMe SSD can be had for less than $70USD on Amazon.
It might actually be cheaper to purchase said computer with a HDD, then replace it with a SSD after the fact.

I do know what you are saying, though, and agree, especially after the AV software has been installed.
Modern AV solutions absolutely destroy whatever performance a HDD would have had, even for basic functionality.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't 'need' an SSD when other operating systems (*cough, not MacOS) run fine off spinners. That's the inherent issue here, the SSD is a BandAid on a sore knee.
 
Mazzspeed said:
You shouldn't 'need' an SSD when other operating systems (*cough, not MacOS) run fine off spinners. That's the inherent issue here, the SSD is a BandAid on a sore knee.
Click to expand...
Ok, eMMC or at least an SD card, then.
HDDs are beyond obsolete for modern operating systems, no matter how light-weight they are.

Unless of course you are doing no real work on your OS and are simply browsing the web, then sure, a HDD would get the job done.
For those of us who do actual production-level work on our systems, no HDD or HDD-based RAID array is going to cut it.

I get what you are saying, but the argument for any system running any OS on a HDD is silly as HDDs are obsolete for all but mass storage.
With your logic, every OS out there should run and perform just fine on my 20MB Conner HDD from 1989, so what gives?! :D
 
Last edited:
Axman said:
After switching to NVME SSDs on all my main machines, I don't even want to use SATA SSDs for any OS. As far as I'm concerned, spinning platters are for backups now.
Click to expand...
It's funny you mention that, I've started to notice some real limitations on SATA-based SSDs, even good ones.
It isn't so much the sequential reads/writes (NVMe obviously destroys SATA there) but more so in the random reads/writes during heavy work loads, updates, compiling, VMs, etc.

The difference between an average SATA SSD and a good NVMe SSD is almost as great as the difference between a good SAS 15K RPM HDD and an average SATA SSD.
On a Raspberry Pi, you know it is bad when an average SD card can outperform a SATA HDD in every task except sequential transfers...
 
That's gotta have something to do with cell degradation prevention I would have to imagine. SSDs are always balancing reads and writes for improved longevity; I don't even know of an SD card company that puts that kind of controller on their parts. I'm sure there's some professional or heavy duty commercial cards that have it, but I wouldn't know; I just buy 'em cheap and get newer, bigger ones for the same price every couple years.

That being said, remember when Vista brought Ready Boost? Man that was really cool back in the day. It's baked into spinning platters now, but even that was a preview of how much of a boost NAND was going to bring. Of course, big OEMs used Ready Boost as "system memory" for marketing when they were cutting corners, which didn't help.
 
Mazzspeed said:
But you're an enthusiast, and that's something most on these forums fail to consider. Either that or they try to compare their experiences with bulk numbers of Windows systems with corporate networks where the Windows core network is locked down and hidden neatly behind Linux servers and the users dont run administrator accounts relying on nothing more than UAC to keep the nasties out.

Also consider that I'm not taking past tense, these 4GB/mechanical HDD systems are still being sold and are quite popular. Until the user gets one home, installs third party AV as the salesperson upsold them on it, and the machine virtually struggles to process the OS alone.
Click to expand...
None of the people you're referring to are ever EVER going to run Linux. 4GB and Spinners are old technology. You're essentially arguing we should run modern cars on the same engine that a Model T ran on (keeping in mind I have no idea what those engines were). It's 2021. Running on a specs that were on the low side 15 years ago is not an argument against Windows 10. Time marches on and we need modern hardware to run modern software. I'm sorry, but *nix is not good enough for the common man. If it annoys me, a Computers Scientist/Engineer, just imagine what it'd do to the average windows user.

I get what you're saying. I can remember making that argument 25 years ago about Windows 95, but eventually, you just have to move on. I liked some of the control I had with Dos, but I have no desire to go back to dos, Win9x, XP or even Vista. hell, I don't want to go back to 7, though it'd be acceptable.
FFS, I just looked at dell desktops, and an 8GB desktop is about $450. I'd argue for 16gb now, but I was arguing for 8GB with Vista and 7 and 16gb today is less than 8GB back then.

If those people want linux, then have at it, but my guess is most of the people who are buying 8gb machines, never mind those who buy 4GB machines (whoever sells those), would be very unhappy if they ran Linux.
 
Last edited:
nilepez said:
None of the people you're referring to are ever EVER going to run Linux. 4GB and Spinners are old technology. You're essentially arguing we should run modern cars on the same engine that a Model T ran on (keeping in mind I have no idea what those engines were). It's 2021. Running on a specs that were on the low side 15 years ago is not an argument against Windows 10. Time marches on and we need modern hardware to run modern software. I'm sorry, but *nix is not good enough for the common man. If it annoys me, a Computers Scientist/Engineer, just imagine what it'd do to the average windows user.

I get what you're saying. I can remember making that argument 25 years ago about Windows 95, but eventually, you just have to move on. I liked some of the control I had with Dos, but I have no idea to go back to dos, Win9x, XP or even Vista. hell, I don't want to go back to 7, though it'd be acceptable.
FFS, I just looked at dell desktops, and an 8GB desktop is about $450. I'd argue for 16gb now, but I was arguing for 8GB with Vista and 7 and 16gb today is less than 8GB back then.

If those people want linux, than have at it, but my guess is the people who are buying 8gb machines, nevermind those who buy 4GB machines (whoever sells those) would be very unhappy if they ran Linux.
Click to expand...
..but you also have to realize is that .. you just can't use Windows 10 and be secure .. because ..if you think you are not infected with something of some kind .. you in fact are infected .. because .. you just can't use Windows 10 .. and .. and be secure .. you know?


[/sarcasm font]
 
Wat said:
If I only used one program at a time, I would agree with you. But then that's how we worked in dos.
But when doing real work, I have 6 to 12 programs running at the same time, spread across multiple displays.
Having to take my hand off the mouse to type in a search for a program is stupid - for me. Having to fumble on a window border when trying to resize (because it is invisible ) is stupid- for me.
Shutting down at the end of the work day is a best practice for my particular situation. That aint going to change no matter the os.
Click to expand...
I currently, at work, have 8 windows open across 3 screens in Windows 10. That's probably a little on the low side for numbers of windows opened. That doesn't count multiple tabs in a browser. Why search for a program? 99% of my time is using the same programs every single day. They all sit in my task bar and I just click on them to open just like many versions of windows. I haven't looked at the Start Menu in months.

As for window resizing I'm not sure what you mean. I'm resizing no problems. The intelligent snapping is far better in W10 than previous versions so resizing is very easy I find.
 
Ididar said:
I currently, at work, have 8 windows open across 3 screens in Windows 10. That's probably a little on the low side for numbers of windows opened. That doesn't count multiple tabs in a browser. Why search for a program? 99% of my time is using the same programs every single day. They all sit in my task bar and I just click on them to open just like many versions of windows. I haven't looked at the Start Menu in months.

As for window resizing I'm not sure what you mean. I'm resizing no problems. The intelligent snapping is far better in W10 than previous versions so resizing is very easy I find.
Click to expand...
His complaint doesn’t even make sense. Unless the program you want is the first thing you see in the “classic” start menu, it’s quicker to type the name and hit enter. The only exception to that is if it’s a vertical app that doesn’t work with search (IME, that’s typically java programs).

Under classic, I’d have had to click on multiple folders to get to my program (Unless i’t’s pinned to the start menu, and if that’s the case, just pin it to the start menu or pin it to the task bar and be done with it.

We literally have had these silly start menu bitch rests for at least 12 years (starting with 7).
 
Ever stop to think that not everyone has identical use cases?
Not every computer is sitting on a desk in a clean office with a full keyboard available.
 
nilepez said:
We literally have had these silly start menu bitch rests for at least 12 years (starting with 7).
Click to expand...
Geez, I know. And then you get the people who use "classic start menu" software instead of learning to use pinned icons and search on the menu. Ok, Fred Flintstone, keep doing things the slow way.
 
nilepez said:
His complaint doesn’t even make sense. Unless the program you want is the first thing you see in the “classic” start menu, it’s quicker to type the name and hit enter. The only exception to that is if it’s a vertical app that doesn’t work with search (IME, that’s typically java programs).

Under classic, I’d have had to click on multiple folders to get to my program (Unless i’t’s pinned to the start menu, and if that’s the case, just pin it to the start menu or pin it to the task bar and be done with it.

We literally have had these silly start menu bitch rests for at least 12 years (starting with 7).
Click to expand...

I run Open Shell (formerly Classic Shell) for my start menu and it's only 2 clicks to any program in the menu tree. You just need to enable flyouts.
 
Wat said:
Ever stop to think that not everyone has identical use cases?
Not every computer is sitting on a desk in a clean office with a full keyboard available.
Click to expand...
If you have a keyboard, it's faster to type than hunt through a massive start menu tree with a mouse (or worse with a touchpad), which you either had to organize yourself, because Windows just tossed everything int it's own folder, or you just left them as windows put it, which is even worse.
That said, you always got the option of pinning things to the taskbar if typing isn't your thing.

I'll just keep saying this: on [H],complaining about the start menu changing goes back to the RC's (betas?) of 7, if not Vista (though probalby not much, because almost everyone stuck with XP).
 
Ever use a washdown resistant keyboard? Ever have to use a keyboard wearing gloves?

Just because you sit on your butt all day doesn't mean everyone does.
 
nilepez said:
His complaint doesn’t even make sense. Unless the program you want is the first thing you see in the “classic” start menu, it’s quicker to type the name and hit enter. The only exception to that is if it’s a vertical app that doesn’t work with search (IME, that’s typically java programs).

Under classic, I’d have had to click on multiple folders to get to my program (Unless i’t’s pinned to the start menu, and if that’s the case, just pin it to the start menu or pin it to the task bar and be done with it.

We literally have had these silly start menu bitch rests for at least 12 years (starting with 7).
Click to expand...
I like this: https://ueli.app/#/
 
Axman said:
I used Classic Shell when it came out and continue to use Open-Shell: https://github.com/Open-Shell/Open-Shell-Menu/releases

It has the Windows 7 menus which are pretty good and you just use the Super key like you normally would.
Click to expand...
I use Open Shell as well, I just like that I can use it as a calculator too. Coming from macOS so it's making the transition back to Windows a little easier. I absolutely hate the new Start Menu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top