Can you list reasons why Windows 8 is bad other than UI?

[jordan12]

OK, one big question. If you get past the Metro crap so that it goes right to the desktop, so Metro out of the equation, Is Win 8 better than Win 7?

 

[devil22]

OK, one big question. If you get past the Metro crap so that it goes right to the desktop, so Metro out of the equation, Is Win 8 better than Win 7?

In many regards. Still don't see what's crap about a more efficient way to launch programs and get information, built on superior technology, but I guess such things are beyond me...

 

[wonderfield]

Ah, but why would you resurrect the ugliest superficial look ever?

Can you answer my question?

 

[XOR != OR]

Efficiency is debatable in what way exactly? I can open every program I have in 2 clicks, versus 5 in Windows 7. We can 'debate' that all day, those numbers ain't changing.

That's a bit dishonest, wouldn't you say? Sure, you can do it in two clicks because you pinned it to your start menu, where as that 5 clicks is probably due to navigating the start menu in 7. So if you put a shortcut on your desktop...1 double click. AND, I just thought of this, you can fit more applications on single desktop than you can on a single screen of the new start menu. Pin too many apps and you have to scroll the start screen to get to your app.

Putting shortcuts on your desktop causes your desktop to be cluttered, which users use as a workspace for their data files. Imagine the average newb trying to select a group of obsolete data files and deleting them, would be pretty easy and common to toss out shortcuts, and they'd often get in the way. I've already explained this to people and they were quite agreeable, so what's next?

Then you aren't working with the average users I, or most admins, work with.

 

[XOR != OR]

My Start Screen looks nothing like the AOL screen. Plus a static picture doesn't convey the live tiles. In any case people can debate the aesthetics all day long, some people will hate it, some people will love it, most really aren't going to care on way or the other.

I think Vista proves that people WILL care one way or another.

 

[heatlesssun]

I think Vista proves that people WILL care one way or another.

Not necessarily, Vista had a number of technical issues particularly at launch, driver and software compatibility and performance issues that don't seem to be the case with Windows 8. Plus Vista wasn't accompanied by a whole slew of new PC form factors and thousands of new lightweight and easy to install applications.

 

[Raudulfr]

Efficiency is debatable in what way exactly? I can open every program I have in 2 clicks, versus 5 in Windows 7.

5 clicks? You do know you can pin programs to the Start Menu, right?

Not to mention any non-retarded person will just press Win key and type the program's name and, unlike Metro, he/she won't have to do extra clicks to change from 'Apps', to 'Settings' or 'Files'. Nor will it be a full screen idiotic mess. You were saying something about efficiency...?


5 clicks... /facepalm


Why don't you take some of your own advice and learn how to use Windows 7 before criticizing it?

 

[InternationalHat]

Also, your fantasy of nobody buying Windows 8 is just that, by this time next year there will probably be 300-400 million Windows 8 users, with more metro apps than you will probably have time to find silly reasons to hate.

For Metro/Win 8 it's rumored MS abandons:
Silverlight
WPF

And they push non-standardized HTML extensions for desktop app development.

I was a .Net dev for a long time and this is microsoft's problem. They crank shit out that people don't want yet and it ends up being incompatible with anything else or it gets poor uptake and then they remove support for it abandoning the few devs that thought it would be great. This has happened so many times that people really wait a while before taking on new MS tech in the business world.

They aren't Apple with a wildly popular iPhone where native apps are the only way to get your content on the phone without laggy performance. 8 supports a legacy shell to run old apps... and likely old apps are how it will stay for a while.

 

[heatlesssun]

And they push non-standardized HTML extensions for desktop app development.

I think that for the most part the extensions to HTML/JavaScript in Metro are there because there's no way to do it with standards.

I was a .Net dev for a long time and this is microsoft's problem. They crank shit out that people don't want yet and it ends up being incompatible with anything else or it gets poor uptake and then they remove support for it abandoning the few devs that thought it would be great. This has happened so many times that people really wait a while before taking on new MS tech in the business world.

I agree Microsoft does have a habit of pushing things and then dropping them but that's generally over the course a number of years and there's often good tie in. .Net for instance is very well pushed forward with Metro, a lot of people prefer the .Net/XAML platform over HTML/JS in Metro because it is so compatible with SL/WPF.

They aren't Apple with a wildly popular iPhone where native apps are the only way to get your content on the phone without laggy performance. 8 supports a legacy shell to run old apps... and likely old apps are how it will stay for a while.

With Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 being very compatible I don't think that this will be true. especially when it comes to DX games. Over the next year there's going to be 10s of millions of Windows 8 devices with an easy path to Windows Phone 8 for a lot of apps. It's not going to be a small ecosystem.

 

[KENNYB]

I am wondering what are the reasons windows 8 is worse than windows 7 other than the UI.

For me, windows 8 looks quite good but hate the fact that the UI got changed with that start replacement. However stardock start8 helps with that at least.

Windows 8 seems to have build in windows security essentials and faster boot time. So what are the reasons that it is worse than 7?

Installing an app, like Visual Studio, results in a ton of crap pasted on your start screen. Folders, FFS!

 

[heatlesssun]

Installing an app, like Visual Studio, results in a ton of crap pasted on your start screen. Folders, FFS!

As I have stated a lot in these threads, it does take some time managing the Start Screen. I would like to see programs installed into groups that correspond to folders but I now get the idea why there are no folders on the Start Screen. With Sematic zoom its easy to move through hundreds of shortcuts in seconds without having to drill through a hierarchy.

If you keep things in groups it's kind of cool how well the Start Screen works with a large list of things but yes, there's some manual effort required.

 

[KENNYB]

If you keep things in groups it's kind of cool how well the Start Screen works with a large list of things but yes, there's some manual effort required.

That's a nice way of putting it. Oh the joy of moving many icons around every time I install something.

With Sematic zoom its easy to move through hundreds of shortcuts in seconds without having to drill through a hierarchy.

You're kidding right? Instead of looking through folders, lets look through the entire shortcut list. About the funniest thing I've read all day.

Why not just state use search instead.

 

[heatlesssun]

That's a nice way of putting it. Oh the joy of moving many icons around every time I install something.

It wasn't a bad or nice way of putting, I was simply stating my experience with setting up the Start Screen, it does require management but it's not exactly difficult either if you keep things in groups.

You're kidding right? Instead of looking through folders, lets look through the entire shortcut list. About the funniest thing I've read all day.

Why not just state use search instead.

In Windows 7 you wouldn't look through an entire shortcut list, in Windows 8 as I said, it's much easier to navigate a large list. And search is still there in Windows 8.

 

[Eman D. Rahym]

Installing an app, like Visual Studio, results in a ton of crap pasted on your start screen. Folders, FFS!

I agree. This is an irritation that needs to be fixed. I installed a Microsoft keyboard and a Microsoft mouse on one of my machines. Each went on line and asked me to install "updates" for it and each installed the same five useless apps into my Start Screen.

While it was easy to tidy up the mess, having to do so was irksome. Hopefully newer hardware and software will be more aware of Windows 8 and savvier about installing things into the Start Screen.

 

[KENNYB]

It wasn't a bad or nice way of putting, I was simply stating my experience with setting up the Start Screen, it does require management but it's not exactly difficult either if you keep things in groups.

Yeah, the grouping that folders would automatically provide.

In Windows 7 you wouldn't look through an entire shortcut list, in Windows 8 as I said, it's much easier to navigate a large list. And search is still there in Windows 8.

I just have to laugh at attempts to defend the start menu. Here I sit with Tortoise SVN settings placed before Compatibility Administrator. Alphabetize option? At least Apps is alphabetized.

 

[wonderfield]

I agree. This is an irritation that needs to be fixed.

VS 2012 added three entries to my Start Screen, if I'm not mistaken as to the quantity. So it's something that Microsoft appears to be "fixing" in later versions of their software. Sort of.

 

[devil22]

That's a bit dishonest, wouldn't you say? Sure, you can do it in two clicks because you pinned it to your start menu, where as that 5 clicks is probably due to navigating the start menu in 7. So if you put a shortcut on your desktop...1 double click. AND, I just thought of this, you can fit more applications on single desktop than you can on a single screen of the new start menu. Pin too many apps and you have to scroll the start screen to get to your app.Then you aren't working with the average users I, or most admins, work with.

Desktop is not a good place for apps, it's a user work space, hell even I would probably end up deleting something I shouldn't from there. especially with some of the visually cluttered wallpapers I cycle through. As far as your users, well, it's probably because they have nobody who understands the idea well enough to explain to them. Just a theory though.

5 clicks? You do know you can pin programs to the Start Menu, right?

Not to mention any non-retarded person will just press Win key and type the program's name and, unlike Metro, he/she won't have to do extra clicks to change from 'Apps', to 'Settings' or 'Files'. Nor will it be a full screen idiotic mess. You were saying something about efficiency...?

5 clicks... /facepalm

Why don't you take some of your own advice and learn how to use Windows 7 before criticizing it?

It's quite an assumption for you to say I don't know how to pin apps to 7's start menu, in fact you are just being insulting for no reason, because the fact is I absolutely did use that feature, and had my favorite apps pinned there. But two things, one, it can only hold very little numerically compared to the start screen, two and related to one, is that because of that, things were spread all over the place, some pinned to task bar, where you don't want too much because you need that to hold open programs, some were pinned to start menu, some I had to dig through the start menu, some were portable apps I had to navigate with explorer to, etc. And sometimes I would have to switch things around, while not overwhelming it is more confusing and awkward. With the Win 8 start screen, I can pin every one of them to the start screen and almost instantly do a visual recognition of the icon. I mean, I'm only saving a little time in the grand scheme of things, my point though is that it is surely not worse for the vast majority of use cases I can imagine, and the technical improvements seal the deal for me.

 

[XOR != OR]

Desktop is not a good place for things, it's a user work space, hell even I would probably end up deleting something I shouldn't from there. As far as your users, well, it's probably because they have nobody who understands the idea well enough to explain to them. Just a theory though.

False assumption; that they care enough to want to listen. Do you actually work with end users? I'm curious, because your user assumptions are laughable.

Users want to do their work, in their applications. Done. At no time do they care about operating systems, or design metrics, or efficiency studies. They want to get in to their apps with the minimal muss and fuss. You change how they access their apps in any way, they get annoyed. You introduce such a massive change that 8 represents, they will revolt. They won't want to sit down and learn from the master how they might make their jobs/lives/worlds more efficient. They will want their old system back that did things how they wanted to do them.

And I can't fault them. 8 provides no tangible benefits for the vast majority of users out there; it's just MS's way to get in on the walled garden revenue stream that Apple and Google currently have to themselves.

 

[devil22]

For Metro/Win 8 it's rumored MS abandons:
Silverlight
WPF

And they push non-standardized HTML extensions for desktop app development.

I was a .Net dev for a long time and this is microsoft's problem. They crank shit out that people don't want yet and it ends up being incompatible with anything else or it gets poor uptake and then they remove support for it abandoning the few devs that thought it would be great. This has happened so many times that people really wait a while before taking on new MS tech in the business world.

They aren't Apple with a wildly popular iPhone where native apps are the only way to get your content on the phone without laggy performance. 8 supports a legacy shell to run old apps... and likely old apps are how it will stay for a while.

Well, this seems to be an argument just to have an argument. MS has had some "failures" (or as I call them, smaller successes), but they've had some big successes too. So in the end it tells us very little, and we may as well judge the tech/implementation on its technical merits until we see how it does, and in that vein I would say metro apps are really nice, they are pleasant to use, and useful. I'm not arguing that all people are going to use is metro apps because I don't think that will ever happen, but I think they will coexists with desktop apps and provide useful functionality without much drawback. In some case a metro app makes much more sense than a desktop app, in other cases the reverse is true. I see it as adding something, I think others mistakenly see it as something being subtracted because they are naturally pessimistic..

 

[heatlesssun]

I just have to laugh at attempts to defend the start menu. Here I sit with Tortoise SVN settings placed before Compatibility Administrator. Alphabetize option? At least Apps is alphabetized.

It's not an attempt to defend the Start Screen. It's just something that I use every day along with the Start Menu in Windows 7 and I see the differences and I seen strengths and weaknesses in each. If I were truly trying to defend the Start Screen I wouldn't have made mention of the manual effort to keep it organized.

Again a weakness of the Start Menu I believe is the manual effort to keep it organized. However I believe that it is easier to navigate. Having 700+ tiles on my main desktop's Start Screen is why I say this. I doubt anyone has that many shortcuts in the Start Menu's shortcut area.

 

[heatlesssun]

VS 2012 added three entries to my Start Screen, if I'm not mistaken as to the quantity. So it's something that Microsoft appears to be "fixing" in later versions of their software. Sort of.

A full install of Visual Studio 2012 Ultimate added 8 tiles to my Start Screens.

 

[devil22]

False assumption; that they care enough to want to listen. Do you actually work with end users? I'm curious, because your user assumptions are laughable.

Users want to do their work, in their applications. Done. At no time do they care about operating systems, or design metrics, or efficiency studies. They want to get in to their apps with the minimal muss and fuss. You change how they access their apps in any way, they get annoyed. You introduce such a massive change that 8 represents, they will revolt. They won't want to sit down and learn from the master how they might make their jobs/lives/worlds more efficient. They will want their old system back that did things how they wanted to do them.

And I can't fault them. 8 provides no tangible benefits for the vast majority of users out there; it's just MS's way to get in on the walled garden revenue stream that Apple and Google currently have to themselves.

Yep I deal with users. And you contradict yourself saying they don't care about efficiency, then saying they want minimum muss and fuss. Just different words for the same thing, I can't predict exactly what another human is going to do, but I think if Windows 8 is presented by a competent person to them who can answer their questions and understands the benefits and theory properly, they will at least give it a try and like it. It just is not hard to use, it is so much simpler to go to the start screen and click an icon than navigate through the start menu, that it makes no sense to say someone is going to revolt. Revolt against what, an easier way to do things? People revolt when things are harder, this is not something that is harder though. I have one of the most ridged and unadapting users you've ever seen, an older woman, I was talking to her about something and got onto Windows 8, I explained the efficiency improvements and theory, and she seemed downright enthusiastic, when she saw it she said it looked great (I don't think she's used it yet though.) So you never know, people can surprise you.

 

[heatlesssun]

Users want to do their work, in their applications. Done. At no time do they care about operating systems, or design metrics, or efficiency studies. They want to get in to their apps with the minimal muss and fuss. You change how they access their apps in any way, they get annoyed. You introduce such a massive change that 8 represents, they will revolt.

On a machine that's setup for the average worker that has not access to Metro apps, 8 represents little change for most business users. Those users would simply see a full screen "Start Menu" click on the same things they always have and do the same things they have always done. As you point out it is about running apps, and those apps behave no differently in Windows 8.

Users were supposed to revolt against Office 2007, and much more feature exposed program to average users than Windows 8 and they didn't and the Ribbon was a big change which to this day some people say keeps people from doing their work though Office 2010 is the best selling version of Office ever.

 

[XOR != OR]

Yep I deal with users. And you contradict yourself saying they don't care about efficiency, then saying they want minimum muss and fuss. Just different words for the same thing, I can't predict exactly what another human is going to do, but I think if Windows 8 is presented by a competent person to them who can answer their questions and understands the benefits and theory properly, they will at least give it a try and like it. It just is not hard to use, it is so much simpler to go to the start screen and click an icon than navigate through the start menu, that it makes no sense to say someone is going to revolt. Revolt against what, an easier way to do things? People revolt when things are harder, this is not something that is harder though.

False assumption: Users use the start menu.

Dang near every user I have ever worked with puts shortcuts on their desktop. They don't use more than 4-5 apps at any rate. The few users I have found using the start menu to find their stuff resisted any attempt by yours truly to help them pin or create desktop shortcuts.

This of course negates your counter argument to "no muss/fuss". But in addition to my point, there is also user training. They KNOW how to currently access their apps. The start menu is new enough that they will have to relearn how to access it.

And I have yet to find a real user that not only has the time, but also WANTS to sit still and listen to IT spout "training".

 

[devil22]

False assumption: Users use the start menu.

Dang near every user I have ever worked with puts shortcuts on their desktop. They don't use more than 4-5 apps at any rate. The few users I have found using the start menu to find their stuff resisted any attempt by yours truly to help them pin or create desktop shortcuts.

This of course negates your counter argument to "no muss/fuss". But in addition to my point, there is also user training. They KNOW how to currently access their apps. The start menu is new enough that they will have to relearn how to access it.

And I have yet to find a real user that not only has the time, but also WANTS to sit still and listen to IT spout "training".

I disagree, I think users will see the benefits in pinning apps to the start screen (I know users who use the Windows 7 start menu - to counter your point there), and will see benefits in using metro apps. I mean, are we just going to argue against each other with what other people are going to do, when they are not present, because I can do that all day too. Some will hate it and everything else in this universe, others who use it logically will see the benefits. Also, they're irrational prejudices are irrelevant, when they sit down and use Windows 8, I think most of them will appreciate it.

 

[XOR != OR]

I disagree, I think users will see the benefits in pinning apps to the start screen (I know users who use the Windows 7 start menu - to counter your point there), and will see benefits in using metro apps. I mean, are we just going to argue against each other with what other people are going to do, when they are not present, because I can do that all day too. Some will hate it and everything else in this universe, others who use it logically will see the benefits. Also, they're irrational prejudices are irrelevant, when they sit down and use Windows 8, I think most of them will appreciate it.

Are you sure you work with end users? Because you seriously just said, "Also, they're irrational prejudices are irrelevant, when they sit down and use Windows 8, I think most of them will appreciate it."

Given my experience with end users ( and, I suspect, most other admins ), your version of "end user" is damn near mythical. He probably hangs out with Bigfoot and Loch Ness.

 

[devil22]

Are you sure you work with end users? Because you seriously just said, "Also, they're irrational prejudices are irrelevant, when they sit down and use Windows 8, I think most of them will appreciate it."

Given my experience with end users ( and, I suspect, most other admins ), your version of "end user" is damn near mythical. He probably hangs out with Bigfoot and Loch Ness.

Let me check. Yep, I'm sure. And I don't doubt your users will not listen to you, but I don't see how that's a problem with the product. Hell I don't want to listen to you either. Anyways, what are you arguing exactly? That Windows 8 should be worse and less efficient because you claim to know some big old mean user that isn't going to like it?

 

[KENNYB]

I disagree, I think users will see the benefits in pinning apps to the start screen (I know users who use the Windows 7 start menu - to counter your point there), and will see benefits in using metro apps. I mean, are we just going to argue against each other with what other people are going to do, when they are not present, because I can do that all day too. Some will hate it and everything else in this universe, others who use it logically will see the benefits. Also, they're irrational prejudices are irrelevant, when they sit down and use Windows 8, I think most of them will appreciate it.

I disagree only in that I see people using Win8 (and previous versions) illogically. Take a peek at an "average" person's desktop. It's a shitty mess.

 

[wonderfield]

Dang near every user I have ever worked with puts shortcuts on their desktop. They don't use more than 4-5 apps at any rate. The few users I have found using the start menu to find their stuff resisted any attempt by yours truly to help them pin or create desktop shortcuts.

That's been my experience as well, for the most part. Users seem to want desktop shortcuts, and by and large, they don't know about Start Search, nor do they remember that it's available after they've been told about it once or twice. I've also seen people get pretty tripped up as a result of the Start button simply having changed its aesthetics.

I've argued before that forcing users to re-learn paradigms is a perfectly reasonable thing when users are excited about what they're using. On an iPad or some other tablet or high-end smartphone, for instance, people want to have fun and explore, and their interest in learning the various ins and outs of the UI is at a fairly high level. I don't think Microsoft is going to have the same fortune with users migrating to Windows 8. There will be those excited enough about it to want to engage in learning the new paradigms the UI introduces, since the UI is a little more lively and animated, but I think most are going to boot up, have a certain task in mind that they want to accomplish (that they're now well-accustomed to accomplishing on XP/Vista/7) and they're going to become intensely frustrated very quickly.

A nicely done, engaging introductory tutorial could have saved users a lot of frustration, but I think there's a major disconnect between the kinds of users Microsoft thinks they have and the kind of users they actually have. The result of that is the "move your mouse into any corner" tutorial, which certainly doesn't even begin to cut it.

 

[devil22]

I disagree only in that I see people using Win8 (and previous versions) illogically. Take a peek at an "average" person's desktop. It's a shitty mess.

Exactly, that's something that I think Windows 8 could alleviate to a degree. All apps on the start screen instead of pinned to the desktop (for people that do that.) But you know what, ignorant people are going to be ignorant, there's very little MS can do besides make an iOS clone that would help some of these people, and frankly I never want that to happen.

 

[XOR != OR]

Let me check. Yep, I'm sure. And I don't doubt your users will not listen to you, but I don't see how that's a problem with the product. Hell I don't want to listen to you either. Anyways, what are you arguing exactly? That Windows 8 should be worse and less efficient because you claim to know some big old mean user that isn't going to like it?

So wait, which is it? If you don't want to listen to me, why bother asking questions?

I'm arguing the same thing I've always argued; that forcing what is essentially a mobile UI on desktop users is a glaring mistake by MS that demonstrates a complete ignorance on their part of their user base. Even heatlesssun, the consummate MS cheerleader, has acknowledged that there are issues with the interface. Notably, on non-touchscreen devices and multi-monitor setups.

 

[devil22]

That's been my experience as well, for the most part. Users seem to want desktop shortcuts, and by and large, they don't know about Start Search, nor do they remember that it's available after they've been told about it once or twice. I've also seen people get pretty tripped up as a result of the Start button simply having changed its aesthetics.

I've argued before that forcing users to re-learn paradigms is a perfectly reasonable thing when users are excited about what they're using. On an iPad or some other tablet or high-end smartphone, for instance, people want to have fun and explore, and their interest in learning the various ins and outs of the UI is at a fairly high level. I don't think Microsoft is going to have the same fortune with users migrating to Windows 8. There will be those excited enough about it to want to engage in learning the new paradigms the UI introduces, since the UI is a little more lively and animated, but I think most are going to boot up, have a certain task in mind that they want to accomplish (that they're now well-accustomed to accomplishing on XP/Vista/7) and they're going to become intensely frustrated very quickly.

A nicely done, engaging introductory tutorial could have saved users a lot of frustration, but I think there's a major disconnect between the kinds of users Microsoft thinks they have and the kind of users they actually have. The result of that is the "move your mouse into any corner" tutorial, which certainly doesn't even begin to cut it.

I think at this point, everybody with a computer knows someone who knows how to use it that they can ask a few questions to if they can't figure it out. Also there will probably be more youtube videos on this than any previous windows versions. Anyways, we should get off this mythical user thing, beating Windows 8 over the head with the most ignorant caricature of a user someone can imagine is kinda pointless. "I know a user that will hate windows 8 for no real reason!" bah, I think the question is, is it efficient, is it well presented, does it work well, etc.

 

[devil22]

So wait, which is it? If you don't want to listen to me, why bother asking questions?

Well I haven't given up hope on you, so I'm willing to listen, I just don't want to, I wouldn't dwell on it if I were you.

I'm arguing the same thing I've always argued; that forcing what is essentially a mobile UI on desktop users is a glaring mistake by MS that demonstrates a complete ignorance on their part of their user base. Even heatlesssun, the consummate MS cheerleader, has acknowledged that there are issues with the interface notably, on non-touchscreen devices and multi-monitor setups.

You think MS is more ignorant about their user base, than, you are? That's unintentionally funny. I think MS understands their users just fine, it understands that it should make a more efficient UI that's better looking, and users will appreciate it even if it means it's not exactly like the old version, after they've given it a try. And I find, that if you use the UI for what it is, it's damn good, I can find very little fault with it myself, actually nothing specific comes to mind at all that is not well implemented once you try to understand the theory behind it.

 

[heatlesssun]

A nicely done, engaging introductory tutorial could have saved users a lot of frustration, but I think there's a major disconnect between the kinds of users Microsoft thinks they have and the kind of users they actually have. The result of that is the "move your mouse into any corner" tutorial, which certainly doesn't even begin to cut it.

I have NO idea why you and others think that the thing in the RTM is THE tutorial that will come with ALL Windows 8 machines or the GA release. OEMs for YEARS have added their own intros and tutorials that obviously were not in the OEM release. The RTM doesn't represent the actual bits that the vast majority of users will see and there will be many different tutorials based on the type of hardware that users purchase.

Training materials are almost always done AFTER the final executable code with any software release and historically Windows has been no different especially considering the wide variety of guides and tutorials that OEMs have always provided.

 

[XOR != OR]

You think MS is more ignorant about their user base, than, you are? That's unintentionally funny. I think MS understands their users just fine, it understands that it should make a more efficient UI that's better looking, and users will appreciate it even if it means it's not exactly like the old version, after they've given it a try. And I find, that if you use the UI for what it is, it's damn good, I can find very little fault with it myself, actually nothing specific comes to mind at all that is not well implemented once you try to understand the theory behind it.

The company behind Windows ME and Vista? We're talking about the same MS, right? Seinfeld and Gates? That MS?

It's possibly worth noting that prior to those debacles ( ME far worse than Vista ), I called both of them. I'm 5/5 so far ( ME, 2000, XP, Vista and 7 ). MS...not so much ( yes, it's far easier to critique than create to my success isn't all that impressive ).

 

[devil22]

The company behind Windows ME and Vista? We're talking about the same MS, right? Seinfeld and Gates? That MS?

It's possibly worth noting that prior to those debacles ( ME far worse than Vista ), I called both of them. I'm 5/5 so far ( ME, 2000, XP, Vista and 7 ). MS...not so much ( yes, it's far easier to critique than create to my success isn't all that impressive ).

Well the question is not is MS perfect, but are they more ignorant of their users than you. I think this is easily answered by the fact that MS gets millions of CEIP reports, and does millions of dollars in user testing, studies of user behavior, and so on. When you have that kind of data, we'll have this debate again. And I have to point out how classy you are with the Vista bashing. Of course, if I told you 7 was Vista with a fat task bar and unlabeled icons (by and large), you'd probably have a break down. ME, well to this day I don't understand why people hate it worse than the other 9x series, I used it seemed about the same, my personal hatred of it is because I found 2000 to be vastly superior (obviously) which happened to be released around that time but wasn't strictly average user ready but was good for my needs where as previous NT versions were not. Anyways, what are you going to say next, that MS-DOS 3.1 wasn't that good? Hardly proof of anything, or definitive in itself.

 

[XOR != OR]

Well the question is not is MS perfect, but are they more ignorant of their users than you. I think this is easily answered by the fact that MS gets millions of CEIP reports, and does millions of dollars in user testing, studies of user behavior, and so on. When you have that kind of data, we'll have this debate again.

All that data, and I still managed to predict an OSes success better than they at least twice. So as long as they fail with plenty of data, it still means more than my own, successful, attempts.

Interesting perspective.

And I have to point out how classy you are with the Vista bashing. Of course, if I told you 7 was Vista with a fat task bar and unlabeled icons (by and large), you'd probably have a break down. ME, well to this day I don't understand why people hate it worse than the other 9x series, I used it seemed about the same, my personal hatred of it is because I found 2000 to be vastly superior (obviously) which happened to be released around that time but wasn't strictly average user ready. Anyways, what are you going to say next, that MS-DOS 3.1 wasn't that good? Hardly proof of anything, or definitive in itself.

Wow, you don't know why ME was so reviled when compared with the other 9x versions, and you are critical of *my* knowledge? And then you pretend I'm saying something i'm not?

Not exactly the best way to support your perspective. In fact, you've been consistently dishonest presenting your argument throughout this thread.

I think we're done here.

 

[heatlesssun]

The company behind Windows ME and Vista? We're talking about the same MS, right? Seinfeld and Gates? That MS?

The same company also behind Windows 3.0, Windows 95, Windows XP and Windows 7.

 

[heatlesssun]

All that data, and I still managed to predict an OSes success better than they at least twice.

Like Vista which still to this day has outsold any other desktop OS except another version of Windows.

 

[devil22]

All that data, and I still managed to predict an OSes success better than they at least twice. So as long as they fail with plenty of data, it still means more than my own, successful, attempts.

Interesting perspective. Wow, you don't know why ME was so reviled when compared with the other 9x versions, and you are critical of *my* knowledge? And then you pretend I'm saying something i'm not?

Not exactly the best way to support your perspective. In fact, you've been consistently dishonest presenting your argument throughout this thread.

I think we're done here.

What did you predict exactly? That Vista would sell 450 million copies and get a higher percentage of the market in the same time span than XP? No, I thought not. And no, I don't know why ME was more reviled than the other 9x line, they were all unstable junk relative to today's versions, but when I used it it worked, so what am I supposed to say, it sucked worse than the others because it didn't? I'm aware people say they had persistent problems with it, but that simply doesn't reflect my experience which is what I refer to when talking, as I am sure of that, not so sure of what other people say. And your dishonesty accusation is so ironic I want to fall out of my chair, but I'll certainly support you all the way if you want to quit bs'ing us.