Thread: Vista design being forced on XP?

Originally Posted by Kennedy

The bottom line is that for the more experienced users (especially those of us who started off in the command line only days) we don't like the cutesy fluff offered by the newer operating systems. To back my stance, I provide as an example Windows .Net Server. How many of you run/ran this?

That's not all true. I was around the DOS days, but I like fluff. What I don't like is replacing menus with ribbons (when you're used to the menus!), "simplified" GUI or functionality and slow applications.

Yes, but you may as well the the minority here. Sorry 'bout that.

Heh, but in such case, you could count me as the majority group who likes fluff

Conversely my ex-wife just recently switched to Vista after buying a new desktop and calls me every other day to help her locate things or handling things she doesn't know anymore where they are. The new security features alone almost drove me mad during the first week until her hollering over the phone made me go to her place and turn the bloody things off. For 2 years now I didn't have her asking me for help while she was using XP. She has to relearn the whole thing over again.

Hehe. I know the feeling and your wife is not alone. Picture this. 6 or 7 developers are in a room about ready to do a code review. One fella brings in a laptop with Vista on it and we attempt to get it to connect to the LAN. But guess what? Since they changed the network dialogs and interface so much none of us could figure out how to use it, much less get it to connect.

So what did we do? We went and got a laptop with XP on it. Good old XP was up, connected, and ready to rock in seconds. Vista was still asking us 'important security' questions and XP was ready to use. How is Vista an improvement here?

I said I like Aero and I do. But Aero is where it stops. I love the flashy windows and cool GUI effects but I didn't say I liked how they moved everything around in the name of the casual user.

If we cannot figure out how to get the stupid thing to connect or bring up the properties we need to modify settings, how is little old grandma gonna do it? I know if anyone asks me to come over and fix anything on their Vista machine my answer will be no.

Aero is a good example of how to do a GUI right. Vista is a perfect example of how to abuse it.

I said I like Aero and I do. But Aero is where it stops. I love the flashy windows and cool GUI effects but I didn't say I liked how they moved everything around in the name of the casual user.

I remember reading an old pro-Linux article that argued that "Familiar is friendly". I have never used Vista myself, but I cannot help but wonder if that is what is happening here. Vista seems to have been made such that it is very different from XP, so so are not familiar with it. Thus, Vista is not friendly.

I believe that has been the problem with many people, yes. A shame really because I do agree Aero looks nice.

I couldn't agree more with that article on some aspects (not all). Familiarity is indeed friendly. It's in my opinion the most friendly aspect of an interface. Changes can be made. I don't defend stone age for everybody. But there must be some logic and they must be gradual. Why doesn't Microsoft introduce interface changes during the life of an OS version, but instead chooses to bundle them all on a new release? I will never know the answer to that.

Microsoft carries too many "studies" and reacts in excess to their results. As a business it has fallen prey to the marketing hype that is usually carried out by marketing companies and their computer illiterate yuppies. "Studies" say the previous windows messages had too much jargon, were too condescending, and users felt offended by them. Microsoft buys that and decides to change most, if not all, his warning and error messages for Vista. The input was wrong and the reaction was excessive.

As Bubba so well pointed out, when 6 or 7 developers including him, all in the same room have to fiddle around a new version of a familiar operating system for too long, and end up getting the old version back to do their job, something went seriously wrong.

I had a phone call with a friend of mine. His a very successful software consultant with customers like GALP (oil company), banks and insurance. He told me he's advising most of his customers against Vista for now if they can't afford an initial drop in productivity that may extend well beyond that experienced by Windows XP.

That must be one of the most stupid quotes I seen. Quoting from a linux world where they don't generally like GUIs, and then eventhough you admit you never tried Vista, you claim it's not friendly! or go wondering, do you really work in the technology field?

Read a book, read a REAL book, educate yourself in the subject before speaking. Atleast try the damn OS before commenting it's "unfriendly"ness.

For your information, Windows XP SP2 is my primary OS. I am a student, so I do not yet work in the field. You clearly miss the point of the article. The article stated that Linux is unfriendly for those who find it unfamiliar. I am suggesting that the same logic may apply to Vista.

Oh, and "wow, the level of ignorance amazes me!"

However, I shall refrain from puking.

AloneInTheDark probably hardly skimmed the article, if he did that at all. Only way I can understand that... post of his.

I'll comment on this though:

Originally Posted by AloneInTheDark

Quoting from a linux world where they don't generally like GUIs
[...]
Read a book, read a REAL book, educate yourself in the subject before speaking.

Should I say, YOU get a book? How about you dealing with that ignorance of yours.