Really can't understand the mentality of those who don't upgrade from XP to 7. I know people who have stated they will “never” change….perhaps having their bank account hacked because they are still on XP and IE 6 might help them decide…

3dcandy
Really can't understand the mentality of those who don't upgrade from XP to 7. I know people who have stated they will “never” change….perhaps having their bank account hacked because they are still on XP and IE 6 might help them decide…

Most people don't have a choice at work. But then, they probably wouldn't be doing online banking at work either.

Cost is another factor. If XP does the job still then there are people who won't upgrade until required especially if you already have another OS such as Ubuntu installed. Many legacy applications(and even many games) still work better under XP so it is still going to be in use for a while. On top of this if your browsing habits are safe,you run under a user account which is not admin and use the appropriate security software and a newer browser then TBH you will be still fine in most cases ATM.

I'd hedge that this also is affected by the different policies by Europe vs the US for beating the recession.

The US are spending their way through, which is keeping cash moving, and therefore companies are still spending. In Europe, upgrading IT systems seems to be being done more conservatively due to the high costs involved.

For instance, we are using XP in the office, and have gone through 2 sales in 12 months. Now that we're stable and have a long term (?) owner, the upgrade work is being scheduled, but behind other initiatives because they deliver better and more tangible cost benefits.

My concern is that if MS bring forward the release of Windows 8 too soon, we and several others no doubt will skip windows 7 altogether and just wait for 8 to be bedded in.

Personally I think MS need to push a corporate OS as opposed to trying to get one OS to do everything. Something like using a corporate network version of the Cloud and Windows Server, with dumb terminals with NO OS, just a some software that allow them to log on and connect to the Network and “local cloud” facilities would be how I'd see it going ultimately, especially now that the internet and networking speeds are as good as they are.

~Tatty~

Tattysnuc
My concern is that if MS bring forward the release of Windows 8 too soon, we and several others no doubt will skip windows 7 altogether and just wait for 8 to be bedded in.

And then Windows 9 and 10 and 11. Milking the cow never stops! Typical Microsoft :wallbash:

Tattysnuc
I'd hedge that this also is affected by the different policies by Europe vs the US for beating the recession.

The US are spending their way through, which is keeping cash moving, and therefore companies are still spending. In Europe, upgrading IT systems seems to be being done more conservatively due to the high costs involved.

Not seen this behaviour with the yankie doodles I deal with.

They have been ‘bringing costs under control’ aka slashing deeply the budget. 30% reduction in project resourcing etc.

The difference is the americans went in to the recession first, but unlike us they don't have the same worry attached to debt and GDP

spoon_
And then Windows 9 and 10 and 11. Milking the cow never stops! Typical Microsoft :wallbash:

Quite, I've got windows for workgroups and thats the way I likes it.

There is absolutely no advantage what so ever with windows 7 over it, none, not one.

Unlike the OSX which churns out one per year and erm, charge you for it, with support very quickly if you don't keep upgrading.

TheAnimus
Quite, I've got windows for workgroups and thats the way I likes it.

There is absolutely no advantage what so ever with windows 7 over it, none, not one.

Unlike the OSX which churns out one per year and erm, charge you for it, with support very quickly if you don't keep upgrading.

Are you referring to SL? £26 cannot be much, can it?

http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MC573Z/A

How about 5 user license for £41 i.e. the family pack.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/10-6-Snow-Leopard-Family-Users/dp/B001AMPP0W

Also, lets try to keep the discussion on topic. Turning every thread into anti Apple/iPhone flame war is not gonna help, isn't it?

I'm not questioning how good or bad Windows 7 is, my comment is purely stating that releasing W8 too soon is gonna alienate people from going to W7 which is not adopting they way Microsoft would have wanted it i.e. get everyone off from XP to W7 and then flog them W8 in 12 months time…

3dcandy
Really can't understand the mentality of those who don't upgrade from XP to 7. I know people who have stated they will “never” change….perhaps having their bank account hacked because they are still on XP and IE 6 might help them decide…

I can.

Reason 1)

I have ….. erm …. I think 11 machines here (and I mean at home). So either I pirate it, or upgrading them all costs me a fortune. And gains me …. what, exactly?

Reason 2)

A friend of mine is in his 80's. And before anyone gets ideas about old farts not understanding technology, this guy is big-time sharp. He was in his 60's before he touched his first computer, but now he can build and fault-diagnose with the best of us, and loves stripping all the unnecessary stuff out of an OS to give him a lean install. He is quite capable of running W7, and indeed, tried it. But he didn't like it, and as he does less and less with computers now, XP does everything he wants, and he knows it inside out.

He doesn't want the hassle of a learning curve involved in finding new ways to do things he already knows how to do. For him, a PC (and he has several) is a tool to do a job. He just bought a new laptop and hunted around to find a decent spec with Vista rather than W7, explicitly for the “downgrade to XP” option.


Reason 3)

I have both hardware and software that I :-

a) use
b) can't replace without incurring either large cost or significant work

and that won't run under W7. So I keep some machines on XP for that purpose.


Reason 4)

I develop some stuff for customers. If they have a live XP environment, I test on exactly the environment they'll be using live. That means I need XP. When the last of them goes entirely W7, my test machines will. But they not only don't want the cost of OS upgrades, and in some cases, hardware upgrades, but they emphatically don't want the cost of training loads of non-technical staff on the differences between doing things in XP and doing therm in Win7.




All told, and there are other reasons to those above, there are perfectly valid reasons why not everyone wants to upgrade. An enthusiast with a machine or two and wants the latest bells and whistles, or that wants to run something demanding the hardware or OS, might see a need to upgrade, but for a lot of people, it's an option not a need, and it can be a time-consuming pain in the backside to do, perhaps sources upgrades of software, and certainly having to spend a lot of time reinstalling all your apps, and transferring data, configurations, etc.

So for everyone, it comes down to a comparison between what they feel they'll get in value and what it will cost them in time, money and hassle. It is not a no-brainer than upgrading will always win out.


Oh, and for reference, I have a couple of W7 machines, partly because I got the right price on the OS, and partly because I need to test under that configuration as well as XP. But I'm not paying MS for the privilege of running Win& unless there's a real good reason to do so. And for many of those machines, they''ll go Ubuntu before I'll pay out for Win7, because that will do everything I need on them, cost a lot less and involve no greater level of hassle than upgrading to W7.

spoon_
And then Windows 9 and 10 and 11. Milking the cow never stops! Typical Microsoft :wallbash:

If you have really think about it, you shouldn't really wait or buy Windows 8! Because:

Windows 98 was awesome, and the next Windows Me was crap.
Windows XP was awesome, but the next Windows Vista was crap.
Windows 7 is awesome, and the next Windows 8 will be ……. guess ;) :mrgreen:

On point 4 thou, Saracen, aren't you using MSDN licenses for your dev/testing work? So you can use any version you want anyway?

TheAnimus
On point 4 thou, Saracen, aren't you using MSDN licenses for your dev/testing work? So you can use any version you want anyway?

Nope, straight retail licences. I don't do enough to justify MSDN and I already have (and had) the retail licences.

spoon_
Are you referring to SL? £26 cannot be much, can it?

http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MC573Z/A

How about 5 user license for £41 i.e. the family pack.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/10-6-Snow-Leopard-Family-Users/dp/B001AMPP0W

Also, lets try to keep the discussion on topic. Turning every thread into anti Apple/iPhone flame war is not gonna help, isn't it?

I'm not questioning how good or bad Windows 7 is, my comment is purely stating that releasing W8 too soon is gonna alienate people from going to W7 which is not adopting they way Microsoft would have wanted it i.e. get everyone off from XP to W7 and then flog them W8 in 12 months time…

i suppose a lot of the above depends on your point of view. if you compare windows free updates to paid updates for OSX, then it's a lot more, particularly if you take XP that's been on the go for about 10 years and people are clearly still using it daily, then 10 yearly updates at £26 is £260. i'm not sure how often osx has a paid update, or how the price has changed over the years, but even if it's been a bit cheaper and you only pay once every two years, that's still another £130

if however you consider that the price of an apple computer is usually at least a grand, then it puts most people off buying one unless they are reasonable well off, and thus £26 is a drop in the ocean compared to the £1k+ you paid for the machine

and in saying that, £40 for a multi license, it means you've had to splash out about £2k plus for your computers, or a wallet busting £5k+ for 5 computers (ok, you can maybe get a bit cheaper, but you are still talking literally thousands of quid), which makes me think it's a bit cheeky they can charge a fortune for the computer in the first place and then squeeze a few more quid out for upgrades

one thing i found very odd was my computer illiterate apple owning friend couldn't use his new ipod on his 2/3 year old apple laptop, as it wouldn't work on older versions of itunes, and the oldest version of itunes it would work on required an update to osx, which was a paid update. if he used windows he would have got free updates and itunes would have run on most crappy old versions post win2k, so no payment required. i found it strange that to use a new officially bought apple product with an official apple computer meant having to pay to upgrade, when the rest of the system was perfectly fine to his requirements (which is little more than surfing the web and playing music on itunes)

anyways, i've tried all types of windows and even osx, and XP is my preferred choice. i like the way it looks and works, win7 is okay, but you can't get the classic menus look, and i'm not sure some of my old legacy hardware or even software will work with it, and XP works fine, so why bother upgrading? that's probably the key point for anyone, if it ain't broke don't fix it. a new OS will probably run slower than an older one, particularly on older hardware, and my hardware is more than enough to do what i want on it

osx does run fine on netbooks though. it's a good OS for netbooks if using them in the true spirit of surfing and a bit of email. it's a shame the ipad uses ios and there isn't a cheaper netbook running full osx

spoon_
Also, lets try to keep the discussion on topic. Turning every thread into anti Apple/iPhone flame war is not gonna help, isn't it?

I don't see how it was off topic - OSX is an OS, it's sold separately (and bundled) just like Windows is. They only vary in what's considered a service pack (and whether it's chargeable). More like he touched a nerve ;) After all, what other paid for OS is there?

In any case, the truth is for the Windows world nearly all users get Windows with a new PC thus making debates about boxed copies slightly pointless. That said, XP is one tired old OS and I regularly ‘sell’ people on Windows 7 upgrades based on a: it's more than worth it for most and b: i'm sick of fixing XP. I've yet to have anyone come back to me saying they miss XP. At all.

Its true we need to get rid of XP now, let it retire.

Now I will put an interesting point out to all those ‘if it isn’t broke don't fix it' people.

Do you ever use a car/bus/train, the good old horse and cart worked just fine, why aren't you still using them?

Percy1983
Its true we need to get rid of XP now, let it retire.

Now I will put an interesting point out to all those ‘if it isn’t broke don't fix it' people.

Do you ever use a car/bus/train, the good old horse and cart worked just fine, why aren't you still using them?

you might be old enough to have used the horse and cart, so you tell us why you stopped using it

me? i use the bus and have done for years, and at times i use the train, and have done for years

your comparison isn't a good one, as generally vehicles are only replaced when they come to the end of their physical life. you are discussing software running on hardware that doesn't have to be replaced. when the hardware is replaced, that's the point when someone may end up with a new operating system, but to most people they don't need to or want to upgrade what they are used to using

so that is the perfect “don't broke/don't fix” reply. which compares directly with your comparisson. you only replace your vehicles when broke. few get rid of perfectly good cars to upgrade to better ones, so why upgrade perfectly good computers when they work fine, when potentially they might not work so well with a new and expensive OS? it's usually more cost effectively to get a new pc than buy the OS on it's own. why spend £100+ on windows 7 when a full base unit can be had for £200, with win7 installed? most people don't want to spend £100 upgrading when they don't need to or want to, and due to the hassle most people can't be bothered installing a pirate copy from dodgy dave the carbootman either, even if it works the same

I think we're in danger of drowning in bad analogies ;) As for the car one I think we all know plenty of people who buy a new car every 2-3 years for no good reason other than it's better, prettier and they're bored.

I will add I am 28 so the horse and cart is way before me, my point is if we all went with ‘if it ain’t broke don't fix it' then nothing would ever progress.

The strange loyalty some have to XP really does scare me, they seem worse than the apple fans at times.

Percy1983
The strange loyalty some have to XP really does scare me, they seem worse than the apple fans at times.

Agreed.
To many it's still for practical reasons, however I suspect at least as many people stick to XP through fanaticism or a fear of change.
Both are poor reasons to stick with the garbage that is XP.

3dcandy
Really can't understand the mentality of those who don't upgrade from XP to 7. I know people who have stated they will “never” change….perhaps having their bank account hacked because they are still on XP and IE 6 might help them decide…

Unfortunately some of us don't have a choice. We are about to upgrade our current work XP pc's. It'll cost us in excess of £3,000 to get two low end pc's still running XP pro. We have to buy these pc's as the software supplier we use also supplies the pc's and they claim it makes it easier for them to maintain. We do get an 8 hour response for maintenance. The hardware is from Dell (the pc's really are Dell and I can spec them online) only costs a fraction of this £3000. The price is only for the hardware, we will be paying over £600pm just to use the software. That's on top of £200pm for an internet connection.

The company would like to switch to a newer OS (so I am told) but is held back by the NHS and NPfIT (or the NHS connecting for health). NPfIT has cost us taxpayers billions yet it will only work in XP. So that is every hospital, doctor's surgery and pharmacy forced to use XP, of course this is 32bit. The part of NPfIT that will affect me in work has just been put on hold so I will likely be using XP for many years yet. :(

dangel
I think we're in danger of drowning in bad analogies ;) As for the car one I think we all know plenty of people who buy a new car every 2-3 years for no good reason other than it's better, prettier and they're bored.

it's a reasonable analogy. for every person who upgrades a car every 2-3 years there are far more who stick with the same one. likewise for every person who upgrades a computer every 2-3 years there are far more who stick with the same one

and with cars perhaps moreso, when the owner upgrades the car, the car simply passes ownership to someone else usually, and it continues it's useful life for many years longer, and perhaps in most cases without any upgrade at all. so the car isn't being upgraded, it's just changing owner

i don't think the fear factor is a bit one, i think it's more that some people can't be bothered or have better things to do than learn a new OS, particularly when they are so adept to the old one and all it's quirks and using the advanced features. i think the main reason is simply financial and practicle reasons. if people had money to spare they may upgrade more often, but when the pc's they have do what they want, which for most people is little more than surf the internet and send emails and play mp3s, there is just no need for most people to upgrade. most people use xp at work, so if the businesses operate fine with it, and those pc's do more than what most do at home, why should the average person bother? if they did upgrade, the practicle part kicks in, and they find their pc will perform worse, run slower, and they won't get most of the fancy features that looked nice that tempted them to upgrade in the first place, as their old pc isn't powerful enough

so why upgrade a pc when it's taking one step forward and two steps back in real terms, and costs you money, when it does all you want it to do?

uni
so why upgrade a pc when it's taking one step forward and two steps back in real terms, and costs you money, when it does all you want it to do?

Ok, this one might be a bit of a stretch, but here goes.

With your car you have to have it MOT'd, if it fails, well your not allowed to drive on the roads.
With your really old car you can't get the fuel to run it on, it is difficult to get additives.

A lot of the time people with older cars will drive something that is defective on the roads, a potential hazard for other users. They then moan and groan about not finding four star fuel.

That is kinda the same thing, using windows 95 or mac OS X Leopard users, un-fettered access to the internet. Both OS's are horrifically obsolete, so without adequate security practices will likely be a danger to anyone who is using it, and potentially other people too.

TheAnimus
Ok, this one might be a bit of a stretch, but here goes.

With your car you have to have it MOT'd, if it fails, well your not allowed to drive on the roads.
With your really old car you can't get the fuel to run it on, it is difficult to get additives.

A lot of the time people with older cars will drive something that is defective on the roads, a potential hazard for other users. They then moan and groan about not finding four star fuel.

That is kinda the same thing, using windows 95 or mac OS X Leopard users, un-fettered access to the internet. Both OS's are horrifically obsolete, so without adequate security practices will likely be a danger to anyone who is using it, and potentially other people too.

well that is a long stretch!

xp isn't obsolete, far from it. and it can be just as secure if not moreso than win7 or anything else. you can have the latest browsers on it, antivirus, firewalls, and not cause any problems to other users. potentially someone with a brand new win7 pc straight out of pc world could cause more trouble than someone with an older machine someone else setup for them securely, as the pc world one won't come with a proper firewall, and if it comes with antivirus it's likely to be one that runs out in 30 days or 3 months, like mcaffee. to many pc buyers they would expect a new pc to be fully functional and not suffer these problems, so they may work on blissfully unaware their pc isn't properly protected and has a virus and maybe sending out spam

an old car can be a danger, but if looked after properly, fixed right etc it can last years and pass it's MOT. i suppose in both cases it just depends on the owner. the right owners can look after things and make them run perfectly fine for many years, the wrong owners may neglect them or not treat them right and cause problems not only for themselves, but potentially for others

i think the thing about upgrading is that it's fine if you have a relatively new/speedy pc, but then you probably won't have such an old OS and thus may not need to upgrade, although if you have the misfortune to run vista then you would probably want to, but for an older xp machine, it's probably not going to run any better with win7, so what's the point of spending money to take that chance?

uni
walthough if you have the misfortune to run vista then you would probably want to, but for an older xp machine, it's probably not going to run any better with win7, so what's the point of spending money to take that chance?

I am running Vista on both my desktops and it is fine. Windows 7 is an improvement but I am not interested in spending over £200 on a pair of retail copies TBH!

uni
well that is a long stretch!

xp isn't obsolete, far from it. and it can be just as secure if not moreso than win7 or anything else. you can have the latest browsers on it, antivirus, firewalls, and not cause any problems to other users. potentially someone with a brand new win7 pc straight out of pc world could cause more trouble than someone with an older machine someone else setup for them securely, as the pc world one won't come with a proper firewall, and if it comes with antivirus it's likely to be one that runs out in 30 days or 3 months, like mcaffee. to many pc buyers they would expect a new pc to be fully functional and not suffer these problems, so they may work on blissfully unaware their pc isn't properly protected and has a virus and maybe sending out spam

:yucky:
XP is a fire hazard on three wheels - a robin reliant to the comparative tank of Windows 7. You can mod it all you like but by design, 7 is far more secure - your assertion is plain wrong. Where's my UAC replacement? The ability to run as non admin? Elevation? Patch guard? User mode drivers? Enforced signing? Protected mode for IE? Bitlocker? Improved encryption and authentication for TCP/IP? ASLR? Better firewall? These are just some of the improvements (out of the box) - and that's without saddling the OS with performance sucking bloatware to try address the fundamental design flaws of XP. MS acknowledged this, so should you :)

Yes, XP is obsolete - by two versions, by ten years and by a marked change in thinking at MS: XP was the ‘let everything do anything all the time without any safety’ OS - 7 is the result of a focus on security that started in Vista and is still going today.

Windows 7 is just like Vista rehashed. Full of gimmicks and fancy tricks. Aero Snap? There's a far better version in XP called Tile Horizontally or Tile Vertically that isn't limited to arranging just two windows but any number you select. There are many good useful features of XP removed and broken in Windows 7. The file manager, Windows Explorer was utterly destroyed in Vista and becomes worse in Windows 7. Poor usability. Just see the list of removed features of Windows 7 and Vista as well on Wikipedia and you will be shocked. Unnecessary GUI changes. Vista was innonative but horrible usability wise and removed things. Windows 7 is Vista with few new features and again many features removed and fancy gimmicks and shiny graphics added.

Percy1983
Its true we need to get rid of XP now, let it retire.

Now I will put an interesting point out to all those ‘if it isn’t broke don't fix it' people.

Do you ever use a car/bus/train, the good old horse and cart worked just fine, why aren't you still using them?

On the basis that I'm one of those people I'll answer that.

My horse died. The replacement wouldn't do 150mph, or 0-60 is about 5 seconds. I couldn't work out where to stick the CD to get the horse to play my favourite tunes. My local fuel station doesn't sell hay. The leather was exterior to the horse not interior to my luxury passenger compartment. The air-conditioning involved getting soaked when it rained. I got fed up with having to shovel up and store the engine's ‘exhaust’. And so on.

The upgrade process is, as I said earlier, a cost-benefit analysis. What benefits will you get, and what are the costs? The results of that analysis will determine when and if, a given individual or company will upgrade.

Let me give you an example. A company I have done some work with have just spent £20 million+ upgrading some 200 sites with hardware, software, network infrastructure, etc, all based on a common platform, running on an embedded version of XP. Much of the hardware it replaced dated from proprietary systems from the 80'. The installation process itself took more than two years due to the nature of the sites, and with limited staff, it had to be done in a couple of phases, one or two a week. The process (of developing the applications) started before Vista was even an option. An installation involved complexities (and costs) with regulatory approvals. If you change the installed application by so much as a single byte, you cause some regulatory costs, because a checksum will fail.

Take a guess at how the cost/benefit analysis of switching half-way through, much less starting again, works out out?

anonymuos
Windows 7 is Vista with few new features and again many features removed and fancy gimmicks and shiny graphics added.

Windows XP is Windows 2000 with a few new features and again many features removed and fancy gimmicks and shiny graphics added. :rolleyes: Rinse and repeat.

Such logic(?) can be applied to any version of windows, all incremental in some form. I hear the same old guff every darn time - it's misinformed and boring frankly. That said it's not my job to convert anybody and I don't really care much that people hold such beliefs - but you should at least substantiate them yourself rather than vaguely pointing at wikipedia if you wish to debate the issue.

Slightly off topic but if you hate explorer (and I hate every version equally) - try Directory Opus - then you'll see how far off the mark explorer has been in every version of Windows (ever).


Saracen - not ignoring you just that we've had the debate before and I fully understand your POV :)

Still running XP at home dual boot with Ubuntu. The XP boot is only there for the odd bits of programmes I don't have from Linux. I've found nothing as good as Serif Drawplus or PagePlus for my purposes, and I use Adobe 8 to edit PDF files. I run ‘buntu about 75% of the time.

My corporate laptop is XP, with no sign of changing for while. They are still writing new apps that depend on IE6, for a start, rather than migrating the ones they have away from it!

My two netwbooks run Suse and Ubuntu NBR.

I paid seventy pounds for a retail copy of XP some years ago, and don’t feel I have got moneys-worth from it yet. The idea that I won't be able to re-register it on new hardware appals me. 70 pounds is still, to me, a lot of money.

dangel
…

Saracen - not ignoring you just that we've had the debate before and I fully understand your POV :)

No prob's Dangel.

My view, as I'm sure you know, is that it's simply not a “one size fits all” situation. There are often plenty of good reasons for upgrading XP->W7, and often good reasons for not. There are also sometimes good reasons for upgrading XP-> Linux. And good reasons for sticking with XP.

Personally, I prefer W7 to XP. I know a lot of people that disagree, though. Each to his own. I have the same discussion about the revised user interface in Office (2007 on??). It took me a while to get used to it, but having done so (or largely done so) I find it far better, far more intuitive and what tools I need seem to be more quickly available far more of the time. My I have some friends that think I'm certifiable for thinking that. But, I just find it aids productivity, for me at least. But, nonetheless, I still have some older, less0used machines on Office 2000, simply because the cost of upgrading isn't justified for the use they get.

What does wind me up a bit is the type of assertion that everybody ought to upgrade, or that somehow you're a fossil if you don't.

I've had online arguments for years over the UK joining the Euro, and been called a little Englander, a europhobe, been told it's just because I want the Queen's head on the coin, and so on. I've explained why I actually thought we should stay out, and it's one of the few things I agree with and thank Gordon Brown for, in the face of pressure from Blair, and those that thought the Euro was such a great idea and ignored the concerns over different economic cycles, differences in pitch of those cycles, different levels of underlying infrastructure, and of culture, etc, are keeping rather quiet now. :D

Like the Euro thingy, the “everyone ought” argument just pushes one of my buttons, and I often can't help myself but reply. :D

dangel
:yucky:
XP is a fire hazard on three wheels - a robin reliant to the comparative tank of Windows 7. You can mod it all you like but by design, 7 is far more secure - your assertion is plain wrong. Where's my UAC replacement? The ability to run as non admin? Elevation? Patch guard? User mode drivers? Enforced signing? Protected mode for IE? Bitlocker? Improved encryption and authentication for TCP/IP? ASLR? Better firewall? These are just some of the improvements (out of the box) - and that's without saddling the OS with performance sucking bloatware to try address the fundamental design flaws of XP. MS acknowledged this, so should you :)

Yes, XP is obsolete - by two versions, by ten years and by a marked change in thinking at MS: XP was the ‘let everything do anything all the time without any safety’ OS - 7 is the result of a focus on security that started in Vista and is still going today.

but not everyone wants or even needs those features. the first thing many people looked to do with vista was turn off UAC as it was a major pain in the arse. if you know what you are doing it's a pain, so you want to turn it off. if you don't know what you are doing, it's still a pain, and people will still click go ahead just because they don't know any different

if i was to put win7 on my main pc's at home, the first thing i'd notice is it would run slower, or maybe i'd notice i couldn't access some drives because i don't have drivers for some of the hardware i have. or i couldn't get 5.1 sound because i have to use custom written drivers that won't run on win7 or vista. so whilst i have the discs lying around, and having tinkered with it on my laptop, it wouldn't benefit me. and having had a dual, even triple and quad boot on my laptop i found xp ran faster than anything else, and it does everything i want, so why would i want to slow down my computers and stop things working?

xp is far from obsolete. MS are still providing updates every month, and all the software i want to run still works on it, and there isn't any software i want to run that doesn't run on it. none at all. and i regularly update software to new versions, firefox, winamp, itunes, etc. i have better firewall and anti virus software than MS make, plus hardware firewalls, my ports are secure/invisible. there is just no benefit to upgrade for myself. i tried vista, i tried win7, i tried osx, been it seen it done it, so i'm sticking with xp as that's the best option for my hardware and setup

If you ‘know what you’re doing' and turn UAC off, then you *really* don't know what you're doing.

uni
but not everyone wants or even needs those features. the first thing many people looked to do with vista was turn off UAC as it was a major pain in the arse. if you know what you are doing it's a pain, so you want to turn it off. if you don't know what you are doing, it's still a pain, and people will still click go ahead just because they don't know any different

Ignorance is bliss I guess - I fully understand UAC, I've sat and read the development guidelines, implemented them in code and in installations and guess what? I leave it on. Let that soak in.

No, really.

If you don't know what you're doing, you turn it off. Period. It's just as stupid as the people preaching that having a virus checker is a bad thing ‘cos they know what they’re doing'. I've years of experience as a Windows developer and I've changed my ways and UAC doesn't bother me in the slightest - in fact I only see it when I install anything. There are plenty of exhaustive threads on here discussing this issue - I'm not the only one saying it, go read for yourself.

But anyway - I note you've digressed from you're original assertion - so am I to assume you now agree? Because you've talked about one security feature alone and ignored the whole raft of others I pointed you at. And I'd assert, very strongly, that everyone does want or even need those features - cos they're there for your own protection. The evidence (botnets, malware running rife and the stupid decisions us flesh sacks make) points entirely to this being necessary. If it wasn't, MS wouldn't have spend billions on fixing it now would they?

uni
if i was to put win7 on my main pc's at home, the first thing i'd notice is it would run slower, or maybe i'd notice i couldn't access some drives because i don't have drivers for some of the hardware i have. or i couldn't get 5.1 sound because i have to use custom written drivers that won't run on win7 or vista. so whilst i have the discs lying around, and having tinkered with it on my laptop, it wouldn't benefit me. and having had a dual, even triple and quad boot on my laptop i found xp ran faster than anything else, and it does everything i want, so why would i want to slow down my computers and stop things working?

You just don't get it do you? I don't care - that's up to you entirely, whether it's based on reality or assumption. But you're odd beliefs that XP is the Jesus of OS' are just plain wrong, as are your assertions about the necessity of modern security features in modern operating systems (a category that XP doesn't fall into).

uni
xp is far from obsolete. MS are still providing updates every month, and all the software i want to run still works on it, and there isn't any software i want to run that doesn't run on it. none at all. and i regularly update software to new versions, firefox, winamp, itunes, etc. i have better firewall and anti virus software than MS make, plus hardware firewalls, my ports are secure/invisible. there is just no benefit to upgrade for myself. i tried vista, i tried win7, i tried osx, been it seen it done it, so i'm sticking with xp as that's the best option for my hardware and setup

dangel
saddling the OS with performance sucking bloatware to try address the fundamental design flaws of XP

Asked and answered, and there's nothing in that rant to disprove it. As as I said, I have no interest in what you decide to do for yourself. I'm a great believer in choice - but if you post assertions with no founding in reality I'll pull you up on it. That's fair - it's not a fight and I'm not trying to impose on you and if you've got a genuine point I'll happily admit it. :)

dangel
And I'd assert, very strongly, that everyone does want or even need those features - cos they're there for your own protection.

I'd also add that they're there for everyone else's protection, as well. If you want to be a good net-citizen, leave UAC on. It's even more important to have a sane separation of privileges than having an AV installed, IMHO. And since being limited to user group privileges breaks a bunch of poorly designed software with OOB XP environment in mind (thanks for encouraging that btw, XP), UAC does a great job of maintaining compatibility and providing users with a prompt that the software they're working with is about to do something possibly stupid.

dangel
try Directory Opus - then you'll see how far off the mark explorer has been in every version of Windows

I'd go along with that. I bought it some years ago, and really like it. But I don't like their marketing. The web site offers a 60 day free trial with no mention of the actual price.

dangel
Slightly off topic but if you hate explorer (and I hate every version equally) - try Directory Opus - then you'll see how far off the mark explorer has been in every version of Windows (ever).

We don't agree on many things but you have this spot on. Amiga in 1990 (?) had far better tools i.e. DOpus to manage files. It kinda evolved in Windows version to replace explorer totally as opposed to be something like Total Commander.

I personally love it and hate explorer with passion, so limited in it's functionality it hurts. I think it did not change since it appeared in Win95…

AdeelEjaz
If you have really think about it, you shouldn't really wait or buy Windows 8! Because:

Windows 98 was awesome, and the next Windows Me was crap.
Windows XP was awesome, but the next Windows Vista was crap.
Windows 7 is awesome, and the next Windows 8 will be ……. guess ;) :mrgreen:

totally agree with this! they never seem to do a decent OS twice running do they :shocked2: think ill definately skip 8 unless there is good reviews. plus it seems W7 has every feature you could want, i mean what could you even add to it, only thing i could want would be less RAM use haha.

paul92
plus it seems W7 has every feature you could want, i mean what could you even add to it, only thing i could want would be less RAM use haha.

I'd like to see:

1) Virtual drive support, about time!
2) Classic Start Menu,
3) New Explorer, old one hasn't changed since 1995,
4) 1 version as opposed to 10 ,
5) .iso support,
6) Proper preview integration as opposed to half baked solution,
7) Virtual desktops,
8) Proper clipboard manager
9) Disable the god damn prompt after the updates have been applied to reboot,
10) Recycle bin management policy.

Just a few that would make life easier.

Quite a lot of them can be achieved by installing 3rd party apps which isn't always a good thing.

To be fair, there are only really two versions to buy now - Home Premium and Pro, and I expect x86 will be canned or at least OEM-only for W8.

I can't really think of anything extra that I would like in Windows, especially since bundling anything seems to get MS embroiled in a court case these days.

dangel
Ignorance is bliss I guess - I fully understand UAC, I've sat and read the development guidelines, implemented them in code and in installations and guess what? I leave it on. Let that soak in.

No, really.

If you don't know what you're doing, you turn it off. Period. It's just as stupid as the people preaching that having a virus checker is a bad thing ‘cos they know what they’re doing'. I've years of experience as a Windows developer and I've changed my ways and UAC doesn't bother me in the slightest - in fact I only see it when I install anything. There are plenty of exhaustive threads on here discussing this issue - I'm not the only one saying it, go read for yourself.

But anyway - I note you've digressed from you're original assertion - so am I to assume you now agree? Because you've talked about one security feature alone and ignored the whole raft of others I pointed you at. And I'd assert, very strongly, that everyone does want or even need those features - cos they're there for your own protection. The evidence (botnets, malware running rife and the stupid decisions us flesh sacks make) points entirely to this being necessary. If it wasn't, MS wouldn't have spend billions on fixing it now would they?



You just don't get it do you? I don't care - that's up to you entirely, whether it's based on reality or assumption. But you're odd beliefs that XP is the Jesus of OS' are just plain wrong, as are your assertions about the necessity of modern security features in modern operating systems (a category that XP doesn't fall into).





Asked and answered, and there's nothing in that rant to disprove it. As as I said, I have no interest in what you decide to do for yourself. I'm a great believer in choice - but if you post assertions with no founding in reality I'll pull you up on it. That's fair - it's not a fight and I'm not trying to impose on you and if you've got a genuine point I'll happily admit it. :)

two things. one, people turn off UAC. that's a fact. you can't argue with that. you can say all you want about people who do that, but it's not going to change a thing. the point is it's flawed if it makes people want to turn it off, particualrly those who should have it but turn it off as it's annoying

fortunately it's not on xp so it doesn't affect me, so point number 2, why should someone pay money to make a perfectly fine usable machine run worse?

i think point 2 is the main reason why people don't upgrade. it's pointless for most people upgrading. it's only worth changing OS when replacing hardware as far as most people are concerned

one other thing, most people simply don't understand the things you mention, so they mean nothing to them. it's like crankshafts and spark plugs to me. a car either goes or it doesn't. as i don't drive it doesn't matter to me. but most people who use computers don't have a clue about what's under the hood, they just want to turn on and do some basic work and forget about the rest. so any amount of assertion that they upgrade is just a waste of time. the message isn't reaching the required audience

spoon_
1) Virtual drive support, about time!
2) Classic Start Menu,
3) New Explorer, old one hasn't changed since 1995,
4) 1 version as opposed to 10 ,
5) .iso support,
6) Proper preview integration as opposed to half baked solution,
7) Virtual desktops,
8) Proper clipboard manager
9) Disable the god damn prompt after the updates have been applied to reboot,
10) Recycle bin management policy.

1) what do you want that for? How is it you would want to use it?
2) Classic start menu? Do you mean the windows 95 abortion? Yes give equal precidence to all those options even thou 95% of the time I'm going to programs? No instant search of the indexed + providers…..
3) It's changed a hell of a lot, what more do you want but tree on left, list on right?
4) This with bells on it. Makes it really tiresome.
5) Mounting via a vritual drive? given that what, 5% of users want this? 3rd party app sounds best.
6) I'm confused as to what isn't proper, I'm assuming you mean the shell extensions, these are by far the most flexible from any OS I've dev'ed against, you've got the hardware accelerated codec based support, you've got the higher level type handler support.
7) Really? I've always thought that they are kind of a let down of poor window management interface, ie it should be quicker to chop and change around apps without creating groups, and hoping that you just happen to want to always use the same ones together. Also on multi monitor setups they really are just pure fail.
8) Completely and utterly wrong. You know nothing of the stupidly complex beast that is the windows clipboard.
9) No because plenty of drivers or applications will be using the un-patched, un-protected version. The prompt depends on the policy of the network but by forcing the ma & pa users who know nothing about computers to apply security patches they are almost recognising their responsibility to prevent botnets.
10) Hell yes, the recycle bin is a joke. Why can't I add certain libraries to be always kept, why do I have to use shadow service to get previous versions…….

The thing is, none of these things are provided out of the box in a useable way by any other OS. And strives have been made on making the core, which is what you buy an OS for, better to allow the 3rd parties (like me) an easier life, but also allow me to do more.

uni
two things. one, people turn off UAC. that's a fact. you can't argue with that. you can say all you want about people who do that, but it's not going to change a thing. the point is it's flawed if it makes people want to turn it off, particualrly those who should have it but turn it off as it's annoying

I'm not arguing that at all - I'm arguing the people who are idiots are those who think they know what they're doing (and that's what you said) and disable it. I'd say the majority (vast actually) don't even know how to turn it off based on my own experience.

uni
fortunately it's not on xp so it doesn't affect me, so point number 2, why should someone pay money to make a perfectly fine usable machine run worse?

Where did I say this? :O_o1:

uni
i think point 2 is the main reason why people don't upgrade. it's pointless for most people upgrading. it's only worth changing OS when replacing hardware as far as most people are concerned

I said this earlier - most people get Windows with a new PC - I don't disagree!

uni
one other thing, most people simply don't understand the things you mention, so they mean nothing to them. it's like crankshafts and spark plugs to me. a car either goes or it doesn't. as i don't drive it doesn't matter to me. but most people who use computers don't have a clue about what's under the hood, they just want to turn on and do some basic work and forget about the rest. so any amount of assertion that they upgrade is just a waste of time. the message isn't reaching the required audience

They certainly don't appear to understand them going on what you've posted - but that doesn't change the need for them when people wonder why their PC is crawling along and uploading their banking details to the Russian mafia. Again, you asserted XP could be made more secure - I simply shot that down with the reality that 7 starts life out the box with a whole swathe of architectural features built in that mean it's far more robust. Evading the point doesn't change that.
My parents understand that their Win7 box runs better all the time and that they don't get nasties on it - and that's the net result. The ‘message’ that people are getting is that 7 runs quickly and without half as much trouble as XP does - that's by design, ground up. It's not achievable by patching, it requires a rethink and a rewrite - and layering bloatware over XP doesn't magically negate the need for it either.

bobharvey
I'd go along with that. I bought it some years ago, and really like it. But I don't like their marketing. The web site offers a 60 day free trial with no mention of the actual price.

http://www.gpsoft.com.au/order_intro.html

You click ‘buy’ to get that ;)

TheAnimus
The thing is, none of these things are provided out of the box in a useable way by any other OS. And strives have been made on making the core, which is what you buy an OS for, better to allow the 3rd parties (like me) an easier life, but also allow me to do more.

I think I have to agree - people forget who MS are catering for - people don't understand virtual desktops, ISOs, complex file managers etc. You have to scale back your view somewhat to the people MS actually sell to - and it isn't power users. It's not that I don't want these things - it's just that if you do your more than capable of adding them via third party addons.

dangel
I'm not arguing that at all - I'm arguing the people who are idiots are those who think they know what they're doing (and that's what you said) and disable it. I'd say the majority (vast actually) don't even know how to turn it off based on my own experience.



Where did I say this? :O_o1:



I said this earlier - most people get Windows with a new PC - I don't disagree!



They certainly don't appear to understand them going on what you've posted - but that doesn't change the need for them when people wonder why their PC is crawling along and uploading their banking details to the Russian mafia. Again, you asserted XP could be made more secure - I simply shot that down with the reality that 7 starts life out the box with a whole swathe of architectural features built in that mean it's far more robust. Evading the point doesn't change that.
My parents understand that their Win7 box runs better all the time and that they don't get nasties on it - and that's the net result. The ‘message’ that people are getting is that 7 runs quickly and without half as much trouble as XP does - that's by design, ground up. It's not achievable by patching, it requires a rethink and a rewrite - and layering bloatware over XP doesn't magically negate the need for it either.

so the conclusion is that xp is fine for some, but win7 might be better for others

no point in upgrading an old machine with a new OS if it's going to work slower and cost more money and it's working fine as it is

snootyjim
To be fair, there are only really two versions to buy now - Home Premium and Pro, and I expect x86 will be canned or at least OEM-only for W8.

I can't really think of anything extra that I would like in Windows, especially since bundling anything seems to get MS embroiled in a court case these days.

I hope W8 is ARM 32bit and AMD64 only (with WOW of course) TBH.
x86 needs to die.

Not really, x86 is better for a low end chip in many ways. The AMD64 instruction set does create some problems for low end chips ability to do predictive branching, last time I looked at this it had noticable problems doing the kind of called required by any dynamically linked application, which uses a reference table.

TheAnimus
1) what do you want that for? How is it you would want to use it?

Just simple mount of disk images like .iso and many others.
It doesn't have to do much, view/read only is good enough.

2) Classic start menu? Do you mean the windows 95 abortion? Yes give equal precidence to all those options even thou 95% of the time I'm going to programs? No instant search of the indexed + providers…..

Personal preference but I really like the old fashioned Start Menu.

3) It's changed a hell of a lot, what more do you want but tree on left, list on right?

I would like to be to able to split the window into two panes and be able to navigate/browse individual resources like in Total Commander for example.

4) This with bells on it. Makes it really tiresome.

I think alot of people would agree here, all these versions are just plain headache.

5) Mounting via a vritual drive? given that what, 5% of users want this? 3rd party app sounds best.

Either via virtual drive or read only to pull a single file of example without installing UltraISO for example. Microsoft itself distributes software in .iso format which Windows cannot do anything with out of the box.

6) I'm confused as to what isn't proper, I'm assuming you mean the shell extensions, these are by far the most flexible from any OS I've dev'ed against, you've got the hardware accelerated codec based support, you've got the higher level type handler support.

Ok, imagine you could press a key and preview the .docx document without having to install Microsoft Word at all.. This could easily extend to many more formats.

7) Really? I've always thought that they are kind of a let down of poor window management interface, ie it should be quicker to chop and change around apps without creating groups, and hoping that you just happen to want to always use the same ones together. Also on multi monitor setups they really are just pure fail.

I kinda got used to it on Ubuntu and it's missing somehow from Windows.

8) Completely and utterly wrong. You know nothing of the stupidly complex beast that is the windows clipboard.

I would be interested to hear more…

9) No because plenty of drivers or applications will be using the un-patched, un-protected version. The prompt depends on the policy of the network but by forcing the ma & pa users who know nothing about computers to apply security patches they are almost recognising their responsibility to prevent botnets.

I don't question the whole Windows Update patch management and whether or not they should be applied. Few days ago Microsoft released around 120MB of updates so I had to install them but didn't want to restart straight away but Windows would simply not go away and kept asking me to restart all the time, postponing it by 4h resulted in me being booted out of the game just to postpone it again. Annoying like hell.

10) Hell yes, the recycle bin is a joke. Why can't I add certain libraries to be always kept, why do I have to use shadow service to get previous versions…….

Agree.

I have commented accordingly.

Right clicking an ISO file shows you that the default action is to burn the ISO to a disc - right out of the box on Windows 7.

You can postpone updates by up to four hours - i need to pee at least that often ;) If your bladder is stronger - make a shortcut to stop the service :)

Classic start menu? Nope, prefer my instant search/recent items/useful shortcuts one by far!

Planning to upgrade my cousin's OS to Win7 and hopefully everything will become smooth sailing..

In Japan over 600000 PCs in use by the government were still using Windows 2000 as of 2010:

http://www.japantoday.com/category/technology/view/local-govts-firms-still-using-windows-2000-after-expiry-of-support

spoon_
I'd like to see:

3) New Explorer, old one hasn't changed since 1995,

Looks like it's happening

snootyjim
Looks like it's happening

Looks like more of the screen is now wasted on oversized menus.

Perhaps right click should be better utilised.

CAT-THE-FIFTH
Looks like more of the screen is now wasted on oversized menus.

Perhaps right click should be better utilised.

At the risk of dragging this one off topic, the ribbon is actually a space saver.

By having the menu and the icon toolbar merged into one.

Expanded by default, all experianced users know they can double click it to get it auto hiding, however I think they should have a pin glyph in the corner to allow other people to give it a go.

Also for touch interface, the ribbon is quite useful, its all about having large areas for frequent stuff, with smaller for less frequent. Sounds simple, but all too often equal precedence is given in the UI for things which aren't equally used. Such meritocratic UI for want of a phrase really makes a difference, just play with something by the Metro UI team like the WP7 for a really good example of how this works.

spoon_
I don't question the whole Windows Update patch management and whether or not they should be applied. Few days ago Microsoft released around 120MB of updates so I had to install them but didn't want to restart straight away but Windows would simply not go away and kept asking me to restart all the time, postponing it by 4h resulted in me being booted out of the game just to postpone it again. Annoying like hell.QUOTE]

Change your settings to download updates automatically but don't install them. Then you can install them at your leisure at a convenient time when you can reboot the computer and avoid those prompts - I haven't had one since :)