[cluberti]

DeathNACan, on Jan 13 2009, 02:11 PM, said:

I remember having to go take a week long class when we migrated from NT 4.x to Windows 2000. It barely scratched the surface but wasn't too bad. XP was, for the most part, a cleaner code with a flasher GUI. No real big changes there. But Vista! God that is a nightmare from an IT perspective...

I'll agree it's a huge learning curve (especially considering that not much has changed since 2000 and AD with the platform), but I would argue the nightmare point (assuming the company was willing to let you train on things, even if just in a simulated lab). The changes are good (and it's about time on a lot of them), just don't migrate thinking it'll be like NT4 -> 2000 or XP, because then it'll bite ya.

DeathNACan, on Jan 13 2009, 02:11 PM, said:

not just moving but busting up the way profiles are handled,

These things really are necessary evils with the new 2.x profiles. The old profile storage system was slow, didn't roam well, and could cause (lots) of problems with roaming users and terminal server-heavy environments (this ultimately stemmed from the way winlogon and the group policy engines were designed). Again, a pain, but a necessary evil to make differential profile roaming and removing the winlogon handles to locations in the user's profile (especially if it was stored remotely) needed to be done. They were problems since NT4, and finally addressed.

DeathNACan, on Jan 13 2009, 02:11 PM, said:

adding the Trusted Installer service,

Whilst this was a pain during Vista RTM due to problems with it's design, the Vista SP1 (and Win7) changes to the servicing engine have pretty much removed most, if not all, of the "Trusted Installer service" quirks that plagued Vista machines during RTM. Plus, Trusted Installer is needed for a lot of things in the platform (including hotpatching and AxIS), which I really have grown to appreciate.

DeathNACan, on Jan 13 2009, 02:11 PM, said:

and to top it off major GUI changes that moved, renamed or split up too much stuff.

This I'll almost agree with you on - I actually like the new shell and control panel design, but they were definitely not geared towards the IT professional (well, the searchable address bar in the start menu and the search engine in general were, but that's not quite covering the whole thing I think you're speaking of). It was a desire to make the start menu and system menus easier to use and less imposing on the regular user (even old-time Windows users), but it is a bit of a learning curve to get used to. Whereas XP's changes were mostly "throw some color on that start menu and blow up the icons a bit", Vista (and Win7) design changes were for the better for overall system usability. I *hated* them at first, now I go back to XP and can't figure out how I made due without the changes (and now that I've used Win7 for awhile, I can't get used to *not* using the superbar taskbar, and when I go back to Vista I get frustrated that it's the "old-style" taskbar too - funny how things grow on you when you aren't paying attention.

DeathNACan, on Jan 13 2009, 02:11 PM, said:

It's for the IT Pro not to mention the end user. Many of us were hoping that the would have learned from their mistakes with Vista and fixed them in Windows 7. It doesn't look as if they did but the jury is still out on that one.

Well, I personally find that the people I've helped migrate to Vista from XP (both large-scale corporate and much smaller personal settings), with a bit of initial help on the transition, are almost to a person much happier with Vista and the way it works to the way XP used to work for them. Yes, XP was fine and there was no driving reason to switch to Vista, but the complaints people had about Vista during RTM really just don't hold up, and almost everyone genuinely likes the Vista changes. I think Win7 will actually be more of the same for XP users who will migrate to Win7, although it should have most of the bugs that plagued Vista out of it's system before then.

[CoffeeFiend]

cluberti, on Jan 14 2009, 12:17 AM, said:

I'll agree it's a huge learning curve (especially considering that not much has changed since 2000 and AD with the platform)

Things on the OS side have stagnated during the XP years (very little changes, over a LOT of years). An awful LOT of people got very lazy, and somehow now seem to think having almost no changes and nothing to learn is the norm.

From any OS to MS-DOS was pretty drastic changes. MS-DOS to Windows 3.x was too. Win 3.1 to Win 9x as well. Win9x to the NT series too. Overall, most transitions brought us big changes.

Sure, Vista brings a LOT of different stuff (be it on the GUI side, where it's all minor IMO), as well as on the "system" side (new deployment method, new installer not dating from the early NT days, etc) but once you learn it, for the most part it's better. And like I said, having to learn a LOT of new stuff all the time is more or less the norm when you work with computers.

Programmers have learned new languages (C#, VB.Net, etc), the .NET framework, MSIL, changes to the language with some new versions, winforms, ASP.NET, new versions of SQL Server (which changed significantly since 2000), new APIs in general, various ORMs, TDD and refactoring and other similar/related things, new SCMs (e.g. VSTS and Hg), new IDEs, new tools (e.g. codegen tools), changes in architecture (and patterns and such), SOAP/REST web services and remoting, now replacing winforms with WPF (a HUGE change), LINQ, new IIS v7 and various system components, TONS of web stuff (CSS design and the box model, javascript, AJAX, new frameworks like jQuery, etc). It's a VERY long list. Hardly anyone can keep up with all that stuff.

There's TONS more new stuff coming up, like ASP.NET MVC (currently looking into that), the .NET framework 4, Windows 7 (yes, we still have to learn all that new OS stuff too, just like sys admins -- and yes, I did learn PowerShell too), Visual Studio 2010 (already using the CTP), SQL Server 2010 next year, etc.

And that's assuming you do only that for a living... Lots of us do all that stuff to a fairly advanced level (programming win /web apps, sys/network admin work, assume DBA duty, maintain the internet site and the intranet, work with various "advanced" apps like wireshark/windbg/etc, do server backups and so on) but only part time (a few hours a week, or a few days a month, or whatever the case may be). I also have to write code (in different languages, using different compilers, etc) for different embedded platforms (we sell custom embedded solutions), do EDA work (and I don't mean 74LS chips here... things are also moving REAL fast there) e.g. capture schematics & route PCBs, use various CAD apps, test/repair stuff and various lab work, resolve various problems, do graphics work (just took a Photoshop CS4 "what's new" course as a matter of fact) and what not...

I hate to say it, but I don't feel pitiful or compassionate one bit towards people who cry over a new start menu that's essentially the same as XP's but with an added search box at the bottom. They just don't know how easy they got it!

This post has been edited by crahak: 14 January 2009 - 02:11 AM

[killerb255]

DeathNACan, on Jan 12 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

Finally, people are resistant to change. They are afraid of it, particularly where computers are concerned.

That's just human nature. The more we learn, the less we want to learn, and the more we want to apply what we know.

Change stimulates fear. After all, fear is nothing more than a perceived loss of control. When things change, we don't feel as "in control" as we did beforehand.

However, when there is no change at all, people end up lamenting in their comfort zones, even if that zone is a danger zone of sorts. Abused women are a perfect example of this. They would rather keep things the way they are, even if their lives are at risk, than to remove themselves from the situation and deal with the unknown--something that they don't think they have control over.

Bottom line: Zero change is unhealthy. Change for the sake of change does more harm than good (dealing with the resistance and having little to gain from it).

Were the Windows 7 UI changes simply "change for the sake of change"? To many, yes it is. To some, not really.

Being a veteran in the IT business, I'm sure you remember people complaining about the changes in Windows being too minute. In other words, a new version of Windows is pointless to the "S" (sensing) personalities out there that learn solely by their five senses (sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell). To an S personality, Windows 95 and Windows 98 were pretty much one and the same. The "N" (intuitive) personalities familiar with both OSes knew the differences, though (for better or worse): better networking support, FAT32 support out of the box, better USB support, integrated Internet Explorer...

So in reality, the Windows 7 UI changes were most likely to convince the S personalities out there that Windows 7 is "new," "different enough from Vista," and "different enough from previous versions of Windows in general."

Quote

not just moving but busting up the way profiles are handled,

Quote

These things really are necessary evils with the new 2.x profiles. The old profile storage system was slow, didn't roam well, and could cause (lots) of problems with roaming users and terminal server-heavy environments (this ultimately stemmed from the way winlogon and the group policy engines were designed). Again, a pain, but a necessary evil to make differential profile roaming and removing the winlogon handles to locations in the user's profile (especially if it was stored remotely) needed to be done. They were problems since NT4, and finally addressed.

QFT!!!!

I can't count how many times I've had to rebuild Windows 2000 and XP roaming profiles!!! I haven't dealt with a single corrupt Windows Vista roaming profile yet!

This post has been edited by killerb255: 14 January 2009 - 04:24 PM

[Ethaniel]

Well, it's gonna be a bit hard for me to adapt. I mean, I've been using the Classic Menu for the last... 13 years I think. It will be tough, but not impossible.

[wizardzg]

All respect to DeathNACan, couldn't of said it better. I'm not MCSE but have a one exam till MCSA and have SBS2003 specialist exams still got a lot to learn but stuff like this is like can be seen from a plane. Hope MS will make some changes on this beta after this comments. And a msg to MagicAndre1981, what is your problem kid, u could learn something here and not be so stupid and keep repeating the same thing all over again. All the man said was OK for u kids with small experience in windows administration which is obvious that u don't have it's OK to make inovations and everything will glow, and open with animations and it will make your eyes open wide, but all we wan't is and old way of clicking, because I can say for myself but pretty shore that you can wake DeathNACan in the middle of the night and ask him to tell you how to get to see the groups some user belongs to in AD. But now we have to think twice and look around to find stuff. And I also wouldn't bet my a** that it's fewer clicks in this new and "improved" interface. Oh yeah and what's next to stop booting and select Safe mode you'll have to press CTRL+Shift+B for example. That's wrong. It's ok to make inovations without it there would never be any progress but still why to change something what is working perfectly. Sorry to all, just had to say something in the name of those who obviously know something and have been bothered by the ignorant.

[MagicAndre1981]

sorry, if you are intolerant against improvements change your job so that you're no longer confronted with new things. If all people would think like you we would still sits in caves

[amigafan]

MagicAndre1981, on Jan 9 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

sorry with the old menu have to do more clicks to get the programs open

Wrong. My StartMenu in XP needs 2 click to launch anything.

Quote

You're only intolerant in having new ideas. I hope they never bring those old, stupid startmenu back.

That's because we know that new doesn't necessarily mean better.

[Yzöwl]

wizardzg, on Jan 21 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

<snip>But now we have to think twice and look around to find stuff. And I also wouldn't bet my a** that it's fewer clicks in this new and "improved" interface. Oh yeah and what's next to stop booting and select Safe mode you'll have to press CTRL+Shift+B for example. That's wrong. It's ok to make inovations without it there would never be any progress but still why to change something what is working perfectly. Sorry to all, just had to say something in the name of those who obviously know something and have been bothered by the ignorant.

The world is changing, people in every job are required to constantly adapt regardlesss of whether that change is in their opinion unnecessary or wrong.
In this case you aren't being asked to change overnight, you've got a golden opportunity to begin to adapt now through beta, then release and a considerable length of time on top of that as required before upgading all of your systems to the new OS.
You don't have to adapt, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the 'kids with small experience in windows administration' will and take your job as a result.

[DeathNACan]

Yzöwl, on Jan 21 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

wizardzg, on Jan 21 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

<snip>But now we have to think twice and look around to find stuff. And I also wouldn't bet my a** that it's fewer clicks in this new and "improved" interface. Oh yeah and what's next to stop booting and select Safe mode you'll have to press CTRL+Shift+B for example. That's wrong. It's ok to make inovations without it there would never be any progress but still why to change something what is working perfectly. Sorry to all, just had to say something in the name of those who obviously know something and have been bothered by the ignorant.

The world is changing, people in every job are required to constantly adapt regardless of whether that change is in their opinion unnecessary or wrong.
In this case you aren't being asked to change overnight, you've got a golden opportunity to begin to adapt now through beta, then release and a considerable length of time on top of that as required before upgrading all of your systems to the new OS.
You don't have to adapt, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the 'kids with small experience in windows administration' will and take your job as a result.

The entire point is not about change. It's about forced change and not being given options. It's about unnecessary changes made for marketing purposes just to convince the consumer that they have something new. It's about too much change at one time and the effect they have on everyone from the IT professional to the home user. No one is against innovation and anyone who works in IT knows you have to keep up. This is the same old argument that has been around for a long time. For the most part, on one side you have a lot of programmers, developers and wanna-be power users. On the other side you have IT support professionals such as Network Administrators, PC Technicians, and Support Personnel.

The IT support group understands that change for change sake is bad for a waste of resources, time and money. I will say again, just because you can change a thing does not mean you should in IT and you should make **** sure you consult the people whose jobs it is to support your product before you do. As far as I can tell, Microsoft is continuing to make changes without considering the impact on the user or IT professional. They have a business responsibility to consider the impact those changes have on the user.

I am Joe Average and Microsoft puts out a new OS. It costs me $259.00 to buy the upgrade. If all goes well during the upgrade, I don't have to hire a PC Technician to fix the botched install. If not, well add another $75.00 plus dollars to that. Because Microsoft decides I didn't need to have the option of doing things the way I knew how anymore, so, if I don't have the time, patience, desire or skill to figure it out, it will cost me another $150.00 to $350.00 in classes to learn how to use it. And then I will still spend the next several months learning what they were supposed to teach me in class.

Look, I'm no Apple fan either but why do you think they have such a loyal, fanatical user base? It's because while they make improvements, they don't complicate things buy making big changes to how things have to be done.

[Yzöwl]

DeathNACan, on Jan 21 2009, 03:38 PM, said:

<snip>

Sorry but you're making a mountain out of a mole hill, the NT OS Start Menu you're shouting about has really been in use since NT3.5 and is due an overhaul. If number of clicks is your problem you should think about creating a set of macros, utilising some scripts etc. There are many third party Menus, Launchers, File Managers and Shells to choose from if you really cannot handle a possible extra click or two. It's not as if you haven't had time to start adapting; XP gave you a New Start Menu, and left the old one there as an option in order to help you slowly ease the transition. Vista further afforded you extra time to change by keeping the legacy option as a fall-back for those who were very slow at adapting. You still chose to ignore it and remained steadfast with the old system; how long should Microsoft keep making allowances for those who don't wish to make changes?

[DeathNACan]

crahak, on Jan 13 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

DeathNACan, on Jan 13 2009, 10:59 AM, said:

You have already made up you mind that I am just some old guy

Not so. But I already made up my mind that you're a Vista basher, and that what you say are merely personal opinions, without much (if any) facts to back them up.

DeathNACan, on Jan 13 2009, 10:59 AM, said:

They made deals with OEM's PC Manufacturers to push it on customers. Try buying a PC with Windows XP or NO OS installed today

You mean exactly like it always was? Like when you could get XP but not Win2k anymore? (and son on for every n-1 version)

DeathNACan, on Jan 13 2009, 10:59 AM, said:

OEM's reject vista

OEMs complaining? Yeah, that'd be because they now have to sell you a machine with more than 256MB of RAM and onboard Intel GMA video.

DeathNACan, on Jan 13 2009, 10:59 AM, said:

the people who fix and keep your computers running at your job

That would be me.

DeathNACan, on Jan 13 2009, 10:59 AM, said:

Upgrade the RAM for one computer for $60.00 and you won't go out of budget. Upgrade the RAM for 3000 computers and you just spent $180000.00.

You can get enough RAM to run Vista for much less than $60 at full retail price, in big name brands no less, at full retail prices and in quantities of 1. And that's assuming you had no RAM at all, or will dispose of the old one. Newegg will sell you 2GB of DDR2 667 for $17 everyday. If you shop around, and are buying 3000 packs, you'd get a better price (let's say $13.33). So let's say $40000 total, which isn't much $ for a company with like 3000 employees. Iit may still looks like a large number, but a company that size pays several millions of $ on salaries weekly. $17 is a ridiculously low investment in fact, and it'll pay itself VERY fast. If it just saves a single hour worth of wait time over the lifetime of the machine (several years), then it already cost less than nothing. If it saves a single second everyday it already paid for itself. It's nowhere near as bad as you try to portray it. BTW, 250x$1200 isn't 1.2M but 1/4 of that (not that it would cost anywhere near that in the first place).

cluberti, on Jan 13 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

but more because a lot of businesses I see have just finished upgrading to XP in the last 2 - 3 years, and won't really be in the market for new Windows software until XP goes out of mainstream support this year

That's if they don't wait until extended support is over in 2014. And then upgrade to Windows 8. They're not avoiding Vista at all (unlike what DeathNACan claims), they're just in no hurry to upgrade yet as they just got XP recently.

You need to stop thinking like a home user. Most corporations have a very specific list of vendors they do business with. It takes a paperwork just to get on the list.

Before we got swallowed by a bigger fish, my boss used to go to one of the local PC Repair places to buy RAM and they still charged us more than they would someone off the street! After we were gobbled up, we had to go through corporate to get everything. And I do mean everything, from toilet paper to new desktop computers. Most of the time, they end up paying way too much for what they buy. I know, I've seen the receipts. It made me what to cry when I saw what they were paying for things because I knew that somewhere, some bean counter was trying to figure out how to get the cost down and the first thing usually hit was labor, as in jobs.

And I will go so far as to say most don't buy from Newegg or any other Internet based retailer, you don't see that happening a lot, if it all. By the way, I like Newegg!. What you and I can go to the local Best Buy and get for say $59.95 on sale or Newegg for $19.95, a corporation will pay $89.95 for from some local "Authorized Retailer" with an IBM, Dell, Compaq or HP logo on their door or though corporate purchasing. Same stuff, higher price. Go figure!

Corporations give the profits to investors and that's called dividends. They generate bigger profits, so they can pay hirer dividends, in the following ways:

Gaining more market share... making more sales.
Reducing the cost of a product's materials... make it cheaper or buy it cheaper.
Reducing the cost of labor by either redefining how something is produced so it is less expensive or just plain finding somewhere less expensive to make it.

The last is representative of the business philosophy in the Corporate America right now. It is the current fad to outsource to labor to somewhere cheaper. An example of this was when the company I worked for moved its mortgage servicing division from New York City to Columbus Georgia where the labor costs were lower. Later I saw over 300 people loose their jobs when they were sent to India.

To keep profits up, somewhere is a bean counter trying to figure out how to reduce costs... all the time! So don't think that those new PC's at work or that new OS you got last year, or whenever, might not have cost someone their job. When you add the RAM upgrade, hard drive upgrade, training costs, lost productivity to all the other things being paid for, they probably did. Discounting corporate greed, which is a given, all you have to do is look at the unemployment figures in the United States and you will see what I am taking about.

By the way, I used to work for the following companies: GreenPoint Financial Corporation, North Fork Bank, and Capitol One. As of January 1st of this year, everyone I know at Capitol One here in Columbus Georgia just lost their jobs. Most of their jobs were also sent to India over the last few years, the rest went somewhere else so I know what I am talking about. And the moral of the story is... every penny counts and no dollar is too small, particularly when you have to multiply it by numbers from 100 to 10000.

What I have been writing has been meant to be informative. I hope you will not take it personally and some day can make use of it. Someday, they job you it save could be your own!

[DeathNACan]

Yzöwl, on Jan 21 2009, 12:32 PM, said:

DeathNACan, on Jan 21 2009, 03:38 PM, said:

<snip>

Sorry but you're making a mountain out of a mole hill, the NT OS Start Menu you're shouting about has really been in use since NT3.5 and is due an overhaul. If number of clicks is your problem you should think about creating a set of macros, utilising some scripts etc. There are many third party Menus, Launchers, File Managers and Shells to choose from if you really cannot handle a possible extra click or two. It's not as if you haven't had time to start adapting; XP gave you a New Start Menu, and left the old one there as an option in order to help you slowly ease the transition. Vista further afforded you extra time to change by keeping the legacy option as a fall-back for those who were very slow at adapting. You still chose to ignore it and remained steadfast with the old system; how long should Microsoft keep making allowances for those who don't wish to make changes?

As to third party Menus, Launchers, File Managers and Shells, those in corporate IT are not usually afforded that luxury. The introduction of such into the corporate environment is usually considered risky, not provided for in the budget, and against corporate IT policy. Secondly, the use of scripts in many larger corporation is, for security reasons, policy restricted and therefore not always available to the average support person, let alone the desktop user. There are also software licensing issues you haven't considered.

Again, why force change upon the user at the expense of money and productivity unnecessarily? Why not give them the option? This is not about likes or dislikes, this is about bad business policy and bad IT practices.

[Yzöwl]

I must ask you to keep on topic, we don't need a business lesson and certainly don't need to have `how much more you think you know than us` forced onto us.

This topic only requires these points specifically answering.
What are the specific reasons why since the release of Windows XP you have been unable to move away from the Classic Start Menu, and what is now preventing you from finding an alternative prior to your next major upgrade.

[Chrno]

DeathNACan, on Jan 21 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

As to third party Menus, Launchers, File Managers and Shells, those in corporate IT are not usually afforded that luxury. The introduction of such into the corporate environment is usually considered risky, not provided for in the budget, and against corporate IT policy. Secondly, the use of scripts in many larger corporation is, for security reasons, policy restricted and therefore not always available to the average support person, let alone the desktop user. There are also software licensing issues you haven't considered.

Again, why force change upon the user at the expense of money and productivity unnecessarily? Why not give them the option? This is not about likes or dislikes, this is about bad business policy and bad IT practices.

Ever heard of Open source, there's lots of Open source shells and file/app managers out there, try em out for gods sake.

Curious, but why ignore superbar? It's the nest best thing next to the now useless start menu (IMO)

If your that stubborn and "old school" mover to linux, and stop crying because out of the few OSs we. The only one you have been using made a change and you refused to move one like the rest of us did or didn't even care from the beginning at all. Look at DOS for example. Untill 2000ish people were still using it and blasphemous shells and what not, who said that computers are not and never will be "personal" to begin with. There are still people out there hugging their VHS recorders and CRTs. If you don't like the fact that humand can chnage, then stay were you are and don't complain because people can change and always have for the past 200,000 years or so.

[CoffeeFiend]

Yzöwl, on Jan 21 2009, 11:32 AM, said:

Sorry but you're making a mountain out of a mole hill

Yzöwl, on Jan 21 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

You don't have to adapt, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the 'kids with small experience in windows administration' will and take your job as a result.

Yzöwl, on Jan 21 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

I must ask you to keep on topic, we don't need a business lesson and certainly don't need to have `how much more you think you know than us` forced onto us.

QFT x3! These are the best posts I've read in a good while.

Those people who chose not to adapt and for the most part quite lazy & unwilling to learn anything new and change their ways can keep living in the past for a while, but they'll soon enough find themselves replaced by people who aren't afraid of change & fighting it for no good reason. I'm starting to get a feel where Dilbert's "Mordac: The Preventer of Information Services" comes from right now. There's a lot of IT staff that just gets in your way like that, and I think we're seeing a prime example of that here.

There's a lot of pointless whining, all over small changes in a *start menu* ffs. Then again, perhaps they just adapted to the Win95 start menu last year, and before that they were angry because MS took their so-much-better Win 3.11 GUI from them...

[GrofLuigi]

I eat chease. Now someone comes and tells me it's enough, I've done it for twenty years, I must adapt to the new ways... and start eating mushrooms.

Why don't you leave me an option to do what I want? I'm not telling you to use the old start menu.

That's dictatorship.

And one good reason to use DOS: direct hardware control. Try telling the Seagate victims that came to our forum to unbrick their drives under XP, Vista or Seven.

GL

[DeathNACan]

Yzöwl, on Jan 21 2009, 02:00 PM, said:

I must ask you to keep on topic, we don't need a business lesson and certainly don't need to have `how much more you think you know than us` forced onto us.

This topic only requires these points specifically answering.
What are the specific reasons why since the release of Windows XP you have been unable to move away from the Classic Start Menu, and what is now preventing you from finding an alternative prior to your next major upgrade.

"Some people prefer to resist change (and bi*ch about it) instead of embracing it. Nothing we can do I'm afraid.

I never cared too much for XP's start menu (took too bloody long to get to any app you haven't used last), but Vista's and its search is a million times better than XP's and classic. You can start ~99% of your apps in 4-6 keystrokes, without ever touching the mouse.

sorry with the old menu have to do more clicks to get the programs open. You're only intolerant in having new ideas. I hope they never bring those old, stupid startmenu back.

It's a good thing why some posters in this thread are retired. You know what they can, "Can't teach an old dog new tricks."

I guess when you get to that retirement age, you like things the way they always were.

Sooooo.... that doesn't mean keep things as they were. Some people **CAN** HANDLE change and ADAPT to new way of doing things. Hey, it might actually be faster.

Gosh, if we didn't improve, we would still be getting out of our car and winding up the engine!

So, come on. Quit posting the same old crap about MS this and MS that. If you don't like it, don't use it. Simple.

That's basically it. Some people prefer to fight change instead of embracing it, and usually whine in the process.

If they listened to these people, we'd still be using the command line (no GUI), because "it's just as good of a program launcher" (that's what they all said in the win 3.x era anyhow) -- who needs a mouse anyways? There's always someone complaining about any minute change in the interface, something that got moved by an inch, any new way that's actually better, things placed more logically and all that -- just because it's different, and they don't want to adapt ("the old one worked! why did they do this?")

Just like if they change the GUI, people say "it's just a new skin" (whereas if they didn't change it, they'd say NOTHING as changed as they don't seem to see past the GUI).

Just like they complain about "bloat" for any new feature that's added (they don't use it, so surely nobody else does, right?), and if they added nothing, then it would be a worthless upgrade, etc.

And so on.

The good part is soon they'll stop whining about Vista. The bad part is, they'll be whining about Win 7, then Win 8, 9 and so on.

The ONLY way to please those people is to have a totally identical GUI (no changes at all, nothing moved) yet still have a new shiny GUI, has new features (yet doesn't have them), various enhancements (yet not have them), and have that run on a vic 20, and be free and open source -- and even then, they might have to pay you to run their OS before they stop complaining.

It's a good thing they don't listen to them. Not every change is for the best, but for the most part (~95%) it is.

Not so. But I already made up my mind that you're a Vista basher, and that what you say are merely personal opinions, without much (if any) facts to back them up.

sorry, if you are intolerant against improvements change your job so that you're no longer confronted with new things. If all people would think like you we would still sits in caves"



***

This thread changed when these comments were posted. I have a question for you. Why didn't say something when all the above was being posted here? I have tried to remain both civil and constructive while others have been insulting and argumentative. Next time you tell someone to stay on topic, please read the whole thread. Or is it this forum's policy that as long as someone agrees with the moderator's opinions, they can say anything, even insulting others, their life's work, their experience, and yes THEIR OPINIONS? You know, I've been wrong before but I learned and got wiser for it. For that matter, I am still learning and I hope wiser. But when did you become too old to learn? Probably about the same time I was supposed to be getting too old to change. Don't bother commenting, I know you will delete this anyway.

This post has been edited by DeathNACan: 21 January 2009 - 10:05 PM

[cluberti]

Yzöwl, on Jan 21 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

I must ask you to keep on topic, we don't need a business lesson and certainly don't need to have `how much more you think you know than us` forced onto us.

A mod specifically asked that this thread be kept on target, and it has not. It is obvious these arguments are not to be resolved, and since a mod has once been ignored, I expect to be as well. Closing thread.

[Closed].