Windows 7...why?

KathleenR said:

gregrocker said:

Is this a new laptop, Kathleen? Clean up factory bloatware

Can you tell us what are the problems specifically, no foam?

Where is the recycle bin? If I delete a file where does it go?

Strictly speaking it doesn't go anywhere. The Recycle Bin is just a collection of files to be permanently deleted.

apogee07 said:

logicearth said:

Input devices...you mean these:

Exactly. They are blanked out. The drop down list is blank in W7.

Blank on your computer maybe. The speaker icon on the bottom right of the taskbar, right-click it go to "Recording Devices" then when there right-click in the middle of the pane. "Show Disabled/Disconnected Devices" are both checked.

If you have no devices that means you have not installed the proper drivers. Windows 7 supports input devices just fine.

DeaconFrost said:

lehnerus2000 said:

IMO, each generation of OS should get easier to use, not more difficult.

This is where you have to separate your own personal opinion from actual results. Windows 7 IS easier to use. Why?

Well, it's more reliable, and it handles many maintenance tasks by itself. The adaptation takes days, not weeks or years, such as learning a new language.

I should have included reliability in my exceptions.
"More difficult" was the wrong phrase.

That said, XP is extremely reliable on my machine.

"Twitchiness" on my PC (Least to Most):

• 2010 - Ubuntu 10.04, XP, W7
• 2011 - XP, W7, Ubuntu 10.04

To be fair, I use W7 most of the time (~95%+) followed by Ubuntu (~4%) and XP (~1%).
That means W7 has more opportunities to annoy me. :)

DeaconFrost said:

I'm also not saying this from personal opinion. I rolled Windows 7 out to 30 less than tech savvy employees at my company, who had been used to XP with Office 2003. In a matter of a week or two, people all got the hang of it, especially the ribbon interface in Office 2007. See, it is more intuitive, because it puts more of the options on screen, rather than bury them in menus. People appreciate that, because they don't need to memorize menu locations.

I knew that mentioning the Ribbon would cause trouble.

Office 2007:
"How do I print this document? Where is the file menu?"
"Look under the lollipop button."
"Oh! That thing is a button?"

Since we're swapping anecdotes, I first encountered the Ribbon in 2008 (I was doing a training course).
A girl asked how to print a document.
The other students and myself, looked at the interface and were completely bamboozled.
I was so stunned, I even forgot that "Ctrl +P" would bring up the dialogue window.

There was no screen tip (standard windows bug, non-appearing screen tip) and the visual effects were turned off, so the lollipop button didn't light up when the mouse pointer was hovering over it.

People recognise patterns (I do).

The Ribbon looks the same, regardless of the option, only the top tab position changes.
There were quite a few distinct patterns with the menus.
If I was in the wrong menu, my subconscious mind would say to my conscious mind, "something's wrong".
I get no warning when I'm using the Ribbon.

Once people were taught about menus, they could open up almost any program and attempt to use it.
"I go to the file menu to open a file. I go to the help menu to find about."

The Ribbon's only advantages over menus and toolbars:

• Text Labels.
• It is easier to repeatedly perform the same function on multiple objects (e.g. placing a box around text).

MS collected data and then used that data to justify their decision.

Alternative explanations that can be drawn from that data are:

• "...their total inability to provide any useful help, or instructions, on the use of built-in features."
• Poor configuration of MS Office by IT staff.

I actually find the Ribbon to be an improvement in Excel, but a PITA in Word.

DeaconFrost said:

As for Windows 7, not much has changed about the basics. You still open programs the same way. You still boot up, login, and shut down the same way. Now my users can use the search feature to find a document, whether they saved it or they left it in an e-mail. The list goes on. But to suggest that OSes get harder to use is just.....not true.

At no time did I state that it was easier to teach "newbies":

• XP operations, compared to W7.
• Menu operations, compared to the Ribbon.

It may come as a surprise, but "newbies" aren't the people who complained about the changes.
"Newbies" can't complain, because they have no point of reference.

"More difficult" was the wrong phrase.

How much more powerful is a 2011 PC compared to a 2001 PC?
Based on "Moore's Law" the answer is ~32.

There is almost no reason why a new PC, can't successfully simulate an old GUI.
It should be a piece of cake for a modern OS to be reconfigured to suit the user.
According to MS (and other OS makers) the user is the one who must be "reconfigured".

After being "reconfigured" can the user do 32x as much work?
No. They had to relearn how to do the same work and gained few percent improvement in output (if that).

Kari said:

Well said. This and you previous post in this thread would most certainly get some rep from me but I have to "spread around", so instead I want to publicly thank you of these posts.

These threads about how much better XP was and what's wrong with Seven seem to re-surface every few months. Fact is Windows 7 is a well working, easy to use and maintain OS; it's time to let XP retire.

Kari

At no time did I state that W7 was rubbish, in fact W7 is my preferred OS.
These days I only open XP on "Patch Tuesday" (Wednesday for me) or if I notice a program update (e.g. Foxit Reader).

That doesn't mean, I can't agree with anyone who complains that they don't like/understand certain differences.