Sorry, Microsoft, but consumers just don't like you

[Nedal0]

Totally understand your point but I'm sure you do understand the fact that everyone has different needs for Windows for several reasons.

Take the Lightscribe Technology for instance. Very excellent but was introduced too early and now its almost unused if not dead technology.

I loved Lightscribe but it never caught on as others didn't like it so much or even ever used it.

Sometimes we have to face facts. Can you explain why Windows Vista was a flop ? From your Analogy it was a light button changing from left to right which would be valid of the start menu moved from the left to right side of the screen.

Unfortunately bad news travels a lot faster these days with social media. It used to take about 2 weeks for bad news to hit the headlines back in the days.

Lots of people hate Windows 8 and there's no denying it. Mostly the news is spread via social media and forums. There is no where to hide and Microsoft has to face the Music.

[lordnsane]

I beg to differ.when win95 came out ,it was a total disaster,not functionally wise but stability wise .M$ didn't get that OS straightened out till almost 2000 with osr2 ,then

it was finally stable

It might have been popular ,but it was a mess

Till Windows 2000? I used 95, which was fine, then 98, which still remains the most awesome OS I've used (not the best, but awesome).

Infact, I'll go on to say that people who have effectively used Windows in the 95 and 98 days, will never find a PC problem that he/she can't solve. Just because they weren't the most stable out there, didn't mean there were bad.

When Windows 95 came out, I don't remember anyone complaining about it. Everyone I knew loved it. The Windows 3.1 interface kinda sucked and I stuck with DOS until about 1996.

It seems like Microsoft doesn't listen to its customers. When Windows 8 beta came out, I'm sure there was a lot of complaints. They chose to ignore them. Splitting the OS into two different flavors or having an option on 1st startup (Desktop or Metro interface) would have made more sense.

only these two replies in this post made the most sense for me, yes i hate metro UI, but i love windows 8, have'nt really faced any Bsod's or crashes in the last months (unless i am trying to overclock GPU.. :P), unlike windows 7, which was a complete crash-a-lympics until SP1 for me, more responsive than windows 7, three months after installing windows 7, my boot times used to increase dramatically, and it was not just me, everyone's PC's i see used to have increased boot time, in windows 8, six months, still almost same boot times, faster and responsive, and i have'nt changed my PC setup or softwares installed in upgrading to win8, it's all the same... As Whoopenstein said: Just give us the option to select the interface we want to use: Metro or Desktop, either on first startup or in control panel, just like it was in WinXP, where you can select Classic Start Menu or Start Menu. I still remember i used to use Classic Win98 style start menu when i first used XP as i used to hate new XP style menu, and i loved it, coz i had a choice, it took me 1.5 years to switch to XP style start menu, after that no switching back...

And as DKT27 said, for me also, Win98 is still the most awsomest OS from M$, WinXP, best for me.. And it's true, anyone who have used Win95/98, they don't need much help in troubleshooting problems, hardly there are any problems that these users cannot resolve, those were the OS's that taught us the basics to use windows, there were'nt much automated tools or help forums at that time, everything used to take some deep understanding of problem and resolving it, and i used to soo much love that... :D

[DKT27]

Summed it up. :)

Even though I personally felt Windows 7 was quite good, but basically, I'm not entirely angry at Windows 8 - but I hate bloody Metro.

XP came with the great option of having two start menus, classic and new one. Everywhere I went, people used the Classic one, but not me, inspite of getting used to the Classic Menu, I liked and used XP style menu. The reason was, it was beautiful, less bulky and effective (unlike Metro, which is fugly, bulky, fullscreen and waste of time). Why can't Microsoft give two options here too?

Anyone remember them wallpapers of Windows 98 or those great screensavers? :D

And yes, the problems with Windows 95/98 made you understand / know the OS very well. Introduce Metro only interface to child these days and he will never expert what is inside it - all dumbed down / noob friendly with crappy colours.

Also, last time I checked, in order to use the Windows Store, one has to turn on the UAC (and sign in too?). Which is nothing but a foolish dictator-like DRM by Microsoft.

[dcs18]

I'm not entirely angry at Windows 8 - but I hate bloody Metro.

unlike Metro, which is fugly, bulky, fullscreen and waste of time). Why can't Microsoft give two options here too?

Also, last time I checked, in order to use the Windows Store, one has to turn on the UAC (and sign in too?).

Have you not modded your system, yet - are you still affected by Metro, Windows Store and / or UAC (just curious.) :)

[OrioNeXus]

Nice post :thumbsup: .....Windows 8 with metro theme looks an alienware...I will continue with my windows 7 :rockon:

[DKT27]

Have you not modded your system, yet - are you still affected by Metro, Windows Store and / or UAC (just curious.) :)

All disabled with SiB, Windows Mananger, etc. if that's what you are saying. :)

However, I'm just making a point against Metro, which requires above 3 steps in the first place.

[eurobyn]

that is why we need to tweak more. nobody tells us not to tweak. i love windows 8 (the metro can be more : needs a tweak) but windows 8 is not that bad. and when windows .... - 3.1 cames out - nt - 95 - 98 - me -2000 - vista - 7 and now 8 we tweak some more and use other software to get it just right. i love start is back. windows 8 and start is back is just like another system working s it should. yes the metro needs serious tweaks but what did you expect from the first build ? the first build of vista whas not such good choice but now with service pack 2 and another 175 updates there to make it as good as it is. yes windows 7 whas a better choice. but whe are on windows 8 now. so when the bleu comes out you will see it will be even better.

Totally understand your point but I'm sure you do understand the fact that everyone has different needs for Windows for several reasons.

Take the Lightscribe Technology for instance. Very excellent but was introduced too early and now its almost unused if not dead technology.

I loved Lightscribe but it never caught on as others didn't like it so much or even ever used it.

Sometimes we have to face facts. Can you explain why Windows Vista was a flop ? From your Analogy it was a light button changing from left to right which would be valid of the start menu moved from the left to right side of the screen.

Unfortunately bad news travels a lot faster these days with social media. It used to take about 2 weeks for bad news to hit the headlines back in the days.

Lots of people hate Windows 8 and there's no denying it. Mostly the news is spread via social media and forums. There is no where to hide and Microsoft has to face the Music.

[MidnightDistortions]

I beg to differ.when win95 came out ,it was a total disaster,not functionally wise but stability wise .M$ didn't get that OS straightened out till almost 2000 with osr2 ,then

it was finally stable

It might have been popular ,but it was a mess

Till Windows 2000? I used 95, which was fine, then 98, which still remains the most awesome OS I've used (not the best, but awesome).

Infact, I'll go on to say that people who have effectively used Windows in the 95 and 98 days, will never find a PC problem that he/she can't solve. Just because they weren't the most stable out there, didn't mean there were bad. They were the perfect advertisement for the brand "Windows", unlike Windows 8.

Windows 95 was pretty stable for me at least with the PC i had when i was growing up. Windows 98 was fairly good but always had a problem with RAM. Either it wasn't enough or i was multitasking too much (too many heavy resource programs). I didn't really understand page files until XP though. I also tend to refresh the OS generally every time i ran into stability issues. (it might have been because i never got an A/V for it) I would have probably gotten a better PC experience with a homebuilt PC using Win 98 but again i wasn't that experienced with PC's yet. I experimented with it though which helped me better understand them a bit better. With that being said, Win 95 and 98 served their purpose.

Summed it up. :)

Even though I personally felt Windows 7 was quite good, but basically, I'm not entirely angry at Windows 8 - but I hate bloody Metro.

XP came with the great option of having two start menus, classic and new one. Everywhere I went, people used the Classic one, but not me, inspite of getting used to the Classic Menu, I liked and used XP style menu. The reason was, it was beautiful, less bulky and effective (unlike Metro, which is fugly, bulky, fullscreen and waste of time). Why can't Microsoft give two options here too?

Anyone remember them wallpapers of Windows 98 or those great screensavers? :D

And yes, the problems with Windows 95/98 made you understand / know the OS very well. Introduce Metro only interface to child these days and he will never expert what is inside it - all dumbed down / noob friendly with crappy colours.

Also, last time I checked, in order to use the Windows Store, one has to turn on the UAC (and sign in too?). Which is nothing but a foolish dictator-like DRM by Microsoft.

I never used the classic start menu with XP. I knew XP came with it but i never bothered to really try it out. I was perfectly fine with the way XP's default was. Didn't Win 95/98 had a starts flying at warp speed or something like that? I remember an OS having that.. i need to find one that'll work with Win 7, i could probably see if any of these older PC's that have Win 95/98 have them that i can check that.

I remember a few people complaining about XP having a cartoonish look, but i find it more appealing than Win 8 colors. Still, i am holding out on Win 7 for now and waiting to see what MS has in store for Windows. I am perfectly fine with my setup as is, too busy to really mess with any other OS right now.

[lordnsane]

I never used the classic start menu with XP. I knew XP came with it but i never bothered to really try it out. I was perfectly fine with the way XP's default was. Didn't Win 95/98 had a starts flying at warp speed or something like that? I remember an OS having that.. i need to find one that'll work with Win 7, i could probably see if any of these older PC's that have Win 95/98 have them that i can check that.

yes, win98 had that screensaver, but the best one for me was the one with a house and a cat, gosh we used to stare at it for minutes to see the cat here and there, darkish and cool... :wub:

[Whoopenstein]

yes, win98 had that screensaver, but the best one for me was the one with a house and a cat, gosh we used to stare at it for minutes to see the cat here and there, darkish and cool... :wub:

That was in the Windows 95 Plus Pack. I still have it around here somewhere . . .

[vissha]

MS & Windows was an all in one pack and only few to go for third party! - Till Windows 7.

MS & Windows is now just a irregular base s/w and most to third party/MS Store/reg Hack! - From Windows 8.....

But Costs Similar/Slightly low[Win7 & Win 8]

Many would get the point from the lines above!

[Nedal0]

The old saying still goes ...... IF IT AIN'T BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT

100% agree ... MICROSOFT !!!!!!!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: => :wtf:

OK... go back to the days of DOS 6.2 then... That means you can not use any kind of GUI to use your computer. You can not play any advanced 3D games because of the limitations of DOS 6.2. Drop back down to 2 Gig of usable memory with a maximum of 2 GB of hard drive space.

Forget about using Blu-ray because that runs on Java, which really didn't play too well with DOS.

So, please explain to me again how change is bad?

Bad change is bad , simple as that :)

Well Said "Bad change is bad , simple as that" Some people just don't get it. What the hell is this guy talking about DOS for ? If you like Windows 8 as it is, fine. You need to understand the rest of the world's population are not a result of your clone so get off your high horse and respect what other feel.

By the way stop referring to DOS because no one really cares about DOS

[nuthut]

Well Said "Bad change is bad , simple as that" Some people just don't get it. What the hell is this guy talking about DOS for ? If you like Windows 8 as it is, fine. You need to understand the rest of the world's population are not a result of your clone so get off your high horse and respect what other feel.

By the way stop referring to DOS because no one really cares about DOS

You totally missed the point of my comment. The idea that someone said microsoft making change is bad. If it wasn't for the "change" microsoft has made over the last 20 some odd years, you would still be using a DOS prompt.

No one really cares about DOS? REALLY???? REALLY?????

If it wasn't for DOS, you would still be writing programs in Basic:

10 CLS

20 PRINT "I HATE CHANGE"

30 REM BANG HEAD AGAINST WALL

40 GOTO 20

RUN

I HATE CHANGE

I HATE CHANGE

I HATE CHANGE

I HATE CHANGE

I HATE CHANGE

I HATE CHANGE

so on and so forth...

DOS is the basic building blocks and principles for the GUI that you love so much. So yes, DOS is very relevant.

* NOTE: If you don't know what BASIC programming is, do yourself a favor and research it a little bit. You will have a much greater appreciation for what you have that you take for granted

[nuthut]

010010010110011000100000011110010110111101110101001000000111001001100101011000010110110001101100011110010010000001101000011000010111010001100101001000000110001101101000011000010110111001100111011001010010110000100000011101000111001001111001001000000111000001110010011011110110011101110010011000010110110101101101011010010110111001100111001000000111010001101000011010010111001100100000011101110110000101111001001011100010000000100000010010000110000101110110011001010010000001100001001000000110111001101001011000110110010100100000011001000110000101111001

If you really hate change, try programming this way. Have a nice day

[MidnightDistortions]

The only difference between DOS and Windows 3.1 was that once MS released Win 3.1 DOS was just old and it was difficult to use.

So really DOS wasn't that intuitive compared to 3.1. There really wasn't anything wrong with Windows 95 either (other then maybe some program incompatibilities) it makes me wonder why anyone would even hate the start menu.

Fast forward to todays world and MS continues to take certain features, slowly. Windows 8 doesn't have Aero Glass and your spending $99 to get Windows Media Center back. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/feature-packs

DOS was decent during those times and i won't argue that some things about Windows 8 could be good but it's nowhere near good change. There is good and bad change. Windows 3.1, Win 95, XP, Vista/7 these are good changes. Windows 8.. well that's pretty much up to the user base now.

[nuthut]

The only difference between DOS and Windows 3.1 was that once MS released Win 3.1 DOS was just old and it was difficult to use.

So really DOS wasn't that intuitive compared to 3.1. There really wasn't anything wrong with Windows 95 either (other then maybe some program incompatibilities) it makes me wonder why anyone would even hate the start menu.

Fast forward to todays world and MS continues to take certain features, slowly. Windows 8 doesn't have Aero Glass and your spending $99 to get Windows Media Center back. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/feature-packs

DOS was decent during those times and i won't argue that some things about Windows 8 could be good but it's nowhere near good change. There is good and bad change. Windows 3.1, Win 95, XP, Vista/7 these are good changes. Windows 8.. well that's pretty much up to the user base now.

ummmm...

DOS didn't get "harder" to use. The average PC user got lazy and didn't want to remember how to use it. DOS was still relevant all the way up Windows 98 SE when you still had to manually configure autoexec.bat and config.sys yourself if you wanted your PC to run more smoothly.

Once XP came into existence, true DOS went away and you now had a "DOS shell". You could emulate the features to run older software but you couldn't actually control your PC with it.

Just because you had a cute picture associated with a program on your desktop, it doesn't mean that it had a DOS core that you couldn't see.

No, Windows 95 was not a "BAD" operating system for its time, it gave you more access to your inner workings than Win 3.11 did. But way back in 1995, there was still the same argument of "Change is bad, I want my old shell I am use to". Low and behold, people adapted and changed with the newer technology.

Fast forward to 2013. We have this radically new OS that everyone is afraid of because it doesn't look like "old reliable". I can't like it, my friends don't like it. This argument is old and played out. I can almost guarantee in a year or two from now, everyone is going to be embracing the new change because doing it the old way is too hard and takes too many steps.

I really don't care if I have aero glass or not. It is pretty but very very useless. I don't think there is a practical use for the feature except to use up extra CPU cycles.

The "it will cost me $99 to upgrade to media center" argument is invalid. Microsoft was giving it away. If you was too stubborn to take advantage of it; too bad. Don't cry over the fact they are charging you for something they gave away. Same argument goes for the OS itself when once again, Microsoft gave it away for $15 with no need to verify a pre-existing copy of your OS.

End of rant. Have a great weekend

[DKT27]

No, Windows 95 was not a "BAD" operating system for its time, it gave you more access to your inner workings than Win 3.11 did. But way back in 1995, there was still the same argument of "Change is bad, I want my old shell I am use to". Low and behold, people adapted and changed with the newer technology.

Fast forward to 2013. We have this radically new OS that everyone is afraid of because it doesn't look like "old reliable". I can't like it, my friends don't like it. This argument is old and played out. I can almost guarantee in a year or two from now, everyone is going to be embracing the new change because doing it the old way is too hard and takes too many steps.

I'll repeat my earlier argument from some other thread. If people didn't like the change Windows 95 offered, then how did Windows 95, in a very shot time, become "the most popular desktop operating system" of that time? And if that's the case, then why does Windows 8 have a very bad marketshare (even lesser than Vista)? It's simple, this is not about change, this is about bad change; people don't want Metro. It's fugly, hideous, absolutely useless for a hard-core user, intrusive, mobile targeted and lacking proper development too (more like a foetus of an ugly parents adapted by the high-standing parents). Infact, I'll go on a limb to say that the Metro is the worst thing ever made by Microsoft, or any software company for that matter.

[nuthut]

No, Windows 95 was not a "BAD" operating system for its time, it gave you more access to your inner workings than Win 3.11 did. But way back in 1995, there was still the same argument of "Change is bad, I want my old shell I am use to". Low and behold, people adapted and changed with the newer technology.

Fast forward to 2013. We have this radically new OS that everyone is afraid of because it doesn't look like "old reliable". I can't like it, my friends don't like it. This argument is old and played out. I can almost guarantee in a year or two from now, everyone is going to be embracing the new change because doing it the old way is too hard and takes too many steps.

I'll repeat my earlier argument from some other thread. If people didn't like the change Windows 95 offered, then how did Windows 95, in a very shot time, become "the most popular desktop operating system" of that time? And if that's the case, then why does Windows 8 have a very bad marketshare (even lesser than Vista)? It's simple, this is not about change, this is about bad change; people don't want Metro. It's fugly, hideous, absolutely useless for a hard-core user, intrusive, mobile targeted and lacking proper development too (more like a foetus of an ugly parents adapted by the high-standing parents). Infact, I'll go on a limb to say that the Metro is the worst thing ever made by Microsoft, or any software company for that matter.

Two words for you:

OS2 Warp ;)

[MidnightDistortions]

Fast forward to 2013. We have this radically new OS that everyone is afraid of because it doesn't look like "old reliable". I can't like it, my friends don't like it. This argument is old and played out. I can almost guarantee in a year or two from now, everyone is going to be embracing the new change because doing it the old way is too hard and takes too many steps.

I really don't care if I have aero glass or not. It is pretty but very very useless. I don't think there is a practical use for the feature except to use up extra CPU cycles.

The "it will cost me $99 to upgrade to media center" argument is invalid. Microsoft was giving it away. If you was too stubborn to take advantage of it; too bad. Don't cry over the fact they are charging you for something they gave away. Same argument goes for the OS itself when once again, Microsoft gave it away for $15 with no need to verify a pre-existing copy of your OS.

End of rant. Have a great weekend

No the argument i have with Windows 8 is that it's doing the same basic thing except you have to go to another screen to get it done. It's like the steering wheel on the other side of a car. Whether you do it the new way or the old way it's not going to make a bit of difference. The argument that Windows 8 is easier to use than Windows 7 is getting old. I don't like my desktop functioning like a cellphone or a tablet. If i want a tablet interface i'd go for a tablet. The problem that you don't seem to understand is the desktop is supposed to function like a desktop, not a tablet UI. That's the problem. But hey some users seem to enjoy their desktop/tablet UI. I don't think the users who prefer to strictly use the desktop should be forced to use something they don't like. In two years it's very likely that Windows 7 will still have a good amount of users. XP survived for 11 years. There is no reason why WIndows 7 won't lose a whole lot of users. You're talking as if every computer illiterate in the world will go for an OS that has some pretty profound changes. I keep hearing that the jump from Win XP to 7 was a hurdle for some.. nothing much has changed between the two other than the look of the UI. I could only imagine what people are thinking with Windows 8. I'd give it some more time before users decide.

Well there is an option to disable Aero glass. It barely breaks a sweat on my system.

You're not getting the point, so they were giving it away for free except then why then charge it $99 afterwards when they had it included for free in the previous OS's? That argument doesn't make sense. That's like buying a computer and all of a sudden they decide to not include the extra disks that come with it, if you want them you'll have to pay extra. That's just an example. It's easy to look away and point the finger at others for not being aware but the fact remains if you want Windows 8 and want WMC back be aware you'll have to pay an extra $99 to get it back. Or.. you can stay with Windows 7.