HP sticks thumb in Microsoft's eye, extends Windows 7 option for new machines While Microsoft continues to push its less-than-beloved Windows 8, HP is citing "popular demand" in opting instead to flog its machines equipped with Windows 7, an operating system that will turn five years old this year.. The company said that it would allow users the option of ordering both desktop and notebook systems …
"Windows 7, an operating system that will turn five years old this year..
....Windows 7 support is set to continue in earnest until mid-January 2015, when the OS is slated to exit the mainstream support cycle and begin a five-year run as a limited "extended" support product "
"Most companies i know are still ridding themselves of xp by rolling out windows 7.
Hardly going to switch to Win8 but don't let that stop the kids declaring epic fail.
as above.
EPIC FAIL
They should have given up at 3.
MS really need to adapt to the reality that this is not the 1990s any more. They can't just tell the world what to do.
Forcing people to make a choice between W8 and OSX or some such is stupid when they would willingly take W7 instead.
Basically: "You know those great wholesome sandwiches you like so much? Well we won't sell them to you. You can buy this turd sandwich or sod off to McD."
Exactly the sort of customer interaction they teach you to avoid in marketing 101.
It seems like MS Operating Systems and movie sequels are very similar: Every other one sucks.
I guess Star Wars proves the exception then as Star Wars (ok), Empire Strikes Back (BEST FILM EVER! .-And in this definition "Other"), and Jedi Strikes Back (meh tier). kinda breaks your loop.
Empire.
Blasphemy!
Empire had the better ending! I mean, Luke gets his hand cut off, finds out Vader's his father, Han gets frozen and taken away by Boba Fett. It ends on such a down note. I mean, that's what life is, a series of down endings. All Jedi had was a bunch of Muppets.
I don't know what the problem is with W8. I've had it here for the last 12 months. I recall the first 3 days were a bit nauseating because I couldn't figure out how to do anything. Then I downloaded a cheap 3rd party add-on and everything has been hunky-dory since.
....that 3rd party add-on gave me back the popup Start menu....
If Microsoft wanted to know why W8 has been such a massive failure then in my view they only need to look at why they decided to ditch the Start menu which everyone has been so familiar with since the birth of Windoze. I consider it's too late for W8 now - it's gone the way of Vista in terms of public perception and they'd be better off awarding it pensionable status and working on a better W9.
W7 was in my view a great operating system. It didn't need to be replaced - just updated.
Microsoft have penalised loyal customers twice now (with Vista and W8), I don't think they will be given another chance to screw up.
"I recall the first 3 days were a bit nauseating because I couldn't figure out how to do anything. Then I downloaded a cheap 3rd party add-on and everything has been hunky-dory since."
You had to download a third party add-on to make the OS non-nauseating? That is why people have a problem with Windows 8.
"Hypocritically, these are generally the same people who boast about how many 3rd party GUIs there are for Linux :|"
Not really the same thing is it though, as "Linux" doesn't have a GUI of its own. Its just a kernel. The user decides on all the userland stuff it wants to use - by selecting a distro if they want a friendly set of well maintained packages, or by building their own if they want ultimate control over everything.
You can't remove the GUI from Windows 8 and replace it with one you like. You can augment it with 3rd party tools to do tasks but that's about it.
Also, a good reason to use Windows 8 as a base with your 3rd party add-ons is the fact it is significantly faster than Windows 7 for things like I/O.
Hypocritically, these are generally the same people who boast about how many 3rd party GUIs there are for Linux :|
Ahhh but, there's the flaw in your logic, there Pockko!! Linux uses multiple Desktop Environments BY DESIGN!! Unlike MicroSoft that'll gladly tell ya that its their way, or the Highway.
"Hypocritically, these are generally the same people who boast about how many 3rd party GUIs there are for Linux :|"
All GUIs are 'third party' in most GNU/Linux distributions, as plenty others have pointed out.
Now, if Microsoft actually provided a choice (Windows Classic vs Windows Modern), what do you think might happen?
"Hypocritically, these are generally the same people who boast about how many 3rd party GUIs there are for Linux"
"Linux" is a kernel. Technically, every GUI for Linux is a "third party GUI." I believe that Linux supports boast about the fact that the OS they use respects end-user choice...a concept towards which Microsoft is quite openly hostile.
I jumped to OSX when Vista came out but Windows 8 lured me back, I think it's great. I have no problem learning a new way of doing things, I've done it lots of times jumping between Linux, OSX and Windows over the last 25 years.
However I can see why it would be a problem for a company rollout. Windows 7 was a pain to roll out to lots of users who were used to XP so I can sympathise with IT depts, desktop support and trainers having to deal with people freaking out over why nothing is where is should be, especially the much beloved START menu.
Granted I had plenty of time to try it and an option to quit if I didn't like it but many don't have the time or an option to quit, so from that point of view again I can understand why people dislike it.
However I can see why it would be a problem for a company rollout. Windows 7 was a pain to roll out to lots of users who were used to XP.
Quick POP QUIZ: List the way(s) in which Windows 7 differs from XP, visually without having to cite the Aero Interface. Which is just XP Task Bar with a Translucent Alpha Chanel and a gimmicky 3D Task Switcher? ....
Quick POP QUIZ: List the way(s) in which Windows 7 differs from XP, visually without having to cite the Aero Interface. Which is just XP Task Bar with a Translucent Alpha Chanel and a gimmicky 3D Task Switcher? ....
The most serious initial problem is the fucked up UI that's the login screen. Too much hidden and the bloody "switch user" button is bigger and more prominent than the "login" button itself. As a result, a huge number of users given their first experience of Windows 7 fail to login. Repeatedly. They can learn quickly but it's a recurring problem and sensible design would have prevented this. Likewise, the username is not prominent where even the XP login screen showed the username in more importance, instead the login user "picture" is shown much more important, visually masking the username below. Yes, users can setup their own login pictures but this is per user per system and while this works for a home system, it's complete fail on a company domain system.
Once the user is logged into the shell, it's a relatively simple case of showing them that the start menu (always a dumb name when linked to "shut down") and is replaced by a pizza splat icon instead much like certain versions of Office. The other part is to show them how to pin applications to the start menu and the taskbar and most users are set to go as the rest is familiar enough to Windows XP to not make much difference.
Compare this to Windows 8 where the user interface is so fucked up, I even had to google (on a different system) to work out how to unlock the screen... Hiding stuff in an interface, either through invisibility or obfuscated controls, and expecting people to find it is never a good interface design.
"Quick POP QUIZ: List the way(s) in which Windows 7 differs from XP, visually without having to cite the Aero Interface. Which is just XP Task Bar with a Translucent Alpha Chanel and a gimmicky 3D Task Switcher? ...."
The poxy whoresons took away my up arrow. 5 years of use, and I still loathe "breadcrumbs". End up installing classic shell on all my long-term Win 7 systems just to get the up arrow back.
Amorous Cowherder: I think I'm going to use that comment in an article. Your story is a great description of exactly how software transitions should be managed. Where the existence of choice creates options that lure individuals away from existing installs, not where users are forced without recourse. We may disagree about the utility and usability of Windows 8, but the concept of mobility between systems is important.
You've upgraded to a new OS, only to use a third party programme to go back to how it was in Windows 7.
So what, therefore, was the point? It's clear they've put all their time and effort into the garbage nobody wants, as opposed to polishing the desktop environment to a mirror shine, which is what people actually wanted.
"as opposed to polishing the desktop environment to a mirror shine, which is what people actually wanted."
That's not what I wanted at all, shine on the desktop gets switched off for speed as a matter of course. What I wanted was to be rid of the annoyances like the whole OS freezing when one network connection in one explorer window takes a long time to respond. Or when you click to open Program A then select one already running to get on with while you wait Program A should be kept in the background while it loads not allowed to keep grabbing focus.
Actually, the 'mirror shine' that I was looking for was a damn file manager that did not crash all the time. This year alone (I'm talking about 21 days), Windows Explorer has crashed 17 times. And you can't right click on anything in the navigation window; instant crash right there. Or how about all those times when Windows wants to 'help' you? Say you try to drag n drop something to the navigation pane and just as you drop it, Windows has decided it knows just where you wanted to put it, which wasn't at all where you wanted it. Now you have to figure out where it went and start over. And why oh why do you still have to hack the registry in order to get the immensly useful copy/move TO FOLDER right click option???? This is the g**damn mirror polish I'm looking for!!!! [using 7 BTW]
Actually, you're almost right. It's all down to what you want to use and how. If you think back to when Windows 7 first came out, Microsoft were trying to push its touchy-feely side but soon realised that the desktop was never really meant for that sort of thing. However, since the vast majority of Windows 7 installs ended up on desktop and laptop machines, who cared?
Windows 8, however, was a big shift away from the desktop in an attempt to try to control the tablet market in the same way as they had controlled the desktop market, using a similar tactic to the one that they used in the console market. The difference is that Microsoft didn't really benefit from the console market until the competition screwed up, at which point they could really push the XBOX 360 as far as they wanted.
Just as with the console market, there are two major competitors in the tablet market, neither of which have made an appreciable mistake as yet. Apple keep their tablet involvement apart from their desktop environment except where absolutely necessary and Android haven't really made a mark on the desktop as yet. Both are big successes and Microsoft have not found a way to discredit either or benefit from mistakes.
What this means is that Windows 8 has no real inroad into the tablet market and may never have, but you won't know for sure for some time. Meanwhile Microsoft, in their impatience and insistence that touch is the next big thing, have annoyed users for whom touch is of no real use. If they finally get the message with the next version, there may be a way to save the situation but Windows 8 was a gamble by Microsoft. My own view is that, just as with the netbook and the console, Microsoft got into the game far too late. This time, however, Microsoft are in danger of losing the farm.
"I consider it's too late for W8 now - it's gone the way of Vista in terms of public perception"
HP's action would suggest that you are right. Win8.1 with the start menu of your choice (perhaps even Microsoft's own start screen) is a perfectly usable desktop, lighter and faster than Win7 in my experience, but no-one is listening. That's probably because of Microsoft's own breath-taking arrogance in not listening to user complaints *throughout* the Win8 beta program, meaning that by the time it went retail all the world's IT journalists were only too able (and happy) to rubbish the new UI, at length and repeatedly, in article after article.
meaning that by the time it went retail all the world's IT journalists were only too able (and happy) to rubbish the new UI, at length and repeatedly, in article after article.
And IMHO rightfully so too.... Windows 8 is like nothing that has gone before it. It undoubtedly works well enough in a RT Device. But, I nether have the will, or opportunity to either upgrade, or replace my entire Rig, (A perfectly running C2D@2.13Ghz), just so I can run Windows 8 with a Touchscreen Monitor, (Which to MicroSoft's defense), have been 'round at least since 2009. At the time I thought it was cool. But even in '09 I was still asking the question. How the Hell do you make use of it half way over the desk? This "Gimmick" has failed Touchscreens on the Desktop have, never flown en-mass. Nor are they ever IMHO likely to either. But
Fact is my ancient crusty old Beige Box is still able to run Windows 7 very VERY well, and most of the Software I still use on it runs at a fair tick to. If there's one piece of crap I would replace it would be the Graphics Card. But, since I care less about answering that Eternal Question, of "Will it run Crysis?!" I don't feel the urgency to ever find out.
@Ken Hagan
I still can't say the same for Windows 8.1. Even with a Start Menu replacement, there's still hotcorners making remote support and/or remote access in a windowed client a flipping nightmare. Controls and settings are hidden, illogical and non-unified. Worse, they've replaced menu + toolbar with ribbon bars all over the OS. These are functionality and usability issues that make Windows 8 AND 8.1 a no-go for me.
That's before we get to the aesthetic issues of the Metro UI, especially as it applies to the desktop. Flat, featureless chrome just doesn't work for my brain. I need to see my click/touch targets. The inability to revert Windows 8 to classic mode is a real issue for me: my brain has trouble instinctively finding which button to push to make the necessary events occur, because it's all flat. I actually have to think about where to click and what to click on, something that slows down my day-to-day interaction with the PC.
In the end, there are a bunch of "minor" changes to the UI that cumulatively result in an OS in which common tasks that were so ingrained as to be autonomic take me longer to accomplish than in the previous incarnations of the same OS.
Why the would I pay money for that? 8.1's additional button or no?
I have just had my first extended experience of Win 8 on a laptop I was setting up for a relative. Once I had worked out how to upgrade to 8.1 and got the desktop back - yes, I know it was always there, really - this has shown me that at least 8.1 is quite a nice operating system. It has its quirks, but so does every OS I have ever used.
My biggest criticism was reserved for the hardware. The left and right buttons are incorporated in the one piece surface trackpad. This required extreme accuracy in clicking or the cursor went shooting off, and after 5 minutes of this, I grabbed a mouse and control returned. Medium sized Sony Vaio - nice machine except for the trackpad.
Chris Cosgrove
”My biggest criticism was reserved for the hardware. The left and right buttons are incorporated in the one piece surface trackpad. This required extreme accuracy in clicking or the cursor went shooting off, and after 5 minutes of this, I grabbed a mouse and control returned. Medium sized Sony Vaio - nice machine except for the trackpad.”
The track pad in a lot of PC laptops are DREADFUL, especially the cheaper ones. A lot of them are so bad at doing multitouch that you'd be better off with a decent old fashioned single finger touchpad.
MS has apparently got some sort of industry working group together to try an improve the situation, because it really, truly ruins Win 8 for those without / not wanting a touch screen. Windows 8 with a decent touchpad like the Logitech T650 is much improved, but it's a rare laptop indeed with one as good as that.
MS really dropped the ball with this one. You want to release an OS that depends on a trackpad as good as a Mac's, you'd better specify it down to the very last detail in your hardware compatibility certification scheme. They were living in cloud coockoo land if they ever thought that everyone would want/buy/be provided with a touch screen.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
