Hacker News Reader

Comment by aristidb | Hacker News Reader

To this day, a large fraction of companies has ignored Windows Vista and 7, and is still running Windows XP. The upgrade to Windows XP went smooth by comparison.

I think one major reason why XP succeeded was that it actually made a lot of difference. Compared to Windows 98: Way less crashing, way more stability, and a much better platform to make serious software on - thanks to a modern 32-bit kernel with proper segregation between userspace programs, which finally became widely available and tested.

What does Windows 8 bring over Windows 7 that justifies an upgrade? Small incremental updates don't count, Windows 7 has those too (over XP), yet it's still far from universally adopted after over 3 years.

(Now my lens may be colored with my view that convergence between laptops and tablets is a stupid idea, so I don't really consider that as an actual advantage of Windows 8.)

View on HN

I installed Windows 8 this weekend on my primary machine (my school has an MSDN subscription). My initial impression is that it's actually an upgrade on the desktop - the Start screen really is better as an app launcher, and the app search works quite quickly (it was always dog-slow on Windows 7 on the same computer); the small upgrades to the task manager, taskbar, and Windows Explorer are nice too. It took a bit of time to figure out the new UI (it's all hot corners, but they're well hinted if you know to look for them), but it's pretty reasonable. That's the good news - the bad news is that all Metro apps (especially the Microsoft-branded ones) are useless, ad-ridden, under-featured dreck - if you clear them all from your start screen, it's a decent OS, but even Solitaire has ads, and takes a good 10 seconds to load because of its pointless XBox live integration.

You summed up my thoughts too. Windows 8 starts up about twice as quick for me, which is great. The explorer changes are nice enough, and if you don't like the rather large ribbon UI, you can just hide it.

However, I also agree with you on the apps. On a laptop, I haven't once used a Windows 8 app for anything (other than the weather app once or twice to try). First, the apps take awhile to start. Secondly, they are unintuitive on a laptop. Third, the ads. Why are there ads in the apps made by microsoft? Customers aren't going to like seeing ads in a OS they just paid for.

Also, navigation between Metro apps and desktop apps is somewhat confusing. Mousing over the top-left corner seems to only show your last used application unless you awkwardly swipe your mouse downwards. The only easy to use app switcher seems to be alt+tab.

Overall, Windows 8 isn't bad at all. But it is somewhat confusing. And if it seems confusing to people who use technology all the time, will it make any sense to those less tech-savy users? I don't think it will, but we'll have to see.

What does Windows 8 bring over Windows 7 that justifies an upgrade?

Real touch screen support and an app store.

I know that it may seem like not much given that it's focused in the Metro UI, but I think it can be a lot bigger than many here suspect.

I've already had a friend ask me about the Sony Vaio Tap 20. A 20" all-in-one that has a battery so you can take it to the kitchen or coffee table. All for $900.

Windows 8 gives you the ability to have the desktop experience, which is at least as good as Win7. But also to have a first class touch experience on the same device.

It fixes the problem I have of taking a tablet and a laptop on travel. I need my laptop for work, but the tablet for everything else.

Right now it may seem like a contrived example. I think in a year Apple will be doing the same thing. And in 18 months we'll have trouble imagining why this was at all controversial.

So you don't buy into the argument that vertical touch screens are unergonomic and unpleasant to use over non-trivial amounts of time, because they require holding the hand up to the screen?

It depends on what kind of machine you are using. If you are using a desktop then yes a touch screen is not a very ergonomic way to use your computer but then the mouse is not going anywhere. You can use that to do everything a touch would do. In fact in that case the new metro UI is rarely used.

But when a laptop or a tablet is being used, a touch is very natural because the screen is at the right distance and more importantly at a "right" angle. In fact it is way more convenient to use a touch based laptop instead of a tablet because of the angle the screen is at and the arm rest that the keyboard provides. Try it out yourself. I have RC running on my old hp and it is pleasant to use

Mythbusters, I would love to try it myself, but then I don't consider the expense of buying a laptop with a touchscreen to be worth it just for this experiment. :)

Maybe. I don't know. Although I think one thing people will realize is how much time they used to spend finding the mouse cursor and positioning it versus just directly going to touch the location, even on a desktop.

I think we're in the same state we were in a month before the iPad shipped. Will we really like a giant sized iPhone (as it was positioned at the time)? No one really knew. I think it's fair to say that it was mischaracterized, and people really do like it.

Interestingly, even the Verge (who typically skew anti-MS, but fairly even) seem to really like the experience thus far (with some reservations).

Ask me this question in a month or two after I get some actual touch screens. :-)

The update to XP was not just an upgrade, it was also a clear separation of duties in the overall infrastructure. Back then, power users just had "the latest and greatest" as their OS; with XP, Microsoft introduced real, substantial, hardcoded differences between "clients" and "servers", with different development roadmaps that got more and more out of sync with each other. This mapped much better to the needs of corporate IT than the previous status quo, so they were happy to jump on the bandwagon as quickly as possible to put order in their ranks.

Also, XP had an uncommonly long life due to the "security crackdown" imposed by Gates. Microsoft decided to release a more refined product (XPsp2) rather than more experimental offerings, in order to shore up their much-maligned approach to security. This meant that software vendors could spend more time on a stable platform, resulting in a better overall experience for IT personnel as well as final users. And of course, its release coincided with the Golden Age of personal computers, which became even more "personal" when laptop replaced desktops.

XP was given more time and chances to succeed than any other Microsoft OS, so it's hard to compare it with anything else.

Don't forget Windows 2000 which in my book was the Windows 7 of its day. I was one of the stubborn ones refusing to upgrade my windows machines until it was pretty much unavoidable because 2000 wasn't supported by the software any longer. Even though the leap from 7 to 8 certainly is bigger than 2000 to XP ever was it kind of feels like history repeating itself in a way.

Wasn't Windows 2000 targeted to the high end of the market only, and Windows 98 SE still the mass-market choice?

I know it's worth forgetting, but don't forget Windows Me too ;-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com