I love all this wallpaper

[Uly]

As for day-to-day usability, Windows is a clumsy nightmare, IMO.

Can you give an example? I'm still impressed about being a very unusual person for being happy with Windows

[Jeremy Bernstein]

As for day-to-day usability, Windows is a clumsy nightmare, IMO.

Can you give an example? I'm still impressed about being a very unusual person for being happy with Windows

Exhibit #1: Choose folder dialog always opens to the root of the file system, rather than to the last location accessed, even from within the same app.

Exhibit #2: You can't drag documents to the big icons in the start dock. Why not? In XP, this just doesn't work. In Win7, it "sticks" the document to some list of favorite documents which I don't care about, instead of just opening it.

It's all about the details...

Jeremy

[orgfert]

I'm still impressed about being a very unusual person for being happy with Windows

If it meets your need, that's good. I'm happy for you. Others have more dynamic, demanding circumstances and requirements, such as an ability to customize workflow or work with a more intuitive interface. They also need something designed first and formost to be robust, from the ground up, i.e. something of professinal grade. They need something that is not continually undermining productivity with down time or other forms of system unavailability caused by arbitrary Microsoft policies.

The first thing I do when getting a new Windows machine from my employer is install Cygwin. Without it, I have no robust, professional grade tools to streamline and automate my workflow. Windows is useless out of the box. Contrast with Linux or Mac OS X (UNIX) which come standard with professional grade utilities, coding and scripting tools.

Windows also disables many legacy applications you already paid for. If you want to use them it charges you extra. For example, if you paid for an Windows XP application and have used it already for years on XP, then upgrade to a Windows 7, it will cost you extra for a Windows version that won't break when you try to run your XP application. It's holding your applications hostage, demanding payment before releasing them back to you. Windows is a palpably user-hostile environment, suspicious of your every move, always with an eye on your wallet.

[Uly]

Exhibit #1: Choose folder dialog always opens to the root of the file system, rather than to the last location accessed, even from within the same app.

Around here Choose folder dialog always opens to last location accessed. Even, I think my sister found a way to do it type based, so the folder openend depends on the kind of file you're working with.

Exhibit #2: You can't drag documents to the big icons in the start dock.

I wasn't aware that Windows had a start dock. For that I use third party application RocketDock.

They need something that is not continually undermining productivity

How does Windows undermine productivity?

with down time

What down time? My Windows is always up when I want to use it.

caused by arbitrary Microsoft policies.

I'm not aware of obstructive Microsoft policies, I just turn off the Firewall and auto-updates and I seem ready to go.

The first thing I do when getting a new Windows machine from my employer is install Cygwin.

Is it the DLL that goes in the application or system folder?

Windows is useless out of the box. [...]

Windows is a palpably user-hostile environment, suspicious of your every move, always with an eye on your wallet

Probably many things you say are true, but these last comments sound like an exaggeration.

Anyway guys, I just find it weird that it seems as if my Windows is alien or we're talking about different OSes, I was just curious of why.

[orgfert]

I wasn't aware that Windows had a start dock. For that I use third party application RocketDock.

"* Please note that Windows XP x64 Edition, Windows Vista 64-bit Editions, Windows 7 64-bit Editions, and alternate shells are not yet supported."

Oops.

They need something that is not continually undermining productivity

How does Windows undermine productivity?

with down time

What down time? My Windows is always up when I want to use it.

We're talking typical user experience, you know, where people actually put a computer under "load" for months on end. My Vista machine was utilizing the ATI GPU (the graphics accelerator) to fold proteins, 365x24. See Folding@Home.

caused by arbitrary Microsoft policies.

I'm not aware of obstructive Microsoft policies, I just turn off the Firewall and auto-updates and I seem ready to go.

http://catb.org/jargon/html/E/evil-and-rude.html

The first thing I do when getting a new Windows machine from my employer is install Cygwin.

Is it the DLL that goes in the application or system folder?

http://www.cygwin.com/

Windows is useless out of the box. [...]

Windows is a palpably user-hostile environment, suspicious of your every move, always with an eye on your wallet

Probably many things you say are true, but these last comments sound like an exaggeration.

Anyway guys, I just find it weird that it seems as if my Windows is alien or we're talking about different OSes, I was just curious of why.

It's fortunate that Windows works so well for you. But it's a failure of imagination to assume that your requirements are not less than anyone else's. I need complimentary, robust tools. You don't. I need flawless and indefinite up-time. You don't. That alone explains many of the differences in our user experience.

[Uly]

"* Please note that Windows XP x64 Edition, Windows Vista 64-bit Editions, Windows 7 64-bit Editions, and alternate shells are not yet supported."

Oops.

Yeah, I only use it on my 32bit partition. And, anyway, what's so special about a dock? I have the applications I use most frequently anchored on the start menu, including there a link to a folder in where I have shortcuts for the rest of my applications.

I bypass entirely Windows's "All Programs>" functionality which is admittedly a mess, but I didn't install RocketDock in my 64bit partition not because it wouldn't work, but because I didn't see the need for a Dock.

We're talking typical user experience, you know, where people actually put a computer under "load" for months on end.

I didn't know putting the computer into 100% CPU load for months on end was typical, specially with the price of power as it is.

http://catb.org/jargon/html/E/evil-and-rude.html

I don't use Unix and am not aware that using Unix is typical for the Windows user.

http://www.cygwin.com/

But it goes the other way around, I've read a lot of Linux users complaining about not being able to run Windows software in their machine, problems with Wine and ultimately having to beg software authors to release Linux versions. With Windows you download and it runs.

It's fortunate that Windows works so well for you. But it's a failure of imagination to assume that your requirements are not less than anyone else's. I need complimentary, robust tools. You don't. I need flawless and indefinite up-time. You don't. That alone explains many of the differences in our user experience.

I agree, but I still don't think YOUR needs are typical, most people are just going to use Windows for checking their email and playing some games or do homework, I don't think I'm at the bottom of the need scale, and think that most people are just going to feel at home in Windows.

[orgfert]

"* Please note that Windows XP x64 Edition, Windows Vista 64-bit Editions, Windows 7 64-bit Editions, and alternate shells are not yet supported."

Oops.

Yeah, I only use it on my 32bit partition. And, anyway, what's so special about a dock? I have the applications I use most frequently anchored on the start menu, including there a link to a folder in where I have shortcuts for the rest of my applications.

I bypass entirely Windows's "All Programs>" functionality which is admittedly a mess, but I didn't install RocketDock in my 64bit partition not because it wouldn't work, but because I didn't see the need for a Dock.

You don't see the need because you've never had one and then had to go without. The specific example of its usefulness was of dragging a document to the application icon and having that application open the document without further ado. The dock will also do a hiding behavior like the task bar, only all your important app icons are right there without even clicking. It's a click-saver convenience that conforms to natural mouse gestures, speeding workflow by all important milliseconds, because you can't have computer response time be fast enough. This is something Apple understood from the very beginning. It goes back to studies on sub-second response times in mainframe terminal applications, where small changes in response time had a large effect on user stress levels.

But of course, if all you've ever known was something of a certain standard, you'll always feel surprised that others who have a familiarity with the alternatives do not share your feelings of bliss.

We're talking typical user experience, you know, where people actually put a computer under "load" for months on end.

I didn't know putting the computer into 100% CPU load for months on end was typical, specially with the price of power as it is.

It doesn't have to be typical, only possible. Windows can't handle it. Everthing else can. The techniques for robustness are known. But Microsoft has undermined its own designs for reasons other than stability being the most important thing. It's not the most important thing for them. Yet there has never been a valid excuse for their low level of stability. They just don't care. They don't have to care to make mountains of cash. Evil and rude is not an exaggeration.

http://catb.org/jargon/html/E/evil-and-rude.html

I don't use Unix and am not aware that using Unix is typical for the Windows user.

It's typical for professionals in comptuer science. So why design a system that is hostile to computer scientists? Doing so is "evil and rude".

http://www.cygwin.com/

But it goes the other way around, I've read a lot of Linux users complaining about not being able to run Windows software in their machine, problems with Wine and ultimately having to beg software authors to release Linux versions. With Windows you download and it runs.

Because Microsoft didn't/don't want Windows to be compatible with real operating systems. They want to trap users into always needing Windows, coercing them as much as possible into the necessity of buying Windows over and over again. This priority dictates that it be incompatible with other operating systems. Application designers are similarly trapped into devoloping for the platform with the largest installed base. It costs more to develop for more than one platform. Microsoft have succeeded in creating a catch-22 for developers and users, trapping both on a platform that is generally of inferior design to its rivals. When users are trapped into using your platform in this particular catch-22 way, you don't have to be the best, becuase that's not why people are choosing your platform anyway. They are choosing it because that's the only platform that has the applicaiton they want. Developers are trapped because that's where all the users are.

In ancient times, many many people bought the Apple IIe for one reason only, because it ran the amazing spreadsheet applicaiton VisiCalc. All they cared about was Visicalc. The platform was not the priority. This is the only reason Windows stays on top. They have otherwise always been the OS that sucked the most. True fact.

It's fortunate that Windows works so well for you. But it's a failure of imagination to assume that your requirements are not less than anyone else's. I need complimentary, robust tools. You don't. I need flawless and indefinite up-time. You don't. That alone explains many of the differences in our user experience.

I agree, but I still don't think YOUR needs are typical, most people are just going to use Windows for checking their email and playing some games or do homework, I don't think I'm at the bottom of the need scale, and think that most people are just going to feel at home in Windows.

That's OK if that's all you need it for. Go forth and be happy. But if you need it to do more serious work, it is a relatively more hostile and less stable environment when compared to the alternatives. When one is used to the alternatives, having to settle for Windows is extemely aggravating.

[Uly]

I don't disagree with any of your arguments, but may claim stands: "most people are going to be happy with Windows".

[orgfert]

I don't disagree with any of your arguments, but may claim stands: "most people are going to be happy with Windows".

Mongolians are happy living in a yurt.

[Uly]

But are most people Mongolians? No. You make it sound as if computer scientists were superior to other users, they just have needs that Windows doesn't fulfill.

The comments "Windows is useless out of the box" and "Windows is a palpably user-hostile environment, suspicious of your every move, always with an eye on your wallet" only apply to users with similar needs as yours, but I think most users: Don't need to have their computers ON, using 100% of the CPU for months on end; most don't need to use the Unix system along Windows; most don't need to install cygwin as soon as they install Windows; most don't need complementary robust tools for it; and most aren't computer scientists (people applying are fewer because these attributes tend to overlap).

So that for most users Windows is useful out of the box, and they don't have to deal with the problems between Windows and other operating systems.