What did people do when Windows 95 came out?

[jimbo45]

That's awesome. I don't. Our opinions cancel each other out - see how it works? That doesn't make yours or mine better than the other, it means we think differently. It means we use our computers differently - and THIS is why people don't like Metro. It forces them to use their computer in a way that they find counterproductive, as well as counterintuitive. It's a lot deeper than just wanting a Start Button.

Agreed. I use 7 at home so I can get stuff done quickly. I am on my time and don't want to waste it. At work I use 8 on my laptop where I am less concerned about priductivity and get things done in a timely fashion. LOL!

I have users that I finally weened off of 98 only 2 years ago because they refused to give it up. Can you imagine trying to move them from xp to 8 metro... They complained that XP was to different from 98. I know what you are going to say... and here is my counter before hand... IT is a service based industry and the like all service based industries the customer comes first so there is no forcing the metro UI on people when there is an alternative. Something I think MS has forgotten along the way.

Windows 98 being used in the year 2010?!

Hi there
and where did most linuxes start from -- much earlier than that too -- the base kernel is still much the same as it was years ago albeit with new features like read and write to NTFS files -- but this stuff is usually loaded as a separate Module rather than being part of the kernel itself --shows how flexible Linux is. (Ok new drivers and GUI's available) but the base OS still has the same features.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[FSeal]

I have three other people testing Windows 8 Release Preview with me. Two have been using it since Developer, the other has been using it since the Consumer Preview. Though totally different that what they're used to, they actually like using Windows 8. I even probed into the reasoning and it boiled down to the following: no annoying popups at log in, faster and consistent speed, it's just different, and the Start Screen. One told me that the Start Screen is actually kind of pretty. The have been usability issues, but that was quickly resolved.

What actually made this interesting for me was that I was able to get a common PC user's perspective on this huge change. And what really shed some light was the fact that none of them really ever used the start menu in Windows 7 because what they needed was already pinned to the Taskbar. I was told that one didn't even bother with it. That struck me because I always clean up the start menu on every system I work so it's better to find programs and not search through folders. The design of the Start Screen eliminates.

Would you mind telling us what those people actually use their computers for? I mean how many programs to they use and what for? Email? Web? maybe a word document? A game or two?

Also the start screen does NOT eliminate the need for clean-up, it actually makes it MORE important than ever. How many programs have you tried installing? Install 10-20 programs or more (up to 50 or so over 2-3 year life time) that Metro screen will be the biggest ugly stick of a "start menu" imaginable without /constant/ trimming, just like people should do to the start menu. If you have to clean your start menu you will also have to clean your start screen. In fact I generally do very little start menu organizing but already I've had to (HAD TO) do a lot of start screen organising. It's not even a choice any more.

It all comes down to choice. Power users vs lightweight users. Power users have no want or need for metro /at all/. Not one single person *I* personally know that has seen or used it (And all my friends are professionals or big enthusiasts) like it /at all/. At least not on their desktop. But yeah, I guess my mom might like it, but why should my mom's complete lack of Windows desktop skills dictate the primary interface to my workstation? It's just plain ridiculous.

 

[killericarus]

Yes and what people don't understand is it took windows twenty years to break away from a kernel that was basically dos linux did that like 5 years after it started how many are old enough to. Know of the dos wars? Unix is the base of all and dos was the original which went three ways IBM, Micosoft and crapple. Microsoft and IBM fought over there versions of dos while unix had its own hybrid so to speak so microshaft takes crapples and makes a nondisclosed deal to ram it to ibm. So you have microshat that now has all three types of dos and they got sued for it IBM has been nowwhere to be seen from the start crapple runs off with their tail between their legs and unix has a surprise for them all which brought crapple to them so microshaft and IBM become only company's dos based kernel while unix,crapple and then linux said screw dos and here you have it twenty years later microshaft is starting to breakoff from dos and develop a better kernel and the result? A longhorn esq system that doesn't fail at all its effort

 

[FSeal]

Yes and what people don't understand is it took windows twenty years to break away from a kernel that was basically dos linux did that like 5 years after it started how many are old enough to. Know of the dos wars? Unix is the base of all and dos was the original which went three ways IBM, Micosoft and crapple. Microsoft and IBM fought over there versions of dos while unix had its own hybrid so to speak so microshaft takes crapples and makes a nondisclosed deal to ram it to ibm. So you have microshat that now has all three types of dos and they got sued for it IBM has been nowwhere to be seen from the start crapple runs off with their tail between their legs and unix has a surprise for them all which brought crapple to them so microshaft and IBM become only company's dos based kernel while unix,crapple and then linux said screw dos and here you have it twenty years later microshaft is starting to breakoff from dos and develop a better kernel and the result? A longhorn esq system that doesn't fail at all its effort

Everything you wrote there is wrong.

The one thing I will point out though, if you are you going to use words like "microshaft" and "crapple" at least be fair and use the term "screwnix". Balance your biases

 

[mdmd]

But yeah, I guess my mom might like it

Mommy will be buying millions of Personal Computers.

Mommy knows best !

 

[killericarus]

No fseal it is not wrong how long have you been in the industry? Are you even thirty years old? Do you still have momy wipe point is dude google dos wars go see how microsoft screwed over apple and ibm in 91-94 and for that matter if you knew anything you would know what started the term computer? And how dos was physically removed from microsoft branding because of a ten year battle between who owned dos

 

[killericarus]

Well let me stop flaming before the thread is ruined but to be clear I received my A+ before comptia was forced all liscenses to be renewed yearly and I also received my MCSE off of 2003 advanced server when did you get yours hmmmmm?????

 

[mdmd]

Thank You for your contribution.
You have talent.

I never said FSeal is wrong.
He is right,
entitled to his point of view.

I am 60 years old and glad MS screwed Apple and IBM.

I could even explain to you how a Central Processing Unit is designed
and how they function but not in the 8 forum.
Microsoft is a legal and successful enterprise.

Don't care who owns DOS.


What did people do when Windows 95 came out?
They bought new stuff,
had some fun.

 

[FSeal]

I think he was referring to me, actually.

I am 50 years old and have been a career programmer on dos 2.0 onwards for nearly 30 years. I lived what "killericarus" was merely reading about.

His views on the universe are obviously so colored with bias and vile that nearly everything that came out was twisted beyond all recognition and even rationality :/

 

[fdegrove]

Hi,

What did people do when Windows 95 came out?
They learned how to use the new Operating System.

Well at least in W95 there was something worthwhile to learn.
W8 only makes you unlearn what you've learned since then. Besides that, the so called new OS isn't all that different from W7 except for all the useless stuff that comes with it plus all the stuff that has been needlessly removed or hidden deep under the hood.
The emperor's new clothes?

Cheers,

 

[FSeal]

Hi,

What did people do when Windows 95 came out?
They learned how to use the new Operating System.

Well at least in W95 there was something worthwhile to learn.
W8 only makes you unlearn what you've learned since then. Besides that, the so called new OS isn't all that different from W7 except for all the useless stuff that comes with it plus all the stuff that has been needlessly removed or hidden deep under the hood.
The emperor's new clothes?

Cheers,

Yeah that was my reaction to that comment. W95 was well worth the effort, and you could tell it was right from the get go, it was SUCH a major improvement.

Sure it had all the same driver/hardware issues right off, every major windows OS had them, going from DOS to 3.1, 9x to XP, XP to vista... That's a heart ache that I'm willing to put up with because I usually love the forward progress MS has made with the OS.

This is the first major "Uh...." moment I've personally had in the entire series, and the first one that seems to be giving about half of everyone else such a pause too :/

 

[mdmd]

Hello Again...

This is my last post on this topic.
Glad heh !

When Windows 95 came out,
It was a dramatic improvement yes,
well received yes,
and most importantly,
it had a broad appeal to all age groups.

95 was not introduced as a business device,
(Windows NT was)
95 was introduced as a broadly accepted interface between human and machine,
that could serve as a platform for utility and entertainment.

I agree that the start screen might be seen as a return to Progman,
but the entire windows 8 package is an attempt to appeal again to all age groups.

It is for kids and adults.
It is for business and for entertainment.
It is a bold attempt to be new and different.
Stuff that is useless to some is useful to someone else.

Yes, it is a marketing tool.
That is what business is about.

again... probably dribbling,
not scoring any points.

anyway...
I am tired,
gonna stream a movie now,
good night.

 

[lehnerus2000]

The Hard Way

If you tried to clear that much out from the start menu, it would take A LOT more clicking to delete individual links and folders, clicking OK to delete, and clicking back open the start menu since it would close sometimes doing that. That was something I did last after a new install of 7, it was also not my favorite thing to do.....too tedious.

That's doing it the hard way.

Go to:

• Start Menu
• All Programs
• Right click and choose "Open All Users".

You could then remove all of the Office shortcuts (for example) with one click, instead of having to click on 16 Metro Tiles.

You can also use all of the standard selection techniques (e.g. draw a box, Ctrl + A, etc.).

What actually made this interesting for me was that I was able to get a common PC user's perspective on this huge change. And what really shed some light was the fact that none of them really ever used the start menu in Windows 7 because what they needed was already pinned to the Taskbar. I was told that one didn't even bother with it.

So they only ever used IE then?
If not, how did other things get pinned to the Taskbar?

The design of the Start Screen eliminates.

It eliminates searching through folders by making you search through everything instead.

 

[Coke Robot]

I have three other people testing Windows 8 Release Preview with me. Two have been using it since Developer, the other has been using it since the Consumer Preview. Though totally different that what they're used to, they actually like using Windows 8. I even probed into the reasoning and it boiled down to the following: no annoying popups at log in, faster and consistent speed, it's just different, and the Start Screen. One told me that the Start Screen is actually kind of pretty. The have been usability issues, but that was quickly resolved.

What actually made this interesting for me was that I was able to get a common PC user's perspective on this huge change. And what really shed some light was the fact that none of them really ever used the start menu in Windows 7 because what they needed was already pinned to the Taskbar. I was told that one didn't even bother with it. That struck me because I always clean up the start menu on every system I work so it's better to find programs and not search through folders. The design of the Start Screen eliminates.

Would you mind telling us what those people actually use their computers for? I mean how many programs to they use and what for? Email? Web? maybe a word document? A game or two?

Also the start screen does NOT eliminate the need for clean-up, it actually makes it MORE important than ever. How many programs have you tried installing? Install 10-20 programs or more (up to 50 or so over 2-3 year life time) that Metro screen will be the biggest ugly stick of a "start menu" imaginable without /constant/ trimming, just like people should do to the start menu. If you have to clean your start menu you will also have to clean your start screen. In fact I generally do very little start menu organizing but already I've had to (HAD TO) do a lot of start screen organising. It's not even a choice any more.

It all comes down to choice. Power users vs lightweight users. Power users have no want or need for metro /at all/. Not one single person *I* personally know that has seen or used it (And all my friends are professionals or big enthusiasts) like it /at all/. At least not on their desktop. But yeah, I guess my mom might like it, but why should my mom's complete lack of Windows desktop skills dictate the primary interface to my workstation? It's just plain ridiculous.

Two are using Photoshop CS6 and 5.5, Outlook 2010 (probably playing with the Mail app now), PowerPoint and Word 2010, Zune software to manage a Windows Phone 7, internet exploring, one is using it for DJing, iTunes, and some white-collar office work with faxing papers and the such. Basically the casual user with the exception of Photoshop and PowerPoint.

This maybe true, I've installed a bit of programs and pinned programs onto it. But realistically, the Start Screen can show about 40 items at the recommended resolution per screen, so it would probably span three screens if everything was on there from program installs. And, by the design of the Start Screen, it does make you aware of what is installed and makes it simple to clean up. Try doing that with the start menu, THAT is a true ugly shtick of menu once that happens. I do proactive trimming of the start menu, but 8 kind of feels easier. It could be even easier.

I guess it does come down to choice. I would rank myself as a power user and I think the Start Screen is pretty cool and makes some things easier. I think the new Ribbon UI makes file transfer and management faster. But that's just me....

 

[Coke Robot]

Yes and what people don't understand is it took windows twenty years to break away from a kernel that was basically dos linux did that like 5 years after it started how many are old enough to. Know of the dos wars? Unix is the base of all and dos was the original which went three ways IBM, Micosoft and crapple. Microsoft and IBM fought over there versions of dos while unix had its own hybrid so to speak so microshaft takes crapples and makes a nondisclosed deal to ram it to ibm. So you have microshat that now has all three types of dos and they got sued for it IBM has been nowwhere to be seen from the start crapple runs off with their tail between their legs and unix has a surprise for them all which brought crapple to them so microshaft and IBM become only company's dos based kernel while unix,crapple and then linux said screw dos and here you have it twenty years later microshaft is starting to breakoff from dos and develop a better kernel and the result? A longhorn esq system that doesn't fail at all its effort

Microsoft's early start was code that was made by Bill Gates, and later I think QDOS was bought to present to IBM. apple was building their new mac and took Xerox's GUI design in which Windows 1 took from too. In the early days, everyone was stealing and trading and selling and buying.

 

[Coke Robot]

If you tried to clear that much out from the start menu, it would take A LOT more clicking to delete individual links and folders, clicking OK to delete, and clicking back open the start menu since it would close sometimes doing that. That was something I did last after a new install of 7, it was also not my favorite thing to do.....too tedious.

That's doing it the hard way.

Go to:

• Start Menu
• All Programs
• Right click and choose "Open All Users".

You could then remove all of the Office shortcuts (for example) with one click, instead of having to click on 16 Metro Tiles.

You can also use all of the standard selection techniques (e.g. draw a box, Ctrl + A, etc.).

What actually made this interesting for me was that I was able to get a common PC user's perspective on this huge change. And what really shed some light was the fact that none of them really ever used the start menu in Windows 7 because what they needed was already pinned to the Taskbar. I was told that one didn't even bother with it.

So they only ever used IE then?
If not, how did other things get pinned to the Taskbar?

The design of the Start Screen eliminates.

It eliminates searching through folders by making you search through everything instead.

Hmm, I've never thought of trying to do a selection pane, I thought that wasn't there.....

Well, the people I have using 8, they get their items on the Taskbar from me. Every 7 install I do, I pin the most used programs to the Taskbar, and pin items to the Jump List on the Explorer and Control Panel icons. The start menu kind of gets used. Essentially, how I set it up, the start menu ends up not being used since everything needed is somewhere on the Taskbar.

 

[crawfish]

Also the start screen does NOT eliminate the need for clean-up, it actually makes it MORE important than ever. How many programs have you tried installing? Install 10-20 programs or more (up to 50 or so over 2-3 year life time) that Metro screen will be the biggest ugly stick of a "start menu" imaginable without /constant/ trimming, just like people should do to the start menu. If you have to clean your start menu you will also have to clean your start screen. In fact I generally do very little start menu organizing but already I've had to (HAD TO) do a lot of start screen organising. It's not even a choice any more.

I've never done anything to organize the Start Menu because I've never used it. It's only ever been good as a dumping ground for program installers, a place from which one gets icons to copy to other program launchers, that aren't so hard to navigate, that don't GO AWAY when you select something from them, forcing you to do the navigation all over again the next time. Windows 7 finally obsoleted 3rd party launchers with its taskbar pinning capabilities and put a cherry on top with jump lists, progress indicators, etc. The nicest thing about the Start Menu has always been that it can be ignored 99.9% of the time. Not so with the Start Screen, which is in your face, and which requires, like you say, a lot of organization effort, and which gives nothing useful in return, instead embodying all sorts of worst practices, which I've talked about several times in past messages.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Hmm, I've never thought of trying to do a selection pane, I thought that wasn't there.....

That was W7 Start Menu vs W8 Start Screen.

Well, the people I have using 8, they get their items on the Taskbar from me. Every 7 install I do, I pin the most used programs to the Taskbar, and pin items to the Jump List on the Explorer and Control Panel icons. The start menu kind of gets used. Essentially, how I set it up, the start menu ends up not being used since everything needed is somewhere on the Taskbar.

I see.

 

[Mike Lonewolf]

Since you mentioned it Bill at the beginning of this thread, do you still use your Amiga? And if so YOU have had to noticed the similarities between Windows 8, and the A2000 O/S, albeit the touch screen portion of Windows 8. Atari was SO far ahead of it's time
with the Amiga O/S and hardware, to me it was a dangum shame it didn't go over as well as the Commodore Vic20/64/Pet had at the time. As well as I still use my Amiga, some classics like us never die off.

 

[Eccles]

I'm sad to have to admit that I'm just old enough to remember various incarnations of the Commodore, Amiga, MacIntosh and Win3x operating systems, and having used them all at least enough to do a comparison, Win95 was to my mind in essence just an extension and reflavouring of the cake under the icing, with a bit of extra time for the bigger cake to rise and cool. Even during the Win95/98 years I spent a lot of my time in DOS teaching myself to code in (at the time) protected-mode C (sure I was a late bloomer, but being a high-school student with hand-me-down hardware is still a start, no matter how humble), so a lot of the extra fluff was just that. I do recall clearly thinking something along the lines of "Wow, even the installation process looks good!", but unlike those who like to partake in the cousin of the Pear, the 'that's perty' paint wore off pretty quickly instead of becoming more 'perty' with each new incarnation. (I must admit, the Apple is looking more and more palatable every day, but I'm still not sure I could actually stomach it.)

As I've made clear in another thread, I actually like to have complete control over my system, and Win95 didn't really encroach on that too much; just enough 'Windows-only' lock-out to protect the system, without stopping me from manually making critical changes to the system to support stuff DOS needed and Windows shouldn't touch. The main trick was simply learning what was kosher and what wasn't. As such, I loved Win95. Win98SE(SP2) finally fixed up the Win95 innards in most places that needed it, but it was IMHO the beginning of the bloatware era, in which Windows started introducing every possible window-dressing in the (sometimes vain) hope that it might hit on just the right combo to work.