Don't forget to add the features new to Windows 8, because 8 introduced many of them. Windows 8 is hated by the masses, but a much more modern OS underneath.
One notable difference introduced in Windows 10 I'd like to highlight is the update system. I can't really agree with how Windows 10 does it exactly, but that something needed to be done was very evident. The Windows 7 and 8 update system was causing all kinds of problems in even modestly sized deployments. It's just unfortunate that Microsoft opted for a solution I don't consider quite ideal.
The core OS of Win8 was fine, arguably superior to Win10 but they ruined the UI and as the market illustrated, all the greatness in the world doesn't matter if the UI is crap. At least with 8 you can install 3rd party tools that fix many of the flaws.
That all said, people seem to have a hard time articulating what all these nebulous improvements actually do for me, the end user, because having used 8 and later 10 at work for some time I tried to like them but it was no use. Whatever improvements they had under the hood provided no tangible benefits to my productivity and were overshadowed by all the negative aspects that came with them. Microsoft has failed to convince me and millions of others of these net benefits and so have the fanbois.
That all said, people seem to have a hard time articulating what all these nebulous improvements actually do for me, the end user, because having used 8 and later 10 at work for some time I tried to like them but it was no use. Whatever improvements they had under the hood provided no tangible benefits to my productivity and were overshadowed by all the negative aspects that came with them. Microsoft has failed to convince me and millions of others of these net benefits and so have the fanbois.
This is exactly the problem. It is baffling that a huge company like Microsoft has such a large disconnect with their users. They try to be innovative by being different instead of being innovative by offering what their customers want. Windows8 was a big failure simply due to the odd-ball user interface. Trying to create a unified interface for both desktop and mobile devices... It is an admireable attempt but it should have been thouroughly tested on focus groups and their feedback taken seriously.
This is exactly the problem. It is baffling that a huge company like Microsoft has such a large disconnect with their users. They try to be innovative by being different instead of being innovative by offering what their customers want. Windows8 was a big failure simply due to the odd-ball user interface. Trying to create a unified interface for both desktop and mobile devices... It is an admireable attempt but it should have been thouroughly tested on focus groups and their feedback taken seriously.Who says they didn't? Maybe it's an illustration how focus groups can lead companies astray.
It is more likely the results of the focus group got ignored because it said 'keep everything as it was'.
It is more likely the results of the focus group got ignored because it said 'keep everything as it was'.
The core OS of Win8 was fine, arguably superior to Win10 but they ruined the UI and as the market illustrated, all the greatness in the world doesn't matter if the UI is crap. At least with 8 you can install 3rd party tools that fix many of the flaws.
That all said, people seem to have a hard time articulating what all these nebulous improvements actually do for me, the end user, because having used 8 and later 10 at work for some time I tried to like them but it was no use. Whatever improvements they had under the hood provided no tangible benefits to my productivity and were overshadowed by all the negative aspects that came with them. Microsoft has failed to convince me and millions of others of these net benefits and so have the fanbois.I guess people don't appreciate architectural and security improvements until it's too late. It's like people bemoaning how airbags or vaccines are a waste and provide no tangible benefit.
That's a bit of a daft analogy.
Of course people don't notice any improvements to the core of the OS, if the UI is crap. They just notice the crappy UI. A car might have superior safety features to it's previous model, but if it's more of a pain to drive, no one will want it.
That's a bit of a daft analogy.
Of course people don't notice any improvements to the core of the OS, if the UI is crap. They just notice the crappy UI. A car might have superior safety features to it's previous model, but if it's more of a pain to drive, no one will want it.You could argue the reverse. People shying away from a new type of aircraft which despite being safer has slightly less comfortable seats
Pretty much anyone can see significant changes if they know where to look and what to look for. The problem is that most people don't have a clue what they're talking about. Pretending that issues in old libraries mean that nothing has changed since isn't very realistic. Somehow people love to believe the stories they or others have pulled from thin air.
Well that's because 600x800 is no longer an acceptable screen resolution. My phone has a screen with over double that resolution.
But it's no excuse to make everything bigger for nothing. The whole idea of bigger resolutions is to have more screen real estate, but they keep making UI elements and dialogs bigger and bigger to the point that you practically need 4k to use windows 10. The use of space is horribly inefficient in windows 8/10.
Of course people don't notice any improvements to the core of the OS, if the UI is crap. They just notice the crappy UI. A car might have superior safety features to it's previous model, but if it's more of a pain to drive, no one will want it.
The problem is it's not consistent. Some things are bigger, others smaller. It's a total mess! Microsoft used to pride themselves on having a consistent UI across the Windows platform. They used to have a design guide to encourage developers to stick to it, but they've abandoned it. Look at how big the display setting is in control panel and how small character map is!
The problem is it's not consistent. Some things are bigger, others smaller. It's a total mess! Microsoft used to pride themselves on having a consistent UI across the Windows platform. They used to have a design guide to encourage developers to stick to it, but they've abandoned it. Look at how big the display setting is in control panel and how small character map is!
I would argue they have never been good at this, at least not since the days of Windows 3.1 or maybe 95. An example I noticed many years ago is MS Office, I don't know about recent versions since I've only used them on Mac but for a long time Office applications were skinned and ignored the Windows theme entirely. What this meant is you install a version of Office on a version of Windows of a different generation or with a custom theme it doesn't match and looks out of place. I have always found this inexcusable that their flagship productivity suite doesn't follow the theme of their own operating system. System themes exist for a reason and there are very few good reasons for skinned applications that don't utilize the theme.
I could never figure out that default gaudy blue and green skin XP came with, it was like they went out of their way to make it horrible. Of course I almost never saw anyone actually using that skin, one of the first things we all did when setting up a new XP machine was to change to the classic theme.
I could never figure out that default gaudy blue and green skin XP came with, it was like they went out of their way to make it horrible. Of course I almost never saw anyone actually using that skin, one of the first things we all did when setting up a new XP machine was to change to the classic theme.
When a host OS is a self serving smartass bossy boots program that randomly jacks control from the user
(great fun during a multi-task ram intensive resource hog session )
and isn't providing any real or benchmark provable benefits to the apps installed,