Useful electronics programs that work on Win7 but not on Win10

[Zbig]

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.

That's right, much of the good stuff was introduced in Windows 8 just as many innovations people praised Windows 7 for were actually introduced in Vista. But it takes some courage to publicly say anything positive about these two versions just anticipating the sheer amount of hate you'll going to have coming your way for daring to do that. Oops...

[james_s]

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.

[Mr. Scram]

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.

[nctnico]

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.

[Mr. Scram]

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.

[nctnico]

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'.

[MT]

I get angry when i see Win10 UI and start throwing things at it!

[Mr. Scram]

It is more likely the results of the focus group got ignored because it said 'keep everything as it was'.

This thread has hit a rich vein of pure speculation.

[james_s]

It is more likely the results of the focus group got ignored because it said 'keep everything as it was'.

Since I'm still in touch with quite a few people who work for MS, I have a bit of insight into what goes on. The issue is more complex than many people realize but in a nutshell it appears to me very similar to the disjointed mess that is reflected in the OS. Windows took the current trajectory after several wrong assumptions were made about the direction of computers as a whole, and this whole vision relied on Windows Mobile which fell flat on its face. Now it seems there is no clear, coherent vision within the company and Windows is no longer a priority. As has long been the case, re-orgs and churn are frequent, and poor communication between different groups continues to be a plague. They fired all the professional testers with the new vision being developers would unit test their own code and the rest would be covered by automation. Unfortunately developers generally speaking make terrible testers, they want to write code not run test cases, and automation only covers precisely what it has been scripted to cover.

Now the focus groups and feedback, the main issues here are one, the people who participate are overwhelmingly Microsoft enthusiasts who have drank enough kool aid that they get excited over testing the OS for free, they tend to be very different than the bread & butter customers who actually USE the product.

Then there is the classic case of design by committee, you have a bunch of different people pushing the product in different directions with no clear vision of what the product is supposed to be and what problems it solves for the end user. Win8 started that last part, it seemed very much so to be a product designed around the needs of Microsoft's new business plan instead of what users actually needed or wanted. Then with 10 they tried to please everybody and ended up with a train wreck that pleases very few. Given how extremely hard it was pushed, and the fact that it required significant and deliberate effort to avoid, I think it speaks volumes that at the end of the free "upgrade" period it had not even hit 50%.

[Zero999]

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.

[Mr. Scram]

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 or exposing their families to more risk because they consider a safer car to have a less comfortable steering wheel sounds fairly daft. It sounds like what people would do, but daft nonetheless.

[nctnico]

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

No, the stupidity is completely at the manufacturer / owner of the airplane: after all why build an airplane nobody wants to sit in? I really shouldn't have to point this out 

[technix]

Since I am using it recently, the only version of classic Xilinx ISE that works properly under Windows 10 is ISE 14.7 after the manual NoSH patch. ISE 9.2 flat out refuse to install, and ISE 10.x is acting weird.

The lone Windows machine I use is way too big for desktop versions of Windows except Windows 10 Pro for Workstation (Windows 7 Pro won't work with my NVMe boot SSD, and both Windows 7 Pro and Windows 10 Pro has problems dealing with 128GB of RAM. Windows 10 Pro for Workstation uses Windows Server 2019 kernel but retains full Windows 10 desktop.)

[NorthGuy]

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.

I see. The stupid and incompetent people cannot see this, but you can. This is actually very typical situation which has been described long before Windows ever existed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

[Zero999]

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.

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!

[james_s]

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.

Even more so if it is ugly. Automotive history has many examples of technologically advanced cars that fell flat on their face in the market because the general public perceived them as ugly. It may be silly and/or irrational but looks matter and Windows has gotten *ugly*.

[james_s]

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.

[Zero999]

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.

Yes, that's true. MS Office was the exception. Lots of the other software followed the Windows standard quite well though. I always found it very odd and wondered why they made their office suite look different. Generally though, even MS Office looking different wasn't as bad as the current situation with the Metro crapps looking much bigger than everything else. They really should keep the Metro stuff for their tablet version. Yes they could allow it to run on desktop versions, in the interests of computability, but focus more on the traditional desktop GUI, which has worked quite well for years.

I thought Windows XP was best at having custom skins, even though the built-in lunar one was crap, it was easy to install another one so it looked completely different.

[james_s]

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.

[nctnico]

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.

Agreed. Although there was a funny moment when I told my kids they could spot the Teletubbies on the default background image if they looked carefully at the picture 

[james_s]

That default background image is a photograph taken in Eastern Washington just a few hours drive from where I live as I recall, quite a nice looking area. Not the best wallpaper for a desktop though in my opinion, it's too bright.

[Electro Detective]

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,

it gets the 'write zeros to hard drive' day one spinning disk treatment,

i.e. Win 10's fate here, after a LOT of wasted time and patience 

lost faith in AWESOME marketing BS, techno waffle from sold out geeks   

and lost time reading/replying to corpotroll apologists       defending the cumbersome, no favors, eye candy code trash 


that was initially offered as a free (forced) upgrade,

aka millions of reluctant, free MS beta testers for a silly phone styled OS that may draw in some Mac big spenders too, 

= win win dows   

[Zero999]

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 agree about the default XP theme being terrible, but the good thing about Windows XP, was the skin could be completely changed. Here's the skin I used to use a lot on my old XP machine.

Unfortunately Microsoft dropped the custom skin support with Windows Vista onwards. It's a shame, rather than messing around with aero, they should have spent the time producing some nice looking skins.

[Electro Detective]

Plain light grey or MS blue Desktop for me   

It's easy on the eyes, what little of it that's visible

..under all the scattered sardined folder and shortcuts litter   

[nctnico]

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,

I have a similar issue: whenever I fire up Windows10 (in a VM) it needs an hour or so to run a process which seems to do nothing other than using 100% of the CPU and it can't be killed. Very nice if I want to test something quickly or use it for Skype.  I've tried to let it run, get all updates but the next time it is the same story allover again. Maddening and utterly useless.