HP sticks thumb in Microsoft's eye, extends Windows 7 option for new machines While Microsoft continues to push its less-than-beloved Windows 8, HP is citing "popular demand" in opting instead to flog its machines equipped with Windows 7, an operating system that will turn five years old this year.. The company said that it would allow users the option of ordering both desktop and notebook systems …
"Windows 7, an operating system that will turn five years old this year..
....Windows 7 support is set to continue in earnest until mid-January 2015, when the OS is slated to exit the mainstream support cycle and begin a five-year run as a limited "extended" support product "
"Most companies i know are still ridding themselves of xp by rolling out windows 7.
Hardly going to switch to Win8 but don't let that stop the kids declaring epic fail.
as above.
EPIC FAIL
They should have given up at 3.
MS really need to adapt to the reality that this is not the 1990s any more. They can't just tell the world what to do.
Forcing people to make a choice between W8 and OSX or some such is stupid when they would willingly take W7 instead.
Basically: "You know those great wholesome sandwiches you like so much? Well we won't sell them to you. You can buy this turd sandwich or sod off to McD."
Exactly the sort of customer interaction they teach you to avoid in marketing 101.
It seems like MS Operating Systems and movie sequels are very similar: Every other one sucks.
I guess Star Wars proves the exception then as Star Wars (ok), Empire Strikes Back (BEST FILM EVER! .-And in this definition "Other"), and Jedi Strikes Back (meh tier). kinda breaks your loop.
Empire.
Blasphemy!
Empire had the better ending! I mean, Luke gets his hand cut off, finds out Vader's his father, Han gets frozen and taken away by Boba Fett. It ends on such a down note. I mean, that's what life is, a series of down endings. All Jedi had was a bunch of Muppets.
I don't know what the problem is with W8. I've had it here for the last 12 months. I recall the first 3 days were a bit nauseating because I couldn't figure out how to do anything. Then I downloaded a cheap 3rd party add-on and everything has been hunky-dory since.
....that 3rd party add-on gave me back the popup Start menu....
If Microsoft wanted to know why W8 has been such a massive failure then in my view they only need to look at why they decided to ditch the Start menu which everyone has been so familiar with since the birth of Windoze. I consider it's too late for W8 now - it's gone the way of Vista in terms of public perception and they'd be better off awarding it pensionable status and working on a better W9.
W7 was in my view a great operating system. It didn't need to be replaced - just updated.
Microsoft have penalised loyal customers twice now (with Vista and W8), I don't think they will be given another chance to screw up.
"I recall the first 3 days were a bit nauseating because I couldn't figure out how to do anything. Then I downloaded a cheap 3rd party add-on and everything has been hunky-dory since."
You had to download a third party add-on to make the OS non-nauseating? That is why people have a problem with Windows 8.
"Hypocritically, these are generally the same people who boast about how many 3rd party GUIs there are for Linux :|"
Not really the same thing is it though, as "Linux" doesn't have a GUI of its own. Its just a kernel. The user decides on all the userland stuff it wants to use - by selecting a distro if they want a friendly set of well maintained packages, or by building their own if they want ultimate control over everything.
You can't remove the GUI from Windows 8 and replace it with one you like. You can augment it with 3rd party tools to do tasks but that's about it.
Also, a good reason to use Windows 8 as a base with your 3rd party add-ons is the fact it is significantly faster than Windows 7 for things like I/O.
Hypocritically, these are generally the same people who boast about how many 3rd party GUIs there are for Linux :|
Ahhh but, there's the flaw in your logic, there Pockko!! Linux uses multiple Desktop Environments BY DESIGN!! Unlike MicroSoft that'll gladly tell ya that its their way, or the Highway.
"Hypocritically, these are generally the same people who boast about how many 3rd party GUIs there are for Linux :|"
All GUIs are 'third party' in most GNU/Linux distributions, as plenty others have pointed out.
Now, if Microsoft actually provided a choice (Windows Classic vs Windows Modern), what do you think might happen?
"Hypocritically, these are generally the same people who boast about how many 3rd party GUIs there are for Linux"
"Linux" is a kernel. Technically, every GUI for Linux is a "third party GUI." I believe that Linux supports boast about the fact that the OS they use respects end-user choice...a concept towards which Microsoft is quite openly hostile.
I jumped to OSX when Vista came out but Windows 8 lured me back, I think it's great. I have no problem learning a new way of doing things, I've done it lots of times jumping between Linux, OSX and Windows over the last 25 years.
However I can see why it would be a problem for a company rollout. Windows 7 was a pain to roll out to lots of users who were used to XP so I can sympathise with IT depts, desktop support and trainers having to deal with people freaking out over why nothing is where is should be, especially the much beloved START menu.
Granted I had plenty of time to try it and an option to quit if I didn't like it but many don't have the time or an option to quit, so from that point of view again I can understand why people dislike it.
However I can see why it would be a problem for a company rollout. Windows 7 was a pain to roll out to lots of users who were used to XP.
Quick POP QUIZ: List the way(s) in which Windows 7 differs from XP, visually without having to cite the Aero Interface. Which is just XP Task Bar with a Translucent Alpha Chanel and a gimmicky 3D Task Switcher? ....
Quick POP QUIZ: List the way(s) in which Windows 7 differs from XP, visually without having to cite the Aero Interface. Which is just XP Task Bar with a Translucent Alpha Chanel and a gimmicky 3D Task Switcher? ....
The most serious initial problem is the fucked up UI that's the login screen. Too much hidden and the bloody "switch user" button is bigger and more prominent than the "login" button itself. As a result, a huge number of users given their first experience of Windows 7 fail to login. Repeatedly. They can learn quickly but it's a recurring problem and sensible design would have prevented this. Likewise, the username is not prominent where even the XP login screen showed the username in more importance, instead the login user "picture" is shown much more important, visually masking the username below. Yes, users can setup their own login pictures but this is per user per system and while this works for a home system, it's complete fail on a company domain system.
Once the user is logged into the shell, it's a relatively simple case of showing them that the start menu (always a dumb name when linked to "shut down") and is replaced by a pizza splat icon instead much like certain versions of Office. The other part is to show them how to pin applications to the start menu and the taskbar and most users are set to go as the rest is familiar enough to Windows XP to not make much difference.
Compare this to Windows 8 where the user interface is so fucked up, I even had to google (on a different system) to work out how to unlock the screen... Hiding stuff in an interface, either through invisibility or obfuscated controls, and expecting people to find it is never a good interface design.
"Quick POP QUIZ: List the way(s) in which Windows 7 differs from XP, visually without having to cite the Aero Interface. Which is just XP Task Bar with a Translucent Alpha Chanel and a gimmicky 3D Task Switcher? ...."
The poxy whoresons took away my up arrow. 5 years of use, and I still loathe "breadcrumbs". End up installing classic shell on all my long-term Win 7 systems just to get the up arrow back.
Amorous Cowherder: I think I'm going to use that comment in an article. Your story is a great description of exactly how software transitions should be managed. Where the existence of choice creates options that lure individuals away from existing installs, not where users are forced without recourse. We may disagree about the utility and usability of Windows 8, but the concept of mobility between systems is important.
You've upgraded to a new OS, only to use a third party programme to go back to how it was in Windows 7.
So what, therefore, was the point? It's clear they've put all their time and effort into the garbage nobody wants, as opposed to polishing the desktop environment to a mirror shine, which is what people actually wanted.
"as opposed to polishing the desktop environment to a mirror shine, which is what people actually wanted."
That's not what I wanted at all, shine on the desktop gets switched off for speed as a matter of course. What I wanted was to be rid of the annoyances like the whole OS freezing when one network connection in one explorer window takes a long time to respond. Or when you click to open Program A then select one already running to get on with while you wait Program A should be kept in the background while it loads not allowed to keep grabbing focus.
Actually, the 'mirror shine' that I was looking for was a damn file manager that did not crash all the time. This year alone (I'm talking about 21 days), Windows Explorer has crashed 17 times. And you can't right click on anything in the navigation window; instant crash right there. Or how about all those times when Windows wants to 'help' you? Say you try to drag n drop something to the navigation pane and just as you drop it, Windows has decided it knows just where you wanted to put it, which wasn't at all where you wanted it. Now you have to figure out where it went and start over. And why oh why do you still have to hack the registry in order to get the immensly useful copy/move TO FOLDER right click option???? This is the g**damn mirror polish I'm looking for!!!! [using 7 BTW]
Actually, you're almost right. It's all down to what you want to use and how. If you think back to when Windows 7 first came out, Microsoft were trying to push its touchy-feely side but soon realised that the desktop was never really meant for that sort of thing. However, since the vast majority of Windows 7 installs ended up on desktop and laptop machines, who cared?
Windows 8, however, was a big shift away from the desktop in an attempt to try to control the tablet market in the same way as they had controlled the desktop market, using a similar tactic to the one that they used in the console market. The difference is that Microsoft didn't really benefit from the console market until the competition screwed up, at which point they could really push the XBOX 360 as far as they wanted.
Just as with the console market, there are two major competitors in the tablet market, neither of which have made an appreciable mistake as yet. Apple keep their tablet involvement apart from their desktop environment except where absolutely necessary and Android haven't really made a mark on the desktop as yet. Both are big successes and Microsoft have not found a way to discredit either or benefit from mistakes.
What this means is that Windows 8 has no real inroad into the tablet market and may never have, but you won't know for sure for some time. Meanwhile Microsoft, in their impatience and insistence that touch is the next big thing, have annoyed users for whom touch is of no real use. If they finally get the message with the next version, there may be a way to save the situation but Windows 8 was a gamble by Microsoft. My own view is that, just as with the netbook and the console, Microsoft got into the game far too late. This time, however, Microsoft are in danger of losing the farm.
"I consider it's too late for W8 now - it's gone the way of Vista in terms of public perception"
HP's action would suggest that you are right. Win8.1 with the start menu of your choice (perhaps even Microsoft's own start screen) is a perfectly usable desktop, lighter and faster than Win7 in my experience, but no-one is listening. That's probably because of Microsoft's own breath-taking arrogance in not listening to user complaints *throughout* the Win8 beta program, meaning that by the time it went retail all the world's IT journalists were only too able (and happy) to rubbish the new UI, at length and repeatedly, in article after article.
meaning that by the time it went retail all the world's IT journalists were only too able (and happy) to rubbish the new UI, at length and repeatedly, in article after article.
And IMHO rightfully so too.... Windows 8 is like nothing that has gone before it. It undoubtedly works well enough in a RT Device. But, I nether have the will, or opportunity to either upgrade, or replace my entire Rig, (A perfectly running C2D@2.13Ghz), just so I can run Windows 8 with a Touchscreen Monitor, (Which to MicroSoft's defense), have been 'round at least since 2009. At the time I thought it was cool. But even in '09 I was still asking the question. How the Hell do you make use of it half way over the desk? This "Gimmick" has failed Touchscreens on the Desktop have, never flown en-mass. Nor are they ever IMHO likely to either. But
Fact is my ancient crusty old Beige Box is still able to run Windows 7 very VERY well, and most of the Software I still use on it runs at a fair tick to. If there's one piece of crap I would replace it would be the Graphics Card. But, since I care less about answering that Eternal Question, of "Will it run Crysis?!" I don't feel the urgency to ever find out.
@Ken Hagan
I still can't say the same for Windows 8.1. Even with a Start Menu replacement, there's still hotcorners making remote support and/or remote access in a windowed client a flipping nightmare. Controls and settings are hidden, illogical and non-unified. Worse, they've replaced menu + toolbar with ribbon bars all over the OS. These are functionality and usability issues that make Windows 8 AND 8.1 a no-go for me.
That's before we get to the aesthetic issues of the Metro UI, especially as it applies to the desktop. Flat, featureless chrome just doesn't work for my brain. I need to see my click/touch targets. The inability to revert Windows 8 to classic mode is a real issue for me: my brain has trouble instinctively finding which button to push to make the necessary events occur, because it's all flat. I actually have to think about where to click and what to click on, something that slows down my day-to-day interaction with the PC.
In the end, there are a bunch of "minor" changes to the UI that cumulatively result in an OS in which common tasks that were so ingrained as to be autonomic take me longer to accomplish than in the previous incarnations of the same OS.
Why the would I pay money for that? 8.1's additional button or no?
I have just had my first extended experience of Win 8 on a laptop I was setting up for a relative. Once I had worked out how to upgrade to 8.1 and got the desktop back - yes, I know it was always there, really - this has shown me that at least 8.1 is quite a nice operating system. It has its quirks, but so does every OS I have ever used.
My biggest criticism was reserved for the hardware. The left and right buttons are incorporated in the one piece surface trackpad. This required extreme accuracy in clicking or the cursor went shooting off, and after 5 minutes of this, I grabbed a mouse and control returned. Medium sized Sony Vaio - nice machine except for the trackpad.
Chris Cosgrove
”My biggest criticism was reserved for the hardware. The left and right buttons are incorporated in the one piece surface trackpad. This required extreme accuracy in clicking or the cursor went shooting off, and after 5 minutes of this, I grabbed a mouse and control returned. Medium sized Sony Vaio - nice machine except for the trackpad.”
The track pad in a lot of PC laptops are DREADFUL, especially the cheaper ones. A lot of them are so bad at doing multitouch that you'd be better off with a decent old fashioned single finger touchpad.
MS has apparently got some sort of industry working group together to try an improve the situation, because it really, truly ruins Win 8 for those without / not wanting a touch screen. Windows 8 with a decent touchpad like the Logitech T650 is much improved, but it's a rare laptop indeed with one as good as that.
MS really dropped the ball with this one. You want to release an OS that depends on a trackpad as good as a Mac's, you'd better specify it down to the very last detail in your hardware compatibility certification scheme. They were living in cloud coockoo land if they ever thought that everyone would want/buy/be provided with a touch screen.
I'm a veteran Mac user - so I'll mostly sit on the fence re Windows:- I run a virtual machine with Windows 7 and I have tried Win8 elsewhere but wasn't too keen so I stayed with my VM on 7.
My real point is to agree whole-heartedly with you about trackpads: I don't care if it's by Apple, Sony or HP - give me an honest-to-goudness mouse any time.
"The left and right buttons are incorporated in the one piece surface trackpad. This required extreme accuracy in clicking or the cursor went shooting off"
If the trackpad is like the one on my vaio pro then it's one of the better ones. The trick is to learn to use the gestures, don't use the click it's clunky. Tap the pad to left click, tap with two fingers to right click. Once you get used to it, you'll wonder why this stuff was kept to Apple's for so long.
The downside of having a touchpad that supports gestures is that Microsoft think you would like to have random menus appear when you swipe in from the left or right of the pad with no way provided to completely disable.
Want to have some good, clean fun?
Just wait until the other PC manufacturers see what this move by HP does to their already non-moving inventory--and how THEY respond.
AND: watch Microsoft go apoplectic: couldn't happen to a more deserving organization.
Agreed. It's simple sales / marketing - give the customers what they want.
Unfortunately Microsoft decided that they would copy Apple and tell the customer what they want instead. Unfortunately that works better for new systems than upgrading old ones, as even Apple have found out with some of their changes.
Now will they start offering machines with standard power supplies instead of those poxy, weird shaped, electrically incompatible 12V jobs? It's a pain in the arse having to order new PSUs in instead of being able to take a stock one off the shelf...
Mind you, this article caused genuine LOLZ. To the extent that my neighbour stuck his head round the wall to check I was OK.
Im running 8.1 and its actually a good improvement over 8. But typical Microsoft as usual mess it up by making it not very obvious how to actually get the upgrade. I know plenty of people struggling along with 8.0 totally unaware how to get 8.1.
Even when I knew the update was in the store it was still a hassle to find it. Considering MS are desperate to make Win 8 work you would think there would be an excited notification - "Windows 8.1 is here, download now FREE!"
Instead they seep it out and only techno heads like us know about it. MS really need to work on their usability, its becoming a joke now. The days are going where people will stump up thousands to go on a course to learn a single application. What with phones and tablets people expect things to be easier, more obvious, its not 1990 anymore.
For me the biggest disappointment with Win 8 isn't Metro but actually the boring desktop. The Taskbar has barely changed. With desktops getting ever more powerful (and screens bigger and better) why has nothing changed? I understand they were making Win8 slim to run on small hardware but there's no reason why if a good machine is detected then it should ramp up the experience and features. I mean isn't that the whole point of the Windows experience index?
Hiding the 8.1 Upgrade......absolutely! I bought a Lenovo laptop recently. Lenovo had loaded 65 MS updates on the machine, but they HAD NOT INSTALLED them. It took some time to work this out, then it took an hour to install them. Once that was done, the 8.1 upgrade (all 3.5GB of it!) magically appeared in the Windows Store. Then another 90 minute to download the upgrade and install it.
....of course, all of this is "intuitvely obvious" to Bill Gates.....but not to ordinary mortals like me!
"....of course, all of this is "intuitvely obvious" to Bill Gates.....but not to ordinary mortals like me!"
Actually I suspect that none of this would have made it past a Bill Gates review, but no-one at MS has had to sit through one of those for over a decade.
Youngsters (and industry analysts, and whoever is on that comittee at Microsoft choosing a new CEO) reading this might like to reflect that Microsoft's years of growth happened when they had a technically-literate boss who took a day to day interest in the company's products. They ended when the salesman took over. Apple's fortunes can similarly be matched up to the years when Jobs was at the helm. Spooky! D'ya think there's a connection?
How exactly is this bad news for ms?
Oh no, they are selling "the wrong" windows...
Surely "HP abandons windows for Ubuntu/android" would have been
A) more interesting
B) funny
C) good news for everyone
Then Microsoft would have to pull their socks up and start trying to sell their os rather than "cheating" by having it preinstalled and zero choice when purchasing a PC (i mean your average Joe Bloggs buying from your average PC e/retailer) - this would mean they have to listen to their users' wants and needs - it's been waaaaaay too long since they did that (xp!)
Microsoft need to admit that their phone style apps for windows (I don;t even know what to call them, which is a symptom of the whole fiasco) are just awful and nobody wants them, and that their new start menu is simply *worse* than the product they had before.
Scrap the whole thing while retaining the nice things widows 8 did otherwise, and call it windows 9 and they'd sell a load :)
Business computers ( and ones uesd for schoolwork) need to do what you want, how you need them to.
I've happily moved from every OS since CP/M and DOS(s) to Win7.
Win 8.x drives me nutty. (On a nontouch-screen laptop)
Because it does what Microsoft * think* I should want it to do.
Like having things I want visible hidden or vice versa.
Also
A good definition of instability in a system is that a small change has a significant effect.
In Win 8.x make an incautious move with the finger on the touchpad and everything suddenly appears or vanishes.
I bet it's lovely on a Windows tablet device or phone with a decent sized touch screen.
If anyone ever used one of these for real work.
Because it does what Microsoft * think* I should want it to do.
This was their only mistake. 8.1 isn't a bad OS, just the UI with no name, and then, only in non-touch screen mode (and maybe those stupid apps).
Choice for the customer, (anyone remember 'the customer is always right'?) - 'How do you want your operating system to work?'
The simple inclusion of a start menu and desktop choice for those wanting it and I reckon the world would have hailed 8.1 as a worthy Windows upgrade.
>I've happily moved from every OS since CP/M and DOS(s) to Win7.
Whilst vanilla Win8 is exasperating, and even with third-party add-ons it still has much room for improvement, I found the the move from XP/Win7 to Win8 nothing compared to my move from commercial OS's such as TOPS-10 & VMS to the abomination(!) of Unix back in the 80's.
Looking back, it is absolutely amazing how, something basically put together as a research project, managed to bypass everything that normally happens to stuff that comes out of research to transform it into a commercially viable 'product', managed to be and continues to be so commercially successful.
Yes Unix has developed and largely been superseded by it's look-a-like Linux, but it still retains it's terse and archaic (command-line) UI (among other things), that is totally unfriendly to the casual user and can at times perplex experts.
I just don't see the Win8 UI having the same impact or lasting as long ...
Re. Linux, just to make a few rather obvious points: (a) command line UIs may be terse, but archaic they are not - they can be extremely powerful, particularly for admin tasks and automation in general, and are not about to go away soon (b) Windows actually has a (rather primitive) command line UI and (c) the command line UI is by no means essential for the majority of modern Linux distros aimed at non-expert users. Finally, (d) if as a Linux user you find yourself "perplexed" by the command line, you may not call yourself an "expert" ;-)
On rereading my post I can see the error in my statement. I didn't mean that having a command-line UI was archaic, but that the Unix/Linux implementation of the command-line command language and specifically the shorthand used for command names and parameters was both terse and archaic, particularly when compared to other proprietary (mainframe and minicomputer) OS's that were around in the 70's and early 80's.
But then part of the design intent of Unix (and the C language) was that they were to be used by IT experts...
Yes the Unix/Linux command-line can be perplexing particularly if you're trying to decipher someone else's rather elegant AWK hieroglyphics :) but then that is half the fun...
Otherwise I'm in agreement with your points!
I can understand the hatred of metro, and how MS still refuse to acknowledge that they've fucked up (how could they not learn from the Vista debacle is beyond me). But the real frustrating thing for me is that in general the OS is basically a suped up windows 7 with a tablet veneer. It's got more under the hood tweaks, options, et al., but its just outshone by the horrible Metro interface.
There is a problem when people have to go out of their way to set up an on-start command that launches the explorer window just because of how fucking much they hate Metro.
I don't think I've ever used Metro in the many months I've had my Windows 8 computer. Even then, I only bought Windows 8 because Microsoft made it cheaper than 7.
"Popular demand? At HP? Pull the other one."
I wonder if these systems are using components for which no Win 8 drivers are available.
User: "I've upgraded to Windows 8.1 and the sound card doesn't work"
HelPdesk: "Sorry that's not supported and you have voided your warranty"
As a custom PC and laptop builder, I built 3 times as many machines last year than ever before because unlike the major retailers, I was able to offer Windows 7 in my new machines, so Microsoft really did me a favour by releasing such an awful operating system. This HP news is bad news for me though.
Seems to me W8 was trying to fix a problem that didn't exist. As a previous poster said, W7 was great - heck I really liked W2000 Pro - rock solid, just worked. XP was ok after SP3 and took ages to get off it. W7 is great and I've just ordered a brand spanking new Lenove laptop - with W7, not 8. It's not just the start button - it's the whole unnecessary interfarce. TIFKAM looks awful, and is useless without a touch screen. nothing wrong with W7. I run t on a tough tablet and yes, it could do with a touch I/F but Samsung have done a nice job of it. Could have been the opportunity for a raft of pretty nifty 3rd party touch interfaces but got missed. Nuf Sed.
I just wish they had done this before I bought one of their laptops with Win8 about 4 months ago, and then had to go through the rigamarole of installing Win7 in its place without the needed drivers. I had to look high and low on the web to find drivers that would work, and finally did, all except one, which doesn't seem to be important (I hope).
am very happy with HP's decision. All my in house PCs are HPs and the company I work for still uses XP across all of its locations, save for mine. Hopefully Lenovo follows suit. My traveling sales staff and the upper echelon of entitled users (a.k.a CEO and the like) are too occupied with actual work for me to have to train for a transition to Windows 8.
(After a mishap with gravity that fragged my daughters Windows 8 ultra book ssd, she is now learning to use Linux on spinning rust.=^D)
Bring on Windows 9.
Already been to their website -- I'd like to replace my aging HP Pavilion laptop with another one running Win7 -- and found they have a very limited selection of Win7 models. Otherwise, a brilliant idea.
And, yes, I agree with the "Win ME 3.0" comment. I ordered a ThinkPad from IBM back in the WinME days and had them install Win98 on it instead. I've got three desktops and a laptop all running Win7Pro, and I'll be damned if I will buy a new system running Win8x.
I searched a long time for a new laptop that had windows 7 on it. I have just bought a HP Probook 450G1 with windows 7 pro (If one is masochistic enough it comes with windows 8 discs as well). It has an i7 processor, 8GB RAM, and a 750 HDD. I have installed all my software and it is now sitting on my desk downloading the 130 odd windows and office updates. So far I am pleased with it. The build quality is excellent - solid. Once I have finished setting up properly and deleted some of the security software that gets in the way, it should be a good machine. The only minor gripe was the wifi that kept dropping, but that turned out to be a setting on my router that needed tweaking.
at last, a worthy opponent to take on iMicroSoft and its gravid concept of spawning more offspring than it can feed. HP may coddle whats left of user's that actually have learned to do more with less. (and less, and less, and less...), but thats what all this global economy is about, doing more with less.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
