The Start Menu, was functionality which is now gone. Not sure how much clearer I can put this.
The functionality hasn't gone. The start screen retains the same
functionality.
It gets the same thing done, ergo no functionality has been taken away.
That's the first time I've seen you say it's ok not to like the interface.
I didn't realise I had to give permission...
I guess it's more of a case of reading but not thinking before you then post. Rroff described his argument fine, you just didn't like the argument and therefore tried to ignore it. You'd get on well as a politician.
Yeah, no. His point amounted to nothing more than it's bad because he doesn't like it. As above, the claim that functionality has been removed is incorrect, hence my point on how he used loads of words to say not much at all.
I also didn't say he didn't describe what he was saying properly. If you re-read his post;
The OS is supposed to be about enabling people not forcing them to specific useage patterns - cutting out a method of use (leaving it in or as an option wouldn't stiffle progress) that has factual backing for and a long history of being one of the most efficent ways to use the OS for a significant proportion of users is just stupid and bad whatever bs you want to wrap it up in.
If people want to use Windows 8, they have to use the new UI that comes with it. But no one is forced to use Windows 8, it's a choice the whole way.
His argument revolves around his dislike of the UI, and that dislike equals it being wrong.
Nothing has been cut out, the functionality of the start menu is still present. The start screen does the same thing, but looks different.
The start screen is NOT less efficient because of the way it is, people are less efficient as using it because they aren't used to it and haven't learnt it yet. There's a difference.
So how is any of that NOT "I don't like the UI, so it's wrong that they changed it"?
I'm not against OS innovation or even UI innovation but theres right and wrong ways to go about it.
As above, that's the whole argument, "I don't like the UI so it's wrong of them to change it".
I'm rebutting poor arguments for why the change is bad, not for why the interface is good.
It was poorly optimized. You said it yourself. Bloat is poor optimization. Yes it was also installed on slower hardware by OEMs which compounded the issue, but if you stick Windows 7 on a lot of slower Vista machines (my brother's laptop for example, a 2.2Ghz Core 2, with 3GB RAM) they speed up, therefore that's called OPTIMIZATION. Understand?
Yeah, no. Vista received the same optimisations in the form of Service packs.
I also didn't say or mention bloat...
I don't recall there ever being a stability issue with Vista, except in the early days when drivers caused errors. That's a difference in driver models though which needed to be rectified by the vendors. Once they did it, it was fine. It kept me off Vista for a bit, but I never actually blamed the OS for that.
I didn't say *you* did, that doesn't change what others said though. At the time people commonly slated Vista for reliability, and people still do. They have no idea what they're talking about and that was my point.
