I did, on both XP and Windows 7. I’m a programmer, had to search a subdirectory tree for files containing a specific variable name (that I knew was there somewhere). Windows search showed bupkis; grep was my friend.
As I said, for me, it’s not worth the time and effort to find/fix the issue when I know enough to use 3rd party tools. I have to say, though, that there’s not much that pisses me off as a programmer than to have the interface lie to me by design (specifically, “search within all files” flat-out doesn’t).
There is the “findstr” command line tool in XP, Vista and presumably Win7. It’s a regular expression finder that searches within files. I have no idea how it compares to grep, as I don’t regularly use either of those utilities.
This isn’t a very useful solution for the average user, but it might be useful for a more advanced user (who doesn’t have Cygwin installed).
if Microsoft keeps doing the same thing, they get blasted for being a “dinosaur” and " incapable of innovating.". If they do make changes and enhancements, they get blasted for “making things needlessly difficult.”
Meanwhile, Apple will change things on a moment’s notice, drop stuff at the 11th hour, leave users stranded whenever convenient, but that’s just A-OK. I don’t get it.
i wish people would just admit that they don’t like change instead of claiming Microsoft is out to get them.
Here’s the problem- I think most of the changes are welcome. The instant search, the condensing of taskbar buttons, some of the Aero features (Aero Snap, particularly,) the fully composited accelerated desktop, etc; not to mention not-half-assed 64-bit support. In fact, I hate having to use XP at work anymore. But that means I approached Vista and 7 knowing there were changes, and figuring out what they were in the first few moments of using them instead of wailing “MS! Y U NO KEEP THINGS SAME?”
So who’s right? You think they’re “useless, harmful” changes, I think they’re “beneficial.”
But most of what you mention is not in the human interface. Certainly under-the-hood improvements are welcome, and even new features and abilities. But to constantly move preferences around? To not let me root a Explorer window at any directory? To not allow me to even delete the consumer-oriented junk? It’s slow and crippling to use Windows 7 for anything more than running basic applications.
But you know what? It’s still better than Vista. I’m due for renewal at work pretty soon. It means losing XP and getting Vista. Even worse, it means losing Office 2003 and getting Office 2007 or 2010.
My company is still stuck with XP, I think because one of our primary programs is not compatible with Windows 7. I have Windows 7 at home and have been very pleased with it; however, I finally had enough of IE’s BS last week and switched over to Firefox. I wish I had done that a lot sooner…the add-ons are awesome, and I love the interface.
(I have found Windows 7 searches to be very good, by the way.)
The OS itself should be separate from the UI. In other words, if Microsoft was smart, they’d set it up so that people could run the old XP UI if they so desire, or go to the new Win 7 one.
In a sense, that’s what they’ve done all along- you could run Win 95 in 3.1 UI mode, you could run XP in Win 95 mode, but as far as I can tell, there’s no way to just run Win 7 and have it look like Win XP or 95.
That’s why I don’t want to change- I have something like 15 years of experience using a certain style of user interface (the 95/XP one) and I don’t see any compelling system reason to change just yet, and I especially don’t want to change just because Microsoft is embarrassed by those Justin Long commercials and want to make their UI more Mac-like.
I know I sound like an old grump, but seriously, the OS and the UI shouldn’t be that tightly integrated. Look at Linux- you can use KDE, Gnome, Xfce, or a bunch of x-window managers, and still run the same Linux underneath it all.
Separating the GUI from the OS is just good systems design. If it isn’t, then how come most UNIX-style OSes (like say… Solaris, a big-iron OS if there ever was one) let you choose your GUI?
The only reason Microsoft integrates them is because they’re still trying to make money on the OS, and rather than make the thing rock-solid, they’re trying to differentiate themselves via GUI bells and whistles.
Even though it might be a (semi) viable business strategy, it’s still bad system design (like much/most of their decisions).
I hate how that ribbon has affected the products of other companies…Autodesk, I’m looking at you and AutoCAD 2011. (Yeah, I know you can switch it back to the “classic” interface.)
'cos the *nix world hasn’t been able to come up with one that doesn’t suck in some way (GNOME is the best of the bunch, but it’s still got its downsides.) Besides, do you really think that many Solaris systems actually run a GUI? The only ones I’ve put hands on recently (CAD workstations) still run CDE since the software used relies on it.
The only reason Microsoft integrates it is because without hardware sales like Apple, they think they have to try and make their money on the OS. (Win 7 = $200, Snow Leopard = $29). If they didn’t integrate them, then people would find an OS that works well for them, and a UI that works well, and not update until MS forces them to.
Regardless of why, the fact is that it’s still a bad design for an OS and GUI.
That, and my main OS is Mac OS.