The Classic Control Panel In Windows May Be Gone

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Classic Control Panel In Windows May Be Gone

Posted by timothy on Wednesday October 22, 2014 @08:44AM from the good-riddance-or-sorely-missed dept.

jones_supa writes In Windows 8, there was an arrangement of two settings applications: the Control Panel for the desktop and the PC Settings app in the Modern UI side. With Windows 10, having the two different applications has started to look even more awkward, which has been voiced loud and clear in the feedback too. Thus, the work at Microsoft to unify the settings programs has begun. The traditional Control Panel is being transformed to something temporarily called "zPC Settings" (sic), which is a Modern UI app that melts together the current two settings applications.

16 of 347 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Please Microsoft... by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-10-22 08:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's one thing to abuse the users with interface changes, but don't make the job for I.T. techs any harder as it it. We already got a lifetime of job security because of Windows.
1. Re:Please Microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-22 08:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Don't fret. This shouldn't affect your daily routine of telling people to restart their computers.
2. Re:Please Microsoft... by PRMan · 2014-10-22 09:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Even worse. I RDP'ed into a Server the other day and nobody, even those running Windows 8 on their laptops could figure out how to do a "log out" on the server.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
3. Re:Please Microsoft... by FSWKU · 2014-10-22 10:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Maybe I am wrong, but over the years I have noted an increasing condescendension of IT people over "mere users". I wonder why that is. Bear in mind that IT typically isn't the company's cash cow, but "overhead", making this condescension rather inappropriate imho. Even on /. there are many "users" that are no IT people: designers, programmers, etc. I wonder why the interface they are using is apparently less important than computer maintenance software, or any other user experience, for that matter.
  The "overhead" designation is precisely the reason IT people tend to hate users (at least in my experience). The end-user sees the IT person as nothing more than an electronic janitor who's sole purpose is to clean up the messes that they, the user, were too careless or too inept to prevent from happening in the first place. Thus, they don't bother to learn how to do things properly, they don't learn how to keep from getting a virus, they don't learn how to do even the simplest of things because "That's IT's job. I shouldn't have to know computers!" No, they don't have to know the ins and outs of every modern OS, but they should know how to at least keep it from obliterating everything they're working on (meaning stop clicking "OK" on every damn thing that pops up!). Then to top it all off, they behave as if security policies, best practices, etc. don't apply to them, even though management approved them as being a site-wide mandate...
  
  So in short, users see IT as "the help" and treat them as such. And much like a janitor who is constantly cleaning up after idiots who have no concern for anyone other than themselves, the IT worker learns to hate certain users because they seem to have a mission in life to make IT's job as miserable as possible.
  
  --
  "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
4. Re:Please Microsoft... by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-10-22 10:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  My job as an I.T. technician is to console hurt computers and fix broken users. I console (or remote) into computers to find out what is ailing them, which can sometimes take a substantial amount of time because no one wants to reimage their five-year-old system. As for broken users, I try to instruct them on how to take care of their computers but most users don't care about their computers.
5. Re: Please Microsoft... by jd2112 · 2014-10-22 11:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Try fixing them in the veterinary sense...
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Just keep it off the servers.... by Kenja · 2014-10-22 08:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Had to maintain a Windows 2012 Server system last weekend.... dealing with the Windows 8 configuration interface on a server makes me very angry.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
1. Re:Just keep it off the servers.... by TWX · 2014-10-22 08:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Had to maintain a Windows newer Server system last weekend.... dealing with the Windows newer configuration interface on a server makes me very angry.
  Said every Windows admin, ever.
  
  Though all joking aside, changes should make the job easier, or more intuitive, or more cohesive. The change from the 3.1/NT3.5 interface to the Windows 95/NT4.0 interface was an improvement, but slowly fragmented as the GUI design kept changing over time (I dare not call it evolving!).
  
  It's already awkward enough having separate control panels, one for most functions, the other for "Administrative Tools - Computer Management". That needs to be addressed, along with reconciling between two separate GUIs.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re:Just keep it off the servers.... by epyT-R · 2014-10-22 09:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The reason is because the old panel had everything in front of you. There was no guesswork where to go. It was either the control panel or one of the mmc snapins, with regedit as the worst case scenario. The tablet interfaces are too simplified to be of much use beyond basic settings. Their full screen nature is also irritating on a desktop.
  Hell even the changes they did in vista are clunkier than 2k/xp was. Awkward, hard to remember phrases replaced one or two word descriptions, and a lot of the options were hidden, leaving the user to guess where things are, and no, searching for everything is NOT a solution. At least it was still possible to get a compact, complete list in vista through 8.1. If they plan to remove that in 10 and replace it with some stupid touch interface, I will avoid the os.
3. Re:Just keep it off the servers.... by TWX · 2014-10-22 09:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why is there a resource-intensive GUI on a server anyway? Is the server supposed to be able to play Solitaire or World of Warcraft? Or is the server supposed to, oh, I donno, serve files and applications to client stations?
  
  That's one thing I never understood, why Microsoft went GUI with the servers like they did, other than to know that they sold a lot of server OSes to people that had no business running servers in the first place...
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
And... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-22 08:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

It will have even less functionality than before. Because they keep trying to "simplify" things for the dumb users out there, by removing any type of "advanced" feature. Which means you will be stuck having to manually edit the Registry or gpedit or through some third party software that allow access to those now "hidden" features.
1. Re:And... by newcastlejon · 2014-10-22 09:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Removing control panels isn't MS's style. If past experience is anything to go by, the same ones that were in 98/NT will still be there in 10, they'll just be buried under yet another layer of new stuff. Seriously, try find network adaptor settings in 7. After you've navigated through the morass of the network and sharing centre you'll see that it's practically the self same advanced dialog that was there in 95.
  Personally, I'm not averse to change but it's well past time MS just started over again instead of tacking on useless, obfuscating fluff over the top of controls that I actually need to get use.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
2. Re:And... by sexconker · 2014-10-22 11:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So that multiple programs can share the same settings system-wide. The worst thing about Linux is that every program works in a different non-standard way.
  Like putting system config in /etc and user config in $HOME, you mean?
  Like putting system config in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE and user config in HKEY_USERS, you mean?
  The registry is trash, but so is a mish-mash of non-standard textfiles strewn about.
  The problem that's specific to Windows is that programs can decide to use the registry, text files, or both, and when they use text files they can be in my documents, (which is now a library with no fixed location), the program's installation folder, the system-wide application data folder, or a user-specific application data folder. When using an application data folder, you have the choice of using Local, LocalLow, or Roaming. No one in the world understands the difference between these folders or why some programs use one over another (or use multiple!).
  It wouldn't be a problem if everything was relegated to living in one of:
  A: The application's install directory
  B: A single directory (one per application) in a specific user/system directory (or both)
  C: Living in the registry (again, user/system/both as appropriate)
  But when applications can choose A, B, C, A & B, A & C, B & C, or A, B & C it's a fucking nightmare.
Environment Variables by Rejemy · 2014-10-22 09:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

As long as they leave intact the ancient, tiny, unresizable Environment Variables window that hasn't been updated since it was first introduced in Windows NT, I'll be happy. Who doesn't like editing a huge path in a tiny 40 character single-line text field?
1. Re:Environment Variables by jones_supa · 2014-10-22 09:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Guys, this is a perfect opportunity to use the Windows Feedback tool.
Why a GUI? Well, back in the day.... by MasterOfGoingFaster · 2014-10-22 10:45 · Score: 4, Informative

That's one thing I never understood, why Microsoft went GUI with the servers like they did, other than to know that they sold a lot of server OSes to people that had no business running servers in the first place...
Simple. Most business people had been exposed to DOS, then moved to Windows and found it much easier to use and understand. The Novell guy comes in and tries to sell a Netware server. Yep - looks like DOS. I came in with a Windows server. Looks just like his PC. He sees File Manager, drive letters, Notepad, Paint, and suddenly he feels like this is the more advanced system, and he is far more comfortable with it.
A lot of the Netware guys around my area were extremely arrogant, and treated their customers like crap. Once they got a server installed, the customer was clueless and the vendor would abuse that. Our business model was to be open with the system and point out that we can easily be replaced, keeping us focused on their satisfaction. With NT Advanced Server (the correct name), the business owner could actually watch us and understand what we were doing with his system. We replaced a fair amount of Netware servers in those days. And you can see who won.

--
Place nail here >+