Is Microsoft 'Missing the Mark' on new OS's?

[Ketchup]

I think back to the mid 90's when my parents bought our first computer, with Windows 3.1. It was a toy pretty much. Learning how Widows worked, playing games that would fit on a floppy, making letters in Word Perfect and watching the app do it's magic. Making silly pictures with Paint.

Today, I am on my computer at the office for work, at home for more work, and some leisure. The last thing I want to do is learn an entirely new interface. Windows 7 does exactly what I need to do (as did XP at the time).

If Microsoft comes up with an OS that makes things I want to do better/faster/more efficiently, that's what I would want.

So what does Microsoft do? They give me Windows 8. My time with Windows 8 has been about 4 days. By they end, I got somewhat comfortable with it, but just about everything I did took longer. Either more clicks to get to it, more work to change between multiple apps, or apps that were moved for no good reason.

THE POINT: if my situation fits a decent portion of Microsoft's audience, they have got to stop changing JUST TO CHANGE. The days are gone when I want to go to a computer and spend hours figuring it out and playing with it. I've got stuff to do! If something is changing, I want it to be better than what was before. If it's not, no thanks.

Thoughts and opinions welcome.

 

[nickbits]

THE POINT: if my situation fits a decent portion of Microsoft's audience, they have got to stop changing JUST TO CHANGE. The days are gone when I want to go to a computer and spend hours figuring it out and playing with it. I've got stuff to do! If something is changing, I want it to be better than what was before. If it's not, no thanks.

Most things change for the sake of change. They have to try something in order to get you to upgrade. Also, refusing to adopt change is a sign you are getting old.

 

[Ketchup]

Also, refusing to adopt change is a sign you are getting old.

As I re-read my thread before posting, I had a feeling someone would point that out, lol.

Thanks for making it in the first reply nickbits.

 

[Mem]

Most things change for the sake of change. They have to try something in order to get you to upgrade. Also, refusing to adopt change is a sign you are getting old.

Hardware changes over time and I think Microsoft are trying to adapt and come up with new ideas etc for modern hardware with their operating systems,it's a fair thing to do and they have been doing this for quite awhile. Remember Win3.11 to Win95 for those with long memories here and also when DOS was phased out.

As always Windows will continue to evolve and change over time regardless.

 

[denis280]

As always Windows will continue to evolve and change over time regardless.

I agree! but who is paying at the end of the line. 2014 they make smart phone.smart tv.why not make a OS smart.I know am a smart ass😛

 

[lxskllr]

I didn't use Win8 much, but it left a generally favorable impression. The biggest thing I didn't like was "hot corners". Hidden triggers piss me off in an interface, and it's bad design AFAIC. As long as a desktop generally conforms to a classic interface, I'm happy. I hate the direction Gnome and Canonical(Unity) went on GNU/Linux. They don't use the classic paradigm, and Gnome especially has been big on removing features. Mozilla's doing the same with Firefox :^S

 

[Charlie98]

they have got to stop changing JUST TO CHANGE.

I would tend to agree, and I believe that's part of the reason so many are still rolling with XP. XP was just about the most refined modern-day OS evarrr... it did so many things well and easily in a fairly clean GUI (that you could just as easily knock down to Windows Classic, which was my choice.) It was easy to be productive on XP...

I'm pretty much high-speed/low drag... I still run W7 in Windows Classic, I don't need colors and fancy buttons. I really think MS needs to go to 2 separate OS's... a 'Metro' version for all those pre-builts and pads, and a 'Professional' version that's stripped down and simple. I understand it would split their efforts... and from a pure money point of view it doesn't make sense in the short term (which is all American corporations can see... ) eventually it would require less effort to 'new-and-improve' them individually rather than trying to make one OS appeal to everyone.

 

[bbhaag]

Honestly I think Microsoft didn't miss the mark at all concerning Win8. They nailed it and 8.1 refined it even better on the desktop side.

If you go in understanding that Microsoft wanted a cross platform OS that could be used across a wide variety of devices it really makes sense. They created a modern day OS that can be used on a mobile phone, tablet, and a desktop/laptop.
I can't do that with Android or iOS7 to the best of my knowledge. It wasn't change just for the sake of change IMO. They needed this or something like this to help them stay relevant in a market that is moving toward a non traditional PC setting.

 

[Ketchup]

Honestly I think Microsoft didn't miss the mark at all concerning Win8. They nailed it and 8.1 refined it even better on the desktop side.

If you go in understanding that Microsoft wanted a cross platform OS that could be used across a wide variety of devices it really makes sense. They created a modern day OS that can be used on a mobile phone, tablet, and a desktop/laptop.
I can't do that with Android or iOS7 to the best of my knowledge. It wasn't change just for the sake of change IMO. They needed this or something like this to help them stay relevant in a market that is moving toward a non traditional PC setting.

Then, here's a thought for MS: give the user an OPTION of which way he/she wants to go when setting it up. Instead, they do not offer this and bury the option to NOT give an email address and/or create a very visible account.

They treat 8 as if it is one of many Microsoft consumer options. Of course, if you want something new, there is none (and by new, I specifically mean something without a fast-approaching EOL) . It has been mentioned before, give consumers an option.

 

[PliotronX]

Honestly I think Microsoft didn't miss the mark at all concerning Win8. They nailed it and 8.1 refined it even better on the desktop side.

If you go in understanding that Microsoft wanted a cross platform OS that could be used across a wide variety of devices it really makes sense. They created a modern day OS that can be used on a mobile phone, tablet, and a desktop/laptop.
I can't do that with Android or iOS7 to the best of my knowledge. It wasn't change just for the sake of change IMO. They needed this or something like this to help them stay relevant in a market that is moving toward a non traditional PC setting.

Unification is not required for the desktop/notebook. Would it make sense to unify tablets/phones with a mouse/keyboard interface? There are lot of worse things MS could have done but this tops the list. Ridiculous little changes that make it more difficult to diagnose system problems such as no way in default form to F8 into safe mode and a useless frowny face as a BSoD just start the list of things wrong with 8.

 

[pmv]

As always Windows will continue to evolve and change over time regardless.

Not necessarily. Windows might end up being eclipsed entirely. Nothing lasts forever. Windows isn't something eternal, some of us remember computers before MS even existed!

MS look like going the way of IBM - that is, not disappearing entirely but becoming a less significant player, and known for different products than they once were. Seems to me they've already lost the dominance they once had.

 

[pmv]

Honestly I think Microsoft didn't miss the mark at all concerning Win8. They nailed it and 8.1 refined it even better on the desktop side.

If you go in understanding that Microsoft wanted a cross platform OS that could be used across a wide variety of devices it really makes sense. They created a modern day OS that can be used on a mobile phone, tablet, and a desktop/laptop.
I can't do that with Android or iOS7 to the best of my knowledge. It wasn't change just for the sake of change IMO. They needed this or something like this to help them stay relevant in a market that is moving toward a non traditional PC setting.

But if they 'nailed it', how come 8.1/8 isn't doing all that well in terms of market share? I hope you don't come back with that 'human beings are flawed for not appreciating the perfection that is windows 8' line that others seem so keen on!

They clearly didn't 'nail it' because its not doing all that well with desktop users. I'm not convinced its doing that well on the tablet side either, come to that, though if so that must be for other reasons as I don't see there's a lot wrong with it in that regard.

 

[pmv]

I would tend to agree, and I believe that's part of the reason so many are still rolling with XP. XP was just about the most refined modern-day OS evarrr... it did so many things well and easily in a fairly clean GUI (that you could just as easily knock down to Windows Classic, which was my choice.) It was easy to be productive on XP...

I'm pretty much high-speed/low drag... I still run W7 in Windows Classic, I don't need colors and fancy buttons. I really think MS needs to go to 2 separate OS's... a 'Metro' version for all those pre-builts and pads, and a 'Professional' version that's stripped down and simple. I understand it would split their efforts... and from a pure money point of view it doesn't make sense in the short term (which is all American corporations can see... ) eventually it would require less effort to 'new-and-improve' them individually rather than trying to make one OS appeal to everyone.

To be fair, surely part of what Metro was supposed to be about was precisely this - removing all the 'chrome' and showy interface stuff and keeping it simple. Personally I quite like the chrome on a desktop OS, where I'm going to be looking at it for long periods, but its a matter of taste.

I think maybe the issue of reducing 'chrome' is a separate issue to orienting an interface for desktops or tablets and making it touch-based or not. My feeling is win9 will somehow retain the simplified asthetics of metro but with the option of a functionality more suitable for a desktop.

Also, I've only finally gone from XP to 7, and I certainly agree the latter is an improvement on the former (which I do think has had its day). But its an incremental change, not a huge shift as 8 is.

 

[bbhaag]

Then, here's a thought for MS: give the user an OPTION of which way he/she wants to go when setting it up. Instead, they do not offer this and bury the option to NOT give an email address and/or create a very visible account.

They treat 8 as if it is one of many Microsoft consumer options. Of course, if you want something new, there is none (and by new, I specifically mean something without a fast-approaching EOL) . It has been mentioned before, give consumers an option.

Well that gets a little tricky because then you have two teams working on two different OSs.
Now of course I don't claim to have any inside knowledge of MS or the thought process behind Win8. I was just responding to this part of your first post.

THE POINT: if my situation fits a decent portion of Microsoft's audience, they have got to stop changing JUST TO CHANGE. The days are gone when I want to go to a computer and spend hours figuring it out and playing with it. I've got stuff to do! If something is changing, I want it to be better than what was before. If it's not, no thanks.

Thoughts and opinions welcome.

I was just trying to give you my opinion on why MS might have decided to go the way they did. Thats all.:shrug:

 

[Ketchup]

Well that gets a little tricky because then you have two teams working on two different OSs.
Now of course I don't claim to have any inside knowledge of MS or the thought process behind Win8. I was just responding to this part of your first post.

I was just trying to give you my opinion on why MS might have decided to go the way they did. Thats all.:shrug:

No offense meant to you at all from me. All offense directed at MS for taking advantage if their power.

 

[Maximilian]

I was just trying to give you my opinion on why MS might have decided to go the way they did. Thats all.:shrug:

They did it in the hopes everyone would love metro, get used to it and over time buy a windows 8 tablet/phone allowing MS to slowly overtake android/iOS. They didn't want another zune with their tablets/phones. Decent enough products but way to late to the game with no real unique selling point. The USP would have been "Oh it looks like my windows 8 PC at work/laptop, ill get that!".

The single unified OS thing is just to sell tablets/phones, not to make things any easier for anyone, even if it did that would just be a by-product of the tablet/phone sales which was their primary goal with this endeavour that backfired massively.

 

[lxskllr]

The single unified OS thing is just to sell tablets/phones, not to make things any easier for anyone, even if it did that would just be a by-product of the tablet/phone sales which was their primary goal with this endeavour that backfired massively.

That's a little more cynical than I'm willing to attribute. I think they did it to have a unified experience across all devices. If someone could use a Windows desktop, a phone or tablet will be familiar and easy. It would theoretically be single experience for your whole digital life. Problem is it's hard to do right. It might even be impossible. To have the best experience on the desktop, usability has to be cut on mobile, and of course the reverse is also true. The best you can do is make it tolerable, with only minor grumbles instead of full on raging, but then you aren't making the best...

Personally, I'd like to see two interfaces for all devices. If I want to use a desktop on my phone, I should be able to. If I love mobile interfaces, I should be able to use one on the desktop. That keeps almost every one happy, even the weirdos, and the experience is unified, even if it requires tweaking a couple settings.

 

[denis280]

Let's wait for april 2015.Maybe MS will surprise us.

 

[Ranulf]

Heaven forfend you diversify your product offering. No, lets make one OS do everything, yet excel at nothing and then call critics old fogeys for not liking the "charms bar". If they'd done a decent job of merging the two, desktop with tablet/touchscreen few would be complaining.

 

[Red Storm]

My only qualm with Windows 8 is that they try to force a clearly mobile designed interface onto Desktop users. If I'm doing something and I want to press start to quickly search for another file/folder/program, why does the OS need to take me away from what I'm doing to a completely new screen? This makes sense on small mobile devices, but not on a desktop which clearly has enough space to show multiple windows at a time.

Metro apps are another annoyance on desktops. I don't need to be taken away from my current view to a FULL SCREEN app to just look at some pictures or a PDF. I know you can handle these by setting regular desktop applications to do the task, but it's just bizarre to think Microsoft would set this as the default method on desktop and laptop machines.

 

[PliotronX]

My only qualm with Windows 8 is that they try to force a clearly mobile designed interface onto Desktop users. If I'm doing something and I want to press start to quickly search for another file/folder/program, why does the OS need to take me away from what I'm doing to a completely new screen? This makes sense on small mobile devices, but not on a desktop which clearly has enough space to show multiple windows at a time.

Metro apps are another annoyance on desktops. I don't need to be taken away from my current view to a FULL SCREEN app to just look at some pictures or a PDF. I know you can handle these by setting regular desktop applications to do the task, but it's just bizarre to think Microsoft would set this as the default method on desktop and laptop machines.

Exactly, in the age of hi res monitors and running two or three of them, why waste an entire screen on one stupid document/picture/music file? It removes choice from the desktop which is one of the desktop's greatest strengths. I am curious where they will go with 9 but this is tripe and I'm glad it can be tweaked to work around it but it should be optimized for the platform it is installed onto by default.

 

[denis280]

I like the weather apps.it tells me the weather so i can put the right cloth on.seriously it is fine for touch screen.but desktop big 0

 

[Venomous]

The only thing MS nailed was an ugly os known as win8 with no one building windows phones these days. The OS sucks both on the desktop and mobile. They need to come up with something as drastic as when apple released osx. The only people I know with a windows phone or tablet are employees of MS themselves.

 

[Qwertilot]

I'm very much with the cynic above. Surely MS will have known that windows 8 was never, ever going to sell into companies - the really stable profit source - with that interface.

The only real explanation is that they were hoping to leverage their desktop monopoly to drive into tablets as a medium term thing. Ultimately probably always planning on restoring the option to have a sane purely desktop facing operating system in time to catch the corporate upgrade cycles from Windows 7. (No rush yet.).

That's a rather cynical thing to do and I'm rather glad that the desktop market has had enough self respect to broadly tell them what they can do with it.

Alternatively they might just have been collectively self delusional on quite an impressive scale. It can happen 🙂 Certainly the way they've ended up with all these different operating systems and APIs seems pretty horribly organised.

 

[AlexKidd5000]

Most things change for the sake of change. They have to try something in order to get you to upgrade. Also, refusing to adopt change is a sign you are getting old.

lol, I'm only 26, and there are alot of things I refuse to adopt XD