You don't remember why it was slow,do you?
No I was young then. Why was it slow?
You don't remember why it was slow,do you?
Microsoft has ruled the computer world in the 90's right up until Mac OS X came out. Until that point, they called the shots, they decided what was good and bad. IE was the most liked browser in comparison to Netscape and AOL.
Then Apple released Mac OS X. For the first time, an OS wasn't just useful, it was beautiful. Shortly before, Apple started releasing computer with colours, moking their beige PC counterparts.
During that time, Microsoft released Windows XP which, at the beginning, got a lot of hatred. Then they got working on Windows Longhorn which was supposed to be XP's successor. But when they saw how popular Mac was becoming, they scrapped it and started from scratch which made Vista come out 5 years after XP... and fully slowed down and buggy.
They managed to get things right 3 years later with Windows 7 but then they acted like they were calling the shots like in the 90's and thought "We'll make this OS that's aimed entirely at touch screens!". So they took the very good product that was Windows 7, removed the start menu and button (!!!) and changed the desktop from the center of the OS to a plain app thinking people would just adapt... but people get confused when their browser gets updated and looks a little different... so imagine a whole OS!
Again, they realized they made a mistake that they tried to fix with Windows 8.1.
Sadly, the same pattern applies with Xbox Music on Windows Phone 8.1. You had a great music player called the Zune. From Zune to the Music+Video hub, they lost functionnalities (gapless playback, FM radio, etc.). But then Microsoft decides they want to add functionnalities on Xbox Music more often and include streaming so, again, they scrap the whole thing and start from sratch and they release it in the wild fully buggy and slowed...
Microsoft should really stop scrapping things and starting over. Everytime it takes immense amount of time to correct and they're always set back after their competition. Sometimes it's the best thing to scrap and start over indeed... but if you do that, you have to make sure the product you're putting out is superior to the previous one and your competitors... not worst.
Honestly, your history is a little off. You kind of lost me in the first sentence when you imply that OSX was so groundbreaking that it caused MS to get tripped up.
OSX had no noticeable impact on Microsoft at that time and to this day that is basically still the case. MS did scrap many *parts* of Longhorn, but it wasn't because of anything that Apple was doing. It was because some of the technical goals turned out to be more complicated than anticipated and because MS was suddenly having to alter their software to comply with government restrictions due to their new Monopoly status. Also, during those years between XP and 7, Microsoft was heavily focused on the enterprise and modern development tools (which was a very successful effort).
The idea that MS had little or no competition in the 80's and 90's is not accurate either. They were up against huge (at the time) and established companies like IBM, HP, Novell, SCO, and Oracle. They eventually won most of those battles and Windows, Office, etc. became the "standards", but it certainly wasn't a competition free environment. If anything, the competition was much more brutal than today and in many of those fights MS was the underdog.
As far as Windows 8, that isn't really "starting over" any more than Windows Vista or Windows XP were starting over. It is change designed to keep up with constantly evolving technology. Windows 8 is basically Windows 7 + touch apps and a touch optimized start menu. I realize that a lot of people haven't handled that amount of change well (much like they didn't with Vista and XP), but keeping things stagnant to make all the change-adverse people out there happy is a sure way to fail in the technology industry. Anyway, my point is that they didn't "restart" with Windows 8. It is almost completely backward compatible with Windows 7 (more so than nearly any previous version change).
I agree with your Xbox Music example though. I wish they had just rebranded Zune and used that as a starting point.
Anyway, I agree with your overall premise that MS should commit to their goals more often than they have. I just don't think some of the history or examples you gave are accurate. However, MS releases a lot of products. Much more than most people are aware of. Microsoft is unique in that they compete in nearly every realm of computer technology and they are in first, second, or third place in each. Nearly all of their competitors only compete in 2 or 3 major areas of computer technology. They have certainly made some missteps over the years, but it's like the saying goes...
"Show me someone that has never made a mistake and I'll show you someone that has never done anything."
I don't care about what Microsoft is doing. I only know one thing : Desktop IE sucks.
Does it really matter who stole what from who? I mean, OS 10.10 stole aero view and the transparency effects from Vista. iOS also copied the card view. I really don't see how copying features makes it "better".
I also fail to understand why starting over, if the current system if broken, is a bad thing. I mean, I get that you can argue that they should've done it right the first time, but I don't think any company can get everything right the first time.
I miss groups myself. Having all my closest friends on a single live tile. Family on another. Just so I could see the l their feeds...RUINED!
As far as Longhorn, I've read in the past (and just confirmed here) that it wasn't just "some parts" of it but rather that "Longhorn OS that was abandoned after years of development and almost entirely rewritten for release as Windows Vista.
Yep! Also, although I get why they changed it, I don't understand why the People Hub didn't just become a non-system app like Xbox Music so they could update it accordingly to changed in different networks. There was probably a reason we don't know about but it's still a shame.
*Sigh*. It's hard to have a constructive conversation when we must rely on such crappy journalism for our facts. Not your fault of course. I only read the parts of the article related to Longhorn, and a lot of it is just plain wrong.
At around the time Vista was released, I worked at a large software company with very close ties to MS' Windows division. I can tell you first hand that Longhorn is what most came to know as Windows Vista. It's the same thing. Longhorn was not abandoned, and the OS was not rewritten from scratch. What MS did abandon were a lot of the features they had originally planned to include in Vista/Longhorn. It doesn't sound like that is what the author meant, but it's the only thing I can come up with if I don't want to accuse the author of just making stuff up.
Anyway, Cleavitt76 got it right. There are a few developers on this site with a lot more knowledge than your average tech journalist.
Oh yeah, but despite this misrepresentation, I'd also agree with your overall assessment that MS too often tends to throw things out and start over again. That accusation should go towards the developer division however. The windows division doesn't generally do that though. The change from WP7 to WP8 is the only exception I can think of, and that was necessary because the Windows kernel just wasn't ready at the time and MS needed to put something on the market rather sooner than later.
The dialer sends you to the PHONEBOOK because it is assumed that if you're in the dialer app, you intend to make a phone call. The people hub works as it always did.I just discovered that you can in fact still make and edit groups!!! The difference now is that before you could access it from the dialer. Now you can only do it from going to the people hub direct from the apps list. My faith has been restored!
We'd have to compare sources. Because I remember reading otherwise at the time. Plus, Mac OS X was highly successful compared to earlier versions as it was the first time Mac OS was no longer seen as a closed "incompatible with PCs" machine but rather a full personal computer (in the purest meaning of the word). Plus, it's undeniable that much of the graphical interface from Vista as well as some software are copied over, or at least highly inspired, from Mac OS X. That part is a fact. The rest, like I said, we'd have to check with our respective sources to know who's right. But it's a little pointless overall.
As far as Longhorn, I've read in the past (and just confirmed here) that it wasn't just "some parts" of it but rather that "Longhorn OS that was abandoned after years of development and almost entirely rewritten for release as Windows Vista."
In the 90's, of course there were other players like IBM, HP, Novell, SCO and Oracle, I'm not saying otherwise. I was talking about home users, not companies. But I do understand how I was vague about this. In the 90's, not many households had systems based on something else than Windows 3.11, 95, 98 and so on.
For Windows 8, take everyday ends users and remove their main screen (the desktop) to show them a new screen by default, relegating the desktop to an app that you have to find at first with no obvious ways of going back to the start screen, that's called starting over. What Microsoft tried to do with Windows 8 was to focus on touch screens in which the desktop is less useful. But they went too fast and all over the place, hence de heavy criticism. I'm not saying they rewrote their OS. I'm saying they tried to change the system so the desktop would be replaced by the start screen. For people who don't use computers that often or who don't like change (there are a lot) that was like starting over. It was like saying "You know the desktop with the start menu you've been using for 20 years? Well now it's gone. Deal with it".
Also, Microsoft certainly never said, "The desktop is gone. Deal with it." That is the buzz that some people have created and spread, but that was never Microsoft's message or plan (as evident by the fact that they desktop is still there and MS still write new desktop software themselves).
Yeah, I'm in IT too and I see the same thing with certain people (mostly those that haven't actually tried it). I personally think MS is ahead of its time with Windows 8 from a technical perspective. However, in terms of marketing it, well, they let it get away from them and so from a consumer perspective you are probably correct. Many [clueless] consumers probably perceive it as yet another MS restart. Maybe it's a good example after all.