Microsoft, scrapping things and starting over... and failure...

[Chregu]

Oh yes it is ahead. At first I was thrown off by it but quickly loved it (which is why I'm all Microsoft now). But most people I help don't want to learn a new thing especially with such a big learning curve. I get the feeling a lot if people are like that hence Microsoft bringing back the Start button and soon Start menu.

Eventually when we'll all be using touch screens, I hope Microsoft doesn't wipe it and change interface again though ha ha! ;-)

I had to learn it as I installed Windows 8 very early (it was offered from my university). I still didn't like it. Personally I can't understand why people in this forum always assume that Windows 8 wasn't liked because users were too lazy or too stupid. It just wasn't good in the eyes of many, including mine.

And even with Windows 8.1 Update 1 I'm looking forward to the start menu coming back.

 

[AG VK]

It wasn't OS X that changed things. It was the change from PowerPC CPUs to regular Intel x86 on the Mac range. That meant that converting applications to run on Macs became much easier by orders of magnitude. Even today, there are multiple tools out there meant to run Windows programs on OS X and that was possible only with the new CPUs. That was when Macs made the transition from niche to (almost) mainstream.

 

[dlalonde]

I had to learn it as I installed Windows 8 very early (it was offered from my university). I still didn't like it. Personally I can't understand why people in this forum always assume that Windows 8 wasn't liked because users were too lazy or too stupid. It just wasn't good in the eyes of many, including mine.

And even with Windows 8.1 Update 1 I'm looking forward to the start menu coming back.

Well, as I've said, as an IT, the comments I get from the people I serve have nothing to do with looks but rather that they are lost. And I've never said they were lazy or stupid but rather uninterested in change or confused. There's a huge difference and I would never disrespect these people as being lazy or stupid. If I was forced to work in a car motor everyday I wouldn't particularly enjoy it but then if I lost my points of reference, I would also be confused an maybe angry... Doesn't mean I'm lazy or stupid.

 

[Joe.User]

The thing is that by scrapping things and starting over with things like Windows 8, Microsoft is really trying to innovate. They realize that something like Windows 7, with essentially the same interface as the OS from almost a decade prior isn't good enough anymore. For once in a long time, they took a risk and tried something completely different, something we hadn't seen from them in a long time. And is any product perfect when it first launches? Hell no. The early Macs are a great example, a formula that Apple got right with OS X, not from the very start.

Now personally, I love Windows 8.1 and the way it integrates so seamlessly with the services I want. I love the interface, and I think all of this hate towards Windows 8.1 is undeserving. Yes it has it's flaws, but they are slowly but surely being polished. People just need to take a minute or two and stop being so ignorant, at least give things a try. I mean just take a look at the first version of Windows 8 that shipped compared to the one we use now, there's a huge difference in the overall usability and intuitiveness. It takes time and consumer feedback for products to shape into something near perfect. Rarely is it stellar right off the bat. The important thing to take away from it is that Microsoft is trying to innovate and follow it's own path, rather than stick with an interface that is a decade old. Innovation of any kind, is a very very good thing. It'll force other companies to up their game and in the end, it all benefits the consumer.

So maybe they don't have it quite right...
But they sure don't have it wrong.

 

[altair679]

There, fixed (;

Yeah, thanks mate

 

[waazzupppp]

I think the OP is just sighting text book references on this one, but I do agree that the scrap and react method of thinking is not going to work in the future. I don't believe that MS is doing that though. Take a quick look at the real history and you can see a much different picture...

XP was the best version of Windows ever. When Apple was competing with Microsoft, 3.11 was out and the biggest competitor was IBM OS2. When Apple tanked (mainly due to not licensing their OS to 3rd party makers) who stepped in to bail them out? Microsoft.

During the 90's, Microsoft also dominated the mobile market in the US with Pocket PC and eventually Windows Mobile. They carried this torch in the states until BlackBerry became so popular in the mid-00's. WM was to the US what Symbian was to the rest of the world. It wasn't until 2007 and the launch of iOS that there was any serious threat to losing in the mobile race.

Where the death blow came for Microsoft was from companies like Google - not on the OS front - but in services. Google beat MS to market with better services in mapping, email, searching and video sharing. Microsoft missed the internet and what it would become. MSN should have been Facebook, but instead was AOL. Messenger should have been Google Voice, but instead was scrapped. They still don't have a video sharing service and the deal they negotiated with Navteq for Bing Maps was terrible. Overall, they screwed up.

Fast forward to modern day Microsoft and you have a whole new dynamic set of catch-up to play. Windows Phone should probably be abandoned in favor of Windows 9 itself. More work in integration of services and price them aggressively. Going after cross platform users is a great idea as well - which we already see happening. The fact is, MS got caught with their pants down and everyone ran past them. Even Amazon beat MS the three screen concept! Terrible...

We forget how many terrible projects MS threw out - mostly on the consumer end. Anyone remember WebTV? MS just got passed up, but they will be back. The question is, are they going to try and copy Apple or will they go back to being the best Software and Services company for everyone?

Just my thoughts...

 

[neo158]

*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. 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.

That's not strictly true though, Longhorn wasn't abandoned but the version based on XP was in favour of a Server 2k3 variant.

 

[snowmutt]

Where do I agree and where do I disagree without going all "write a novel"?

The problem is, Microsoft is playing chess and everyone else is playing checkers. People look at what is happening on the hardware and OS side of things, and fail to understand that MS is coming at things from an entire different model. Enterprise, MS's financial backbone, is JUST NOW converting to Windows 7. It took a decade for that to happen from XP and Vista (which was not a success by MS's standards, but nowhere near the flop we have associated it with being). Windows 7 support and services will be hitting it's apex long before Windows 8 even starts to get adopted. MS know this. They have more then a few years before what is now Windows 8 and will surely be something else is even remotely getting adopted by business. That is the main goal- get the next wave of adoption. They are betting by that time, enterprise will be moving from stationary PC's to complete mobile tech. THAT is what the Windows 8 launch was for. To get it right by that timeframe.

As for services, the consumer market has always en a goal for MS (The Zune, the Kin, the XBOX are all examples of that), but it is NOT their bread and butter. And most likely won't be anytime soon. They want to compete in it and profit from it. But they NEED the enterprise market. They cannot lose that.

I will admit to one thing: I am not sure how Windows Phone settles into their company vision. Do they want to compete for the BlackBerry crowd? If so, they are sincerely spinning their heels and need to get true enterprise software on WP soon. I am mystified as to why they haven't. Is WP honestly a consumer product? If so, they are heading in the right direction but need that low end market to translate to top end market soon.

Crap..... wrote a novel anyways. Sigh.....

 

[fdalbor]

The truth of the matter is if Apple's OS for their computers was as good as you imply they would own more than the small percent of the market they have. I think its nice but hardly ground breaking. As far as XP you can say what you want, it has lasted as long as it has because it does a pretty good job compared to what else is out there. It still owns more than twice the market share that Apples OS has and Microsoft is having a hell of a time getting rid of it. The people have spoken. And as far as Netscape, it owned the web in the beginning. I remember when there was no Explorer, I was one of the first Explorer users vrs. 1.0 that they bought most of the code from Spyglass. They beat Netscape because they gave away explorer and when Netscape could no longer sell its browser they did not have the funds to keep up with Microsoft. They lost money; but won the war. And that was not yesterday. Oh yes there was no broadband, everyone used dialup. Don't know if Microsoft will fix all the things we think they are doing wrong. IF they do, then great. We will stay with them and ride the wave. If not, we will find another boat and sail off into the sunset. The world won't end and I doubt the boat is going to sink. they haven't lost any major ships yet, row boats don't count.

 

[a5cent]

Longhorn was not abandoned, and the OS was not rewritten from scratch.

That's not strictly true though, Longhorn wasn't abandoned but the version based on XP was in favour of a Server 2k3 variant.

I think you need to revaluate the meaning of "strictly speaking".:wink: Strictly speaking, both of my statements are true.

I understand your point though. Yes, MS stopped developing on the XP branch and derived Vista from the Server 2003 branch, but I suspect you envision this to be a far bigger deal than it actually was.

Both Server 2003 and XP were based on Windows NT. Both Server 2003 and XP shared the overwhelming majority of their code. Both Server 2003 and XP were just two separate branches off the same trunk, and MS routinely merged code back and forth between both branches! Windows XP Professional was, at the time, actually already based on Server 2003! You make it sound like XP was an entirely separate OS that they dumped, but that would be incorrect.

This thread asks how often MS scraps something and starts over. Stopping development on the XP branch and continuing it on the Server 2003 branch isn't an example of that. This is my main point.

 

[mrpuny]

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.

Was it really completely "broken" (i.e. irredeemable)? If not, then I think this should be considered (and to varying degrees, not just to Xbox Music, but the whole Win8/WP8 transition)

 

[SSgt Bruskowiz]

@ OP
wat's your point?
I don't see any competition.
Any os should be fine, as long if it does what the user wants.
It has to be practical, some like to work with Apple and some with Linux or Windows.
The best OS is the one who fits your needs, everything else is just a waist of money

The only thing i dislike about MS is "forcing" updates.
But thats a pure personal "issue"
My lappy runs fine on 7, but had to upgrade to 8 for doing some appcoding for wp8
The transition went great, until they "forced" 8.1 as a desktop os.
**** happends, my laptop cant run 8.1 due graphics driver issues, so i have to stay behind.
But staying on 8 the IE browser wont get update to IE 11.
If i want that explorer update, i have to return to 7 or go to 8.1 ( moving back or forth ), the last one is no option.
But its stil a matter of choice.
MS is trying to get more developers, but to develop you need atleast a win 8 desktop os.
But they also want you to have a save ie browser........so build that darn thing that it can operate on win8
Or rebuild the developerskit that can run on windows 7.

But then again, a matter of choice.
I choose to do a step back and running again on 7

 

[astondg]

Wow, people really don't like change.

Even as a purely desktop PC, provided you install one of the many Start Menu extensions, Windows 8 has benefits over Windows 7. I know things like Explorer (or at least large parts of it) were rewritten to improve speed and functionality. The management of NTFS was reworked (things like ChkDsk were rewritten) The DPI scaling was revisited (I know it's still not perfect but it was improved). Printing was improved/simplified. A lot of work was done with hardware drivers and testing. File History was added to simplify backups for the average consumer. Boot speeds were significantly improved. Cloud services were integrated more tightly into the OS. More parental controls were added for users with children. The list goes on and on.

My point is that Windows 8 wasn't a 'start from scratch' OS, sure large parts were changed and improved to make them better, but underneath it all is still the same OS you're used to. Add the start menu back in if you need it and you'll be set to go.

EDIT: I'll also say that Windows 8 had a very accessible 'preview' release, as have the last two Windows Phone updates, and Microsoft seems very responsive to user feedback. They are intentionally getting this stuff out early to people to get feedback so they can build what we want and not what the dev team has decided is best.

 

[mrpuny]

Wow, people really don't like change.

Even as a purely desktop PC, provided you install one of the many Start Menu extensions, Windows 8 has benefits over Windows 7. I know things like Explorer (or at least large parts of it) were rewritten to improve speed and functionality. The management of NTFS was reworked (things like ChkDsk were rewritten) The DPI scaling was revisited (I know it's still not perfect but it was improved). Printing was improved/simplified. A lot of work was done with hardware drivers and testing. File History was added to simplify backups for the average consumer. Boot speeds were significantly improved. Cloud services were integrated more tightly into the OS. More parental controls were added for users with children. The list goes on and on.

My point is that Windows 8 wasn't a 'start from scratch' OS, sure large parts were changed and improved to make them better, but underneath it all is still the same OS you're used to. Add the start menu back in if you need it and you'll be set to go.

EDIT: I'll also say that Windows 8 had a very accessible 'preview' release, as have the last two Windows Phone updates, and Microsoft seems very responsive to user feedback. They are intentionally getting this stuff out early to people to get feedback so they can build what we want and not what the dev team has decided is best.

Just a couple of comments. First the obvious - if only the Sinofsky regime was as receptive to feedback as the current leadership appears to be. Sure there was a 'preview' for 8.0, but did anyone take feedback into account?

Second: I'm someone who started playing around with Windows 8 from the first release of the developer preview. Loved the general concepts, learned to use it, and when it was finally commercially released, I updated all but one of my home computers to it. (The one I didn't update is a Windows Media Center "server", and I didn't - and still don't - see the point for updating that one....)

Windows 8.0 definitely had a learning curve, but I was OK with that. It was exciting, and I quickly came to like it a lot. I still have a launch day Surface RT - use it everyday. That said, I also have experience with Windows 8.x at work, and while 8.1 (esp. the latest update) is good, I found 8.0 oddly frustrating. I was familiar with it, and even though I knew the essentials, in an environment where I literally had no use for any "Metro" apps (all our work apps were Desktop apps) I found Windows 8.0 annoying. (Win 8.1, and especially update 1 are much better in that regard.) I've also had to help some friends (since I'm the "computer guy") with Windows 8, and while it's definitely gotten better with the 8.1 updates, man MS really screwed the pooch with the 8.0 transition....

 

[fatclue_98]

Wow. That's all I can say about this thread. There's a reason engineers **** heads with the bean counters in just about every industry. Let me impart some wisdom that seems to escape most tech aficionados: price of shares beats market share every day of the week. Microsoft has the money and the moxie to blow all but a few companies off the corporate globe. But that requires the kind of capital that makes investors nervous. Two words that don't belong in the same sentence are nervous and investor. Boardroom coups are made that way.

Scrapping things and starting over are not done on a whim, except if your name is Leo Apotheker but that's another story. R&D departments work for years on new products before the first alpha ever sees the light of day. By the time a new product hits the market it may have already been deemed obsolete - Palm Foleo among others. Corporate espionage is a big business. Knowing what your foe is planning to do 5 years ahead of time is like having your own Ft. Knox. It's no coincidence that manufacturers release similar products and technologies within close proximity. Anybody really think that companies can just wave a wand and release a similar product within a few months?

It's nice to see the enthusiasm shown on these boards but as Pat Riley said today "everybody needs to get a grip".

 

[tungha]

i give this topic 10/10 Microsoft needs to stop playing around with their 'touch windows' and get back to old day with Windows 9. Keep moving with WP until it matures to become the OS for Tablets. Kill Windows RT BTW.

 

[astondg]

Just a couple of comments. First the obvious - if only the Sinofsky regime was as receptive to feedback as the current leadership appears to be. Sure there was a 'preview' for 8.0, but did anyone take feedback into account?

I felt like they did but I don't have anything off hand to back that up. Given the extent of the whole process, receiving the feedback from many people, collating it, understanding it, prioritising it amongst other feedback and work already scheduled and then designing, implementing, testing and releasing a solution, I wouldn't be surprised if feedback from the preview was responsible for changes released in 8.1 & Update 1.

I'm a .NET software developer by day, so all my dev tools live in the desktop world and I've used a Surface Pro since it's release so I know what it's like to work in that environment. However I still use Modern Mail, IE, PDF Reader, Music & Video and many others at the same time as Visual Studio, SQL Server, Gimp, etc. etc. and I actually like finding Modern apps to replace my desktop ones where I can because of the integration with the share charms and things like Play To.

In saying that I also worked in an environment recently where I had Windows 8 on a locked down desktop with NO Internet access and only desktop Outlook for internal email and in that case Modern didn't make a lot of sense so I installed an extension to boot to desktop and used it just as I would a Windows 7 machine. (I could have brought the Start Menu back too but for me there was no difference between it and the start page).

BTW: I installed Windows 8.1 on my Media Center PC and I think it's great because the live tiles of the start screen provide a nice overview of News, Emails, Calendar and other things as well as having the Modern apps scale nicely so they're easy to use on the T.V. from the lounge chair.

 

[dlalonde]

The truth of the matter is if Apple's OS for their computers was as good as you imply they would own more than the small percent of the market they have. I think its nice but hardly ground breaking.

I didn't comment on Apple's OS. I just said that with Mac OS X, circa 2000/2001, people started liking Mac OS and switching to a more attractive OS (in comparison to XP that was a little bland) and I think Microsoft wanted to compete with this with Vista and Aero.

 

[Vitor Salvatore Pierce]

Why Xbox Music is to sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooow to open?! WHY?

 

[Vitor Salvatore Pierce]

And, I do not like star menu from W7. 8.1 > 7