

Creating the Windows 8 user experience - davux
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/05/18/creating-the-windows-8-user-experience.aspx

======
silverbax88
I see this as nothing less than a massive misstep by Microsoft. Trying to
create a primary OS based on mobile devices is a great way to give market
share to the companies that already own those spaces while giving up the one
that you own. Microsoft even says that "some people" still need desktop PC's,
then names 'video editors, financial analysts, scientists, gamers, PC
enthusiasts…'...so everyone who needs to actually do work on a PC.

I get it - Microsoft thinks that they want the big market, and that the big
market is content consumers. But 50% of Microsoft's revenue comes from
Microsoft Office - and that hasn't changed. Furthermore, Google and Apple
already own the market on smart phone OSs and nothing Microsoft has done in
the past has shown that they have any ability to crack into that market.

So effectively, Microsoft wants to create an OS that abandons their core
revenue base while going after one that has rejected them repeatedly.

At best, it's Windows ME. At worst, it's the rise of Linux and Apple as the
future of the desktop.

~~~
CamperBob2
_So effectively, Microsoft wants to create an OS that abandons their core
revenue base while going after one that has rejected them repeatedly._

Exactly. There may be some precedent for a successful OS built on a bifurcated
strategy like what MS has outlined for Windows 8, but at 43, I'm not old
enough to remember it.

~~~
courage
I think DOS/Windows is a pretty good analog, and it was very successful.

~~~
CamperBob2
An interesting point, but I'm not sure it applies. Microsoft knew they could
never really commoditize computing with a command-line OS, so Windows was an
absolute necessity. It was demanded by literally billions of customers, most
of whom didn't even know they needed it. Even then, Windows took several years
and three major versions before it really caught on.

These days, desktop computers are as ubiquitous as they are ever going to get,
and few people are demanding a replacement for the traditional Windows UI on
the desktop. Unlike DOS, what Microsoft has is good enough for the mass
desktop/laptop market. The fact that it's not good enough for mobile does not
in _any_ way justify tinkering with their successful desktop strategy. IMO,
what we're seeing is yet another panicked, reactionary twitch from the Ballmer
executive suite.

------
rbanffy
The fact is almost every HP, Acer, Dell and Toshiba will come with it pre-
installed. There is basically no way it will be labeled a failure, even if
nobody uses it.

Remember Windows Vista was considered a great success
(<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2130290,00.asp>).

When you buy a generic x86 computer (any non-Apple x86, that is) you have 3
choices of OS: you can leave whatever came on the machine (most likely
Windows), you can install a previous version of Windows you already had
floating around or you can install any of the fine *nix-based OSs that will
run on it. Most people opt for #1, some resent change (or just dislike what
came with the machine) and opt for #2 and a tiny minority goes with #3 (me
included).

That means I am part of Vista's and 7's success stories - I bought computers
with them installed and never bothered to return the licenses, although I
never used either. From a sales perspective, I'm a happy Windows user.

~~~
sixothree
That's great for the desktop and notebook market. But now you have to convince
people to buy Windows based tablets.

~~~
rbanffy
Microsoft OEMs will build them in order to qualify for discounts in desktop
and laptop W8 licenses. And x86-based tablets will be able to go into classic
mode (and JIT JavaScript) and run current x86 apps.

Why would anyone desire a W8 ARM tablet instead of a much cheaper (as in "you
can buy two of them") Android-based one or an iPad is an excellent question,
but we should never underestimate the power of advertising.

------
bitwize
_Where Microsoft used to primarily focus on reducing memory consumption, now
we are also laser-focused on improving battery life while still delivering a
fast and fluid user experience._

If Microsoft's previos focus on reducing memory consumption produced prior
versions of windows, their new focus on increasing battery life should produce
Windows 8 tablets that last a half an hour, tops.

While I'm at it, in general, fuck Windows 8. The UI may be nice, but Microsoft
is taking such a massive power dump on developers and users alike with this
turkey that they have a tough road ahead of them if they want to even get
within spitting distance of the iPad in terms of mindshare.

~~~
glhaynes
Microsoft products often annoy me, but "too much memory consumption" is pretty
low on the list. Does Windows 7 really demand a substantially higher amount of
memory than similarly-capable competing systems in most categories? (Linux
running FVWM isn't comparable for most categories.)

I agree that Windows 8 is so far rather unconvincing with regard to providing
a realistically strong competitor to the iPad in market terms; but if I were
to hear that the Windows team was focusing on some _technical_ aspect, I'd
expect, based on history, to see them have pretty good success with it.

~~~
sliverstorm
_"too much memory consumption" is pretty low on the list._

The reason it isn't high on the list is because they already tackled that for
Win7. You may not remember, but it was a growing problem before 7.

They aren't saying here that they need to reduce memory consumption further;
they are saying that they will do the same thing with battery life for Win8,
that they did with memory for Win7.

~~~
glhaynes
I think you've misunderstood my point which was that Microsoft engineers are
very capable of reducing memory usage if charged to do so (and, as you say,
history bears this out) and that I would expect them to likewise be able to
reduce power usage [within the constraints provided by environment and
hardware requirements].

~~~
lusr
There's a big difference between reducing memory pressure/performance (which
kind of solved itself once applications stopped increasing memory usage faster
than the price/Mb dropped, and the move from 32-bit to 64-bit helped a bit
too; handling stupid things like XP swapping everything out to disk overnight
were easy wins as well) and improving power efficiency (requires application
and OS redesign, which Microsoft have done and judging by the moaning about
WinRT in this thread by developers the uptake will be a challenge; even then
if you improve efficiency people just keep using the damn devices even more so
it's really difficult to win whereas with memory there's a typical usage value
that changes safely relative to RAM increases as applications grow over the
years, whereas battery capacity isn't improving as rapidly).

I'm throwing another 12GB of RAM (making 24GB total) into my system tomorrow
when I install Windows 8. Together with my new SSD it'll help crunching
through some large data sets so that I can hit 100% CPU utilization. It cost
me $100 USD to do so in a country where we often pay double for electronics.
Few "normal" people can utilize all of that during the normal course of using
a PC. Memory pressure is an easy problem to solve.

------
gbvc
Windows 95 Media Player could do more than play wav files, you could certainly
watch videos.

Also there was a lot of evolution between Windows 95 and XP that gets glossed
over, as the internet became more important. XP, with some minor tweaks, could
behave like a stabler version of 95/98 (I must admit that I stripped much of
the chrome away for a few months, till I got more comfortable with the
slightly different look and feel of the menus and task bar).

The also ignore one significant trend-following dead-end from the 95/98 era:
Active Desktop- Vista wasn't the first time they headed up a blind UX alley.

Even with Windows 7, I think they overstate the differences with its
predecessors: the Start Menu remains as important as ever.

------
metrop0219
I think that people here are too pessimistic in general about Windows 8.

Look at the current trends in computing. They're using those trends to
influence this release. And I think that a lot of the design decisions
(especially ones like "content over chrome" are really damn good).

It's going to be super interesting to see how this thing is received by non-
techy people come the holiday season.

~~~
jasomill
True, but with the exception of tablets, the trends themselves sound
problematic at best. To wit:

"Today, this is increasingly how we see many people use their devices,
obsessively switching between different websites and programs on their PC and
apps on their phone, checking to see if there’s anything new to see or do."

Just what I want my OS to facilitate. Perhaps the new OS should come bundled
with an Adderall prescription?

Personally, I've found that the new Start Screen works well . . . once I've
_removed all the tiles_. Similarly, one of my gripes with iOS has always been
the home screen's tendency to remove the first page if it doesn't contain at
least one icon. Surely I'm not the only one that launches things from
Spotlight and the "double tap" bar 99.9% of the time? Organizing icons is shit
work.

