Hacker Newsnew | comments | ask | jobs | submitlogin
dpark 771 days ago | link | parent

Are you under the impression that Apple (or Ubuntu or whatever) generally changes their interfaces less that Microsoft? I'm not clear how Microsoft's changes are inherently an issue while, say, Apple's are not. Or are you of the opinion that no one would ever choose Windows except for the sake of familiarity (which if true would mean Windows is doomed anyway).


MatthewPhillips 771 days ago | link

My point (which I stand by) is that normal users struggle with small changes that power users quickly work around / accept. Being the existing way that (most) people "get things done", Microsoft has an obvious advantage. But as the changes grow, and obviously Windows 8 is a massive one, the incentive to stick with what you know shrinks; it is no longer what you know.

Really from an interface perspective Windows 8 is a completely new beast. The only advantage you have is that you still have Word. Otherwise you'd be at major risk of losing higher end customers to Apple, but you're probably still at risk of losing customers to the iPad on the lower end.

Honestly, can you explain why Microsoft chose to all but abandon the desktop market? The only explanation that makes sense to me is infighting; the Windows division successfully killed the courier and got to be the ones that made the tablet, and it made sense (to them) to not break the team into 2 separate groups (as is more logical) so they simply picked what seemed like a more future-proof bet.

-----

dpark 771 days ago | link

> My point (which I stand by) is that normal users struggle with small changes that power users quickly work around / accept.

Absolutely. I think we just disagree on how catastrophic that is. I think most Windows XP users would find that Windows 7 is much less of a change than OS X Lion.

Windows 8 is a different beast altogether and it is indeed a huge bet.

> Honestly, can you explain why Microsoft chose to all but abandon the desktop market? The only explanation that makes sense to me is infighting; the Windows division successfully killed the courier and got to be the ones that made the tablet, and it made sense (to them) to not break the team into 2 separate groups (as is more logical) so they simply picked what seemed like a more future-proof bet.

[What's below are purely my thoughts and guesses. I have zero actual insight into the Windows team or its non-public history or plans.]

I don't think infighting is a factor. I think a fairly unified vision is driving Windows 8. But I personally think that it's for the best that Courier was killed off. After using modern tablets, it becomes obvious that two smaller screens is simply less compelling. It's worse for media consumption, and it is also more awkward to use when not placed on a flat surface. Gate's original vision for tablet computing was close to what users want. However, touch first and pen second is what was missing (and obviously users will give up the pen entirely if they have to). Of course shoehorning the desktop OS onto tablets was not the right approach, any more than it was the right approach for phones.

I also don't believe that Microsoft is abandoning the desktop market. They've got a different vision for it now, though. The Metro world is much different from Windows 7, but it's not worse. I would say that in many ways it is much better. I even think that Metro with a mouse and keyboard will be an improvement over Windows 7. What's jarring is the marriage between the legacy desktop and the modern style. I think the legacy desktop is intended to become less and less important over time, though, and eventually typical users will never see it at all (though I could be wrong). At that point, the only interface they will use will be Metro, and the transitions to and from the legacy desktop will be gone. I expect that the various other differences will eventually either become moot as people adjust or they will be addressed in a future release.

I disagree that splitting the team into separate groups would be more logical. There's no reason that a compelling tablet OS can't be a compelling desktop OS. It does require changing some interaction paradigms, though.

-----




Lists | RSS | Bookmarklet | Guidelines | FAQ | DMCA | News News | Feature Requests | Bugs | Y Combinator | Apply | Library

Search: