Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's New Mantra - It Just Works
bonch writes "Fortune has a story about Microsoft's new philosophy--'It just works.' Jim Allchin details various planned Longhorn features to meet this goal, such as auto-defragmenting in the background, the ability to have files in more than one folder simultaneously, and the new ad campaign Microsoft is running to get people excited about Windows. Mentions are also made of the competition from Linux, OS X Tiger, and Google."
Wow. Cannot Microsoft even come up with their own mantras rather than copy others? Come on now guys, this is pathetic, but I guess nothing is new under the sun. Seriously though, even now, I still own a bit of stock in Microsoft and I've been to the campus a number of times, so from the annual reports I get, along with friends who work there, I know Microsoft can/should be able to do better than this. (Or can they?)
There are absolutely some capable folks there, so what is the problem? Why must you (almost) always use Apple as a source for inspiration? There is a reason that I moved my investments in Microsoft stock to Apple stock three years ago, and you are doing nothing to make me want to reinvest in Microsoft. Is marketing that out of control up there? Jim, come on now, I've met you and you are one smart guy. Finding the above link to Apple took me all of two seconds in Google and this statement from the article: "Jim Allchin, Microsoft's group vice president for platforms, looked at my Apple PowerBook and smugly pointed out that the number of copies of Windows sold this year will be more than all the Macintosh computers used worldwide." really worries me. It shows an arrogance that is not going to serve you or Microsoft well.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
If you put in a DVD, the volume will automatically adjust and the video will just start playing full screen. "You shouldn't have to spend a lot of time struggling with things," Allchin said
How long will I have to struggle with it to figure out how to turn that off?
Or, It Already Works For Someone Else So We'll Pinch It:
auto-defragmenting in the background HFS+
ability to have files in more than one folder simultaneously symlinks, Smart Folders
the new ad campaign Microsoft is running to get people excited about Windows Maybe that does indeed Just Work. No-one ever got fired for choosing a Microsoft (although there are places where that's beginning to change).
So far we have
Free as in costs money
Advantage as in same later
and open as in closed
We have a new entry
It just works as in windows.
Quite inkeeping with the rest of the publicity statments i belive
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
No kidding. I hate automatic stuff. Don't move my frickin' icons, I put them there for a reason. Don't hide those menu commands, I like to know what my options are. Don't hide the programs that are running...
Seriously, is it THAT hard to get people to understand symlinks?
For those who don't read beyond the end of TFA... a great quote (with attribution): First, from TFA a quote from Allchin re the current state of affairs in XP vs. what Longhorn "will" deliver: Allchin: Microsoft's research shows that the average corporate employee spends about 20% of her time on the PC simply looking for items. Then, the comment from a reader: Rod Shuffler 04/22 10:55 An interesting article. Does that 20% non-productivity figure that Allchin quotes get factored into TCO arguments?
"the ability to have files in more than one folder simultaneously"
Is it just me.. or do all OSes do this? I have thousands of files, all in different places, all at the same time... right now.
-m
Because stealing from Apple just works.
In reality, as cute as it may be to point out the 'imitation' going on here, it might be better to look at the renewed (finally!) competition taking place. For years, Microsoft has been relatively reluctant to do any serious innovation in OS development, instead focusing on the issues that were generating the most complaints. Think about it, from Windows 95 through Windows XP, what major innovations have been introduced?
Now, however, that Mac OS has been making big strides and an ever increasing number of people have started to look at it as a viable alternative (even in my small-business workplace!), Microsoft has seemingly started to take the competition seriously. This is a Good Thing!
Competition always benefits the consumer, and prior to the last couple years, there *was no competition* in the desktop OS category.
Exactly. The difference between Microsoft and Apple's interface philosophy (I think):
1. Apple makes it easy for the user to do complicated things.
2. Microsoft tries to automatically do complicated things for the user.
Approach #1 might be somewhat restrictive but gives the user some credit.
Approach #2 is rife with problems, notably ActiveX, email attachments that run themselves, autoscanning HDDs, and myriad other annoyances/outright hazards.
I'll take approach #1. It just works.
Because, as we know "It Just Works" was invented by Apple.
You have to admit, it's better than the old one:
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It just works...
<zoom in on fine print...>
The "It just works" slogan is representative that Microsoft products will work for something. Microsoft guarantees that all hardware running Microsoft software will always "Just work" as:
Boat anchors
Target practice
Paper weights
Furniture, including bookends, footstools, and coffee tables
"It just works" may or may not apply to:
File storage
Application development
Application platform
Gaming
Multimedia
Use of the Internet
depending on the availability of service packs, updates, and copious bandwidth, as well as other factors (not exclusively including) ambient temperature, the phase of the moon, the average body mass index of Microsoft programmers, and the parity of your score when you reach the flagpole.
I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
Apple: proudly failing to capitalize on good ideas since 1976
The much better solution would be to tag the MP3's with metadata that gets cached into a searchable database, and then completely ignore the folder hierarchy.
You know, kinda like iTunes does.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
When iTunes first came out, WinAmp users were still organizing MP3 files in directories, saving dozens of playlists, and spending hours on tag management and file name synching.
Real had some media management, so did Musicmatch, but they were both messy, confusing, cramped, and slow to search.
Right from the beginning, iTunes changed music from a wild collection of files on the hard-drive that had to be periodically coralled to a single library entity, searchable, playable, with built-in tag editing that put everything else to shame.
It took the effort out of having a music library. A lot of geeks are still frustrated with it because they got all their file directory skills for MP3s down pat and the new way doesn't fit them, but can you honestly see twelve year old girls organizing thousands of songs the old way?
It brought MP3 truly to the masses, not just the college crowd.
Better how? Filenames are nothing if not searchable metadata. As a bonus they're also hierarchal.
Wow, files can be in more than one folder. Kind of like, uh, symbolic links? And now I don't have to defrag. Great. I hate all that time I have to spend defragging my linux and solaris disks. Oh, wait...
Mac OS X:
To turn on sharing, open up System Preferences > Sharing > Turn On File Sharing. Done. If anyone connects to the shared computer, they have to either login with the user name and pass, or access it as a Guest. Guest's only have access to each user's Public folder (which also has a dropbox inside).
Windows:
Right-click a folder > Sharing Tab > Share this folder. Now by default anyone can access this folder. To moderate access you have to open up Windows Explorer > Tools Menu > Folder Options > *View* (wtf??) > scroll down and check a box that says something along the lines of: Then you've got to go back and right click the shared folder, go the sharing tab, and configure the new confusing options. The options make you manually type in the name of the users (or groups) that are allowed to have access to the folder. Finally, you're done setting up sharing on Windows.
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
I have to disagree. I, too, own a Powerbook, as well as a dual 2Ghz G5 tower, a Mac Mini, and an Athlon 64 based PC tower. I use PCs and Windows every day for work, so I'm not one of these stereotypical "graphics arts" Mac using guys or anything....
... so maybe porting to OS X will become easier than porting to Windows in the future?
Microsoft loves to tout "the numbers" because that's really all they have going for them. Quantity does not equate to quality, however. There's something to be said for any company that strives to produce a top-tier product, even when that means not being capable of producing large numbers of it to "dominate the marketplace".
Many of the best musical instruments aren't cranked out by the millions by a manufacturer. Rather, they're painstakingly assembled by hand, in small numbers. If they weren't "niche" products, they wouldn't be worthwhile products at all.
The gaming market, right now, is all about quantity too - so it goes without saying that they're all over the Windows platform. Still, one can argue that many of the best/most entertaining games are only available for game consoles - not for Mac *or* PC. And it's beginning to look like this trend is only going to gain more momentum. (Again, when you're shooting for maximum sales numbers above all else, you start thinking in terms of "Why not write this for one specific hardware configuration we KNOW is in a given console, rather than trying to support all these potential PC software conflicts and gaming peripherals, etc.?")
Meanwhile, game consoles seem to be headed towards using the same processor that's in the Mac, not the PC
I use my PC pretty much only for gaming these days, and my Mac for everything else. If I invest a couple hundred bucks or so in a new generation console (XBox 2 or something), I could probably ditch the Windows PC completely and not really miss it.
Revised EULA text follows:
16. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties or similar obligations (if any) created by any advertising, documentation, packaging, or other communications. Specifically, marketing materials containing the phrase "It Just Works" specifically define "works" as the standard operation of the software, information and related content AS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and does not warrant that the behavior of the software will meet expectations of function or operation. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Software, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Software or otherwise arising out of the use of the Software. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
Longhorn: Insanely Great
Up in Ottawa and down in Texas, they're fond of saying "all hat and no cattle."
Our British cousins are fond of saying "all mouth and no trousers."
Of Microsoft's group vice president for platforms, I'm fond of saying "Allchin and no dick."
Smug, annoying and delusional - he's the archetypal marketmonkey.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
Microsoft cannot succeed with a strategy built around the idea of "it just works" because, fundamentally, Microsoft doesn't know what it means for something to "just work." Microsoft has, time and again, failed to produce highly usuable software for the same reason: it doesn't understand how the system should behave*.
To make up for this lack of understanding (I doubt MS even realizes it doesn't understand how systems should behave) the company builds scripted interactions (unlovingly known to all of us as those irritating "wizards" that keep you from successfully creating the graph you want in Excel, etc...). In short, MS papers over bad behavior with bad interfaces that obstruct, obfuscate, and harass the poor souls who have to suffer through them. Microsoft has even named this philosophy: recall "Task Based Interfaces."
And may the Lord have mercy if you don't want to perform a task Microsoft hasn't already thought up.
Apple, on the other hand, approaches the problem differently. Rather than asking "how can we make it easy for someone to do XYZ," Apple asks "what should the tool XYZ do," and then if necessary builds an interface that allows people to modify that behavior through understandable, easy-to-find, commands/menus/buttons, etc.**
Apple's strategy, starkly 180 degrees from Microsoft's "task based" strategy, is a human based system. Apple doesn't guess what you're trying to do, but instead makes tools that do what you expect. Thus people, not magical condescending wizards, can apply the tools to whatever variety of tasks may be at hand. So things "just work" because the tools do what we expect from them. Then the computer becomes transparent to the task, rather than the focus of the task itself.
You probably won't encounter a single "wizard" included by Apple in OS X, aside from the intial setup assistant that isn't so much a "wizard" -- there's nothing "guiding" you through the setup screens -- as just a few screens full of fields of information the computer collects to get OS X configured appropriately.
As long as Microsoft doesn't understand that for something to "just work," a tool needs to do what people expect, and that people should be able to directly interact with the tool's interface in a manner that allows even a relatively uninformed person to make the tool do what they want, then Microsoft won't succeed in building highly usable human interfaces.
Since I'm confident that Microsoft hasn't turned a new leaf in this respect, I'm also confident the "it just works" campaign will amount to nothing more than saturation marketing and a lot of grumbling*** about cute animated puppy dogs pissing on our files.
--
* You could probably make a pretty good case for this problem being a fundamental problem in other aspects of Microsoft's design philosophy: bloat, poor security, inconsistency, and generally quirky, hard to predict behavior, could all spring from the same fertile root.
** This is a recursive strategy. It's not enough to make aprogram that does what a person expects, but every sub-piece of that program also needs to also do what a functionally experienced, but non-expert, user interacting with the tool for the first time might think it should do. Each button should be intuitively named. Menu items should be logically organized. The interface should be sufficiently uncluttered that interface elements are readily seen. It's OK for a system to have an unfamiliar way of interacting with the user (for example, drag-and-drop) if that method of interaction is widely applicable across the entire system so that once someone is familiar with the technique they can use it elsewhere. And so on.
*** Here's an amusing, and very telling, anecdote about MS human interfaces: I was once talking to a Microsoft programmer about user interface issues, and brought up Clippy as one of the most glaring examples of Microsoft's human interface failures...but the programmer refused to believe me that most people actual