I think either way, MS hit it's prime and has already fallen off the cliff, the question is how long the dead tree they're clinging to will hold out
They agree with you. They think the tree holds out on consumer / small business till about 2020 and on enterprise till about 2030. That's why they must move their platform.
I think either way, MS hit it's prime and has already fallen off the cliff, the question is how long the dead tree they're clinging to will hold out
How so? The vision statement that's been driving the shift originated with the Office team: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6cNdhOKwi0 There is no reason at all that productivity won't be much higher with ubiquitous computing.
t if the whole systems changing anyway and you're going to have to retrain your staff to use something completely different it might as well be cheap like Linux or have good supported software like Apple
You are forgetting the server infrastructure still in place: SQL Server, Lync, Dynamics, Exchange...
Why do we need so blasted many indexing programs? And why do they need to runh so frequently?
Because conservatives 7 years ago, when Longhorn was becoming Vista, whined about the move to a database filesystem and so you don't have automatic indexing that only modifies indexes on file change. We need a database filesystem but we are stuck with a filesystem that is really good for for harddrives organized kinda like large floppies.
Seriously? Why on earth would anybody consider those an intrinsic part of the operating system?
Because more or less 100% of the people who choose operating systems do so for the rich ecosystem not just for the kernel & driver support. Operating systems have been getting thicker for decades and the idea of presenting basic core utilities for productive use is fairly standard.
Open / Libre office is pretty close to taking the bottom 20%. The top 50% needs stuff like Documentum and Dynamics integration and they aren't even close.
More or less there is no more classic Linux desktop movement. The funding sources have died out. Linux got as far as it is going to go, 3rd place. Where Linux is exciting is Android taking over and moving into desktops.
And thus it ain't gonna be GIMP that replaces photoshop but Instagram's 2025 release.
It was a good product. And immediately customers responded by many staying on Windows XP and others drastically cutting their upgrade frequency of desktops. They then started using their phones and tablets as their primary computing devices.
Could you imagine PhotoShop having to be a Metro application?
Why not? You have a light photo editing program that uses the touch metro interface and works on your phone. That scales up to a more serious applications for a tablet. On a full fledged interface it starts to demand things like a drawing pad and a large screen presenting complex menus and utilizing all sorts of gestures + multiple input devices. That sounds like a huge improvement over today's photoshop.
And I should mention kinda the direction that Apple has been moving in with iPhoto and Aperture.
They aren't wolves they just disagree with you. They want features and progress and believe (quite rightly) that the conservatism in the Windows community is holding that progress back.
Fact is: Windows XP is "good enough" to do the things that the vast majority of business users want. Even Windows 98 was, if we're honest.
Windows98 didn't have lots of Lan features and security features that business wanted. That being said why should Microsoft care about customers who want to spend almost nothing and that infrequently. OK so they leave and go use another OS like Android or Linux. So what?
This is not whining due to change. These are valid complaints about unnecessary change that is impacting people. Sure you personally may know all the shortcuts about how to do things differently, but the majority of Windows users are getting confused about it, they don't know keyboard shortcuts, and they're wasting time relearning how to use their OS.
They aren't relearning they are learning. And they aren't wasting time they are spending their time acquiring skills that will be needed in the future. Finally the change is necessary. One of the objectives for the Metro interface is to start shattering the idea that ties applications to a small number of binaries on the local machine. Remote applications need to be part of this. It is entirely possible that a decade from now you might have 1m plus applications you have access to via. the web that load through on demand.
In theory that wouldn't present too much of a problem for a hierarchical menu. But most people don't understand hierarchy more than 2 levels deep either.
That's not the equivalent change. The equivalent change was how Apple handled the migration from OS9 to OSX. First they introduced new libraries to make porting applications to Carbon easy. That allowed people to create OS9/Rhapsody (OSX) applications. They created the classic environment so you could run OS9 apps inside of OSX and could reboot back and forth. Then after a few years classic wasn't installed by default. Then after a few years you couldn't reboot. Then OS9 apps didn't work at all.
The issue is that when a hierarchy is too confusing for something like 85% of computer users. Once you allow folders more than one deep they don't get it. They don't really understand they are being asked a "where" question when looking.
Stupid as that may be, folders inside folders is going to need to be an advanced feature for power users.
Secondly, and more importantly, the first rule of UIs is: don't change it unless it's badly broken.
The entire Win32 interface is badly broken. It lacks critical features and thus is being replaced. Desktop is being moved from the primary GUI towards a secondary GUI and then likely into something like a guest OS. Now you have gotten the memo.
They're the only company I can think of that actually makes products where most of their major changes are changes that they as a company want more than the end-users.
You should spend more time around: Apple, IBM, HP, SAP....
(yes, the whining is about a system with a GUI/wizard installer you can blast through banging on 'next'
In all fairness to the critics, except on Windows, I've never been able to get an install to work out of the box using the GUI. It has always required I do the "pre prep" and unfortunately often some post prep work. On Windows wow is Oracle is easy to install, uninstall is really hard however.
I'm betting by the end of next year MS will be announcing Windows 9, which will be the regular desktop with a start menu for desktops/laptops and a separate Metro interface for mobile devices, which is how it should have been in the first place. There are a lot of reason they tried to cram metro down our throats, all business strategy and profit related. Better for the customer isn't one of them.
I disagree. I think that Microsoft genuinely really believes ubiquitous computing is better for the customer. I think they really genuinely believe their customer base should undergo a rapid transition. It think the business strategy is what is holding them back from being much more aggressive.
And no they are not going to back down. What is their future if they back down. On home and small business PC sales have been falling for 5 years. People are buying less powerful machines, less often and now with mobile less per household. Meanwhile mobile devices are exploding, being replaced more than once ever 2 years at higher and higher cost. They are getting more capable and better software. They have interfaces that young people like better. Over the 2010s they will be driven mostly out of home / small business. And then from there Android (or whatever) that owns the small business market will via BYOD do to them on business what they did to DEC, Unisys and IBM.
Their is a cliff behind them. They cannot retreat.
Any attempt to "bridge the gap between metro and desktop" on desktop mean downgrading desktop environment towards shitty tablet environment.
Yes it does. That's why Apple is opposed to ubiquitous computing. They believe in sharing data not applications. Microsoft conversely believes that applications can adopt to new form factors and having applications move from device to device will be worth the costs. Consumers are going to face a real choice of philosophy with plusses and minus of both.
I don't think they back down then. I don't think it matters if no one buys Windows 8. If they lose consumer by 2020 they lose enterprise by 2030. It is simply too important to them to make this migration happen. They may fumble a bit but they will not cave.
This change does not erase that fact that M$ really does believe in its "heart of hearts" that they know what we need and what is best for us.
Yep. That's called being a leader. Microsoft used to manage their platform and pick direction. Since Windows XP they have been floating. I've been thrilled to see then strap on and start acting being a leader for x86.
The only reason they're pushing Metro down everyone's throat is so that people write and use Metro apps
Well yes. They want to migrate away from the legacy desktop. Yes. That's why they are doing it.
However instead of this strategy making Metro and Windows Phone more popular they've actually managed to make desktop Windows less popular. PC sales are down and they've made Windows run much less well on non touchscreen machines but the tablets people are buying instead are running Android and iOS, not Windows.
There is no evidence of substantial drop offs in sales after Windows 8 that weren't happening before Windows 8. PC sales were slowing and they have continued to slow at the same pace. There was no surge in buying Windows 7 machines when both are available. There is simply no evidence to support the idea that Windows 8 has had any meaningful impact on sales. Now that's really bad. Windows 8 at this point should have been driving people towards touchscreens and expensive hinges on their laptops.
As for the tables running iOS and Android. That was true before and it is true now. Microsoft is very worried about it and justifiably so.
Well yeah. Legacy apps aren't designed for touch (capacitive). Resistive touchscreen with s stylus works pretty well though. Asking for all screens to be capacitive / resistive is a bit much cost wise.
The idea is ubiquitous computing, that applications move freely from mobile to desktop (not just data). That means creating an interface which scales to different devices.
The desktop interface doesn't do that. It is a legacy interface designed for the legacy "desktop only" software. In theory Microsoft should have been moving it to guest OS status around Windows 9 or 10.
Slashdot Mirror
They agree with you. They think the tree holds out on consumer / small business till about 2020 and on enterprise till about 2030. That's why they must move their platform.
How so? The vision statement that's been driving the shift originated with the Office team: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6cNdhOKwi0
There is no reason at all that productivity won't be much higher with ubiquitous computing.
You are forgetting the server infrastructure still in place: SQL Server, Lync, Dynamics, Exchange...
Because conservatives 7 years ago, when Longhorn was becoming Vista, whined about the move to a database filesystem and so you don't have automatic indexing that only modifies indexes on file change. We need a database filesystem but we are stuck with a filesystem that is really good for for harddrives organized kinda like large floppies.
Because more or less 100% of the people who choose operating systems do so for the rich ecosystem not just for the kernel & driver support. Operating systems have been getting thicker for decades and the idea of presenting basic core utilities for productive use is fairly standard.
Let me make a suggestion for your tech support needs: http://www.teamviewer.com/en/index.aspx
It has saved me tons of frustration.
Open / Libre office is pretty close to taking the bottom 20%. The top 50% needs stuff like Documentum and Dynamics integration and they aren't even close.
More or less there is no more classic Linux desktop movement. The funding sources have died out. Linux got as far as it is going to go, 3rd place. Where Linux is exciting is Android taking over and moving into desktops.
And thus it ain't gonna be GIMP that replaces photoshop but Instagram's 2025 release.
It was a good product. And immediately customers responded by many staying on Windows XP and others drastically cutting their upgrade frequency of desktops. They then started using their phones and tablets as their primary computing devices.
So that Microsoft's reward.
Why not? You have a light photo editing program that uses the touch metro interface and works on your phone. That scales up to a more serious applications for a tablet. On a full fledged interface it starts to demand things like a drawing pad and a large screen presenting complex menus and utilizing all sorts of gestures + multiple input devices. That sounds like a huge improvement over today's photoshop.
And I should mention kinda the direction that Apple has been moving in with iPhoto and Aperture.
They aren't wolves they just disagree with you. They want features and progress and believe (quite rightly) that the conservatism in the Windows community is holding that progress back.
Windows98 didn't have lots of Lan features and security features that business wanted. That being said why should Microsoft care about customers who want to spend almost nothing and that infrequently. OK so they leave and go use another OS like Android or Linux. So what?
They aren't relearning they are learning. And they aren't wasting time they are spending their time acquiring skills that will be needed in the future. Finally the change is necessary. One of the objectives for the Metro interface is to start shattering the idea that ties applications to a small number of binaries on the local machine. Remote applications need to be part of this. It is entirely possible that a decade from now you might have 1m plus applications you have access to via. the web that load through on demand.
In theory that wouldn't present too much of a problem for a hierarchical menu. But most people don't understand hierarchy more than 2 levels deep either.
That's not the equivalent change. The equivalent change was how Apple handled the migration from OS9 to OSX. First they introduced new libraries to make porting applications to Carbon easy. That allowed people to create OS9/Rhapsody (OSX) applications. They created the classic environment so you could run OS9 apps inside of OSX and could reboot back and forth. Then after a few years classic wasn't installed by default. Then after a few years you couldn't reboot. Then OS9 apps didn't work at all.
Microsoft needs to do the same thing with WIn32.
The issue is that when a hierarchy is too confusing for something like 85% of computer users. Once you allow folders more than one deep they don't get it. They don't really understand they are being asked a "where" question when looking.
Stupid as that may be, folders inside folders is going to need to be an advanced feature for power users.
The entire Win32 interface is badly broken. It lacks critical features and thus is being replaced. Desktop is being moved from the primary GUI towards a secondary GUI and then likely into something like a guest OS. Now you have gotten the memo.
You should spend more time around: Apple, IBM, HP, SAP....
In all fairness to the critics, except on Windows, I've never been able to get an install to work out of the box using the GUI. It has always required I do the "pre prep" and unfortunately often some post prep work. On Windows wow is Oracle is easy to install, uninstall is really hard however.
I disagree. I think that Microsoft genuinely really believes ubiquitous computing is better for the customer. I think they really genuinely believe their customer base should undergo a rapid transition. It think the business strategy is what is holding them back from being much more aggressive.
And no they are not going to back down. What is their future if they back down. On home and small business PC sales have been falling for 5 years. People are buying less powerful machines, less often and now with mobile less per household. Meanwhile mobile devices are exploding, being replaced more than once ever 2 years at higher and higher cost. They are getting more capable and better software. They have interfaces that young people like better. Over the 2010s they will be driven mostly out of home / small business. And then from there Android (or whatever) that owns the small business market will via BYOD do to them on business what they did to DEC, Unisys and IBM.
Their is a cliff behind them. They cannot retreat.
Metro is not the other half. Longer term the direction is towards desktop being a foreign guest OS on the Metro operating system.
Yes it does. That's why Apple is opposed to ubiquitous computing. They believe in sharing data not applications. Microsoft conversely believes that applications can adopt to new form factors and having applications move from device to device will be worth the costs. Consumers are going to face a real choice of philosophy with plusses and minus of both.
I don't think they back down then. I don't think it matters if no one buys Windows 8. If they lose consumer by 2020 they lose enterprise by 2030. It is simply too important to them to make this migration happen. They may fumble a bit but they will not cave.
Yep. That's called being a leader. Microsoft used to manage their platform and pick direction. Since Windows XP they have been floating. I've been thrilled to see then strap on and start acting being a leader for x86.
Well yes. They want to migrate away from the legacy desktop. Yes. That's why they are doing it.
There is no evidence of substantial drop offs in sales after Windows 8 that weren't happening before Windows 8. PC sales were slowing and they have continued to slow at the same pace. There was no surge in buying Windows 7 machines when both are available. There is simply no evidence to support the idea that Windows 8 has had any meaningful impact on sales. Now that's really bad. Windows 8 at this point should have been driving people towards touchscreens and expensive hinges on their laptops.
As for the tables running iOS and Android. That was true before and it is true now. Microsoft is very worried about it and justifiably so.
Well yeah. Legacy apps aren't designed for touch (capacitive). Resistive touchscreen with s stylus works pretty well though. Asking for all screens to be capacitive / resistive is a bit much cost wise.
But that's going to change if they have their way. One of the things they should have done is made touchscreen mandatory for Windows 8.
The idea is ubiquitous computing, that applications move freely from mobile to desktop (not just data). That means creating an interface which scales to different devices.
The desktop interface doesn't do that. It is a legacy interface designed for the legacy "desktop only" software. In theory Microsoft should have been moving it to guest OS status around Windows 9 or 10.
You might want to try expressing yourself without profanity.
As for the rest Microsoft sells products for high power machines doing complex work: Windows Server 2012.
As for the OS to the bare minimum Microsoft has never claimed to offer that.