I suspect moving away from regular tool-bars was to (hopefully) make competitors look outdated and to "encourage" devs to buy MS tools to get the same look and feel. GUI engines were becoming too standardized and commoditized for MS's comfort. They weighed the pros and cons of such disruption and in the end didn't care about the complaining users that much because the users had few other practical choices. Disrupting commoditization was probably considered more important than not angering existing users.
I suspect they fudged up the "file" menu because they wanted to force you to a promotional portal, such as "email this document using free Outlook", and now it's "save it on the Azure cloud! 1 year free."
As a somewhat side issue, one "lost" advantage of the old-style tool-bars was you couldn't have a "favorites" sub-bar. For example, suppose you used "save as CSV" often in a spreadsheet app. If there was an icon associated with (or attachable), then you could right-click to put a shortcut (copy) of the CSV icon in your "favorites" tool sub-bar. Some even allowed you to rearrange the tool-bar to your own liking, although this has customer-service drawbacks.
The non-standard sizes of ribbon elements makes dynamic management of "tool" shortcuts difficult to program. It's like Scrabble with non-standard letter blocks. (Mini dialog boxes can pop-up for specifics.) I admit there were some poorly-designed tool-bar implementations, but it was mostly from bad app design, not an inherent flaw of tool-bars.
the plan is to turn Windows into a monthly [fee based service]
That probably won't fly in the consumer market. People think of such devices as appliances (for good or bad). Android and Apple don't charge a monthly OS fee.
Yes, it will probably work in the "enterprise" environment, and already is in some shops, but they cannot over-do it for similar reasons.
Thank You Linus and Linux for making MS sweat. Similar thanks to the teams of MySql, PostgreSql, Apache, etc.
At some point you have to go with the "simplest answer is correct", which means that Bloomberg is wrong in this case.
I wouldn't go that far. It's more reasonable to say the simplest answer shall be considered "the default assumption" or "the most likely". (See Occam's razor.)
Sensationalist FUD much? Microsoft has never updated Windows 10 with such a jarring UI change.
I suspect the poster is mostly talking about the ugly Metro/Desktop (floating icons) duality that appeared around Windows 8 and still haunts 10. Other notable UI sins are the replacement of the "file" menu with a screwball portal into WTF-land in many MS's apps, and the MS-Office's "ribbon" overhaul.
While some seem to prefer the ribbon, to me it exchanged one arbitrary grouping of features for another arbitrary grouping. One gets around in Office by memorizing where shit is, NOT because of their lovely menus/ribbons. It was a stupid UI move in my opinion.
MS does it because they can: you'd have to rework lots of documents and learn lots of new software from scratch if you switched. MS has big orgs by the balls and they know it. Lack of competition nearly always leads to sucky products/services. Here that, Ajit Pai!?
with commentators saying that two feature updates a year is too many and Redmond should cut back to one, and that Microsoft needs to stop developing new features and just fix bugs.
My observation is that M$ is experimenting with either different ways to spam Windows users, and/or looking for ways to force them into their cloud/store to (hopefully) rent or buy services through it. This is probably the main reason for changes.
I get "Windows notifications" of new or upgraded services offered by M$. The pretty login screens sometimes show vacation spots that M$ appears to be sponsoring*. (I must admit, I have clicked out of curiosity after seeing some nice photo. I fed the troll, and had to shower afterward.) And MS-Paint has a notice toolbar icon that the app will be moving to the cloud soon with a link to their store. The app may be free (now), but they can get you into their store to shop around if they move their usual Windows goodies up there.
They look at Google App Store and Apple Store as their future revenue growth, not selling OS's. The OS is to become their ad and MS-cloud tie-in platform. Linux-based OS's are slowly nipping at their OS cash cow, and they are scrambling for alternative revenue. They lost the phone and tablet OS wars, and consumers and small biz are slowly but increasingly shifting to Android and arguably Apple for desktop replacements or alternatives. New users only use M$ for compatibility, not because they want to. M$ is being pushed to be the new IBM, and Google is the new M$, but M$ won't go quietly, since they see how IBM is struggling to remain relevant. (IBM's A.I. ads have desperate PHB written all over them.)
Cloud is their only recent success story; thus, they're hellbent in turning Windows into an MS-cloud portal. I'd do the same if I were a greedy MS executive trying to leverage the co's only success.
* To be fair, I haven't found a direct tie yet, but some appear very suspicious. I should turn off the login wallpaper, but have to admit they supply some cool pics if you use the tuning feature to see what you like.
In other words, hardware improvements are practically free. Software optimization is incredibly expensive.
Hey, it's good for job security. I shouldn't say that because I often rant about the how stupid web (non) standards turned simple inhouse CRUD dev into a labor-intensive Dagwood Sandwich mess and fashion contest.
The value proposition of SAAS isn't the service, it's the off loading of responsibility for all the crap that comes with owning it yourself.
As mentioned elsewhere SAAS is perhaps too open-ended a concept/definition to make generalizations. As far as "web based" applications instead of desktop or client-stored applications, we do seem to be trending that way, although a hybrid "cached application" approach may be the future.
But with customized systems, shops often find that if the parts of the system's stack change or expire on somebody else's whim, bleep can happen as features of the existing stack disappear or change in a way that break the system.
It's often better to collect the parts to your stack and "lock them down" via local copies for stability of the system. This is the reverse of SAAS.
Thus, full-application SAAS is increasing, but "component" SAAS has some big dependency problems to solve.
But [a subscription is] less money. You're paying them less than you would be if you bought the latest version every year.
Few purchased a new version every year. The usual pattern was buying the desktop version for X dollars, and then upgrading every 2 or 3 years via the upgrade price, which was typically about 1/2 to 1/3 of X.
But anyhow, the choice of single-purchase is now gone.
it would drive people to develop and improve alternatives.
So far Adobe has no significant graphic design suite competitors. If one formed, they may just lower their subscription price rather than give a single-purchase option.
I don't believe the wars directly triggered the recession, for the mortgage bubble burst was pretty much inevitable; but the wars did drain the budget, potentially making the later stimulus smaller than it could have been.
Bad budgeting (debt) typically causes far more problems for future presidents than the one who caused it (or at reigned during the run-up, since Congress also plays a big part).
The bottom line is Presidents have a relatively small short-term impact on the economy. The boom/bust cycle has been showing its face for more than a 100 years and I doubt any President can stop the cycle; only tweak it around the edges (not always in good ways).
Economies are also affected by other nations' economies, OPEC decisions, and war.
Presidents do affect things like deficits and regulations, but these typically won't change the economy much in the short term.
(I suppose deregulation can act as a stimulus, but it's not fun to be poisoned even if it increases profits for somebody else. Birth defects and injuries do improve medical economies just as breaking windows increases repair jobs. But if enough people are poisoned with heavy metals or hurt on the job, our economy won't be competitive.)
I'm mostly talking about dividing custom software into rented components by domain functionality, not just databases, file server, email, OS, etc. For example, renting a Bootstrap-like rendering engine or a parsing API.
However, I will agree that "SAAS" is rather vague in that just about any I/O could be called "SAAS".
The market is increasingly consuming software as a service [SAAS]
Is it just me, or is SAAS hype? It appears that the big vendors want SAAS to succeed because they want to nickel and dime you for everything you do.
It would be like "Fee-Based Legos": you can snap together components easily to get an application/system up and going relatively quick, but you pay rent for each Lego block you use. The big IT co's would love this because you'd get hooked on most of the components such that you have to pay if you want to keep your software up without reworking much of it. And they'll probably jack up prices for older versions, meaning you gradually either pay more, or spend time constantly reworking your software for the newer versions.
The big IT co's appear to have found this more profitable than the pay-once approach because they push it with existing products. For example, Adobe stopped selling one-time-pay versions of their graphics suite (except maybe for students). If you want their graphics suite, you have to pay for a subscription.
Another annoyance of SAAS is that you have to often convert back and forth between JSON or XML and your shop's language. It's a lot of interface busy-work. If you make a programming-language-neutral service, then you are pretty much stuck building and managing such conversions. In some cases it can be made somewhat automated using reflection and other tricks, but such often has annoyances and glitches.
When people have options they don't breed uncontrollably
Only in the short-term. In the longer term features or personalities that result in having more children will spread via regular natural selection.
For example, my friend's sister's body released endorphins when pregnant. She had a lot of kids because pregnancy made her high. When her 1st husband left her because he got overwhelmed by kids, she found a new husband who liked, or at least tolerated kids.
When I first heard about that condition, it I thought it was a medical fluke: a random mutation. Then I realized that trait is likely to spread and is perhaps being selected for already.
You might ask why that condition doesn't exist in every woman if it results in more offspring. In the past women didn't have much control over pregnancy: it happened or didn't happen whether they wanted it to or not. Therefore, there was little selection pressure for it. In the age of birth control, it can make a big difference in birth rate.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect moving away from regular tool-bars was to (hopefully) make competitors look outdated and to "encourage" devs to buy MS tools to get the same look and feel. GUI engines were becoming too standardized and commoditized for MS's comfort. They weighed the pros and cons of such disruption and in the end didn't care about the complaining users that much because the users had few other practical choices. Disrupting commoditization was probably considered more important than not angering existing users.
I suspect they fudged up the "file" menu because they wanted to force you to a promotional portal, such as "email this document using free Outlook", and now it's "save it on the Azure cloud! 1 year free."
As a somewhat side issue, one "lost" advantage of the old-style tool-bars was you couldn't have a "favorites" sub-bar. For example, suppose you used "save as CSV" often in a spreadsheet app. If there was an icon associated with (or attachable), then you could right-click to put a shortcut (copy) of the CSV icon in your "favorites" tool sub-bar. Some even allowed you to rearrange the tool-bar to your own liking, although this has customer-service drawbacks.
The non-standard sizes of ribbon elements makes dynamic management of "tool" shortcuts difficult to program. It's like Scrabble with non-standard letter blocks. (Mini dialog boxes can pop-up for specifics.) I admit there were some poorly-designed tool-bar implementations, but it was mostly from bad app design, not an inherent flaw of tool-bars.
That probably won't fly in the consumer market. People think of such devices as appliances (for good or bad). Android and Apple don't charge a monthly OS fee.
Yes, it will probably work in the "enterprise" environment, and already is in some shops, but they cannot over-do it for similar reasons.
Thank You Linus and Linux for making MS sweat. Similar thanks to the teams of MySql, PostgreSql, Apache, etc.
I wouldn't go that far. It's more reasonable to say the simplest answer shall be considered "the default assumption" or "the most likely". (See Occam's razor.)
Be nice, or MS will merge with Comcast.
I suspect the poster is mostly talking about the ugly Metro/Desktop (floating icons) duality that appeared around Windows 8 and still haunts 10. Other notable UI sins are the replacement of the "file" menu with a screwball portal into WTF-land in many MS's apps, and the MS-Office's "ribbon" overhaul.
While some seem to prefer the ribbon, to me it exchanged one arbitrary grouping of features for another arbitrary grouping. One gets around in Office by memorizing where shit is, NOT because of their lovely menus/ribbons. It was a stupid UI move in my opinion.
MS does it because they can: you'd have to rework lots of documents and learn lots of new software from scratch if you switched. MS has big orgs by the balls and they know it. Lack of competition nearly always leads to sucky products/services. Here that, Ajit Pai!?
My observation is that M$ is experimenting with either different ways to spam Windows users, and/or looking for ways to force them into their cloud/store to (hopefully) rent or buy services through it. This is probably the main reason for changes.
I get "Windows notifications" of new or upgraded services offered by M$. The pretty login screens sometimes show vacation spots that M$ appears to be sponsoring*. (I must admit, I have clicked out of curiosity after seeing some nice photo. I fed the troll, and had to shower afterward.) And MS-Paint has a notice toolbar icon that the app will be moving to the cloud soon with a link to their store. The app may be free (now), but they can get you into their store to shop around if they move their usual Windows goodies up there.
They look at Google App Store and Apple Store as their future revenue growth, not selling OS's. The OS is to become their ad and MS-cloud tie-in platform. Linux-based OS's are slowly nipping at their OS cash cow, and they are scrambling for alternative revenue. They lost the phone and tablet OS wars, and consumers and small biz are slowly but increasingly shifting to Android and arguably Apple for desktop replacements or alternatives. New users only use M$ for compatibility, not because they want to. M$ is being pushed to be the new IBM, and Google is the new M$, but M$ won't go quietly, since they see how IBM is struggling to remain relevant. (IBM's A.I. ads have desperate PHB written all over them.)
Cloud is their only recent success story; thus, they're hellbent in turning Windows into an MS-cloud portal. I'd do the same if I were a greedy MS executive trying to leverage the co's only success.
* To be fair, I haven't found a direct tie yet, but some appear very suspicious. I should turn off the login wallpaper, but have to admit they supply some cool pics if you use the tuning feature to see what you like.
If enough people don't want to be force-fed 7, it could happen.
Women ruined Intel's chips? Good one.
Hey, it's good for job security. I shouldn't say that because I often rant about the how stupid web (non) standards turned simple inhouse CRUD dev into a labor-intensive Dagwood Sandwich mess and fashion contest.
Maybe MS doesn't want it after this.
Just play Emacs ASCII games instead ;-)
Not to a polytheist.
Here is the removal link
Here ya go...
As mentioned elsewhere SAAS is perhaps too open-ended a concept/definition to make generalizations. As far as "web based" applications instead of desktop or client-stored applications, we do seem to be trending that way, although a hybrid "cached application" approach may be the future.
But with customized systems, shops often find that if the parts of the system's stack change or expire on somebody else's whim, bleep can happen as features of the existing stack disappear or change in a way that break the system.
It's often better to collect the parts to your stack and "lock them down" via local copies for stability of the system. This is the reverse of SAAS.
Thus, full-application SAAS is increasing, but "component" SAAS has some big dependency problems to solve.
Few purchased a new version every year. The usual pattern was buying the desktop version for X dollars, and then upgrading every 2 or 3 years via the upgrade price, which was typically about 1/2 to 1/3 of X.
But anyhow, the choice of single-purchase is now gone.
So far Adobe has no significant graphic design suite competitors. If one formed, they may just lower their subscription price rather than give a single-purchase option.
I don't believe the wars directly triggered the recession, for the mortgage bubble burst was pretty much inevitable; but the wars did drain the budget, potentially making the later stimulus smaller than it could have been.
Bad budgeting (debt) typically causes far more problems for future presidents than the one who caused it (or at reigned during the run-up, since Congress also plays a big part).
So we can "enjoy" Trump into perpetuity. MFGA! (F=future)
You're saying people used to watch real cats for entertainment? Blasphemy!
The bottom line is Presidents have a relatively small short-term impact on the economy. The boom/bust cycle has been showing its face for more than a 100 years and I doubt any President can stop the cycle; only tweak it around the edges (not always in good ways).
Economies are also affected by other nations' economies, OPEC decisions, and war.
Presidents do affect things like deficits and regulations, but these typically won't change the economy much in the short term.
(I suppose deregulation can act as a stimulus, but it's not fun to be poisoned even if it increases profits for somebody else. Birth defects and injuries do improve medical economies just as breaking windows increases repair jobs. But if enough people are poisoned with heavy metals or hurt on the job, our economy won't be competitive.)
I'm mostly talking about dividing custom software into rented components by domain functionality, not just databases, file server, email, OS, etc. For example, renting a Bootstrap-like rendering engine or a parsing API.
However, I will agree that "SAAS" is rather vague in that just about any I/O could be called "SAAS".
Correction: "nothing but..."
Spoiled brat. Back in my day we had nothing about ASCII cat animations over 1200 baud modems. Took 2 minutes for a whisker to move.
Is it just me, or is SAAS hype? It appears that the big vendors want SAAS to succeed because they want to nickel and dime you for everything you do.
It would be like "Fee-Based Legos": you can snap together components easily to get an application/system up and going relatively quick, but you pay rent for each Lego block you use. The big IT co's would love this because you'd get hooked on most of the components such that you have to pay if you want to keep your software up without reworking much of it. And they'll probably jack up prices for older versions, meaning you gradually either pay more, or spend time constantly reworking your software for the newer versions.
The big IT co's appear to have found this more profitable than the pay-once approach because they push it with existing products. For example, Adobe stopped selling one-time-pay versions of their graphics suite (except maybe for students). If you want their graphics suite, you have to pay for a subscription.
Another annoyance of SAAS is that you have to often convert back and forth between JSON or XML and your shop's language. It's a lot of interface busy-work. If you make a programming-language-neutral service, then you are pretty much stuck building and managing such conversions. In some cases it can be made somewhat automated using reflection and other tricks, but such often has annoyances and glitches.
Only in the short-term. In the longer term features or personalities that result in having more children will spread via regular natural selection.
For example, my friend's sister's body released endorphins when pregnant. She had a lot of kids because pregnancy made her high. When her 1st husband left her because he got overwhelmed by kids, she found a new husband who liked, or at least tolerated kids.
When I first heard about that condition, it I thought it was a medical fluke: a random mutation. Then I realized that trait is likely to spread and is perhaps being selected for already.
You might ask why that condition doesn't exist in every woman if it results in more offspring. In the past women didn't have much control over pregnancy: it happened or didn't happen whether they wanted it to or not. Therefore, there was little selection pressure for it. In the age of birth control, it can make a big difference in birth rate.