"Windows was designed by a committee. The Mac, by contrast, often feels like it was designed by a single person."<p>The Mac was apparently designed by a person I can't freakin' stand. I recently spent a year with an OSX laptop, and it was a merciful relief when I was finally able to get the hell out of iLand. My first love is KDE because it <i>bows</i> to my will like nothing else, as a good window-manager/OS <i>should</i>. Win8 is also pretty malleable, even though it's not so good for those lacking the chops to bend it to their will. OSX, by comparison, is a constant freakin' PITA if you don't happen to be the "single person" it was designed by and for.<p>This might be a bit of a rant but I'm sick of people ragging on Windows for its default settings. Windows is eminently <i>customizable</i>. If you aren't a complete n00b you can bend Windows to suit yourself far more easily than OSX. KDE absolutely spanks them both, but still... I would wholeheartedly recommend OSX or iOS to my grandmother, because she's not so good at customizing things. This blog is aimed at people who probably aren't running their OS on 99% default settings. Customizability matters, and Windows <i>fucking</i> <i>owns</i> OSX in that respect.
The problem with windows 8 is that from the start it wasn't designed to solve anyone's problems except Microsoft's. Windows 7 appeal was obvious: a modern version of windows that doesn't suck (ie: not vista). Windows 8 is supposed to fuse desktop and mobile, but, that is a problem for Microsoft, not their customers, outside of Redmond nobody needs that
Windows 8 is everything wrong with Microsoft Corporation as an organization and how they go about developing product. I blame it on personas. When you have designers, PMs and devs creating products for imaginary people instead making something they'd be proud to use themselves, you're going to have problems. It's fine to develop products and features based on market research, user studies and metrics, but at the end of the day it should pass the "will I use it at home" test. Otherwise you'll have a company full of people that go home and use iPhones, Macs and Google Chrome.<p>The only group at MS I see right now making products for real people is Azure. They're actually developing features to remove friction and make its customer more productive and happier—even if it means supporting Linux, Git and Ruby.
For those thinking "oh, another piece of Microsoft bashing from some Apple / Google / Linux fan" (my own initial thought), look at the byline.<p>Paul Thurrott's been covering Microsoft, almost always positively, for most of (if not more than) two decades. He's been labeled one of the "notorious Microsoft shills" by Daniel Eran Dilger (<a href="http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/01/18/dan-lyons-paul-thurrott-the-fake-and-the-phony/" rel="nofollow">http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/01/18/dan-lyons-paul-thur...</a>) -- and that's not far from my own impressions of Thurrott based on some of his earlier Linux commentary.<p>So -- yeah, the rats are, if not fleeing the ship, talking loudly about its soundness.
Microsoft is in the same place with Windows 8.x that it was with Windows 2.x: trying to migrate its userbase onto a new computing paradigm (GUI/mobile touch apps) while still showing support for the old paradigm (DOS/traditional GUI). Yes, it's going to be a force fit. In part because the paradigms are so different, and in part because it's Microsoft and they don't know how to do anything with any grace, at least at first.<p>But eventually they'll get it kinda-sorta right. And when they do, they'll crush the competition. Especially when tablets and convertibles start to supplant traditional laptops as daily driver devices. Apple probably hasn't much to fear. The real loser here is Android. A light, cheap, powerful device that can run full Windows like the Dell Venue 8 Pro has insane added value above the equivalent Android device.
I just don't understand what the fuss is about.<p>I'm primarily a Windows user (but I run Linux on some of my devices as well). I'm also tend to be quite particular about my UIs getting things right. Saying all that, I've felt next to zero impact in moving from Windows 7 to Windows 8.1. Windows 8.1 feels a bit snappier. Some options have been moved around a bit. That's about it.<p>I just don't understand all the polemicising. Especially with statements like: "The specifics of what's wrong in Windows 8 don't really matter". They matter to me, because after reading all these articles about how terrible Windows 8 is, I still can't figure out what those specifics are! I would love to be enlightened about what I've been missing (or how I've been using Windows 8 wrong).
Quote from the linked comments.<p>"The problem is that Microsoft is like a broken record. No matter what the question is their answer is always the same.
Windows.<p>Need a phone OS? - Windows
Need a Tablet OS? - Windows
Need a Desktop OS? - Windows
Need a Server OS? - Windows<p>Windows, Windows, Windows. It's supposed to be all things to all people. And it just doesn't work anymore. You're right, on the desktop nothing beats Windows. Even on the Server Windows is fine. But when they try to force Windows on to phones and tablets everything starts to fall apart. It isn't suited for mobile devices. It's too big, to bloated for mobile. And it's interface is terrible for mobile, but great for the desktop. So they come out with a new interface that's fine for phones but sucks on a desktop.<p>JUST STOP THE INSANITY.<p>You are exactly right. Focus Windows on productivity and the corporate market. If Microsoft feels that they have to get into mobile fine, come out with a mobile OS. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Leave the damn desktop alone."<p>In short, Windows 8 solved no real pressing problems for users - it solved - or was supposed to solve problems for Microsoft - which is to say a lack of penetration in what all the kids these days (and pundits) say is the environment of the future - mobile.<p>Microsoft has, and will have the enterprise and most of the desktop market locked up for the near future - for all the apps out there for whichever mobile platform, they pale in software for PC and the overall power and usability of the traditional desktop/laptop computer paradigm - and likely will for the foreseeable future.
I actually like Windows 8 more than any other version. I'll never use it full time (Linux user, right now SUSE with Gnome Shell) for reasons that have nothing to do with its design, but I really like the Metro interface.<p>Most of the naysayers are simply unwilling to accept change, the same naysayers that whine about modern Linux DEs.
While I agree that the Windows team needs a singular vision about what they want their product to be, the advice given by the author is starkly reminiscent of the strategy adopted by Blackberry when they realised consumers weren't interested in using their products any more.<p>For Microsoft to abandon the consumer market and solely focus on a sub-section of 'doers' would be to set in motion an unstoppable slide into obscurity, as it did with Blackberry. Increasingly people only have one device and they're not going to choose a product which is only good for 50% of what they want. This mythical group of people who only care about using products for business just doesn't exist.<p>What they need to do is to make the product better so that people in general like using it again. It's that simple.
If you look at the evolution of OS X, the changes from version to version are minimal. In give or take 13 years it <i>changed</i> relatively little. It matured over 13 years to become a (love it or hate it) polished OS. However each Windows version has been completely different from the last version. Each release XP->Vista->7->8 Microsoft demands a lot of adapting from both their power users and their 'casual' users.<p>I've always felt that if they would have kept polishing XP or W7, diligently building on each version, they would've had a strong OS with a strong following. Maybe they should stop trying to do a "revolutionary redesign" every new release and just stick with one approach for a couple of years?
Problem #1, where everything is starting to break down: Microsoft trying to put "Windows on everything". That may not be a huge problem if it was only the core base (although needing 16GB of space, something that's still the default for "high-end mobile devices" today, just for Windows alone, still sucks), but it gets much worse when they also want to have the "same UI on everything", which just doesn't work and never has. Even on the web, we still get to talk about "responsive design", because the same UI doesn't work on mobile devices, and it needs to be adapted for that form factor.<p>Problem #2: Having basically 2 operating systems in one, and <i>forcing</i> the user to switch from one to the other, by nagging him with all sorts of bad UX elements (charms on the desktop has always been a terrible idea to me, for example, and the UI looks completely out of place, too).<p>Problem #3: Price. I don't know if they're "feeling" this yet or not, but I think they are. If Windows for tablets cost $90 to license, then Windows tablets are simply not competitive from the get go. Yes, you may see some $300 Windows tablet, but it usually has much worse specs and quality than a $300 Android tablet. As I said, not competitive. This may be the reason why Microsoft may exist the consumer market eventually (3-5 years from now), and focus on enterprise, where they have much more lock-in and it's a lot more profitable/unit.
A crazy misfeature of windows 8.1 is that the Skype user is tied to the Windows user account.<p>You want to use Skype on someone else's PC?<p>No problem, just create a new Windows user (and watch Windows crash twice in the process while the person you're supposed to call is waiting).
I thought that it was pretty well established that Windows is in an alternating cycle of good and bad versions. Everyone freaks out during the bad part of that cycle, as Microsoft takes a bunch of bold risks, many of which don't really work out, and then a few years later they prune many of the bad decisions and release something reasonably solid.<p>(Man, it feels weird leaving this comment as a Linux user and reformed Mac zealot)
Does Windows 8.1 still suck with the Classic Shell enhancement?<p><a href="http://classicshell.net/" rel="nofollow">http://classicshell.net/</a>
Posting this with a throwaway as I don't want it to be associated with my named account.<p>Thurrott is full of shit. I call for him to step down and shut down winsupersite and to generally shut up. He's not a windows user -- merely a critic. This is about spinning hits than a valid critique of windows. All he is doing is damaging the company and the industry by recycling this shit over and over again.<p>There are those of us who use windows both for our own personal use and business use. It suits us well simply because there is nothing else with the broad scope that Microsoft offer. Windows 8, whilst not a great success, is exactly what people asked for. The tech news sites spewed how the future was tablets and closed ecosystems powered by app models ao they dived into the consumer market with exactly what people expected. Unfortunately they discovered that the consumer market (which didn't really exist) is just a bunch of fashionista journos' wet dreams and fanboys.<p>Now I'm a Unix guy who saw exactly the same thing happen in the 1990s when Microsoft kicked in the Unix vendors. However they did it through actually providing products people wanted and providing long support lifecycles rater than disposable trinkets and rapid change.<p>Give them a break and look at your 2 year life throwaway trinket phone and tell me that's what you want for the future? That's what you asked for, that's what you got.
<i>"...That's mostly business users, but even when you look at the consumers who will use Windows, that usage is almost entirely productivity related. Windows should focus on that. On getting work done. On an audience of doers. Job one should be productivity."</i><p>Won't that imply support for legacy applications (which Windows is good at) going back some years? Hence maintenance of features required by those applications?
Microsoft should start from scratch and make Windows2 Desktop, Windows2 Mobile and an OpenBSD-based Windows2 Server.<p>Cram thousands of users into a hall using all sorts of versions and customizations of Windows along with A/B testing, heat maps etc. to figure out the fastest and easiest way to get a thing done. This way users won't have to spend hours trying to customize their Windows (read: disable all the new stuff).<p>Also maybe throw a world-wide design contest to find the best suited man / woman to be responsible for a new Windows2 design.<p>Like they say, "perfection is achieved, not when there's nothing left to add, but when there's nothing left to take away".
Interesting and apt use of Steve Jobs's truck vs. car analogy at the end:<p>"Maybe Windows needs to be more like GMC, the part of GM that only makes trucks (and truck-based SUVs). After all, while many people choose to use a truck for basic transportation, they're really designed and optimized for work. You know, as should be Windows."
Microsoft should take Windows and split it in two: Desktop and Tablet. Because it's just too weird right now.<p>Windows 7 is a great OS and they could refine it to be even better.<p>On the Tablet side they should just pick the good pieces of Windows 8 and go from there.<p>Do one thing at a time and do it well Microsoft!
It's not just Windows. Microsoft has a virus design team. Look what they did to visual studio. The new visual studio flat design (from 2012) is really awful. All caps in menu. No color in icons. Everybody hates those changes.<p>Don't know what they are thinking!