Jump to content



Photo

Windows 8: The Seven Roads Not Taken


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#1 Asrokhel

Asrokhel

    Neowinian

  • 1,027 posts
  • Joined: 05-April 12
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro x64 (testing to see if I keep it or go back to Windows 7)

Posted 19 November 2012 - 16:23

Posted Image

In 1995, consumers in Sydney, Australia go gaga for Windows 95, Microsoft's most rapturously-received upgrade of all time



On Friday, I responded to Paul Thurrott's report that the first few weeks of Windows 8 sales have been disappointing by saying that Windows 8 is a long bet — and it therefore doesn't matter much what the early sales numbers look like. Bloggers John Gruber and MG Siegler referenced my post, and both said that Microsoft's strategy of combining Windows' traditional-PC interface with new touch-centric features is a mistake. Their thoughts are worth reading, and the market may well prove them correct.

Me, I've been studiously avoiding making any predictions about Windows 8's chances of success…except to say that I think it's going to take a while until we know whether Microsoft's big bet is going to pay off.

But here's a question that's worth pondering: If Windows 8 is a misbegotten idea, what should Microsoft have done instead? What should Windows 7's successor have looked like? What sort of products should the company offer for the era of touch interfaces and tablets? How should it position itself to do well in the post-PC years and decades to come?

I can think of seven alternate roads the company might have followed. (They're not all mutually exclusive.)

1. The plain ol' plain ol' road.

Microsoft could have released a Windows 8 that was to Windows 7 as Windows 7 was to Windows Vista: An improvement, but not a fundamental reimagining. Such a Windows 8 might have introduced some modest tweaks to make touch interfaces work better. But it wouldn't have demoted the old Windows interface in favor of an unrelated new look and feel; it wouldn't have eliminated the Start menu; it wouldn't have bifurcated into separate versions for x86 and ARM chips.

Advantages of this road: It wouldn't have confused or alarmed anybody.

Disadvantages of this road: This approach wouldn't have done much to reposition Windows for a world in which PCs are looking less and less like PCs.

2. The “Windows 7 Lion” road.

Apple upgrades OS X more frequently than Microsoft upgrades Windows, but it hasn't done anything too radical: The operating system is still a conventional desktop operating system for conventional personal computers, and doesn't support touchscreens. But both Lion and Mountain Lion have borrowed lots of features from iOS, including the Launchpad, full-screen mode, Notifications, App Store, AirPlay wireless video feature and more. They're all optional; if you liked OS X the way it was, you can use it the way you always did. Windows 8 could have done something similar, riffing on Windows Phone features in a relatively subtle manner.

Advantages: It sounds appealing to me!

Disadvantages: Apple has vast numbers of customers who know iOS and are ready to understand iOS-like features which show up in OS X. But Microsoft hasn't had much luck getting Windows users to buy Windows Phone handsets.

3. The Windows 1.0 road.

When Microsoft introduced the first version of Windows in 1985, it bore as little resemblance to DOS as Windows 8's new interface bears to old-school Windows. And anyone who ran both DOS and Windows lived in two different worlds with two radically different types of applications, much as Windows 8 users do. But for its first decade, Windows was an optional add-on to DOS — nobody used it unwillingly. Maybe Microsoft could have done something similar again, upgrading Windows in a more conventional manner, but simultaneously introducing an add-on which would give the operating system a simplified, touch-friendly front end.

Advantages: Nobody would feel like they were having something unfamiliar forced on them.

Disadvantages: A new Windows new interface as an extra-cost option might never become popular, let alone pervasive. (Then again, Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1 were extra-cost options, and were blockbusters.)

4. The Windows Phone road.

During the 15 months in between the launch of Windows Phone 7 and the first public demo of Windows 8, lots of people thought that Microsoft should release a version of Windows Phone for tablets. Then the company revealed that it planned to give Windows itself a Windows Phone-like interface, and it became clear why it hadn't released a Windows Phone Tablet Edition. But maybe there's an alternate universe in which the company's tablet strategy was the same as Apple's: one operating system for phones and tablets, and one for computers. In this scenario, Windows tablets might look much like the Windows 8 and Windows RT models we're seeing, except they wouldn't offer the desktop and wouldn't be compatible with any legacy Windows apps.

Advantages: Windows Phone is an excellent operating system which might be pretty nifty on a tablet.

Disadvantages: Microsoft's having trouble convincing teeming masses of people to buy Windows Phone smartphones, so there's little evidence that they'd clamor for Windows Phone tablets.

5. The just-Surface road.

Right now, Microsoft isn't just introducing a wildly new version of Windows — it's also going into the PC business for the first time, with the tablets it calls Surface. The first version of Surface runs Windows RT, which is basically the same product as Windows 8, except it can't run traditional Windows apps except for the ones it comes bundled with: Office and Internet Explorer. Surface competes with other Windows RT tablets and with Windows 8 tablets, and the whole situation is kind of ugly and confusing. It's conceivable that it would have been cleaner if Windows just went on being Windows, and Surface was a new and unique Microsoft device, running an operating system that wasn't available on anything else.

Advantages: It would be easy to understand — and maybe Surface would get more attention if it were an idea unto itself rather than a Windows 8 offshoot.

Disadvantages: If Microsoft released an ambitious new software platform and didn't let its hardware-making partners use it, they might be even more ticked off than they are.

6. The something entirely new road.

Or, if you prefer, the Courier road. Instead of tackling the tablet conundrum by reworking Windows, in any form, Microsoft could have created something from scratch. Something that wasn't designed to replace Windows as we knew it. At least not yet.

Advantages: When a product starts off without any preconveived notions or existing customers, you can do whatever you want without fretting about ticking anyone off.

Disadvantages: Unless the idea was BIG, it probably wouldn't go anywhere. And it wouldn't answer an all-important question for Microsoft: What should Windows look like in 2012, 2013 and beyond?

7. The almost the same as what they did, with one big difference road.

If you upgrade to Windows 8, or buy a new Windows 8 PC, there's no way to cautiously dip your toe into the new-interface pool. The operating system boots into the Start screen, and it doesn't have the Start button and Start menu; it's willfully unfamiliar in a way that gives cautious consumers and businesses a reason to avoid it. Microsoft could have avoided this by (A) letting users configure Windows 8 to boot directly to the desktop; and (B) retaining the Start menu, at least as an option.

Advantages: Windows 8 users could acclimate themselves to the changes at their own pace.

Disadvantages: You know, I can't think of any. By shoving people directly into the new interface and withholding Windows' most familiar features, Microsoft took a pointlessly heavy-handed approach which denies its customers the ability to customize Windows to their own tastes. It's a move that's bad for Windows users. And if large numbers of those users respond by steering clear of Windows 8, it's bad for Microsoft.

Even if you find things in Windows 8 to admire, as I do, you may still come to the conclusion that a sizable percentage of Windows users should ignore it for the time being. (Last week, my father asked me if he should upgrade; I considered the matter for 1.37 seconds and then advised against it.) But Microsoft, and recently departed Windows honcho Steven Sinofsky, deserve credit for doing something. Something rather daring, actually. Rather than dithering, the company chose a road — and now it needs to figure out how the world's responding to its decision, and journey forth accordingly. What matters now is what happens next.














http://techland.time...oads-not-taken/


#2 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:08

I think they made too big a change too fast. People don't like change to begin with. Take it slow and easy. Use Metro in tablets and give desktop users a choice of what to run. The way it stands I don't see many businesses rushing out to try Windows 8. The retraining costs would be a nightmare. Apparently not many consumers want it either.

I can't tell you the number of people I see looking at Windows 8 in places like Best Buy, shaking their heads, and walking away.

#3 trek

trek

    7 / X

  • 2,916 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 02
  • Location: Vancouver, Canada

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:38

It is a really dumb move by MS not to give users the choice to turn off the metro garbage and retain the start menu. I don't buy the BS that the start menu was 'legacy code full of security risks'... They'll still have to patch anything that comes up in 7 until what is it? 2020?.

#4 Shane Nokes

Shane Nokes

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,243 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 12

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:44

It is a really dumb move by MS not to give users the choice to turn off the metro garbage and retain the start menu. I don't buy the BS that the start menu was 'legacy code full of security risks'... They'll still have to patch anything that comes up in 7 until what is it? 2020?.


Just out of curiosity are you willfully mixing things up, or just getting it wrong by accident? I'm asking this as an honest question, not as an attempt to be a pain.

To clarify, the start menu was removed due to a lot of the changes in the OS that led to it not working properly.

Gadgets were removed for security reasons...and you've sort of mismashed the 2 together...which is why I ask the initial question.

#5 +Aheer.R.S.

Aheer.R.S.

    I cannot Teach Him, the Boy has no Patience!

  • 11,527 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 06:46

Wasn't a really early leak posted here in neowin regarding leaked screenshots about what the windows 8 builds were?
I remember that in one of those early builds you could have a classic shell and the ability to enable/disable metro, it was a while ago, granted, but surely I'm not the only one that remembered that.
At the risk of saying something guaranteed to annoy some people, why the hell didn't they leave that option in?
(Also they could have left Missile Command in... like from Windows 3.11)

#6 Superboy

Superboy

    Neowinian

  • 121 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 01

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:23

To clarify, the start menu was removed due to a lot of the changes in the OS that led to it not working properly.


can you please stop posting that answer

if third party software can come up with something like the start menu I find it hard to belive that microsoft who has the source code and is a multibillion dollar company can't come up with a solution.

the simple truth is that not many people were buying their windows phone, because on the phone side people have more choices and they chose not to buy a windows phone and go with android as market-share shows and after windows phone 7 being on the market for 2 years.
so they are trying to force the interface in the desktop because they know people won't have the same viable choices on the desktop side and be stuck with it and I say stuck because most people won't know that they can downgrade when they buy a new PC.
So they are hoping that would familiarize "force" people into the interface so they start investing in apps and people would be "well i have all this apps i guess i'm going to purchase windows phone next" effectively using its monopoly to it's advantage

#7 HighwayGlider

HighwayGlider

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,815 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 05

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:32

..
To clarify, the start menu was removed due to a lot of the changes in the OS that led to it not working properly.

..


Even stoned, I can say thats a ridiculous argument.

#8 Thrackerzod

Thrackerzod

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,905 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 01

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:39

To clarify, the start menu was removed due to a lot of the changes in the OS that led to it not working properly.


In what way did it not work properly? Not only are there third party apps like Start8 and Classic Shell where a classic style start menu does work, someone made a patch that let's Windows 8 use the explorer shell from Windows 7 and the genuine classic start menu works just fine. Whatever Microsoft's reasons were for removing the start menu, it not working properly was most certainly not one of them.

#9 Raze

Raze

    Mentally Compromised

  • 4,129 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 04
  • Location: Third Planet

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:41

Good lord, not another Windows 8 thread to argue about the same damn things.

#10 Shane Nokes

Shane Nokes

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,243 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 12

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:50

Look for the post from BrandonLive. He works on that team and already gave a very clear answer.

#11 Raa

Raa

    Resident president

  • 12,374 posts
  • Joined: 03-April 02
  • Location: NSW, Australia

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:51

I don't disagree with Microsoft tried/is trying to do. But to not give users the choice is what really stinks. How hard is it to provide an option to "go classic"? We've had it for years in one form or another, why take it away?

For the people praising Windows 8 - I didn't say make it the default. Just give us the option, and i'm not talking Windows 7 or 3rd party programs...

To clarify, the start menu was removed due to a lot of the changes in the OS that led to it not working properly.

Gadgets were removed for security reasons...and you've sort of mismashed the 2 together...which is why I ask the initial question.

I can't say I agree with either decision, or reason behind them.

#12 Hardcore Til I Die

Hardcore Til I Die

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,266 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 07
  • Location: England

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:57

Look for the post from BrandonLive. He works on that team and already gave a very clear answer.


It's clearly an excuse to hide the real reason for removing it.

As others have said; other companies have recreated the start menu easily.

#13 Arceles

Arceles

    Time Craymel

  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 09
  • Location: 4th dimmension.
  • OS: Win 7 Ultimate / Win 8.1 Pro (With Start Menu Start8, otherwise is UNUSABLE) / Android 4.1.2 Jelly Bean
  • Phone: XT890 Motorola RAZRi (x86 processor)

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:00

Finally the press is doing well what it should do, express the non conformity of millions of users let aside with this version of windows.

#14 Shane Nokes

Shane Nokes

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,243 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 12

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:21

It's clearly an excuse to hide the real reason for removing it.

As others have said; other companies have recreated the start menu easily.


Indeed. Since you're apparently connected and a SME on that matter you won't mind posting proof then.

#15 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 21 November 2012 - 02:06

Yeah, I too think this is tied into tablet and phone sales. They forgot one little item, no one wants their phones.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!