Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Change and adaptation? MSFT OS

24 posts in this topic

Posted

I've been thinking about this. I honestly think MSFT should consider renaming it's flagship OS. We have been using Windows for years and honestly, Windows isn't windows in the reality sense. there is a desktop but the main interface is a touch screen system( duh right?). Businesses have to change to remain competitive.

 

I am trying stimulate honest discussion on how MSFT and the NEW CEO can accomplish this. honestly, Windows is dead unless we use a prior version. that being said what can I add to this discussion? A serious change in the name of the OS.

 

I'd think a name change to the degree of surface-something is in order. the OS isn't the branding it once was and to call it Windows is a misnomer. Albeit for the fact that there is a desktop "under the hood". even 3rd party devs have to use coding in their apps to boot to desktop. So windows isn't windows.

 

For Microsoft to remain relevant, a serious change to the name of the OS will have to happen.

 

that's my take on this interesting issue.

 

I welcome good, honest, non inflammatory responses. I'd enjoy to hear a response from anyone at Neowin who owns a business if rebranding or name changing of a flagship product would help with giving MSFT a new look and marketing plan.

 

best regards,

 

~chrisj1968

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not quite sure I follow . . . Renaming the operating system makes no sense, especially in light of the fact that the next version is supposed to allow for windowed Metro applications . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not sure I follow either. A name change would only add confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not quite sure I follow . . . Renaming the operating system makes no sense, especially in light of the fact that the next version is supposed to allow for windowed Metro applications . . .

 

Windowed yes. however the main aspect of the OS isn't windows. it is this.. the main UI..

 

windows-8.1-update-1-screenshot-1.jpg

 

Windows of old.

 

c6290e8b-84bb-4375-b7bc-e46becd23321_6.j

 

acf7072d-7a4c-4de0-965f-c50d6acf04fd_7.j

 

f849a3d2-bff0-4325-8011-794deb602d89_7.j

 

796f44b8-0746-421b-83a3-d4a7625ea432_7.j

 

Today

7d1cce15-3af7-414e-aca3-d9bb16c63dd5_7.p

 

the product has changed, so a name change and remarketing of a new OS would probably help to ease people into a change in how they compute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Windowed yes. however the main aspect of the OS isn't windows. it is this.. the main UI..

 

windows-8.1-update-1-screenshot-1.jpg

 

Windows of old.

 

c6290e8b-84bb-4375-b7bc-e46becd23321_6.j

 

acf7072d-7a4c-4de0-965f-c50d6acf04fd_7.j

 

f849a3d2-bff0-4325-8011-794deb602d89_7.j

 

796f44b8-0746-421b-83a3-d4a7625ea432_7.j

 

Today

7d1cce15-3af7-414e-aca3-d9bb16c63dd5_7.p

 

the product has changed, so a name change and remarketing of a new OS would probably help to ease people into a change in how they compute

And this is what the next version is supposed to look like . . .

Windows_2D00_8_2D00_1_2D00_update_2D00_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Again, I don't follow. Windows is still windows... The Metro Start Screen nor do the Live Tiles change anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've got an idea, lets take a product name of something that 8/10 people on the planet know, and change it.... that makes sense.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not sure I follow either. A name change would only add confusion.

a name change would have to require a marketing blitz along the lines of the Windows95 release and was heavily covered by the media.

 

so with this new look, new direction the OS has taken, a rename and introduction to the masses would surely be a good thing. I mean the OS was designed to change the way we compute, that confused the normal joes who knew windows from days of old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

a name change would have to require a marketing blitz along the lines of the Windows95 release and was heavily covered by the media.

 

so with this new look, new direction the OS has taken, a rename and introduction to the masses would surely be a good thing. I mean the OS was designed to change the way we compute, that confused the normal joes who knew windows from days of old.

Sorry, but not sure how that would require a name change. Again, Windows is still Windows. Rebranding wouldn't make sense at all here. For better or worse, Windows is a house hold name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Didn't they try that with Windows / RT and confuse everyone?

 

I think Windows is fine for the x86/64 systems, but i'm not too sure about using it for every other product or service that's made by Microsoft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Again, I don't follow. Windows is still windows... The Metro Start Screen nor do the Live Tiles change anything.

ok, so they are reverting back to a windowed environment? (shakes my head) I'm shaking my head because for all appearances MSFT seems confused.. is that a proper way to look at it or are they reverting to a psuedo windows-touchscreen system. I've not seen the new 9 screens so forgive me as I spent some time in the hospital with internal contusions on my organs. but ok, it would appear they want to keep a windows look to it. I'll keep a eye out for future updates. (facepalm)

 

Thanks Ian. 

 

Added: seems like alot of complaints about the windows 8 system seems to now be forcing MSFT's hand at directly intertwining both interfaces on a new desktop. :)  I can live with that. But I'm not familiar and bad with names but the new CEO, being optomistic will hash out this OS. actually I'm positively optimistic to be honest.  I like that screenshot of a preview of 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

the Windows brand is very strong and is still in good health, so why change to something unknown, with no brand recognition? Also it would add alot of confusion.

 

finally, the Start Menu isn't Windows as all we know it; it's the Start Menu + Desktop that is the Windows as we know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Lets name it Microsoft You Know What.

 

Because, well, obviously we know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

ok, so they are reverting back to a windowed environment?

They never left a windowed environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They never left a windowed environment.

looking at the windows8-8.1 issues, alot of people asked for the old start button/menu back. seems like MSFT listened.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

the Windows brand is very strong and is still in good health, so why change to something unknown, with no brand recognition? Also it would add alot of confusion.

 

finally, the Start Menu isn't Windows as all we know it; it's the Start Menu + Desktop that is the Windows as we know it.

The desktop IS the same across all the Windows-branded OSes that have one - Windows Phone has no "desktop".  (Even XBOX ONE has a desktop.)

 

What is different is the lack of a Microsoft-provided Start menu - period. (8+/2012+)

 

Backward-compatibility is easily the best back to the previous versions of Windows in years - if not ever.  (That isn't just me, or even just those that don't object to ModernUI - even the critics have - grudgingly - admitted as much.)

 

Even Win32 applications that USED to require Compatibility Mode settings in Windows 7 - the previous backward-compatibility champ - no longer do in Windows 8.1 update 1.  And that is 7 Ultimate x64 vs. 8.1 ProWMC x64 - the respective flagships.

 

Yet despite that - AND the plethora of Start menu bringbacks from third parties (a lot of which are even free), it STILL isn't enough from the critics.

 

I've even asked what the problem is with the bringbacks - despite not using, or wanting, one myself.  (It IS a fair question - where exactly do ALL the bringbacks fail that so many people object to them?)

 

I am still waiting for an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Rename their world leading brand?

 

Right.  Sorry, but when people call Microsoft MSFT it tends to make me feel like they are trying to act "in the know" by using their stock symbol.  You are not writing for a business/financial site - don't act like you are.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

looking at the windows8-8.1 issues, alot of people asked for the old start button/menu back. seems like MSFT listened.  

chrisj1968 - why should Microsoft basically run over all the third-party bringbacks - where have they failed?

It's not price - most of them don't have one.

Most of them have features the Microsoft-provided Start menu iterations have lacked.

Why should Microsoft throw all the third parties under the bus?

I'm not even a TARGET for such a feature - yet I'm the one asking the question.

Microsoft needs FAR greater gist than me - after all, they are the company that will be driving that bus you are asking them to run over the third parties with.

Have the issues you have been forwarded to the third-party developers? (If not, why not?  They deserve the feedback/criticism as well, if their products are deemed to be failures - even more than Microsoft does.)

Microsoft - as a company, mind you - typically does NOT run over their masses of third-party developers - yet you, and others, are asking them to do just that.

They deserve a valid reason - as much as the casualties you are asking Microsoft to CREATE do.

I've asked that question in every Windows forum to which I belong - not just that of Neowin.

 

So far I have heard squat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Personally don't think it's a great either either, would just cause a whole lot of unnecessary confusion. It's still the same OS, and Microsoft's already done the rename-game way too often already with other products/services. The look and feel may change over the decades, the Modern UI certainly isn't the first or even the biggest (Executive to Program Manager to Explorer anyone?), unlikely to be the last, but it's still the same OS under the hood, especially since all of these changes can be changed yet again, either by Microsoft or the end user.

Now if they came out of left field and decided to dabble in the *Nix world again and make an entirely new thing, or something completely different, then yea, that merits a different name. But a product's evolution doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The desktop IS the same across all the Windows-branded OSes that have one - Windows Phone has no "desktop".  (Even XBOX ONE has a desktop.)

 

What is different is the lack of a Microsoft-provided Start menu - period. (8+/2012+)

 

Backward-compatibility is easily the best back to the previous versions of Windows in years - if not ever.  (That isn't just me, or even just those that don't object to ModernUI - even the critics have - grudgingly - admitted as much.)

 

Even Win32 applications that USED to require Compatibility Mode settings in Windows 7 - the previous backward-compatibility champ - no longer do in Windows 8.1 update 1.  And that is 7 Ultimate x64 vs. 8.1 ProWMC x64 - the respective flagships.

 

Yet despite that - AND the plethora of Start menu bringbacks from third parties (a lot of which are even free), it STILL isn't enough from the critics.

 

I've even asked what the problem is with the bringbacks - despite not using, or wanting, one myself.  (It IS a fair question - where exactly do ALL the bringbacks fail that so many people object to them?)

 

I am still waiting for an answer.

 

wth are you talking about? also what is a bringback??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

chrisj1968 - why should Microsoft basically run over all the third-party bringbacks - where have they failed?

It's not price - most of them don't have one.

Most of them have features the Microsoft-provided Start menu iterations have lacked.

Why should Microsoft throw all the third parties under the bus?

How is Microsoft throwing third-parties under the bus? Developers will not suddenly stop creating Start menu alternatives just because Microsoft intends to include the feature in the operating system - look at Classic Shell - it was created during the Windows 7 era. If users don't like Microsoft's Start menu or Start screen, they don't (or won't) have to use it. There are some users who would like to have the Start menu without installing additional applications, mind you, which is why it is nice that Microsoft is reinstating the feature . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

chrisj1968 - why should Microsoft basically run over all the third-party bringbacks - where have they failed?

It's not price - most of them don't have one.

Most of them have features the Microsoft-provided Start menu iterations have lacked.

Why should Microsoft throw all the third parties under the bus?

I'm not even a TARGET for such a feature - yet I'm the one asking the question.

Microsoft needs FAR greater gist than me - after all, they are the company that will be driving that bus you are asking them to run over the third parties with.

Have the issues you have been forwarded to the third-party developers? (If not, why not?  They deserve the feedback/criticism as well, if their products are deemed to be failures - even more than Microsoft does.)

Microsoft - as a company, mind you - typically does NOT run over their masses of third-party developers - yet you, and others, are asking them to do just that.

They deserve a valid reason - as much as the casualties you are asking Microsoft to CREATE do.

I've asked that question in every Windows forum to which I belong - not just that of Neowin.

 

So far I have heard squat.

 

thanks for your good response! Actually yes, MS would be stepping on toes. But in reality, MS had no intention for bringing it back and 3rd parties made apps as a work around. So I see your point and well taken. Had MS kept it itself, then things would surely be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Developers will not suddenly stop creating Start menu alternatives just because Microsoft intends to include the feature in the operating system - look at Classic Shell - it was created during the Windows 7 era.

Exactly -- some people prefer a different way of doing things. Hell back when I had XP systems in the house I sorely wish I could run ClassicShell on that as XP's menu sucked hard, although at the time I did use something else entirely. On my Gnome desktops, I use a different start menu from what's built in. Also on my KDE systems. And Cinnamon. In fact, I think the last time I actually used what was built in was way back with Windows 3.1, and that's only because half the time I was in a console anyway and didn't use it much so just didn't care. There is zero chance of pleasing 100% of the customers, never going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Didn't they try that with Windows / RT and confuse everyone?

 

I think Windows is fine for the x86/64 systems, but i'm not too sure about using it for every other product or service that's made by Microsoft.

 

Thats because it still had Windows in the name yet it couldn't run any of their old software. Your right keep Windows for x86 / 64 and drop "Windows" for everything else.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.