Microsoft's Larson-Green on Windows 8: There are 'things I would think about doing differently'

Microsoft executive Julie Larson-Green has been with the company for 21 years and soon she will be taking on a new role as Chief Experience Officer in its Applications and Services Group. In an interview with Re/code, Larson-Green talks about her new gig but also reflects about her past work in helping to lead the development of Windows 8.

She worked closely with Steven Sinofsky on the OS and briefly lead the Windows division when he departed just after Windows 8 shipped in 2012. In today's interview, Larson-Green seems to realize that the massive shift from the desktop-oriented Windows 7 to the touchscreen-based Windows 8 could have been handled better. She states:

Change is super hard. … There’s definitely things I would think about doing differently to ease that transition. I think change was needed. … I don’t know that building just another Windows 7 would have been helpful.

Microsoft seems to be keen to make Windows 8 more desktop user friendly, especially with the changes that are coming with Windows 8.1 Update 1. Unfortunately, Re/code didn't ask Larson-Green about Update 1 but she did address some comments she made in November 2013 about how there might be too many versions of Windows. She told Re/code, "People kind of misconstrued it to mean it is the end of ARM[-based] Windows or Windows RT, but that is certainly not the case."

As far as her upcoming assignment at Microsoft, where she will be working to improve products and services like Bing, Office, Skype and others, Larson-Green says, "It’s fun, it kind of brings together all of my past background — apps, Windows." She also says that part of her job will include developing Microsoft's services so they work well on other operating systems such as iOS and Android. Larson-Green says this won't be a big deal for her, stating:

I always use everybody’s everything. I have an iPhone, I have a Galaxy Note. I have an HTC One. I am a gadget girl. I have a FitBit, a FuelBand, all that stuff. You should see my living room. I have it all — TiVo, PS4, Xbox One.

Larson-Green, who currently leads Microsoft's Devices and Studios division, will go to her new job sometime in the next few weeks. Former Nokia CEO Stephen Elop will take her place when Microsoft closes the deal to buy Nokia's Devices and Services division.

Source: Re/code | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

One of Microsoft's Imagine Cup 2014 team finalists will get to meet Bill Gates

Next Story

OneDrive for Business apps released for iOS and Windows 8.1

123 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Start with that ugly Start Scree you made. It is useless on a desktop PC. Those little apps could have just been icons on the desktop that simply launched smaller applications.

I am "advanced user". Using full screen Metro applications on 27" WQHD monitor is stupid. If you need simply watch the youtube or clik likes on Facebook - this interface is for you. But if you just need to simply compy-paste data from multiple windows to one - you will se whole "usability" of Metro.

I have a Surface 2, and as tablet interface - Metro is perfect. But on my game computer... I just right now figting with good old Fallout 3. Microsoft's f////s made Metro as shell, not DWM! And when Fallout is hanging - I CANNOT EVEN KILL IT WITH TASK MANAGER! [hate, hate, hate!]

MS - are you idiots? PC - not the device only for Facbook and Youtube! I'm going back to Windows 7. Again. This is my 5-th attempt to use this ..., failed again. It not usable! I will use this underOS only if MS will return: DWM as shell, Aero, widgets and Dreamscene.

Let's admit it: Windows 8 is a downgraded experience for advanced users. Moreover that guy from MS UX team admitted it recently.

lexp said,
Let's admit it: Windows 8 is a downgraded experience for advanced users. Moreover that guy from MS UX team admitted it recently.
^

lexp said,
Let's admit it: Windows 8 is a downgraded experience for advanced users. Moreover that guy from MS UX team admitted it recently.

Define advanced users. You mean these people who can't even adapt to clicking a tile to open an app instead of a row item in a start menu?

Sure...

Only enable Metro for touch screen capable devices - Problem solved. Shoving it down everybody's throats to force familiarity and win mobile marketshare is just plain insulting to desktop/laptop users.

simplezz said,
Only enable Metro for touch screen capable devices - Problem solved. Shoving it down everybody's throats to force familiarity and win mobile marketshare is just plain insulting to desktop/laptop users.

Disable it yourself. I like it and have no interest in be subjected to that.

Some people actually like the new interface. I sometime give course to ppl in my town without much computer knowledge, and for some Metro work pretty well. In my opinion it work best for those who don't do that many things with their computer, the same way as ppl usually use a tablet, an ipad or galaxy. Those aren't really for the power user and they work pretty well, it's the same for the metro interface.

For some, Metro will actually give a better experience than the Desktop.

Philippe Pomerleau said,

For some, Metro will actually give a better experience than the Desktop.

Totally understand your point Philippe. However, the keyword you mentioned is "some" have a better experience with Metro. The word "most" as in most completely hate it, is how users feel about Metro. The majority has spoken and Microsoft has no choice but to cater to us. This is how it should work. I voice my opinion by not opening my wallet. The easiest thing for Microsoft to do is give users a choice. Everyone wins in most cases when we have a choice.

Eric said,

Disable it yourself. I like it and have no interest in be subjected to that.

Yep. Massive fan of the new interface, and it just keeps getting better. Love it on my Surface, and love it on my desktop PC!!

ZipZapRap said,

Yep. Massive fan of the new interface, and it just keeps getting better. Love it on my Surface, and love it on my desktop PC!!

It's great that you are a fan of it but it would be awesome for the majority of us to have the option of turning that mess off. Nothing wrong with choice. You smile, I smile, we are both happy at the end of the day.

JHBrown said,
It's great that you are a fan of it but it would be awesome for the majority of us to have the option of turning that mess off. Nothing wrong with choice. You smile, I smile, we are both happy at the end of the day.

You will never be able to turn Metro off, You can try and bypass it sure with 3rd party software, or the small tokens Microsoft is putting in each release, you can try and ensure your computing experience involves as little of it as possible, but it's the new Windows. It isn't going away.

ZipZapRap said,

You will never be able to turn Metro off, You can try and bypass it sure with 3rd party software, or the small tokens Microsoft is putting in each release, you can try and ensure your computing experience involves as little of it as possible, but it's the new Windows. It isn't going away.

I'm not asking that it goes away. There are a few that like it. I'd like the option during setup to specify what type of user I am. Metro for your folks who like to play with their computer and advanced desktop for those who work hard on their computers daily. Just an option for you and I Zip!

JHBrown said,
It's great that you are a fan of it but it would be awesome for the majority of us to have the option of turning that mess off. Nothing wrong with choice. You smile, I smile, we are both happy at the end of the day.

You CAN turn it off. Download Classic Shell and you'll never have to lay eyes on the Modern UI again if you don't want to. There are numerous options for people who don't want to use the Modern UI and yet we still have so many complaining about it.

Kaze23 said,

You CAN turn it off. Download Classic Shell and you'll never have to lay eyes on the Modern UI again if you don't want to. There are numerous options for people who don't want to use the Modern UI and yet we still have so many complaining about it.

I understand that. However, with the amount of Windows 7 installs I do after the purchase of a new system, having Microsoft supply this UI option would be ideal.

ZipZapRap said,

You will never be able to turn Metro off, You can try and bypass it sure with 3rd party software, or the small tokens Microsoft is putting in each release, you can try and ensure your computing experience involves as little of it as possible, but it's the new Windows. It isn't going away.

It's been over a year since Windows 8 came out.

So how many traditional desktop applications now have Metro versions? Are developers racing to adapt to Microsoft's "next big thing" ???

I know the Microsoft Store is full of Metro apps... but people aren't gonna throw away all the software they've been using for years.

Windows exists to run applications. If people don't want Metro apps... and developers aren't embracing Metro apps either... I gotta wonder if this will pan out like Microsoft would have hoped.

JHBrown said,
Totally understand your point Philippe. However, the keyword you mentioned is "some" have a better experience with Metro. The word "most" as in most completely hate it, is how users feel about Metro. The majority has spoken and Microsoft has no choice but to cater to us. This is how it should work. I voice my opinion by not opening my wallet. The easiest thing for Microsoft to do is give users a choice. Everyone wins in most cases when we have a choice.

Disabling Metro on "desktop" machines is not giving user a choice. That's just forcing your preferred choice on others like me. The anti_Metro side complain that they had no choice, and then turn right around and want to force their choice on others.

Letting users choose what they want is the solution.

JHBrown said,
I'm not asking that it goes away. There are a few that like it. I'd like the option during setup to specify what type of user I am. Metro for your folks who like to play with their computer and advanced desktop for those who work hard on their computers daily. Just an option for you and I Zip!

The argument that "advanced users" require the desktop is a misnomer, and you know that JHBrown. You're smart enough to know when you're trolling, and I'm smart enough to pick it up.

But yes, naught wrong with choice. Which is what Windows 8.1 gives the user, and hopefully more will be coming. Metro won't go away though.

ZipZapRap said,

The argument that "advanced users" require the desktop is a misnomer, and you know that JHBrown. You're smart enough to know when you're trolling, and I'm smart enough to pick it up.

But yes, naught wrong with choice. Which is what Windows 8.1 gives the user, and hopefully more will be coming. Metro won't go away though.

Might want to get your troll meter adjusted. Everything posted has been straight from the heart and honest. Trolls look for trouble.

JHBrown said,
straight from the heart and honest. Trolls look for trouble.

How does your "straight from the heart and honest" mantra then explain:

JHBrown said,
There are a few that like it. ....advanced desktop for those who work hard on their computers daily.

Prove "few".. And it would shock you to learn, that I, like others, actually use our computers daily for "hard work" and find Windows 8 to be a benefit, or at least no hinderance.

JHBrown said,
the majority

Prove this.

JHBrown said,
The word "most" as in most completely hate it, is how users feel about Metro.

Prove it.

The two options are that you're thick, or being intentionally inflammatory. From your previous posts, I know you're not thick.

Microsoft is finally realizing the complete mess they made with Windows 8. They need to fix this mess as soon as possible so long time fans can fall in love with the company again.

JHBrown said,
Microsoft is finally realizing the complete mess they made with Windows 8. They need to fix this mess as soon as possible so long time fans can fall in love with the company again.

We're on 8.1 and getting ready to get 8.1.1. You're a bit behind.

True "long-time" fans are still on XP. The strategy of catering to today's audience isn't sustainable for a company that wants to be around 30 years from now.

zhangm said,
True "long-time" fans are still on XP. The strategy of catering to today's audience isn't sustainable for a company that wants to be around 30 years from now.

+ eleventy

JHBrown said,
Microsoft is finally realizing the complete mess they made with Windows 8. They need to fix this mess as soon as possible so long time fans can fall in love with the company again.

So mean, so that long-time whiners can start whining about how Microsoft comes back on their initial decisions? It'll always be the same.

So Apple got it right? nice. I men really. they have 2 Os's for the tablet market, RT and pro.

now they want to kill the RT.

MS seems to be "trying" to leap frog Apple by combining it all into one package.

chrisj1968 said,
So Apple got it right? nice. I men really. they have 2 Os's for the tablet market, RT and pro.

now they want to kill the RT.

MS seems to be "trying" to leap frog Apple by combining it all into one package.

Um, JL-G said above, they're *not* killing RT.

CXO is close to a CMO (Marketing boss) but with a bit more attributions (specially when it also works internally).

So, if we ask (as a customer) for a bring back the start menu then, she is not the person to decide it, instead she will say something about "we are evaluating..." or some marketing tricks that literally says nothing, i.e. bureaucracy at best (customer viewpoint).

MS is still giving turns and is still a bit leader-less.

neonspark said,
too late sweetie, you need to go.

You do realize she had nothing to do with Windows 8 being released in the state it was? That was Sinofsky and he is gone. Julie is responsible for smoothing out the user experience in 8.1+

There are some big points here that Microsoft seems to be understanding. Microsoft has to learn that each new version of Windows doesn't need a "drastic" change. They seem to be starting to get this with Windows 8.1. Apple has been on OS X since the XP days, but have been evolving it every year or so.
The next thing, is OS polishing, each new version still has remnants of the old and older. Windows 8 is still stuck with Windows 7 through Windows 95 icons as well as the old properties tab style menus. If metro is the new theme, then update everything to match.

wv@gt said,
There are some big points here that Microsoft seems to be understanding. Microsoft has to learn that each new version of Windows doesn't need a "drastic" change. They seem to be starting to get this with Windows 8.1. Apple has been on OS X since the XP days, but have been evolving it every year or so.
The next thing, is OS polishing, each new version still has remnants of the old and older. Windows 8 is still stuck with Windows 7 through Windows 95 icons as well as the old properties tab style menus. If metro is the new theme, then update everything to match.

Apple essentially keeping the same UX from 1984 is placating users, not advancing technology or addressing new models of usability and productivity that modern hardware and software technologies can now offer.

You want to complain about ancient icons (left for compatibility with some software), yet you have no complaints about OS X users having to drop to a command line interface to access settings and manage the OS - which is a step back to the 1970s. There are literally 10,000+ setting in Windows that can be managed in the GUI that requires an OS X user to use a command line to accomplish - which even by Apple's own definitions in the 80s/90s is archaic.

The new UI in Windows is about duality and evolution, they don't have to break one to do the other, and it is crazy that people thing it has to be either or. Windows is advanced enough they could offer several new UI models at once without affecting the others. The goal is to get developers to think beyond mouse and keyboard and not be lazy and ignore touch and other input modalities. Windows Vista/7 offered a lot of touch features for developers, but they ignored them, leaving Windows 7 with the most advanced input/touch driver and API model with very few touch or alternative input applications. (Even Microsoft's own teams were guilty of being lazy.)
The push for 'Metro' was to get developers to accept that they have to finally build for input beyond mouse and keyboard. And it has worked, so now all Microsoft has to do is polish the UIs so that they don't feel/seem so different to end users.

A tablet user never has to see or touch the desktop, so there is no need for it be a separate OS.

The claims that Microsoft makes 'drastic' changes to each version of Windows implies you haven't been playing attention. Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was the LAST major UI jump Microsoft made, and that was 19 years ago.

wv@gt said,
There are some big points here that Microsoft seems to be understanding. Microsoft has to learn that each new version of Windows doesn't need a "drastic" change. They seem to be starting to get this with Windows 8.1. Apple has been on OS X since the XP days, but have been evolving it every year or so.
The next thing, is OS polishing, each new version still has remnants of the old and older. Windows 8 is still stuck with Windows 7 through Windows 95 icons as well as the old properties tab style menus. If metro is the new theme, then update everything to match.

Metro is far from a new theme, it's a new UX all together.

There is no need to be critical of someone's appearance. I don't' give a damn if you like or dislike Windows 8, but your argument is dismissed when it includes a personal attack.

Raylan Givens said,
She looks like travesty from the plastic surguries, but besides that, they now say anything to turn around the Vista (Win 8/8.1) fiasco.

I guess you never visited Madam Arthur in Paris....
Seriously speaking the only relevant point is if she likes what she sees in the mirror every evening; You do not like her? Try to pick up someone else... Simple as that. Personally I would like to have a date with her very much.

Xenon said,
She didn't list a windows phone.

She didn't list she uses Windows either, so maybe she is an OS/2 user.
(I think we can assume she has a WP device, and was listing the contrasting devices.)

Although, now that I think about how the Apps turned out on the release of Windows 8, maybe she doesn't use a WP enough, as they were horrible compared to the WP8 versions.

Either way, it is reassuring that Joe B. is pulling together WP/Windows now instead of her and Sinofsky.

Office is great, Bing... could be improved on some of the delivery, but my issue with Bing lies more with the results I get. Not sure what her role would have to do in terms of algorithms and techniques in how those systems operate.

However, Skype... I love Skype for voice and video. The messaging is lacking though, between being cumbersome to use and the ugly interface. Compact view is what I use, but even making the chat windows smaller looks rather bloated between the advertisement and the unnecessarily large window. And if the window is left sized rather large from my previous video chat? Bam! Suddenly, you have a bright white square piercing your eyes, because apparently, in 2014, we hate customization... Ugh.

On the messaging end of it, I'd just like for my friends and I to not miss each others messages simply because Skype doesn't do well in notifying us. That's the other thing I find bothersome.

Please fix Skype, Mrs. Larson-Green...

Dot Matrix said,
Yes, please re-work Skype from the ground up! And get rid of the in-app ads!

Completely agree. I have hated the Skype Team before Microsoft bought them, and it seems they only got worse after the acquisition. Microsoft tried to let them run autonomously, and they have stuck it to Microsoft when they could. From WP7/WP8 to Xbox One clients. WP8's messaging and VOIP stacks were redesigned to complete Skype (or other client) integration, and Skype still ignored using these new hooks.

Skype found the backend changes, and has not offered any of the previous messenger client features that are supported by the servers. It is pathetic, and I hope Microsoft is finally starting to clean house with them.

Dot Matrix said,
Yes, please re-work Skype from the ground up! And get rid of the in-app ads!

And give us back free desktop sharing! I can't believe they've made that a damned pay feature! How the hell am I meant to talk my dad through removing crap browser toolbars now?

"I think change was needed. … I don't know that building just another Windows 7 would have been helpful."

I agree. Windows 7 sold millions of copies, and has been quite successful, but people are keen to ignore the sad reality that was Windows 7 tablets and other devices - that all failed, and haven't been heard from since. Apple's marketing also took shots at the OS, after the release of the iPad, which we know did quite some damage with the overnight success of that product.

Has successful has it has been, it's not going to do much good in the long run. One way or another, change needed to happen if Microsoft wanted to remain alive.

Edited by Dot Matrix, Feb 26 2014, 11:30pm :

Dot Matrix said,
"I think change was needed. … I don't know that building just another Windows 7 would have been helpful."

I agree. Windows 7 sold millions of copies, and has been quite successful, but people are keen to ignore the sad reality that was Windows 7 tablets and other devices - that all failed, and haven't been heard from since. Apple's marketing also took shots at the OS, after the release of the iPad, which we know did quite some damage with the overnight success of that product.

Has successful has it has been, it's not going to do much good in the long run. One way or another, change needed to happen if Microsoft wanted to remain alive.


essentially, the start screen is the desktop, since everyone has practically everything on their desktop, Microsoft decided to make a cleaner solution to that

I'm not sure if developers would have jumped at making as many Windows Store apps if Microsoft had created a completely separate tablet OS. Look at how long it took/is taking Windows Phone to get traction.

At least with Windows 8, there are 200 million potential app store customers, even though a lot of desktop users skip the store entirely.

srprimeaux said,
So make a tablet OS. Don't force desktop users to use a touch-based interface. Apple did it right.

Metro isn't a touch based UI. The mouse still works with it just fine, and my keyboard hasn't stopped working since installing 8. Metro has been on Windows since 2004, and no one complained, so why do you have issues with it now?

srprimeaux said,
So make a tablet OS. Don't force desktop users to use a touch-based interface. Apple did it right.

Not true. Apple has a much lower desktop presence, them making 2 distinct OS's was easy.

For Microsoft, having an OS that can use the same apps on a PC and tablet is their only choice.

If anything, look at 8 as the catalyst to change and merging the platforms with the same OS. I think it is crazy to believe it was going to done easily in one release.

Dot Matrix said,

Metro isn't a touch based UI. The mouse still works with it just fine, and my keyboard hasn't stopped working since installing 8. Metro has been on Windows since 2004, and no one complained, so why do you have issues with it now?

Change is hard... even Microsoft executives realize it.

There was a big transition from Windows 7 to Windows 8. However... the transition wasn't as smooth as they thought it would be. Maybe it was too much too fast. Things look different, act different, etc. There are now two operating environments with two different sets of apps.

Some people didn't like it. And that's fine.

Would it really have been that hard to simply give users a choice?

http://i.imgur.com/huB0Inl.jpg

In this mock up, you can leave exclusive move off and windows 8 would have worked as it does now.
With exclusive mode on, with Modern UI selected, it'd be metro only, with no access to the desktop stuff, or with Classic Desktop selected, everything keyboard and mouse users enjoyed, including a working start menu and no sign of Metro apps or start screens.

This would have satisfied all users, people who want a touch only OS, people who want both to ease the migration and those who don't care for anything touch or metro.

I believe if they had included that simple option, they'd have suppressed Windows 7 and Windows 8 would have been an incredible OS.


sagum said,
Would it really have been that hard to simply give users a choice?

http://i.imgur.com/huB0Inl.jpg

In this mock up, you can leave exclusive move off and windows 8 would have worked as it does now.
With exclusive mode on, with Modern UI selected, it'd be metro only, with no access to the desktop stuff, or with Classic Desktop selected, everything keyboard and mouse users enjoyed, including a working start menu and no sign of Metro apps or start screens.

This would have satisfied all users, people who want a touch only OS, people who want both to ease the migration and those who don't care for anything touch or metro.

I believe if they had included that simple option, they'd have suppressed Windows 7 and Windows 8 would have been an incredible OS.

I think the "Boot to Desktop" option solves *most* of the problems people have... but you still might drop into Metro if you're not careful.

Opening a JPG... will it open in a Metro photo viewer taking over your full screen? Or in a traditional desktop photo app?

There are things you can do so you won't see Metro if you don't want to. It's up to you to fix them.

So yeah... the Desktop UI should have been the standard during this transition phase.

sagum said,
Would it really have been that hard to simply give users a choice?

You have choice. Click the desktop tile, and boom, you're set. If that's too much work for you, then set the desktop as the default boot location.

srprimeaux said,
So make a tablet OS. Don't force desktop users to use a touch-based interface. Apple did it right.

And they have to be two different products why again?

Most people can understand a device support more than one form factor and more than one ecosystem. We have Convection Microwave ovens, and we have Cadillacs that can out corner and are faster than many Ferraris.

The beauty of 'advanced' technology is that users no longer have to have an either/or and can have both or many. There was a time when PCs were dedicated to running a couple of pieces of software and users would move to the engineering station or accounting station to get work done. That 'convergence' changed computing 25 years ago, and there is no reason it can't continue to happen.

I wonder if people think features or 'removed' or the OS is hindered by offering more functionality. This doesn't happen in the Windows NT world, as it can strap on a lot of technology that doesn't need a ton of low level services running to support them, as they can fire dynamically. (It is not Linux or even OS X with regard to footprint versus functionality - this is why WP8 is running the real full NT with Windows subsystems on top of it.)


Also, back to the original argument of pro-Apple, they wanted to run OS X on the iPad, not iOS. So if they DID IT RIGHT, it was because they couldn't get adequate performance out of OS X on low end devices. (Microsoft could with Windows, and this POed Apple.)

Dot Matrix said,

You have choice. Click the desktop tile, and boom, you're set. If that's too much work for you, then set the desktop as the default boot location.

You shouldn't HAVE to do that though.

The first time you use Windows 8... either with a new machine or from an upgrade... ALL your apps are traditional desktop apps that you've been using for years.

So why should the first thing you see be this *other* interface with its own apps?

I agree... Boot to Desktop is a wonderful option. But that wasn't available in the initial release of Windows 8.

Here's what they should have done to ease this transition:

Windows 7 - desktop (duh)
Windows 8 - desktop default, Metro option
Windows 9 - Metro default, desktop option

No one would have bought it, remember the crunchpad? Playbook? HP Touchpad? Early Android tablets?

A new OS on a tablet will fail, the only way in is the way Microsoft did it. They could have done it better, but this was the only way.

zeke009 said,
Not true. Apple has a much lower desktop presence, them making 2 distinct OS's was easy.

How does that render what I said "not true"? Their user base is irrelevant since this is a design issue.

zeke009 said,
For Microsoft, having an OS that can use the same apps on a PC and tablet is their only choice.

Only choice? Ever heard of Windows RT? Same apps on both a PC and a tablet? Yeah, right.

zeke009 said,
If anything, look at 8 as the catalyst to change and merging the platforms with the same OS. I think it is crazy to believe it was going to done easily in one release.

Maybe the OS should'nt be merged. Who thought that was a good idea? They should take Windows Phone's OS and use that for tablets instead of trying to consolidate everything into a single OS.

Dot Matrix said,

Metro isn't a touch based UI. The mouse still works with it just fine, and my keyboard hasn't stopped working since installing 8. Metro has been on Windows since 2004, and no one complained, so why do you have issues with it now?

Metro isn't a touch UI, the titles just happen to be big enough to press with your thumb!

Justin Jones said,
remember the crunchpad? Playbook? HP Touchpad? Early Android tablets?

Wow... I forgot about the CrunchPad and JooJoo.

What about the HP Slate, ExoPC and the Notion Ink Adam... I remember all the comments about them being the next big thing. (and iPad killer)

Mobius Enigma said,
And they have to be two different products why again?

Because it works? It makes sense? We have seen the fruits of seeking to consolidate everything into a single OS and they were rotten.

Mobius Enigma said,
Most people can understand a device support more than one form factor and more than one ecosystem. We have Convection Microwave ovens, and we have Cadillacs that can out corner and are faster than many Ferraris.

It boils down to design and efficiency. If it's designed well and people react to it naturally, it'll be a hit. That's not what we have here with Microsoft.

Mobius Enigma said,
The beauty of 'advanced' technology is that users no longer have to have an either/or and can have both or many. There was a time when PCs were dedicated to running a couple of pieces of software and users would move to the engineering station or accounting station to get work done. That 'convergence' changed computing 25 years ago, and there is no reason it can't continue to happen.

But that strategy worked because it was convenient and didn't hinder productivity. It was natural. People were used to doing those things on a few computers and doing the same thing on faster ones and more of them was just icing on the cake. Again, that's not what we have here with Microsoft's concoction.

Mobius Enigma said,
Also, back to the original argument of pro-Apple, they wanted to run OS X on the iPad, not iOS. So if they DID IT RIGHT, it was because they couldn't get adequate performance out of OS X on low end devices. (Microsoft could with Windows, and this POed Apple.)

If they tried to put OS X on a tablet and it didn't work, yes they did it right by not going through with it. Windows 8 functionality on a desktop machine is a cluster-eff of an ordeal for MANY people that companies made add-on's to revert back to what the public was USED to. Microsoft made a poor marketing decision for reasons known only to them.

Not that I would personally do it but..... in W8 you did not this option. Furthermore the most asinine decision that Sinosfky took was to ship W8 without an extensive tutorial.

srprimeaux said,
There's absolutely no reason a mouse user has to click on a gigantic tile or even see contextualized menus designed for touch users.
Tiles are large because they are designed to display content, and you can resize them down to small if you want.

Mobius Enigma said,

Most people can understand a device support more than one form factor and more than one ecosystem. We have Convection Microwave ovens, and we have Cadillacs that can out corner and are faster than many Ferraris.

Sounds like you and I should play Forza 5 on Xbox One.

srprimeaux said,

...

Maybe the OS should'nt be merged. Who thought that was a good idea? They should take Windows Phone's OS and use that for tablets instead of trying to consolidate everything into a single OS.

It is the same OS. Windows on ARM is the same OS running WP8 and Windows RT. The only difference is the WinSxS subsystem is hidden on WP8 and the WinRT/WPRT are slightly different.

I agree they could have made the transition easier in theory, but if they had it wouldn't have forced development to consider the new ecosystem to iron out missing features and address needs of developers in the API.

It would have been better if Microsoft could have gotten the WinRT/WPRT closer before launch, but they had to have time to see what was missing and where they needed to expand out the API set for WinRT before going back to WP.

What you are arguing for it essentially what Microsoft did, expect they didn't break away or give up the older interface models. They didn't have to give them up, which is the main issue. WP8 still has the full DirectX and Native code support that both run under the WinSxS subsystem, they just don't display on a 'desktop', instead they display full screen hiding the subsystem.


And she also said that she would do things differently to EASE the transition. MS didnt ease the transition with Win8. It was their way and deal with it...until people started to complain and the backlash grew

The fact she uses all products from many different companies...I like her. She doesnt let bias and others decide for her. Yea, she has a lot to compare and learn about the competition....but she probably uses some non MS products more so than MS products.

So true. Apple did it right--One OS for touch and one OS for mouse/keyboards. Such a simple concept. (At a bare minimum, if not a separate OS, then a separate UI.)

Dot Matrix said,

Metro isn't a touch based UI. The mouse still works with it just fine, and my keyboard hasn't stopped working since installing 8. Metro has been on Windows since 2004, and no one complained, so why do you have issues with it now?

I like Windows 8, and I even like Modern. However, there are some pain points for keyboard/mouse.

First, closing a Modern app with mouse is totally not intuitive -- clicking an X is infinitely easier than dragging the top edge of an app to the bottom. Dragging something down a 5-8" vertical touch surface is no big deal, but dragging down edge to edge on a 27-30" monitor is silly.

Second, edge swiping, and especially the Charms bar, is a pain in the neck with a mouse. It's much easier to navigate the taskbar or menubar that's almost always present than a hot corner-drag down for just 4 icons.

On the topic of the Charms bar, on single monitor, the charms bar appearing on the top right hot corner interferes with desktop-only users wanting to close a maximized app. On multiple monitors, the charms bar just doesn't feel right.

Third, task switching Modern Apps with a mouse is much more awkward than task switching desktop apps.

Fourth, virtually all desktop applications are more functional than Modern counterparts, even the really well-written first-party ones. Take a look at Skype and OneNote, for example -- it's not even close.

Fifth, Modern applications focus on providing large surfaces that are touch friendly. Wonderful, but it's very inefficient use of space, if you have a mouse, and only need a dozen vertical pixels to easily make a choice. For example, in my C# Favorites folder for IE11, there are easily 100+ links. In Modern, I'd never be able to find anything.

Finally, Modern multitasking on a keyboard/mouse desktop makes no sense at all. The mechanics of doing it (which make sense on touch) are awkward by mouse. And, practically, applications must occupy an entire vertical slice of the screen. I don't care what the horizontal width of it is; this is terrible use of my screen real estate. I don't need 20% of one monitor to tell me the time, weather, CPU usage, or play music. Even if I'm playing a video, I don't want a long skinny "window", I want a square box that I can tuck away. Simply put, the amount of content that is optimized for long, narrow multitasked Modern apps is highly limited.

All this isn't to say that Julie Larson-Green isn't right -- I do believe that Windows 8 should be more than Windows 7+, and that change IS necessary. I see tons of potential in Modern. I like that Store apps are "safe". However, that doesn't mean that I can't criticize the interface as being less ideal than Windows 7 for mouse/keyboard desktop users.

Oh, and yes, everything UI related can be fixed with Start8. But then, we are back to just Windows 7+.

Mobius Enigma said,

And they have to be two different products why again?

Most people can understand a device support more than one form factor and more than one ecosystem. We have Convection Microwave ovens, and we have Cadillacs that can out corner and are faster than many Ferraris.

The beauty of 'advanced' technology is that users no longer have to have an either/or and can have both or many. There was a time when PCs were dedicated to running a couple of pieces of software and users would move to the engineering station or accounting station to get work done. That 'convergence' changed computing 25 years ago, and there is no reason it can't continue to happen.

I wonder if people think features or 'removed' or the OS is hindered by offering more functionality. This doesn't happen in the Windows NT world, as it can strap on a lot of technology that doesn't need a ton of low level services running to support them, as they can fire dynamically. (It is not Linux or even OS X with regard to footprint versus functionality - this is why WP8 is running the real full NT with Windows subsystems on top of it.)


Also, back to the original argument of pro-Apple, they wanted to run OS X on the iPad, not iOS. So if they DID IT RIGHT, it was because they couldn't get adequate performance out of OS X on low end devices. (Microsoft could with Windows, and this POed Apple.)

Two problems with your statement:
Undoubtedly "Convergence", meaning that a device can cover multiple functions, is obviously a positive thing; the problem is the execution of the paradigm.
As for Cadillacs... I am afraid you got carried away too much: without the need of a Ferrari, which I personally do not like at all, or a Porsche, my BMW is more than enough to run circles around your Cadillac. Now, if what is needed is a "big trunk" I agree that a Cadillac is a perfect choice..... :-)

srprimeaux said,
So make a tablet OS. Don't force desktop users to use a touch-based interface. Apple did it right.

No. If Microsoft made a tablet OS it would have been ignored in droves, even more than Windows RT which is already being described as a "POS OS" as of now...

And no, Apple did not do it right. Apple has set a poor example for tablets. The iPad may be the best tablet but tablets overall are useless because they behave like phones and do exactly the same stuff our phones do. The total number of iPads sold thus far since the 1st gen is something like 130million. That's the number of netbooks that gets sold in a quarter.

Microsoft's approach is leaps and bounds ahead of Apple, with emphasis on actual work, productivity and usefulness on tablets.

FalseAgent said,

No. If Microsoft made a tablet OS it would have been ignored in droves, even more than Windows RT which is already being described as a "POS OS" as of now...

Yes, but now Microsoft are in the same situation, but shinning in a different light. People don't just ignore that tablet OS in droves, they're ignoring it on the Desktop too.

Like it or not, people do hate windows 8, and they hate it for the simple fact that they've been forced to use the metro interface. That 'stupid' interface that people hate so much, is enough for the majority of people to not even want it from the backlash of who've tried it.


Like I said before windows 8 was released, Microsoft are forcing this upon people just so they have a large user base. Sales of iOS devices month on month are close to that of Windows licenses, and without a user base on their windows phone, they were getting eaten up, badly.

Microsoft needed to focus users into a Microsoft store just to get users latched onto their eco system.
Unfortunately Microsoft rushed it out so fast, that the early adopters have bucked at the stores being split up, with the same xbox branded games having to be purchased on xbox 360, xbox windows phone and again on xbox windows 8 titles, with no cross over all under the same account.

Microsoft dropped the ball big time when it came to seeing mobile tech, and they're still struggling hard to regain control over the market space, they might not even make it, and for most people, Windows 8 just isn't *helping* the transition, its just making it harder for people to user their computers as tools for what they want to use them for.
People wanted to keep the start menu. Let them. Microsoft would have had a larger windows 8 user base as a result, ready for when people start using Windows 8 tablets, READY for when the stores finally merge, ready for when there are enough apps to satisfy users needs, ready for when people are comfortable enough with Windows 8 as a Windows 7 clone that they venture into the store and trying Metro...

When people have to change the way they've done for a long time, without the *option* to at least revert back to something they know, then they might just change over to a different OS. After all, learning and re-buying apps again is just the same as learning metro apps/store.

srprimeaux said,
So make a tablet OS. Don't force desktop users to use a touch-based interface. Apple did it right.

Have you used MacOS X Lion? It has a full screen mode for apps that's touch friendly, and Launchpad, which makes the Desktop look like iOS.

http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/06/mac_os_x_lion_w.php

Same conceptually as Metro, but done in a different style because iOS is a different style from WP. Apple and Microsoft had the same idea.

Talys said,

First, closing a Modern app with mouse is totally not intuitive -- clicking an X is infinitely easier than dragging the top edge of an app to the bottom. Dragging something down a 5-8" vertical touch surface is no big deal, but dragging down edge to edge on a 27-30" monitor is silly.

I'm only going to address this, because it is an example of where outdated thinking gets confused with the new UI model.

With Windows 8 Apps, you do no EVER have to close them. This is part of the changes that Microsoft is trying to get through people's heads and break them away from the old way of thinking.

Data and App states are something that the OS is now smart enough to manage, so that users no longer have to deal with them. Just like when OneNote introduced the concept of no longer having a 'Save' option, the data state was maintained by the software and if the user wanted to 'undo' changes they can still do this along with versioning.

With a modern API platform, users no longer need to worry about whether an App is not loaded, running, suspend, closed, or any other state.

If the App is designed to perform background tasks, it will do so even if the App has never been loaded by the user.

If the App is not performing calculations, yet the OS knows it is being used at a higher priority, then it becomes suspended.

If the App drops on the priority, then is further suspended with its RAM consumption reclaimed by the OS.

An App never has to truly be closed, unless the OS detects an error and tells it to restart. (The user can also tell it to restart.)


In Windows 8.1, this concept was pushed even further forward on users. In Windows 8.1, Dragging the App to the bottom of the screen NO LONGER closes it. It just Suspends it. (Open Task Manager, it is still there, and will even retain its current RAM state until the OS reassigns it.)

So on Windows 8.1, Microsoft tried to get people to stop closing Apps even more than Windows 8.0. To truly close an App in 8.1, you must drag it to bottom of the screen and wait for it to Flip around, then let go - or go into the Task Manager and kill the process.

There is no reason users should be closing Apps on Windows 8/8.1. If you are done with an App flip away from it or go back to the Start Screen. (Dragging it to the bottom just removes it from the task switcher.)

The OS is truly smart enough to manage the 'state' of your Apps for you, this is not the 1980s. - And Windows is not using an outdated process manager like Android does.


As long as users are going to hold on to outdated ways of interacting with their computer, they are going to be just as frustrated as you.

Of course dragging and App to the bottom is more cumbersome, but the bigger point is that you need to move past thinking you need to close the App. You should never be dragging it to the bottom of the screen in the first place, hit your Windows Key and go on with your work.


This is more than just what people experience on the screen, it is a new set of thinking they need to explore. (Update 1 is regressing for people that aren't willing to jump their thinking ahead, but in the future, they will eventually have to get it.)


These conversations are like listening to a person that just upgraded from their horse to an automobile, and then complaining that their saddle doesn't fit on hood properly.

You aren't supposed to still be using your saddle, and you aren't supposed to still be closing Apps.

Ok?

Dot Matrix said,
You guys can argue all you want, but change was needed. Microsoft was in a bind with Windows whether you want to admit it or not.

Repetita iuvant...: the debate is not about "CHANGE" but what the change involve.
Not so difficult, is it?

brianshapiro said,

Have you used MacOS X Lion? It has a full screen mode for apps that's touch friendly, and Launchpad, which makes the Desktop look like iOS.

http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/06/mac_os_x_lion_w.php

Same conceptually as Metro, but done in a different style because iOS is a different style from WP. Apple and Microsoft had the same idea.

Full screen apps in OSX are no more touch screen friendly than a program not running full screen and Launch Pad has nothing to do with the desktop, it's just an app launcher.

Dot Matrix said,
You guys can argue all you want, but change was needed. Microsoft was in a bind with Windows whether you want to admit it or not.

Yes, change was needed and most here are not denying that. It is just the how quick MS made the change that is the problem. And MS appears to agree.

Mobius Enigma said,

And they have to be two different products why again?

Most people can understand a device support more than one form factor and more than one ecosystem. We have Convection Microwave ovens, and we have Cadillacs that can out corner and are faster than many Ferraris.

The beauty of 'advanced' technology is that users no longer have to have an either/or and can have both or many. There was a time when PCs were dedicated to running a couple of pieces of software and users would move to the engineering station or accounting station to get work done. That 'convergence' changed computing 25 years ago, and there is no reason it can't continue to happen.

I wonder if people think features or 'removed' or the OS is hindered by offering more functionality. This doesn't happen in the Windows NT world, as it can strap on a lot of technology that doesn't need a ton of low level services running to support them, as they can fire dynamically. (It is not Linux or even OS X with regard to footprint versus functionality - this is why WP8 is running the real full NT with Windows subsystems on top of it.)


Also, back to the original argument of pro-Apple, they wanted to run OS X on the iPad, not iOS. So if they DID IT RIGHT, it was because they couldn't get adequate performance out of OS X on low end devices. (Microsoft could with Windows, and this POed Apple.)

This is also the beauty of Mac OSX, iOS is macosx optimised and designed for touch ui. If apple wanted they could have included the desktop ui but they know that phones and tablets are finger driven devices thus need a finger driven ui.

Macosx is very versatile and very modular which is why ios since the beginning with the original iPhone is running macosx at it's core with unneeded services and Apis removed.

iOS is in no way similar to windows ce it is similar to what Microsoft have done with windows 8.

Apple are not po at Microsoft doing the same thing in 2013 which apple did in 2007, and the reason for two devices is not technical limitations it is purely user experience, again as above ios is finger driven ui,macosx is mouse/keyboard driven ui. There are nontechnical limitations with the kernel or any part of macosx which is why Apis are shared between the two platforms (core data etc)

Mobius Enigma said,

<snipped for brevity>

You aren't supposed to still be using your saddle, and you aren't supposed to still be closing Apps.

Ok?

Microsoft has been trying to push this mantra since Windows Mobile*. The reality is users don't like it by and large. Users are smart enough to manage apps and they want the option to do so...

Windows Phone lacked a way to manage apps in its first release (well if you can call Windows Phone 7 first since it was built on Windows Mobile and thus Windows CE). Users balked hard on this. Microsoft added a faux app state management UI for users to appease these complaints.

The reality is users don't want to have someone else making all of their choices for them. Users want to feel some level of control over their devices and their actions on those devices...

Hell, having the apps doing sleep and resume cycles and running only one or two at a time on a desktop is just asinine. But I guess that is the future in Microsoft's eyes? Only tablets and computers that are appliances and not tools.

* See: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/window...-close.aspx?Redirected=true

Mobius Enigma said,

As long as users are going to hold on to outdated ways of interacting with their computer, they are going to be just as frustrated as you.

QFT

Fritzly said,

Two problems with your statement:
Undoubtedly "Convergence", meaning that a device can cover multiple functions, is obviously a positive thing; the problem is the execution of the paradigm.
As for Cadillacs... I am afraid you got carried away too much: without the need of a Ferrari, which I personally do not like at all, or a Porsche, my BMW is more than enough to run circles around your Cadillac. Now, if what is needed is a "big trunk" I agree that a Cadillac is a perfect choice..... :-)

The Cadillac is just a more well known example, as Ferrari bought the suspension technology used on the Cadillac from GM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQGOv9UJbhA

or:
This entire video is interesting, but you can skip ahead to 6:38 to watch a Cadillac Station Wagon beat a modern Ferrari

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sUjOiCj-bQ


I personally am a Corvette person, I like technology and performance. Even some of the semi-classic C4 Corvettes have technology that is just now becoming available on other automobiles.


----

As for execution of convergence, you are correct in emphasizing its importance. Windows 8 made mistakes. It had to push users forward to a new level of thinking without completely breaking the existing functionality.

In retrospect, I know Microsoft themselves would provide a long list of things they would have done differently, but in the end the convergence of a traditional UI with a more adaptable modern UI was the right thing to do.

Let them polish it, and let them continue to push users forward and we might finally get to the futuristic interface concepts we have seen on Star Trek and other sci-fi visions. Microsoft created some of the 'futurisic' UI concepts that we saw in the movies as Sci-Fi, they do know where they are going, it is just getting there that will be bumpy.


There is no reason to maintain two different OSes, when the OS itself can simply change how it works based on the device it is installed on. Windows also isn't weighted down by the features/technologies/interface not being used, which is a common misconception of people that come from other OS technologies.


Windows 8 already has three faces, and can flip between them on the fly if Microsoft choose to allow it. They are still merging the WinRT/WPRT frameworks/APIs - but from there they can go forward with a smart 'Modern UI' that works for phone/tablet/console/desktop - and whatever is the next generation of device.

Why not have a single platform and a single OS that can change to work as the user wants, or even change on the fly for the user as they want.

REM2000 said,

This is also the beauty of Mac OSX, iOS is macosx optimised and designed for touch ui. If apple wanted they could have included the desktop ui but they know that phones and tablets are finger driven devices thus need a finger driven ui.

Macosx is very versatile and very modular which is why ios since the beginning with the original iPhone is running macosx at it's core with unneeded services and Apis removed.

iOS is in no way similar to windows ce it is similar to what Microsoft have done with windows 8.

Apple are not po at Microsoft doing the same thing in 2013 which apple did in 2007, and the reason for two devices is not technical limitations it is purely user experience, again as above ios is finger driven ui,macosx is mouse/keyboard driven ui. There are nontechnical limitations with the kernel or any part of macosx which is why Apis are shared between the two platforms (core data etc)

I'm not even sure where to start. OS X is not modular, especially compared to NT.

iOS is NOT using the same kernel as OS X.

It uses a variation of the XNU kernel they both fork from, but iOS only mimics many of the OS X kernel APIs as it doesn't fully implement them.

Apple likes to tell consumers that iOS is using the OS X kernel, but this is just not true, it is a very modified and mobile optimized variation of the XNU kernel and lacks a great deal of the features of the OS X kernel.

In contrast, the WP8 kernel is the same code running on Windows RT, which is essentially the same and 'complete' code that is running on Windows x86/x64 desktops.

WP8/Windows RT = WOA (Windows on ARM) - which means it is the same code, but compiled to run on ARM with an ARM HAL.

Apple WAS POed at Microsoft because Windows 7 was light enough to run on an iPad class device, and they heard rumors that Win8 was going to run on the same hardware. This is when they started with the 'confused OS' comments about Microsoft.

There is NO reason to maintain two separate OSes when the OS is light enough to run on low end devices and can dynamically change the interface depending on the form factor and device configuration.

Technology has advanced too much that we need to have 'dumb' OSes that are built for a specific architecture or a specific type of device, the OS can easily adapt and still offer the ENTIRE set of features on any device.


If Apple had been successful, they would have had OS X with a new touch API framework running on the iPad. It is very possible that this still may happen, as computing power has grown enough to run OS X on an ARM/Atom class device.

When Apple finally does fully merge both OSes, remember this conversation...

LogicalApex said,

Microsoft has been trying to push this mantra since Windows Mobile*. The reality is users don't like it by and large. Users are smart enough to manage apps and they want the option to do so...

Windows Phone lacked a way to manage apps in its first release (well if you can call Windows Phone 7 first since it was built on Windows Mobile and thus Windows CE). Users balked hard on this. Microsoft added a faux app state management UI for users to appease these complaints.

The reality is users don't want to have someone else making all of their choices for them. Users want to feel some level of control over their devices and their actions on those devices...

Hell, having the apps doing sleep and resume cycles and running only one or two at a time on a desktop is just asinine. But I guess that is the future in Microsoft's eyes? Only tablets and computers that are appliances and not tools.

* See: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/window...-close.aspx?Redirected=true

Actually, stateless software goes back to the 1990s, and Microsoft was a proponent of moving in that direction back then.

They did push it with Windows Mobile, but Apple and Google also PUSH this model, as it is far more efficient for power saving.

OSes have also gotten a lot smarter since the 1990s, there is NO reason the OS cannot manage this and many other things for the user.

Sure a user should have final control, AND THEY DO.

Even beyond what the UI offers, there are also Group Policies to change how Windows handles Apps and their state if users want a very technical and granular level of control.


There is a reason that things the user should no longer worry about are specifically designed to be harder to access, as they have no need taking control away from the OS.

There are low level tools that were common in Win95 that are all but hidden in Windows 8. They are either no longer needed or something the OS manages itself.

There is a reason why you almost NEVER see things like 'perform CHKDSK' when booting up Windows 8, you don't need to, the OS can truly prevent and manage correction itself.

Even in getting users to move from the application model the document model (Win3.1 to Win95). Users kicked and screamed about it being harder to do things that they SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DOING. Win95 was smart enough to do things users were accustomed to doing themselves. There was no reason they had to open Word and dig around for a document, they could just open a folder and double click the document and the OS was smart enough to open Word for them.


90% of the complaints you read on the internet are about things people should never be doing or need to do. I just ran across someone complaining about uninstalling and installing fonts on Windows. Step back, and the real question is, "Why are they uninstalling them?" With Windows you can have tens of thousands of fonts installed without any issue or performance problem. So instead of helping the user 'uninstall' and 'install' fonts easier, someone needs to tell them to just leave all their fonts installed and STOP MAKING THINGS HARDER ON THEMSELVES.



Here is a good rule for people that have trouble with Windows 8.1...

If what you are doing is harder than it was in a previous version of Windows, you probably shouldn't be doing it or is no longer necessary for you to do it.

(Challenge your thinking and what you are doing when you find something harder. Go online and find why you no longer have to do the thing you find to be harder and/or what is the alternative easier way to do it.)

Mobius Enigma said,

<snipped for brevity>


90% of the complaints you read on the internet are about things people should never be doing or need to do. I just ran across someone complaining about uninstalling and installing fonts on Windows. Step back, and the real question is, "Why are they uninstalling them?" With Windows you can have tens of thousands of fonts installed without any issue or performance problem. So instead of helping the user 'uninstall' and 'install' fonts easier, someone needs to tell them to just leave all their fonts installed and STOP MAKING THINGS HARDER ON THEMSELVES.


<strong>
Here is a good rule for people that have trouble with Windows 8.1...

If what you are doing is harder than it was in a previous version of Windows, you probably shouldn't be doing it or is no longer necessary for you to do it.
</strong>
(Challenge your thinking and what you are doing when you find something harder. Go online and find why you no longer have to do the thing you find to be harder and/or what is the alternative easier way to do it.)

This is an argument in favor of computing as an appliance. I still don't feel this is a good future for computing or Microsoft. I am also a very focused user who likes a challenge in life so I'll consider myself an outlier on that scale for a moment.

For computing in general, the computer as an appliance future that Apple is championing and Microsoft has followed suit with is undermining the innovation we've become accustomed to. You can't remove complexity without negatively impacting the power of the user. Sometimes that power isn't wanted and reduction of complexity wins overall, like in making file systems more resilient. You take it as far as Microsoft is taking it and you place hard limits on truly innovative ideas. You also engender a generation who can only see computing as discrete objects with a single function; much like they see their Fridge or their Microwave.

Your immediate thought is to yell that Windows 8 is setting the ground work for a future opposite of what I claim. After all, Windows is running everywhere and you can't have a walled garden, appliance only, platform when it is multi-pronged in this manner. Except, as Microsoft pushes Windows to more devices and to more "screens" they are working hard to box it in. They are unifying the look of Windows and lowering their costs with a singular code base, but not bringing the user the benefits of an open computing platform.

I don't mean open source open. I mean an OS that is just that, an OS. The OS should empower developers to create applications that push the boundaries of computing while giving hardware makers a unified way to similarly enhance the vision of these developers. You can't add any hardware you like in the new Windows. Windows RT doesn't support OEMs adding any ARM SOC they want or adding their own BT stack to support a new SOC feature that MS hasn't felt a push to add to their core OS yet. It likewise doesn't allow developers to replace large chunks of the system allowing them to re-imagine the purpose of the device for users; Windows Phone similarly lacks this flexibility. Windows on x86 still carries it only when the applications aren't pushed through the "App Store" and it apparently exists for legacy reasons.

The job of an OS isn't to become the center of your computing experience. The job of the OS is to empower developers to making your computing experience as powerful and full featured as you, and they, can envision it to be.

I honestly think long-term this will be bad for Microsoft. They don't have the brand clout to pull off a walled garden ecosystem and I don't think they ever will have this. Their focus really should have been to pull Windows onto more devices while retaining its flexibility and power...

My long winded point is pretty simple. Removing all of the users power comes at the expense of offering them a computing experience that offers meaningful value. Long term Microsoft is trying to pitch to users that they will offer all the core value they need and Apps will fill in the small gaps. This is a road that I don't think they will see end well.

Mobius Enigma said,

iOS is NOT using the same kernel as OS X.

It uses a variation of the XNU kernel they both fork from, but iOS only mimics many of the OS X kernel APIs as it doesn't fully implement them.

Apple likes to tell consumers that iOS is using the OS X kernel, but this is just not true, it is a very modified and mobile optimized variation of the XNU kernel and lacks a great deal of the features of the OS X kernel.


Source?

Michael Scrip said,

The first time you use Windows 8... either with a new machine or from an upgrade... ALL your apps are traditional desktop apps that you've been using for years.

And the first time you use Windows 8, none of those traditional desktop programs are installed.

So they make the default Metro.

Dot Matrix said,

You have choice. Click the desktop tile, and boom, you're set. If that's too much work for you, then set the desktop as the default boot location.

The choice is there NOW, but it should have been there from the very beginning.

Make Metro the default, that's completely fine. But if they'd had boot to desktop as an option from the start, and preferably kept the classic Start menu as an option you can enable as well, there'd have been very little bitching about Windows 8.

ZipZapRap said,

And the first time you use Windows 8, none of those traditional desktop programs are installed.

So they make the default Metro.

Fine... so what about the 2nd time you use Windows 8 after all your existing desktop applications are installed? And every time after that?

Do you think there are people who buy a new Windows 8 computer and ONLY use Metro apps?

Sure... there *might* be some people like that. But the great thing about Windows is its stable of software. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of traditional Windows programs that people run on the desktop every day.

I know Microsoft thought a "change" was needed. But until all desktop software is replaced by Metro counterparts... there should be nothing standing in the way of the desktop software you need to use.

Like I said before... Boot to Desktop is one way to fix this for people who still rely on traditional desktop software (and there are a lot of those people!)

But Boot to Desktop was not in the initial release of Windows 8.... it came much later (after many complaints)

Michael Scrip said,

Fine... so what about the 2nd time you use Windows 8 after all your existing desktop applications are installed? And every time after that?

Do you think there are people who buy a new Windows 8 computer and ONLY use Metro apps?

Sure... there *might* be some people like that. But the great thing about Windows is its stable of software. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of traditional Windows programs that people run on the desktop every day.

I know Microsoft thought a "change" was needed. But until all desktop software is replaced by Metro counterparts... there should be nothing standing in the way of the desktop software you need to use.

Like I said before... Boot to Desktop is one way to fix this for people who still rely on traditional desktop software (and there are a lot of those people!)

But Boot to Desktop was not in the initial release of Windows 8.... it came much later (after many complaints)

there are two responses to that.

The first is that, yes, the bet was that there would be a big uptick in metro apps to cater for the majority of users.. because what do the majority of users do on their pcs? web surfing, a bit of music/video, and office. What classic software would these people need?

The second bit they probably underestimated.. it takes time to build a decent Metro app, and a long time for a great one. You don't see Photoshop there yet for a reason

sagum said,
Would it really have been that hard to simply give users a choice?

http://i.imgur.com/huB0Inl.jpg

In this mock up, you can leave exclusive move off and windows 8 would have worked as it does now.
With exclusive mode on, with Modern UI selected, it'd be metro only, with no access to the desktop stuff, or with Classic Desktop selected, everything keyboard and mouse users enjoyed, including a working start menu and no sign of Metro apps or start screens.

This would have satisfied all users, people who want a touch only OS, people who want both to ease the migration and those who don't care for anything touch or metro.

I believe if they had included that simple option, they'd have suppressed Windows 7 and Windows 8 would have been an incredible OS.


There is choice. OS X and Linux are your other choices. But stop ranting.

ZipZapRap said,

there are two responses to that.

The first is that, yes, the bet was that there would be a big uptick in metro apps to cater for the majority of users.. because what do the majority of users do on their pcs? web surfing, a bit of music/video, and office. What classic software would these people need?

The second bit they probably underestimated.. it takes time to build a decent Metro app, and a long time for a great one. You don't see Photoshop there yet for a reason

Gosh... so now traditional Windows programs are considered "classic" now?

Look... I get it. If all you do on your PC is surf the web and play music... you could easily do that in a Metro app.

But I have dozens of these "classic" programs on my computer that I use every day. Some major programs (like Photoshop that you mentioned) but also tons of little utilities and stuff.

The strength of Windows has always been its software library. But I'm not looking for "Metro replacements" for all my programs... nor do I think it's a priority for developers.

What would a "Metro" version of Filezilla even look like? Is that something they are working on? And why?

I realize that all this "classic" software will continue to run on the desktop in Windows 8. But you gotta wonder how important this "new Windows" is if it doesn't get support from developers.

Dot Matrix said,

Metro isn't a touch based UI. The mouse still works with it just fine, and my keyboard hasn't stopped working since installing 8. Metro has been on Windows since 2004, and no one complained, so why do you have issues with it now?


Err, Metro has been in Windows since 2004? Funny because it doesn't appear in any of the dozens of Longhorn/Vista builds that I have.

warwagon said,

Metro isn't a touch UI, the titles just happen to be big enough to press with your thumb!

And that excludes the use of a mouse how? The size and spacing also make it far easier to scan your programs and find what you need, regardless of how you open the program once you've found it.

Why do people think mouse and touch are somehow mutually-exclusive?

Chris123NT said,

Err, Metro has been in Windows since 2004? Funny because it doesn't appear in any of the dozens of Longhorn/Vista builds that I have.

The design language that has become Metro was introduced in Windows Media Center.

Michael Scrip said,

Fine... so what about the 2nd time you use Windows 8 after all your existing desktop applications are installed? And every time after that?

Do you think there are people who buy a new Windows 8 computer and ONLY use Metro apps?

Sure... there *might* be some people like that. But the great thing about Windows is its stable of software. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of traditional Windows programs that people run on the desktop every day.

I know Microsoft thought a "change" was needed. But until all desktop software is replaced by Metro counterparts... there should be nothing standing in the way of the desktop software you need to use.

Like I said before... Boot to Desktop is one way to fix this for people who still rely on traditional desktop software (and there are a lot of those people!)

But Boot to Desktop was not in the initial release of Windows 8.... it came much later (after many complaints)

Um, nothing stands in the way of your programs. Pin the application to Start, click it to launch, and carry on.

Dot Matrix said,
You guys can argue all you want, but change was needed. Microsoft was in a bind with Windows whether you want to admit it or not.

Finally something me and you can agree on! Yes, I agree change was needed. However, I think YOU need to admit that the change that MS went with was WRONG.

ZipZapRap said,

And the first time you use Windows 8, none of those traditional desktop programs are installed.

So they make the default Metro.

None of my traditional desktop applications were installed on a stock 7 system either. I had to install all of that myself. Only the "starter apps" were bundled with 7.

So how is that significantly different from 8? I still had to install my usual programs, and only starter apps were were bundled.

srprimeaux said,
So make a tablet OS. Don't force desktop users to use a touch-based interface. Apple did it right.

So they should have just copied Apple? I actually think what they did with Windows 8 is good. I have a Lenovo X1 Ultrabook which when at the office I have docked with 2 external monitors and use mouse and a keyboard exclusively - have absolutely no issues with the "Metro" side of Windows 8 which I barely use (I have 2 accounts - one for work which is configured for Desktop use and a personal one which is not). At home, I login to my personal account and use more Metro apps (still with the touchpad and keyboard) but also get to use the touchscreen (when it makes sense). Overall it is a good experience and I don't feel like I'm sacrificing anything.

The only thing that is still a problem is the maturity and amount of quality Metro apps. They need more and better designed apps. But I don't think it's the problem with Metro - you can make some very useful apps with it that work well both with a mouse and keyboard as well as using touch. Windows offers all the API's and things you need to write hybrid UX apps that work well using multiple forms of input...

Mobius Enigma said,

The Cadillac is just a more well known example, as Ferrari bought the suspension technology used on the Cadillac from GM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQGOv9UJbhA

or:
This entire video is interesting, but you can skip ahead to 6:38 to watch a Cadillac Station Wagon beat a modern Ferrari

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sUjOiCj-bQ


I personally am a Corvette person, I like technology and performance. Even some of the semi-classic C4 Corvettes have technology that is just now becoming available on other automobiles.


----

There is no reason to maintain two different OSes, when the OS itself can simply change how it works based on the device it is installed on. Windows also isn't weighted down by the features/technologies/interface not being used, which is a common misconception of people that come from other OS technology

Why not have a single platform and a single OS that can change to work as the user wants, or even change on the fly for the user as they want.

Let us start with the video about Ferrari vs Cadillac: I repute you, based on my reading of your posts, an intelligent person.... Besides the fact that Top gear is, IMO of course, a horrible show where reality is bent to please the highest paying sponsor. You can clearly see in the video that the Ferrari driver delayed starting which gave an advantage to the Cadillac. Mind it, the 0 to 100Km/h specs are very close: Ferrari 3.8 secs, Cadillac 4 secs. We could also debate about the difference between a drag race test and one on a fast mix circuit etc. etc. but it is way off the subject.
As for the suspensions the technology was developed by Magneti Marelli for the GM and was later adopted by Ferrari as well. It is like Bosch licensing its ABS technology to... well, every automaker in the World.

As for the OS part.... you are preaching to the converted, so to speak. I would hate the idea of using on my Tablet a different OS; I have used XP Tablet, Vista, 7 and now W8 on my Tablets and the idea to have a watered down OS would not fit my needs at all. Granted almost 100% of my interaction with my Convertible while in the Tablet configuration is made using the pen so even with XP Tablet the UI was not an issue. of course people who use Touch input would not have had the same experience. Again I am one of those users who do not have issues with the Start screen, Metro apps are a different subject and although I can see their potential in the actual form and maturity they do not stand against desktop counterparts. Said that my personal experience using W8.1 extensively, and having spent few hours with a computer friend running Update 1, has been much better and enjoyable that using W8.

Michael Scrip said,

Gosh... so now traditional Windows programs are considered "classic" now?

Look... I get it. If all you do on your PC is surf the web and play music... you could easily do that in a Metro app.

But I have dozens of these "classic" programs on my computer that I use every day. Some major programs (like Photoshop that you mentioned) but also tons of little utilities and stuff.

The strength of Windows has always been its software library. But I'm not looking for "Metro replacements" for all my programs... nor do I think it's a priority for developers.

What would a "Metro" version of Filezilla even look like? Is that something they are working on? And why?

I realize that all this "classic" software will continue to run on the desktop in Windows 8. But you gotta wonder how important this "new Windows" is if it doesn't get support from developers.

Don't take it so personally.

Also, you are not the majority. "Special utilities" are not something that your average consumer is looking to install, let alone knows about.

ZipZapRap said,

Don't take it so personally.

Also, you are not the majority. "Special utilities" are not something that your average consumer is looking to install, let alone knows about.

Isn't the majority of Microsoft's customers... Enterprise customers?

Microsoft make most of their money from "Commercial Licensing" which includes Windows Enterprise products, Server Products, Office Business Products, Dynamics (which is ERP and CRM), and Unified Communications.

Is that what Metro was designed for?

You're right... I'm not the average consumer. But I'm also not the only person who uses Windows to the max. Like I said before... the strength of Windows has always been its vast software library.

The entire world runs on what you now call "classic" software.

Michael Scrip said,

Isn't the majority of Microsoft's customers... Enterprise customers?

Microsoft make most of their money from "Commercial Licensing" which includes Windows Enterprise products, Server Products, Office Business Products, Dynamics (which is ERP and CRM), and Unified Communications.

Is that what Metro was designed for?

You're right... I'm not the average consumer. But I'm also not the only person who uses Windows to the max. Like I said before... the strength of Windows has always been its vast software library.

The entire world runs on what you now call "classic" software.

"Vast software library" <-- 90% of which is junk.

Dot Matrix said,

"Vast software library" <-- 90% of which is junk.

ALL platforms suffer from that though... that problem is not exclusive to Windows.

Michael Scrip said,

ALL platforms suffer from that though... that problem is not exclusive to Windows.

Windows has it worse. From shovelware to consumer misunderstandings, Windows PCs suffer through a lot of ######## that's eliminated by switching to the Metro/Store model in Windows 8.

Don't believe me? Just do a search on Twitter for "My Clean PC."

Dot Matrix said,

Windows has it worse. From shovelware to consumer misunderstandings, Windows PCs suffer through a lot of ######## that's eliminated by switching to the Metro/Store model in Windows 8.

Don't believe me? Just do a search on Twitter for "My Clean PC."

Haha... no doubt. I've fixed my fair share of PCs for people... removing spyware and such.

I'm still a Windows user though. But it will be a while until all the software I use comes from the Windows Metro Store.

Mobius Enigma said,

I'm only going to address this, because it is an example of where outdated thinking gets confused with the new UI model.

With Windows 8 Apps, you do no EVER have to close them. This is part of the changes that Microsoft is trying to get through people's heads and break them away from the old way of thinking.

...

You aren't supposed to still be using your saddle, and you aren't supposed to still be closing Apps.

Ok?

Nope, that's not ok. Closing apps is important.

First, a tablet like Surface. I primarily switch apps by swiping from offscreen on the left. If I have 3 apps open, I can quickly switch between them. If I have 10 apps open, forget it.

On my desktop, I typically have 5-10 apps with a user interface running at once. However, before a reboot, which doesn't happen much anymore, I might run 100 or more apps. No exaggeration. Forget about efficiency -- if I couldn't close them, I'd be switching forever to go from one open program to another.

People who write software use zillions of versions of PowerShell, open endless command prompts, and have tons of developer tools that are little programs. There are communications programs like Lync and Skype, office apps like Word, Outlook, OneNote, and Excel, graphics apps like Photoshop, Illustrator and CorelDraw, HTML/XAML/Flash/Sliverlight editors like Flash Professional, Dreamweaver and Expression, connectivity tools like FTP... those are things that we have to use very often. If they all stayed open at the same time, I would never be able switch "to the next program".

Second, there are programs like OneNote which are great in that they always save the current state and where I was. However, for MOST programs, I would rather know that I'm done with whatever it is I'm working with when it's closed. The next time I open it, I want a clean slate; I don't want to pick up where I left off. For example, the chance that I'd want to open my last Excel file or FTP session is virtually zero.

Third, the whole "Modern suspend with perfect efficiency" is only true insofar as Modern apps which have minimal functionality.

If there were a Modern Adobe Illustrator that loaded a 10 GB art file, its suspended state would either take 10GB of memory or need to shuffle 10GB to SSD. Sure, you can load up PvZ, Bejeweled and Candy Crush and suspend them very efficiently. However, it would be impossible to concurrently load and suspend Battlefield 4, Call of Duty Ghosts, Titanfall, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Skyrim, and Need for Speed. And why would you? Just like the Xbox, ONE game can be suspended, but you close that game off before you load another one, because the one game actually does take al of your computer's resources.

These are not edge cases or embellished examples. They're how I use a PC. I do more than just browse websites, read emails, watch YouTube, chat, and play time wasters.

Just wanted to say thanks to Mobius and Apex for giving me a reason to still stop by and wade through to the low signal to noise ratio of the hipsters. Great points guys.

I absolutely echo your concern Apex that MS runs the danger of giving up an essential openness in its desire to compete with 'feature' appliances.

Edited by Dashel, Feb 28 2014, 6:34pm :

Dot Matrix said,

The design language that has become Metro was introduced in Windows Media Center.


Metro, as it is in W8, is a little bit more than a design language isn't it?
And the irony is that MS has abandoned Media Center a long time ago.... IMO a very dumb decision.

Fritzly said,

Metro, as it is in W8, is a little bit more than a design language isn't it?
And the irony is that MS has abandoned Media Center a long time ago.... IMO a very dumb decision.

I agree. I like Media Center, and it would have fit in NICELY as a Metro application in Windows 8.

virtorio said,

Source?

http://www.apple.com

Download the kernels and read the code or read the development kit.

The fact they are not the same kernel is NOT a secret; however, it is a common misconception of consumers because Apple uses the terminology very loosely.

Fritzly said,

Let us start with the video about Ferrari vs Cadillac: I repute you, based on my reading of your posts, an intelligent person.... Besides the fact that Top gear is, IMO of course, a horrible show where reality is bent to please the highest paying sponsor. You can clearly see in the video that the Ferrari driver delayed starting which gave an advantage to the Cadillac. Mind it, the 0 to 100Km/h specs are very close: Ferrari 3.8 secs, Cadillac 4 secs. We could also debate about the difference between a drag race test and one on a fast mix circuit etc. etc. but it is way off the subject.
As for the suspensions the technology was developed by Magneti Marelli for the GM and was later adopted by Ferrari as well. It is like Bosch licensing its ABS technology to... well, every automaker in the World.

As for the OS part.... you are preaching to the converted, so to speak. I would hate the idea of using on my Tablet a different OS; I have used XP Tablet, Vista, 7 and now W8 on my Tablets and the idea to have a watered down OS would not fit my needs at all. Granted almost 100% of my interaction with my Convertible while in the Tablet configuration is made using the pen so even with XP Tablet the UI was not an issue. of course people who use Touch input would not have had the same experience. Again I am one of those users who do not have issues with the Start screen, Metro apps are a different subject and although I can see their potential in the actual form and maturity they do not stand against desktop counterparts. Said that my personal experience using W8.1 extensively, and having spent few hours with a computer friend running Update 1, has been much better and enjoyable that using W8.

I agree Top Gear is more candy than a source for hard facts, but if you do a bit of research on the cars, the Ferrari being tested is truly slower than the Cadillac Wagon. (It is the California Ferrari, which is not the fastest Ferrari, but it is still a fast Ferrari.)

As for the Cadillac 0-60 in <4 seconds is still really impressive for a Sedan let alone a 'Wagon'. The cornering is also fairly impressive considering it outpacing high end sports cards from just a few years ago. There are a lot of enthusiasts that need a back seat and trunk and still want a near Vette experience.

It was just an example that it is possible to converge technology and 'form' factors and retain the best of both.

The other thing being overlooked in the 'convergence' conversation is that Windows doesn't have to give up anything to offer the full range of device and interface support. As I said above, Windows is not like other OS models, and it doesn't have to make the same trade offs.

OSes have gotten a lot smarter and it is time they can start offering more drastic UI options for more people.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Modern/Metro Apps are on the same level. It is a new framework model and a new API set. Microsoft knows this and it has a lot growing to do. The changes from 8 to 8.1 were fairly extensive, even in just the direct device support APIs. There is also an aspect of the API set that is intentionally limited for security, and this still has to be further balanced, as there is more functionality that can be given without breaking the security model. However, for 99% of software, it is already rich enough for them to run on WinRT just fine.


PS
I wouldn't drive a Cadillac Wagon, but if I was going to buy a Wagon, it would be the Cadillac. I'm still a Corvette person. (I also was a RX7 person back in the day. Again following my pattern, the rotary technology combined with gadgets and performance.)

Take care, and thanks for the post.

Chris123NT said,

Err, Metro has been in Windows since 2004? Funny because it doesn't appear in any of the dozens of Longhorn/Vista builds that I have.

Actually 'Metro' can be found in applications from Microsoft going back to around 1997/1998. (Encarta, Streets, etc.)

As for 'Windows', Media Center was a Metro-ish App and it did ship in 2004. (Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005)

As for the flat 'Metro' we see on WP and Win8, it goes back to the ZuneHD as the first full OS platform to use it.

Mobius Enigma said,

(I also was a RX7 person back in the day. Again following my pattern, the rotary technology combined with gadgets and performance.)

Take care, and thanks for the post.

The Wankel engine..... My father had, in the early '70, a NSU Ro 80 which used that engine. The car had, for the time, a lot of futuristic features but was, unfortunately, quite unreliable. If I remember correctly he sold it after six months.

LogicalApex said,

<snip>...

The job of an OS isn't to become the center of your computing experience. The job of the OS is to empower developers to making your computing experience as powerful and full featured as you, and they, can envision it to be.

I honestly think long-term this will be bad for Microsoft. They don't have the brand clout to pull off a walled garden ecosystem and I don't think they ever will have this. Their focus really should have been to pull Windows onto more devices while retaining its flexibility and power...

My long winded point is pretty simple. Removing all of the users power comes at the expense of offering them a computing experience that offers meaningful value. Long term Microsoft is trying to pitch to users that they will offer all the core value they need and Apps will fill in the small gaps. This is a road that I don't think they will see end well.

The OS should be invisible to users. The OS should use as much technology and understanding as it can to do things for users so they do not have to perform repeated or predictable actions.

Are you seriously questioning Microsoft's ability to build an a development and OS platform? Even Apple themselves wouldn't make this careless of a charge. Microsoft's ability to create development tools and API frameworks is one of the few things they are more famous for than making Windows itself.

You are making an incorrect assumption about the roadmap and goals of the WinRT/WPRT. Microsoft is not trying to create a restricted or 'walled' ecosystem, they are trying to extend the best theories and models we have today to work in a broader context. This has growing pains, as there are certain levels of restrictions for security that must be made and as they evolve the technology, they will be able to open these up so that any inherent 'walls' are hidden from developers.

As for Microsoft's brand, they still command a far more respect with regard to development platforms and OS technologies than you realize if you think there is any company even close to challenging them. Even with all the turmoil and new competition from Google, Microsoft is still at the heart of virtually every technology ecosystem.

Looking at web and cloud services all the way down to Tablets and Phones. Even as 'lackluster' as the initial WP and Win8 tablet sales have been, WP has climbed to 10% in most markets. In the server and personal computer market, they still hold 90% of the market - which is still a bit 'more' than Microsoft would to have as it leaves them to dangerously close to monopoly regulation.

Believing that Microsoft is trying to 'limit' or 'restrict' what users can do is a misconception that is more of a result of bad press and bad technical writing. Even if you take Windows 8, which Microsoft did try hard to force users into a new way of thinking, it is still very malleable. Any end user can still replace the shell, do away with Explorer and the Start Screen all together, and this is without even messing with the binaries of the OS that is still possible. I think all 'power users' should be forced to read through a portion of the 'millions' of settings that the end user or corporate user can change via the registry and local/group policies. The customization that is available is quite jaw dropping.

Windows 8 got bad press, and even the old school technical writers never told the public any different or attempted to teach them the new paradigms it was offering users. This is also Microsoft's fault, as many internal people have no idea why things were done and even with the 'help/tutorials' they offer, it doesn't address the 'why' things are different.

As I mentioned above, there are things users just don't have to worry about with Windows 8 that they did have to manage and worry about with Windows 7. This goes beyond Apps and the WinRT framework, it extends to why backup is actually easier and the older methods are removed to even how games run differently and users can get more performance out of them without having to tweak settings that they still do on Windows 7.

I truly stand by my statement... If something is harder in Windows 8 than Windows 7, you probably don't need to be doing it, or there is a new faster way to do it.


Thanks for your comprehensive post, I enjoy a good discussion even when we don't agree.

Fritzly said,

The Wankel engine..... My father had, in the early '70, a NSU Ro 80 which used that engine. The car had, for the time, a lot of futuristic features but was, unfortunately, quite unreliable. If I remember correctly he sold it after six months.


Very off topic to the article...

The early Rotaries were unreliable, as they had seal leaks. The RX7 starting in 1978/1979 had a new seal design and were highly reliable engines. The 12A. The biggest problem with RX7s over the years were less rugged transmissions in the 1st generation. 1978-1985

If you look up the engine design, it just makes sense why it is smoother and can be more reliable than a piston based engine. They are also a very light engine design, with the biggest drawback being fuel economy, which was less important on a 'sports car'. For example my 1993 RX7 got about 20mpg on the highway, where a 1993 Corvette would get nearly 30mpg on the highway. (The extra torque allows the Corvette's 350 to be higher geared and more or less idle on the freeway.)

At the time Mazda advertised their cars as an 'extension of the driver' and that is the best way to describe the driving difference between the RX7 and other sports cars. The car just felt like a part of your body and performed exactly as expected. You didn't need the expertise to 'manage' the car to get the expected performance out it like you did a Corvette/Porsche/Ferrari.

One interesting durability testament of the Rotary engine, is that in competition racing, Mazda would go a full season without replacing their car's engine. Almost all other manufacturers that compete would replace their engines after each race due to the wear.

In the street crowd, racers would buy RX7s and throw a stronger transmission in the car and instead of a 8000rpm redline, they would push them to 15000rpm redlines. (Which is a lot of power from a tiny engine.)

If I remember right one of the 300mph land speed records was set by a Rotary engine, and it may have even been in a RX7.


(After all this talk, I may try to find an RX7. I mainly have Corvettes, but it would be fun to have one to play with again.)

https://developer.apple.com/li...ment/TheiOSEnvironment.html

iOS is based on MacOSX the only difference is the UI. MacOSX is modular just like Windows is. iOS even has some of the userland from MacOSX.

Apple have never been Po'd with Microsoft, Windows 7 was never light enough to run on an ARM device, this was the majority of the work done for Windows 8. You'll find that Windows POSIX and it's cross archtecture has been on the wane for a long while which is why itanium and other arch's have been dropped bit by bit. There was a big push to port NT to ARM. If Windows 7 was light enough we would have seen the NT kernel in Windows Phone 7 not the CE kernel. Windows 8 was optimised both in CPU cycles and power management for ARM and low powered devices.

If you are trying to say that because some functionaility is removed in the kernel well this is because of the modular nature of the Kernel and OS, why does iOS need mouse drivers and functionaility, it is still the same system, you'll find that Windows RT does the same thing as does Windows Embedded, Microsoft Engineers are not going to give the full kernel when it is not needed, this comes from the minwin project to futher strip down and modularise the NT kernel.

Again apple doesn't care what Microsoft does with Windows it's not on their radar. They have specifically said and demonstrated that they believe there are two UI's one for mobile devices (i.e. touch) and one for Mouse/keyboard (Mac OSX). Currently apple has no wish to merge the two as there is no benefit.

Apple doesn't have to maintain two OS's iOS and MacOSX are the same thing with different UI's, this is the reason why the GotoSSL bug affected both iOS and MacOSX.