Microsoft, It's Time To Retire Windows

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
I think the new GUI should be a fully opaque window, with the OS supporting native Kinect connectivity. That way, you can break it to reveal...doors!
 

g00ey

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2009
155
0
18,630
0
I don't think that a Windows based system interface is going to disappear anytime soon. You can't get away from the fact that windows is a terrific way to make programs get along with each other on the same screen.

By if by "Retire Windows" they mean that they intend to throw away the traditional interface with a desktop, icons and a trashcan then by all means go ahead. I have abandoned that myself several years ago. My desktop is clean, not even the "Recycle Bin" is there, all there is is a nice wallpaper. All programs are launched from a command prompt using aliases and I only occasionally use the file explorer. I don't even use the start-menu anymore. It's too sluggish and too much of a hassle to navigate through using a touchpad.

I think they should promote a simple and fast command line interface, just like the old Take Command prompt or 4DOS/4NT prompt from JPSoft. It's faster and simpler than any point and click user interface can ever be.
 

MarioJP

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2007
66
0
18,580
0
In that case the title of the article is wrong. Microsoft is not going to retire the traditional desktop interface you kidding me. You have tons of programs riding on it. Would be a foolish move on Microsoft part to do such a thing.

What MS is doing is adding a tablet element designed for tablets and phones. Imagine finally able to see your mobile device as if it was another Computer not just a "unknown device" Its like media center on top of windows XP but more refined. People need to calm down and stop assuming. To the guy that wrote this article clearly has no clue what he is talking about. " Microsoft its time to retire windows" title is very misleading.
 

MarioJP

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2007
66
0
18,580
0
I mean do you guys just skimp through the article or read couple of words and found what you needed to know and make an assumption based on those few sentences, and not bother to read the whole thing? lol.
 

ronindaosohei

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2006
14
0
18,560
0
I cannot believe how out of touch a lot of the comments here are with the general market:

"Windows 7 works fine for me. I wont upgrade to 8. They are just making a stupid looking interface."

The Windows interface SUCKS for tablets and mobile, anything with touch and it makes sense to create a ubiquitous interface rather than different ones, ideally they'll mirror the interface across the cloud and you'll have a seamless experience. Windows 7 is ok, but use some imagination about how a tiles based interface could be better. And it won't just be able UI it's also about back-end functionality, cloud connectivity, etc.


"Let me SCREAM that I do NOT want to STAND in front of my PC."

You obviously won't be required to, are you familiar with mouse gestures ala Opera? If so, imagine something similar for Windows, that could be highly efficient.


"I like my current interface just fine, and don't like the tiles. The tiles would be fine if everyone used the same apps for the same things, but we don't. We as users can put our own apps on the desktop, where we want them."

And there is a good chance you'll be able to do likewise with Win 8, the difference is largely replacing both icons and widgets with tiles, the key is bringing you live information very visibly so you don't even have to open up apps in many cases.


"Nothing wrong with the start menu- it gives you access to features and controls that are not used as frequently, without cluttering up the desktop."

And I'm sure there won't be a tile for every app, tiles will be like folders, you'll be able to go levels deeper just like folders to organize clutter better. Have you tried WP7? Think of the same thing.


"But how the heck is someone doing CAD or Geographic Information Systems supposed to use MS Kinect supposed to be able to access all the buttons which are quick links to all the tools we use."

Can you seriously be asking this? Have you watched the demos? When you go into applications like CAD, or Excel, etc. etc. etc. the experience is identical to what you have now on your computer. Hence using a mouse and keyboard will still be the norm when sitting at a computer. You might add voice control or kinect functionality just like there is the capability for voice controls in Win 7.


"People endure touch screen interfaces because of this, not because they think it's a better interface."

Actually, a touch interface is by far better than anything else for mobile devices and not just because of screen real estate but because anything else would be one more thing to carry (hence why digital pens haven't had much success, though they'll need to be incorporated into the tablets of the future because there are things you can do with a pen that you just can't with a finger), because to use anything but a finger would add an extra unnecessary step to the process, etc.


"If Microsoft want to be forward thinking, they should be focusing on a interface that can detect when someone is talking to it and respond accordingly with 99.99% accuracy"

There are a thousand reasons that hasn't been the direction they've taken, for an example, try using voice controls on Win 7. What are drawbacks? Frequently I want to be typing or surfing the net while talking on the phone, or listening to music, or simply not disturbing people around me, the list goes on. Voice has a place, but hardly a dominant place.


""Of course, Microsoft can't change computing alone."
It did it before, and likely will do it again."

No they didn't, that's Apple who tries to change the world alone. Microsoft has always succeeded by working with partners to create change. Why did Mac flop when Windows rocked? Because Microsoft actually had software and software creators for Windows, while Mac was just a nice interface without any content.


"However, I don't think that anyone would install this OS on a traditional PC."

The majority of the world will run this OS on a traditional PC within just a few years, because for all the complaining we hear here from people who evidently don't even understand it at a basic level, it actually makes things easier (because live data comes to you without you needing to open applications), more user friendly (so the masses can adopt it), and more consistent across platforms (which again cuts down the learning curve, suddenly you have the same experience on mobile, tablet, Xbox, desktop, and probably ultimately cloud).


"The general windows user wants to have more control over their system, not less. I think the basic rationale for going for windows over macOS has been that it gives you more control and less gimmick."

No, the average windows user is your mother, think what she wants. Here's the thing about Microsoft and Windows. They have never succeeded because of the end user experience they provided. They have succeeded because of the platform they've built for developers and power users who have in turn used it to create great experiences for end users. Every time someone makes a program that runs on a Microsoft platform they are selling Microsoft and the biggest selling feature of Windows has never been the windows experience itself, it's been the applications that run on Windows (which is also why the graphics crowd has long preferred Mac, because there were better graphics programs available for Mac than PC). Oh sure, they've improved the user interface, and there have been issues of stability and security but really, content is king. And you'll notice when Microsoft makes great platforms for developers (.NET, SQL, Direct X, Windows, DOS, WP7, Silverlight, Xbox, etc.) they thrive. When they try to build products that stand on their own (Zune, their phone system whatever that was called, etc.) they've gotten destroyed. That's part of why Win 8 and unifying it with mobile and tablets is so critical for Microsoft's success. Because having a platform where development is the same on PC as on mobile means you have a massive developer community that builds apps that will run on mobile, which helps to sell their mobile platform. And the biggest reason Windows Phone will beat Apple or Google has nothing to do with the fact that the user interface is nice and pretty, though that's nice, it's that development for Windows Phone is better than any of the other devices, which pushes developers to create more amazing software for that platform, which in turn sells that platform. The Win 8 strategy is probably best understood in light of Xbox, which has been a huge success for Microsoft. On the surface it's very simple, easy and nice, underneath, it's fantastic for developers and has broad platform support and innovation (it's not kinect that's so great, it's what kinect allows developers to do that's so great, and it's that advantage, which will help Microsoft continue to win against Sony and Nintendo, likewise for Xbox Live and now the integration with mobile). Same with Windows 8, it's not what Windows 8 is that's so great, it's what developers are able to do with it. Such as live tiles, bringing live data to the user without the user needing to switch to the application, bringing data to the user in the places they care about as opposed to within an application (for example a People Hub as opposed to in Facebook, so all the communication with a person can be brought together). It is for all these reasons that Windows 8 is going to rock and work exceptionally well because Microsoft is picturing a new future not so much for the end user, but that developers can bring to the end user.


"I think the only real potential here is to use a beefed-up Kinect that is more responsive and more accurate and have some excellent voice recognition software. Get rid of the keyboard and mouse altogether."

Let me ask you, how much time do you spend in your start menu? Personally, I spend almost none. Most of my time is spent within applications and even those applications I launch from pinned icons on the taskbar. If you don't spend much time in your start menu what makes you think you'd spend a lot of time in the tiles menu? The tiles menu provides at a glance information and serves as a portal to other information, the mouse and keyboard will still work fine in this interface, in fact the keyboard might even be more useful for navigating tiles, highlight one, use the arrows to switch quickly and hit enter to enter, how hard is that? In many respects easier than trying to navigate the start menu that way.
 

ravewulf

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
394
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]bbfknight[/nom]omg , the writer of this is dumb.. if you ACTUALLY watch the video and NOT over react, you will see the start button and normal interface is still there... the tile is an option.. its like, starting windows media center on windows 7.... if you think that the touch interface is going to be the default your an idiot. mouse and keyboard users would have NO use for such an interface... the windows 7 interface is still there, you can still get to it.. calm down everyone...[/citation]
Clearly, you didn't watch the video announcing this interface to the end. The tiles interface is indeed the default interface for all platforms. You can navigate through the tiles to the regular desktop (it is contained within a tile), but the tiles are default.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
640
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]Moz316[/nom]Microsoft has said its just an overlay.. Like Windows Media Center. Windows 8 is still behind it, and judging by the footage I've seen.. looks the same as Windows 7 right now.[/citation]Yeah but most people here will look at a handful of screenshots and base their conclusions entirely on that, instead of doing some reading and realizing "Oh look, all the stuff that was in Windows 7 is STILL HERE."
 
G

Guest

Guest
>> Microsoft already provides the Kinect SDK for Windows...

No, it's not, it's only promise it: "Coming later this spring..."
(http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/kinectsdk/)

So, the spring is over, SDK still missing, but I think it is normal for MS.
 

g00ey

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2009
155
0
18,630
0
Very nice post ronindaosohei thumbs up for that.

I think you are spot on with the why Windows is dominating; Content is king.

But as I see it, Windows has serious infrastructural issues that seems impossible for Microsoft to overcome. A lot of the components "under the hood" have serious issues in terms of reliability, performance and security. As an operating system it is very bloated and poorly optimized in many aspects.

This issue has been there for years and not much has changed in this department. It is still common to experience sluggishness even on fast systems and programs freeze up the whole computer at times and there is a lot of undesired behavior.

I think if Microsoft wants to keep the market they really need to do something radical if they want to be able to move forward. It would be suggestible that they would make the OS open-source, give it a really serious clean-up and implement a lean philosophy throughout.

Now, you can say that the Windows platform is encumbered with backwards compatibility requirements and I'm not going to argue against that. Perhaps it is time to ditch the native backwards compatibility and pass it on to a virtual environment, either a la virtual PC or like Wine in Linux. But I understand the difficulties around that now that you have the .net framework, visual# runtimes and god knows what that is required to make software run on the os.

But it is not as simple as that. When the first Windows based pocket computers, or PDAs started to come in the early 2000 there were no demands of backwards compatibility to take into consideration. It was a nice and fresh platform with a clean slate. But still the PocketWindows was naught but a piece of cr*p. There came updates but no version of Pocket Windows or Windows Mobile has managed to become a good operating system. It has been ten years and Microsoft has not yet managed to bring up anything but a poorly working and a bloated mobile OS. To it speaks that Microsoft have had serious managerial issues or something inherent in their organization that prevents them from being able to bring up a good OS. They have no excuses in this regard and they cannot blame backwards compatibility requirements for their poor performance on the mobile market.

Now I have not looked at WP7. Sure it is supposedly a much more optimized OS than the Windows Mobile and it may be fast. I wish them all the best with the development but I'm very skeptical and hesitant about it. And frankly even though it may be a good OS for the next year or two I strongly expect that eventually the OS will end up being a bloated and sluggish OS like it always been in the past of Microsoft.

This is why I think Microsoft will have a hard time competing against open and transparent platforms. When you think about it the "openness" of Windows in the '90 is a major reason for its success. What I mean is that whereas systems such as Mac, Acorn, IBM OS/2 were closed systems that only could run on special hardware, Microsoft Windows was designed to work on many different hardware platforms and Microsoft worked with hardware manufacturers to unify the different hardware into one platform. Now, today the openness and flexibility of the open-source OSes will eventually be the downfall of Microsoft Windows unless they change strategy which I actually believe they will some day.
 

MarioJP

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2007
66
0
18,580
0
@g00ey The thing about getting rid of the backwards compatibility that just means cutting ties with a lot of the recent software too. I am not talking programs from 10 years ago. We are talking pretty recent programs here. Look what happen with XP fiasco the outcome wasn't good when Microsoft did try to break off some of the old stuff. They did manager to get rid of 16bit so that is no longer. But 32bit still has life in it and even more for those that simply like 32bit for some reason. This whole eventually will happen. Also the fact that they have a large pie Apple can pretty much change architecture like they change underwear as they see fit and still would have no issue. Then again there aren't many programs for the mac that interests the rest of the world other than those that are in studio production.

Sure if Microsoft had only 1% of the market share then I could see them changing stuff around but you are talking tons of programs that I am surprised still works on modern system and modern OS like windows 7. Apple in the other hand is "subject to change without notice" in fact I heard rumors that Apple is leaving Intel for Arm on future macs so as you see apple doesn't care to break ties with previous OS.

And for the Sluggish part? You can blame the vendors that always supply their customers with Pc's that barely meets the requirements at all and till this day that is still going on with windows 7. For an example I have a net book here that i am setting up for someone and it only comes with 1GB of ram with windows 7 starter edition. I mean really why 1GB of ram its these kind of things i have a fit with these vendors. Now comparing that to a Pentium 4 desktop PC that I have and its running windows XP with 3GB of ram and guess what no slow downs. CCleaner pretty much cleans out the crap files. That machine is lean and fast, faster than this piece of crap net book.

In some ways I wish Microsoft puts a QA on these vendors for this sole reason as the average consumer doesn't know any better why the machine is slow. Meantime all apple computers comes with 4GB of ram by default. I have yet see a desktop or laptop that comes with more than 2GB of ram unless you ask for it as memory these days are dirty cheap.

You know what's the irony speaking of bloatware?. The fact that OSX Lion requires minimum 2GB of ram on a mac just to run it while Windows 7 requires 1GB of ram to run it on the PC. Who's bloated now lol.
 

legacy7955

Distinguished
May 16, 2011
238
0
18,830
0
I'll put a less detailed apsect of this on the table ....sometimes things just work and that is why they remain a staple for decades, even Windows...has that quality about it ...the interface is well known making it comfortable to everyone, for most users it meets all their needs, and when you purchase it the buyer knows what to expect from it, this isn't just a quality that businesses desire, many pedestrian users do too.

I think M$ should move on with their product there is a leading edge that wants that and it is important for M$ to continue to be innovative to thrive

...But if it has a legacy product that is still very popular and a strong seller why leave it behind..bottom line is A HECK OF A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE IT and it still makes the company a lot of money!

From a marketing perspective I look at Windows like I look at Classic Coke, people have grown to love it, from young to old, and they like that familiar quality.

Remember what happened to "New Coke" ?

I say as long as Win 8 can be switched to the "classic desktop" mode and function flawlessly like Win 7 now does I have no problem with them trying to move on in other ways...

That being said the ONLY concern I have it that if the OS has TWO templates it uses won't that contribute to "bloating" ?

 

MarioJP

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2007
66
0
18,580
0
hahaha I like that comparison haha. Windows 7 is going to be the new classic coke. Apple is Pepsi hahah Linux is some odd flavor of different kinds lol. Anyways about the bloat I saw the demo that unlike windows media which they stack on top on xp. The tiles is the OS that has a switch to hide or show the traditional desktop
 
G

Guest

Guest
To give an idea, a couple of similar-in-philosophy-styled interfaces were released in the world of linux a few months ago. The reaction has been... split. Some really like it, and some really hate it.

I think as long as MS defaults to the classic look on the desktop, there won't be much murmuring.
 

DSpider

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2009
178
0
18,630
0
I remember when a friend of mine switched from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. It had that huge-ass start menu that was radically different from Windows 95/98/Me/2000. When he realized he could switch to the "Classic" start menu he said that it was something new and decided to try it out for a few weeks. He didn't change it back. It was much more convenient to launch My Computer from there instead of minimizing the window and double clicking the shortcut from the desktop.

So I think it's very important that they add a switch to go back to the "Classic" interface. Some will hate it, I'm sure of it... But most will probably get used to it sooner or later. Like how nobody switches the classic menu anymore in Windows XP (well, no one that I know, perhaps the elderly maybe?).
 
G

Guest

Guest
No kinect integration, expect multi touchpads and easy keyboard commands. this new UI is better than we know as of right now. This UI makes for better program integration and it also makes windows a light OS that can pack a punch when it comes to doing hard work. you people can be skeptical while i use this new UI combined with the legacy desktop environment to get All my work done and update my twitter status. Most people discount innovation when they first see it, but i can tell this is the combination of power house computing and flexible interaction and i'm onboard
 

g00ey

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2009
155
0
18,630
0
I do understand that a big number of computer users may be mom, dad or grandma who have very superficial computer knowledge and sure it makes sense to design the user interface so that it caters to such people.

But the user interface of Windows does very poorly when it comes to the group of more skilled computer users which has become immensely bigger than it was back in the '90s. Windows as it is today does very little to cater to this group of people. It doesn't even encourage the users to gain their skills. The options of increasing the skills so that you can become a more efficient user are very few and far between. You will never know how the routines and hardware under the hood work. This is actually kind of sad because if everything were more open and transparent, people would be more independent of technical support and it support were to be contacted the issues would be more focused on the technical issues and less so on the abilities of the computer users. Moreover, bug fixing and bug reporting would be orders of magnitude more efficient and security holes would be more efficiently detected and eliminated.

So I think as of today it is mandatory that an OS is open and transparent, and has a user interface that encourages computer users to achieve a deeper understanding of the underlying hardware and the framework so that they can more easily monitor the components of the system. That way trojans and viruses will be a lot easier to detect and it will be easy to see of something is not right. Of course this should be discreet without intruding on users who are not interested in learning about a computer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
E Streaming Video & TVs 4
abdabra Streaming Video & TVs 1
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
L Streaming Video & TVs 3
chilly601 Streaming Video & TVs 2
L Streaming Video & TVs 3
Marshall Honorof Streaming Video & TVs 1
Marshall Honorof Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
CherlynnLow Streaming Video & TVs 2
Marshall Honorof Streaming Video & TVs 3
Marshall Honorof Streaming Video & TVs 15
Jill Scharr Streaming Video & TVs 7
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
Marshall Honorof Streaming Video & TVs 9
G Streaming Video & TVs 5
G Streaming Video & TVs 12
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 23
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY