Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft's Must-Have List for Windows 9

pcmag.com

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Microsoft's Must-Have List for Windows 9

#61
I didn't read the by-line initially, got about two paragraphs in and thought "Jesus, is this by Dvorak?" And it is. And I smiled.

I remember howling with laughter at his anti-mac articles more than a decade ago, and this is funny for the same reason. Dvorak has always been utterly incapable of thinking from any perspective other than his own. For example, his hatred of the full screen mode for applications is almost certainly born from being a power user with a multi-monitor setup or a large hi-res display (that's how I see things too, but I also understand that the UI needs to work on things like a Surface or an ultrabook). Oh well, it was fun reading him again anyway.

As many other people have pointed out here, the main thing MS needs to fix is the pricing point and the ridiculous number of options. It's an OS, stop with the Ultimate Edition nonsense and just sell one version of it at the lowest price point that works.

Re: Microsoft's Must-Have List for Windows 9

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've made this argument before, but I've always found Microsoft's recent obsession with killing the desktop as hugely harmful to their own business. The fact is, Microsoft has seen this future coming for some time. They got themselves into antitrust trouble for going after Netscape and Java so aggressively in the 90s because they were afraid of OSes becoming commodity software. So, how have they reacted to a world wh…

It's funny that a company can be so lost while there are so many technology folks and enthusiast that are clearly laying out the solutions for them. It's going to be very interesting to see what happens to this company over the next 10 years.

Except that those "solutions" might not necessarily work either. I had even read on HN people arguing that the solution would be MS to fork android (something that we had seen already) or just stay still and don't do anything (again we had seen that before too)

The way I see it, MS started to get lost once they "accomplished" their mission "computer on every desk". At that point they were just like "Now.. what?".

Re: Microsoft's Must-Have List for Windows 9

#63
post #5

Am I the only one who hates the old Start Menu? I find it tedious and useless. I'm all for re-adding a start menu, but it should be one that doesn't suck, like the one in Kubuntu. Also absent from this list is an updated console. Windows 8 still uses the old DOS shell. You can't even resize the window past 80 characters. It's embarrassing.

Am I the only one who hates the old Start Menu?

I didn't hate it, but in Windows 7 I found a better alternative that almost made it redundant.

I have found myself pinning the 20-or-so programs I most often use to the new-style Taskbar instead. I also use Jump Lists and various related tricks all the time. I frequently run many applications at once, I open lots of command prompts and Explorer windows, and with 4 megapixels of real estate on my primary monitor alone, I want these functions one click away a lot more than I need a few extra pixels across the bottom of my screen.

Given that easier-to-use alternative, about the only things that still make me open the Start menu on Windows 7 are searching for programs I don't use regularly and accessing control panels.

My biggest pet peeves in the Windows 7 UI are also dominated by how quickly I can get things loaded so I can start doing something useful:

1. You can't pin starting directories for command prompts the same way you can for Explorer windows.

2. Opening a command prompt from an Explorer window isn't on the context menu by default.

3. You can't pin a Control Panel icon that pops up a menu for accessing the various panels.

4. Running things as Administrator is still clunky, particularly command prompts.

5. I often want to start some combination of applications I use frequently, position their windows in the same way, and then give a specific program the focus ready to start work. This ought to be a trivial use of any operating system's scripting facilities, but it is difficult-to-impossible to set this up for access with a single click from the Taskbar without writing real code using system APIs to do it.

If Microsoft fixed these frustrations and otherwise left Windows 7 exactly as it was, I would buy Windows 9 at full price for every PC I use in a heartbeat. There are several other things they could do that would make me pay much, much more: grown-up command line tools, a robust and standardised framework for installing/updating/uninstalling applications, a more transparent and robust model for controlling access to system resources -- basically addressing the major weaknesses that Windows has relative to Linux or OS X today for power users.

In contrast, I can't imagine any development of the direction they've been going with Windows 8 that would motivate me to run it, and we actively seek vendors who will provide Windows 7 instead for our new computers at present.

Re: Microsoft's Must-Have List for Windows 9

#64
post #16

The "miserable counter-productive "ribbon" interface on Microsoft Word" was the result of a lot of actual user testing. I could understand people disliking it just because it was new, but it's been years now... How long does it take people to realize a better interface is more productive? Edit: oh I just noticed it's Dvorak. Never mind.

Wait, how do you go from "result of a lot of actual user testing" (PM who had the new ribbon designed, sold internally and implemented hosts and evaluates "user testing") to treating it as a truth? My impression is that by the time companies are large enough to have "actual user testing" going on, they have lost the ability to make something truly nice and coherent, the naive "ribbon" being a prime example. I know it…

The menu system was hardly "coherent". At least functions are nicely sorted into meaningful groups now.

Re: Microsoft's Must-Have List for Windows 9

#66
post #56

Allow me to take this opportunity to address something related to a minor point from the article: >To me an app is a small bit of code for an iPhone to do something cute. Are we going to call the massive SAP suite an "app?" Lately I've been hearing many people complain about "serious" desktop applications being called "apps". Do you think this is a valid complaint? (Myself, I'm not sure; I won't disclose my reasoning…

At least in Mac OS, they have always been called Apps, and with Mac OS X (2001) they even adopted the ".app" extension (Mail.app, Safari.app.) Steve Jobs used to call them apps in public all they way back to the 80s, even during the NeXT days when they only focused on 'serious' enterprise software. Windows users call them programs and I guess after the 'there's an app for that' campaign, everyone associates apps with…

The .app extension has been around since the first preview release of NeXTSTEP (1988) [1].

[1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/15578792@N02/2461295650/in/phot...

Re: Microsoft's Must-Have List for Windows 9

#67
post #65

I haven't read a John C. Dvorak column for ages! We're talking over 10+ years ago - I'd no idea he was still writing. It'd be hilarious to have Dvorak running GNU/Linux at the end of 2014!!!

I recently started reading him again after a 10 year break and he is crankier than ever and off-base much of the time, but I thought he was right on with this article. It would be really fun if he switched to Linux desktop and started writing about it. He'd be doing a great public service!

Re: Microsoft's Must-Have List for Windows 9

#68
post #32
post #16

The "miserable counter-productive "ribbon" interface on Microsoft Word" was the result of a lot of actual user testing. I could understand people disliking it just because it was new, but it's been years now... How long does it take people to realize a better interface is more productive? Edit: oh I just noticed it's Dvorak. Never mind.

I've been using the ribbon UI in Office frequently for years, and still find its usability inferior to the old menu system. Aside from its poor usability, I dislike the visual clutter of having all the functions visible all the time. Personally, I'm less productive thanks to the ribbon UI. Well, what do I know... I'm just one data point... probably an outlier.

Honestly, I think MS should've learned from what they did on the desktop: just give me a big searchable menu and the power to pin things onto the bar. Everybody's workflow is different.

And while the groupings of various formatting and editing tools is sensible, their constant mucking with the "File" menu is inscrutable and frustrating.

Re: Microsoft's Must-Have List for Windows 9

#69
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have a legacy NAS from Cisco that no OS since Vista can access on my network. My guess is that is a security/encryption setting issue with your NAS. Windows won't send a login request to a server that uses weak standards unless you change registry settings. This is done for your protection.

That specific example might be, but Microsoft seem to have been in denial about some adverse side effects of the networking changes in Windows 7 since about five minutes after the launch. I've seen an office with a hybrid network where numerous machines running XP, OS X and Linux all talked to each other quite happily, at the expected network speeds over wireless and wired connections, all working as you'd expect. Ho…

Being that I run mixed Linux/Win7 networks with SMB filesharing and don't have speed transfer problems, it seems to be a sysadmin problem.

Update your NIC drivers and make sure your processor can handle encrypted sessions at full speed. If you want to downgrade to NTLM you are free to edit the registry keys to do so. The rest of us don't want our passwords and traffic easily crackable.

Re: Microsoft's Must-Have List for Windows 9

#70
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That specific example might be, but Microsoft seem to have been in denial about some adverse side effects of the networking changes in Windows 7 since about five minutes after the launch. I've seen an office with a hybrid network where numerous machines running XP, OS X and Linux all talked to each other quite happily, at the expected network speeds over wireless and wired connections, all working as you'd expect. Ho…

Being that I run mixed Linux/Win7 networks with SMB filesharing and don't have speed transfer problems, it seems to be a sysadmin problem. Update your NIC drivers and make sure your processor can handle encrypted sessions at full speed. If you want to downgrade to NTLM you are free to edit the registry keys to do so. The rest of us don't want our passwords and traffic easily crackable.

Thanks for the advice, but the company in question did a lot of work in the networking field, so it is highly unlikely that the poor performance was caused by either a lack of competence on the part of their sysadmins or simple oversights like not updating drivers. Various third party software running on the Windows 7 machines seemed to achieve the expected throughput just fine too, so the finger was definitely pointing to something in Windows being the culprit.

(Really obvious example: An rsync-based tool used to copy files to a central server prior to backing up would do so at roughly the expected speed from all of the Win7 PCs, but dragging and dropping the same files between the same machines in Windows Explorer would take an order of magnitude longer. Just to be clear, I'm talking about testing with new files where rsync would also have to transfer them in their entirety here, not a speed up because of the rsync algorithm itself.)

Post reply on HN