Creating the Windows 8 user experience

Creating the Windows 8 user experience(blogs.msdn.com)

40 points by davux 14 years ago | 35 comments

silverbax88 14 years ago |

I see this as nothing less than a massive misstep by Microsoft. Trying to create a primary OS based on mobile devices is a great way to give market share to the companies that already own those spaces while giving up the one that you own. Microsoft even says that "some people" still need desktop PC's, then names 'video editors, financial analysts, scientists, gamers, PC enthusiasts…'...so everyone who needs to actually do work on a PC.

I get it - Microsoft thinks that they want the big market, and that the big market is content consumers. But 50% of Microsoft's revenue comes from Microsoft Office - and that hasn't changed. Furthermore, Google and Apple already own the market on smart phone OSs and nothing Microsoft has done in the past has shown that they have any ability to crack into that market.

So effectively, Microsoft wants to create an OS that abandons their core revenue base while going after one that has rejected them repeatedly.

At best, it's Windows ME. At worst, it's the rise of Linux and Apple as the future of the desktop.

fjorder 14 years ago | |

Although the linked article ignores certain MS OS's, like Win ME (for good reason), it does accurately convey the message that MS often does fairly innovative things that run against conventional wisdom and, in most cases, this has worked out rather well for them. MS spends way more on research than Apple and occasionally good things make it into MS products.

Even with that in mind, Metro is a pretty big gamble. They're trying to bring a unified experience across mobile and desktop devices when there are practically no mobile MS devices out there! It would be an ambitious idea if Windows phone (or tablet!) was well established and had a decent amount of market share but, as things stand, it's appears almost insane. MS is taking a huge risk with their core market to expand into markets that they're almost completely locked out of at present.

However, if you look at the trends in computing its absolutely true that more and more is being done on mobile devices, often at the expense of the desktop. The argument could be made that MS, as a company, would be in serious trouble if they just stuck to the desktop market. It very well might be "go big or go home" time for Microsoft, and they are clearly choosing to go big.

I say good luck to MS. I hope Metro lets them push into the mobile market without alienating their desktop core. It's better for consumers if there's more choice.

CamperBob2 14 years ago | |

So effectively, Microsoft wants to create an OS that abandons their core revenue base while going after one that has rejected them repeatedly.

Exactly. There may be some precedent for a successful OS built on a bifurcated strategy like what MS has outlined for Windows 8, but at 43, I'm not old enough to remember it.

courage 14 years ago | | |

I think DOS/Windows is a pretty good analog, and it was very successful.

sliverstorm 14 years ago | |

Alternatively, could they be attempting to embrace a "tik-tok" model? Enterprise tends to move slowly, and Win7 is still going strong. Could they not produce Win8 targeted at mobile, keep enterprise on Win7, and come back to enterprise for Win9?

drivebyacct2 14 years ago | |

Seeing as Windows 8 still includes full desktop mode, exactly how does any of this "abandon core revenue" logic make any sense?

I get it, despite being in the tech world, geek-types remain incredibly resitive to change, but I'm tired of every tiny change that Google or Microsoft makes turning into "they're jumping the shark".

rbanffy 14 years ago | | |

To be fair, people said the same about Gnome 3 and Unity and both work very well...

But... If you are not a "geek-type", what are you doing on "Hacker News"?

rbanffy 14 years ago |

The fact is almost every HP, Acer, Dell and Toshiba will come with it pre-installed. There is basically no way it will be labeled a failure, even if nobody uses it.

Remember Windows Vista was considered a great success (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2130290,00.asp).

When you buy a generic x86 computer (any non-Apple x86, that is) you have 3 choices of OS: you can leave whatever came on the machine (most likely Windows), you can install a previous version of Windows you already had floating around or you can install any of the fine *nix-based OSs that will run on it. Most people opt for #1, some resent change (or just dislike what came with the machine) and opt for #2 and a tiny minority goes with #3 (me included).

That means I am part of Vista's and 7's success stories - I bought computers with them installed and never bothered to return the licenses, although I never used either. From a sales perspective, I'm a happy Windows user.

WiseWeasel 14 years ago | |

But if people delay purchases or go with competing products instead of buying an HP, Acer, Dell, Toshiba, etc. with Windows 8 pre-installed, then they've all got a problem on their hands.

Also, do you remember how long manufacturers were offering laptops with Windows XP pre-installed? I think you may still be able to buy one somewhere.

sixothree 14 years ago | |

That's great for the desktop and notebook market. But now you have to convince people to buy Windows based tablets.

rbanffy 14 years ago | | |

Microsoft OEMs will build them in order to qualify for discounts in desktop and laptop W8 licenses. And x86-based tablets will be able to go into classic mode (and JIT JavaScript) and run current x86 apps.

Why would anyone desire a W8 ARM tablet instead of a much cheaper (as in "you can buy two of them") Android-based one or an iPad is an excellent question, but we should never underestimate the power of advertising.

bitwize 14 years ago |

Where Microsoft used to primarily focus on reducing memory consumption, now we are also laser-focused on improving battery life while still delivering a fast and fluid user experience.

If Microsoft's previos focus on reducing memory consumption produced prior versions of windows, their new focus on increasing battery life should produce Windows 8 tablets that last a half an hour, tops.

While I'm at it, in general, fuck Windows 8. The UI may be nice, but Microsoft is taking such a massive power dump on developers and users alike with this turkey that they have a tough road ahead of them if they want to even get within spitting distance of the iPad in terms of mindshare.

gbvc 14 years ago |

Windows 95 Media Player could do more than play wav files, you could certainly watch videos.

Also there was a lot of evolution between Windows 95 and XP that gets glossed over, as the internet became more important. XP, with some minor tweaks, could behave like a stabler version of 95/98 (I must admit that I stripped much of the chrome away for a few months, till I got more comfortable with the slightly different look and feel of the menus and task bar).

The also ignore one significant trend-following dead-end from the 95/98 era: Active Desktop- Vista wasn't the first time they headed up a blind UX alley.

Even with Windows 7, I think they overstate the differences with its predecessors: the Start Menu remains as important as ever.

metrop0219 14 years ago |

I think that people here are too pessimistic in general about Windows 8.

Look at the current trends in computing. They're using those trends to influence this release. And I think that a lot of the design decisions (especially ones like "content over chrome" are really damn good).

It's going to be super interesting to see how this thing is received by non-techy people come the holiday season.

jasomill 14 years ago | |

True, but with the exception of tablets, the trends themselves sound problematic at best. To wit:

"Today, this is increasingly how we see many people use their devices, obsessively switching between different websites and programs on their PC and apps on their phone, checking to see if there’s anything new to see or do."

Just what I want my OS to facilitate. Perhaps the new OS should come bundled with an Adderall prescription?

Personally, I've found that the new Start Screen works well . . . once I've _removed all the tiles_. Similarly, one of my gripes with iOS has always been the home screen's tendency to remove the first page if it doesn't contain at least one icon. Surely I'm not the only one that launches things from Spotlight and the "double tap" bar 99.9% of the time? Organizing icons is shit work.