Hacker News Reader

Pass me whatever you're smoking, bud.

> I doubt anyone at Microsoft is that upset about Windows 8's reception

You are wrong. I mean, I'm sure there are people at Microsoft who don't care. Windows 8 is a failure so far. They need to salvage it.

This teenage attitude of it being "weak" to fix it and "cave" to consumer demands doesn't cut it when you're talking about a multi-billion dollar product completely failing in a publicly traded company. Microsoft has a legal obligation to its investors to fix this problem.

> but I don't see any significant reversal of direction

Again, you're wrong.

They're releasing a patch to add in boot to desktop and reintroduce the start button. The only thing they aren't undoing yet is giving a traditional start menu instead of the start screen.

Consumers have spoken clearly; they don't like or want Windows 8. It doesn't matter if it's better in your opinion. It's a product for the masses. It's a product for Mom & Dad, they need to be able to use it. And that means that abandoning all the established visual dialogue is a stupid mistake.

The lack of sales has shown that, and it's why Microsoft is reversing direction and releasing this patch.

There's a reason this news is being covered in the Financial Times; because investors see lack of Windows 8 sales and they get very unhappy.

You might be right - like I said, I think they will try to smooth the desktop-metro split, which was handled clumsily in Windows 8. Again, I think it's a start of a long transition for Microsoft (and the industry in general) and so I don't think it is surprising that there were rough patches.

As far as the "consumers have spoken", perhaps they have, but I don't advocate Microsoft staying the course out of some teenage idea of not admitting failure. I advocate it because the potential OS that could evolve from the foundation started with Windows 8 is the only feasible long-term option if Microsoft is to remain competitive over the next ten years.

Consumers are short-sighted, and currently the problem for Microsoft is, in a nutshell, maintaining legacy support gracefully while continuing to progress towards the new paradigm.

"As far as the "consumers have spoken", perhaps they have,"

"Consumers are short-sighted"

If only consumers could see the true beauty that Microsoft has created. If they only knew what was best for them.

You're arguing against a strawman, not me. Try reading my other comments in this thread.

Those are direct quotes from your comments. If you want to retcon them, fine. All I see is a huge set of assertions from you, and now a lot of backpedaling as your arguments are being dismantled.

No, you're completely mistaken sorry.

I don't understand why you say "A company like Microsoft... has really, really carefully thought through its plans... [but?] the desktop-metro split... was handled clumsily in Windows 8."

I'm connecting whole thoughts of yours unfairly to show how fundamentally contradictory those two thoughts are. The desktop-metro split was, in my opinion, absolutely the most important part of Windows 8, that they HAD to get right, and upon which its entire success or failure would be based.

Do you disagree with my assertion that the desktop-metro split was the most important aspect of Windows 8? Isn't Microsoft the kind of company that "really, really carefully [thinks] through its plans"?

So then why was it handled clumsily?

It was handled clumsily because the Windows team had to move fast and break things. Windows 8 has a lot of pretty important under the hood changes. And it's no trivial feat to try and develop and implement a future-proof new UI style that can be layered over the old system. Anyway, this comparison is apples to oranges: Microsoft's top level long-term strategic vision compared to the Windows' team's short-term execution.

You might argue that the Windows team dropped the ball and didn't get enough right with this release. I would agree that they didn't get everything right, but long term I see the specific success of Windows 8 being of little consequence to the company - simply because future releases will continue to build on every aspect of Windows 8, as, out of the current Cambrian soup of a halfway OS, confused consumers and eclectic OEM devices, a new consensus about how computers should work is forged.

I sell Windows desktop software, so I decided to check my visitor stats for the past month. It's been 7 months since Windows 8 was released and less than 5% of my Windows visitors are running Win8. I checked the same time frame after Windows 7 was released, and roughly 13% of my visitors were running Win7. If i had that big of a sales drop, I'd be looking inward, not outward.

Windows 8 may be a visionary change taking Microsoft into the future. The problem, though, is that it's a tablet vision being applied to a desktop system.

I'm a Windows consumer that doesn't like Windows 8. I don't think I'm short sighted. I'm just trying to get work done.

This is horrible analysis: comparing Vista to windows 7 changes to windows 7 to 8 changes.

Vista was arguably Microsoft's worst OS. Windows 7 arguably the best. Obviously the changes you mention would be better. In fact, with 5% I am amazed and think that is rather impressive.

Just thought I'd share this.

11.65 percent of Steam owners used Windows 8 in April

http://www.neowin.net/news/1165-percent-of-steam-owners-used...

uh…

> Consumers have spoken clearly; they don't like or want Windows 8.

any evidence to back that up..? if anything, it seems the 'masses' are just fine with it and its tech geeks that are most bothered.. Microsoft just announced that they've passed 100 million Windows 8 licenses sold in the six months since launch, which is on-par with where Windows 7 was at this point in its lifecycle.

> The lack of sales has shown that, and it's why Microsoft is reversing direction and releasing this patch.

again, no. if anything, i'd say Windows 8 sales are rather impressive given they’re matching the pace of Windows 7 which came following a poorly received Vista.. you'd think that a release following a very popular and stable release (7 to 8) would see comparatively less traction than one following a poor one (Vista to 7), but it’s still holding-up, and doing so in a declining PC market farcing a number of other external forces.

> There's a reason this news is being covered in the Financial Times; because investors see lack of Windows 8 sales and they get very unhappy.

not true. just because it’s the FT reporting doesn't mean it’s any more insightful than your typical tech blog or speak for investor sentiment, at all. MSFT shares have been performing rather well since the launch of Windows 8. either way, Microsoft is a large and increasingly diversified company, so i wouldn't put too much weight in that one way or another. you make it sound like this is the largest product flop in the history of the world.. very sensational, also very not untrue.

The evidence is sales for it stink.

Microsoft just released the numbers and it's only selling at half the rate of Windows 7. (Win7 averaged 20mil/mo, Win8 is averaging 10.)

And sales should be HIGHER following a successful release than a failed one. People were skeptical of Windows 7 when it came out because Vista had gotten so much flack. Everybody liked 7 so a solid follow up to it should have sold well.

Also you missed my point about FT, I wasn't saying that FT is more insightful. Certainly it isn't when it comes to tech stuff. But it's in the FT because investors are concerned about what Microsoft is doing, and Microsoft wants the FT to report that they are releasing a fix patch for Windows 8 to calm investors down.

edit:

Also keep in mind that those Windows 8 sales numbers include sales of Windows 8 RT and Windows 8 on Surface Pros. Granted sales for those devices are not great either, but it's inflating Windows 8 numbers when comparing them to Windows 7 numbers; it's not an apples to apples comparison.

maybe i’m just dense, but i’m not following youth logic or your math here..

numbers have been officially reported at two intervals: 60 million sold as of January 2013 [1], and 100 million as of May 2013 [2]. both points indicate its performing fairly well, and just shy of its predecessor. while not ideal, achieving these volumes is most certainly not so catastrophic that ‘investors’ are getting worried. if anything, they appear to be rewarding the company for taking steps to adapt early-on (relatively speaking).

as for sales needing to be higher following a successful release, that’s most certainly not true as a general rule and in this particular case doesn’t make sense either. we're not talking about movie release.. a PC (and, by extension, Windows to most) is a utility, not a discretionary good. most people depend on it in some form or another and if their PC isn't performing adequately to accomplish some task, they upgrade; if it’s fine, they stick it out until need be.. in the case of Vista to 7, many people were plagued with issues and in-need of new PCs (and a more stable OS), hence the rapid rate at which it sold. today, a PC running 7 from a few years back is still fairly capable and the need to upgrade is less pronounced. that it especially true if people are spending less time on a PC as many consumption-related activities can be transferred to other devices like smartphones and tablets.

speaking of which, keep in mind how much has changed since 7 was released.. people are now holding-on to their PCs for longer periods of time and there is increased competition from tablets and smartphones. the market is in decline, i’m not arguing against that, but pointing to 8 as the culprit is inaccurate.

[1] http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2...

[2] http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2...

edit: sales numbers are never that comparable, and its been three years.. for all the reasons listed above, they're not comparable.. introducing surface into the mix also makes them less comparable..

my point has less to do with specific milestones and more so to the point that by no reasonable standard could you call the product a failure so far. and projecting your particular dissatisfaction with the changes made (or maybe just a general grudge against the company, i don't know?) to the 'masses' is inaccurate and doesn't add any real value.

"And sales should be HIGHER following a successful release than a failed one."

Sorry, no. People don't upgrade their OS as often if the previous one "just works", no matter how many bells and whistles are added.

Consider what's behind these numbers...

- The whole point of Windows 8 was to make massive inroads into tablets with the Surface and other OEM models; that's not happening at the rate they hoped

- The PC market is clearly shrinking at an increased rate due to pressure from the smartphone, iPad and other tablets.

So in summary, the growth rates of the iPad, Win 2008 licenses shouldn't be flat - they should be up. These are the charts that worries Microsoft:

http://www.asymco.com/2013/05/01/surface-tension-the-effect-...

Not a bleak picture yet, but not roses either.

"short-sighted consumers"

You lost me here.

If Msofts strategic trajectory needs to be explained to consumers to justify Windows 8's existence, they fucked up.

Windows 8 should have been a pleasure to use straight out of the box.

You misunderstand me. I don't think Microsoft does everything right. They seem to rush, and they seem to be loathe to admit that their products are anything less than amazing. Generally, their strategy seems to be "leap in with both feet then work out what to do." They're not Apple - Apple is probably crafting their next-gen interface right now and may well release it in a consummately polished single stroke at exactly the opportune moment. Maybe. But I know momentum when I see it and Microsoft is building it. Like I said, I expect the Windows 8+ ecosystem to continually improve and become more and more of a pleasure "straight out of the box." I'm not saying it's great right now or that ultimately Microsoft's gamble will work out, but I am optimistic.

Momentum? Seriously? MS may be pushing internally to develop and expand Win8, Blue or whatever maybe become of it. But it is DOA.

I think you've got it backwards.

Apple "rushes" things, they push hard on an aggressive schedule. They make mistakes, but they correct them more quickly because they iterate faster. Remember Apple releases new versions of iOS annually and OS X is on an 18-24 month release cycle as well.

Microsoft tends to release a new version of Windows every three to five years, and omitting the duds that nobody wants (e.g. Vista, Windows ME) the cycle is even longer.

What Microsoft rushes is not their development cycle, but their design process. Where Apple would try 100 things and throw out 99 of them, Microsoft in comparison would try 10 and throw out 8. They are getting better, but this Windows 8 serves as an example of how they're prisoner to compromises.

Well, you might be right about the prisoner to compromises thing. I'd like to know what a bolder Microsoft would do in your opinion.

Anyway, the key point is, as you say, they are (or seem to be) getting better. That is why I am optimistic.

> short-sighted consumers

This should be a law of failed software. You know a product has completely failed when something like this is said. Blaming the users is the last refuge of failed software developers.

I think you're missing the point here.

On the contrary, I think you are.

On the contrary. If I had argued that consumers should like Windows 8, then your critique would be valid. However I never once claimed that consumers should like it. In fact, in multiple posts I've happily agreed that consumers mostly shouldn't, as it simply does not offer compelling benefits over 7 or other competing OSes.

What I am arguing instead (which you seem to have missed) is that consumer distaste for Windows 8 is an incredibly poor measure for the long-term rationality of Microsoft's business and product strategy. Because consumers are short-sighted and only care about whether a product is good today, not whether it is a transitional release laying the foundation to a competitive 201X ecosystem blah blah blah.

Definitely agreed. One can continue to blame the market and the consumers for all their flaws but ultimately, they are the ones to decide if businesses will be rewarded with purchases.

"doesn't change its logo and completely redevelop its entire web presence so that for the first time ever its entire product line-up is consistent unless it has really, really carefully thought through its plans"

Maybe it should have thought through those plans before deciding to rebrand everything based on an unproven user-interface design?

Maybe neither of us are privy to Microsoft's innermost strategic decision-making processes, so neither are qualified to comment on whether they've thought this through?

That said, I would argue it is more efficient to expect that one of the world's largest companies would think very carefully about its options before making such a huge leap.

One more thing: remember that Microsoft is not gambling on the current Windows 8 UI paradigm itself. Not exactly. Microsoft is gambling on the general style: clean, clear typography matched with bold blocked colour and clear, simple iconography.

Take a look at http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx.

Granted it's not perfect, there are still hiccups - the search magnifying glass for instance. I expect those hiccups to be ironed out soon enough though. Regardless, what Microsoft is effectively doing is staking its claim on a visual style, which it clearly thinks will be prime real estate over the next decade. I think it'll pay off handsomely. At the very least they've wiped the slate clean and laid a foundation that will be much easier to tweak in future.

My first impression that Microsoft perhaps hadn't thought the whole Windows 8 UI through was actually gained at a Microsoft conference. A chap sitting in front of me was attempting to use the Windows 8 tiled interface on a laptop balanced on his lap - he reached out to do something, touching the screen and managing to knock the laptop off his lap onto the floor.

I like a lot of Microsoft products (Excel, Windows 7, Visual Studio, SQL Server, Dynamics AX) - so I'm not a Microsoft hater by any means but I do wonder about their judgement in this particular area.

Like I said in another comment, I'd never argue that Windows 8 right now is worth using. For most people it doesn't offer compelling improvements. Where I differ from most people is that I see a lot of promise in the future Windows 8 hints at, and I have a lot of trust in the ability of Microsoft to continually improve its processes, recognise its errors, and produce better and better products. That after all was the lesson of Vista for me - Microsoft is responsive to defects in its operations.

Everyone loves to rail on Metro but there are a ton of HCI reasons that its the superior interface and most people I know who've actually given it a fair shot (average users mostly) like it.

It's an odd decision to force onto people, but when most people actually use it, it's a pretty good interface and you realize the Start menu was actually less efficient in many regards.

People spent their entire computer lives relying on the Start Button and Taskbar. I spent a good amount of mine learning how to use it with the most efficiency and incorporated it into my daily workflow.

Then all of a sudden, in one single new version of Windows, it's all gone. Now 90% of people who have used this brand are completely lost. I gave it a fair shot and had to Google everything I did. I had trouble even getting to an internet browser.

Maybe an interface without a start menu is superior, but at the very least Windows 8 should have been a hybrid version which came with the Start button and taskbar enabled by default and a "new" way to remove the start button and taskbar.

Having to move my mouse in a certain corner of the screen to access a backend "metro" area (which is the only way to actually get to program or files now) is NOT good UI design.

It is not a superior interface for anything that isn't a small tablet or a phone. I'm in front of the big monitor and just to select another program boom the whole darned screen chnages the color, evrything I look at disappears just to present met "metro." That UI is good for the phone, awful for big screens. Whoever decided that it doesn't matter should be publicly humiliated. Ditto for those that claim that it's better for all cases.

Can you please explain how can you consider it superior to make everything you work with disappear, no matter how big the screen you work with is, just to start another program? I'm not interested for the screen sizes of the phones, but 21 inches and above. Then do the same discussion for all non-touch monitors and touch dependencies.

Metro existed before Windows 8 on the Windows phones. There's no good UI reason to make all big screen desktops behave like small screen phones. It was a pure political decision and they deserve every bad voice there is.

My girlfriend wants to watch a video on Netflix and have the PDF viewer open to read knitting patterns while she watches.

Oops, can't do that! The PDF viewer is fullscreen-only.

Set the default PDF viewer to Chrome, it renders well enough and is pretty quick. Also make sure to set most media default viewers to alternatives, like images, videos, and anything else that could trigger the default metro viewers.

Is that definitely right? Most metro apps should snap to 1/3 or 2/3 width allowing two apps side-by-side.

Edit: OK, so apparently you can[1] snap the default pdf viewer, but I can see it's not going to be a very nice experience having either a video or the pdf viewer occupying 1/3rd of the screen.

[1] http://www.eightforums.com/general-support/17670-how-snap-pd...

I'm a long time Windows user. I gave Win8 a try and had to google "How to shut down Windows 8" and "How to close apps in Windows 8". It's ridiculous. Just go to google and type in "how to shut " and it'll suggest you the rest. Same goes for "how to close apps ".

Great. So what? Just because the current product isn't good right now doesn't mean that the direction it is heading in is bad. You might not like Windows 8 that much, and you probably shouldn't. I'd never argue that people should like it. Why should they? It's a janky feature-sparse mashup OS. I use it on desktop myself and while I appreciate the performance bump and some of the new features, I don't have any use for Metro and it took quite a few tweaks for me to be happy with the desktop experience. You're absolutely right, currently it just doesn't offer the 10X product improvement necessary to induce eager consumer behaviour change.

Look, Microsoft is making an omelette. But right now all they have to sell is broken eggs. The only source of confusion here is that Microsoft's marketing department trying to convince everyone that they've got an omelette to sell. Look at it like that and there really isn't much to argue about anymore.

I'm responsible for supporting and developing for groups of people who currently have uncooked omelettes dripping down their chests.

Microsoft may have underestimated the learning curve on the new OS for one simple reason:

The benefits of learning a new method of interacting with a PC on a daily basis aren't compelling enough.

Hahaha sorry to hear that man. I feel for you.

You don't do that when you are the market leader with another company worth $140 billion breathing down your neck. That's how you lose the game and go bankrupt and are sitting out on the street wondering WTF just happened.

They have a proven product, Windows, which was great because of its ease of use. People literally grew up with Windows and many people rely on its consistent user interface. Then they made it unnecessarily difficult to access the file manager, applications, and the control panel just so that they could push their new and unproven "Metro" design. That's just DUMB.

You're quite right. That is ridiculous. It's ridiculous because when you install it and start it up it tells you about the hot corners and then lo and behold: there's the power button.

It actually physically pains me to be a Windows apologist, but it was right there.

The 'how to close apps' one I'll give you though, because the way they handle Windows 8 apps seems to be batshit crazy when viewed along side regular Windows apps on the same machine. If they'd just decided to go down that similar to iOS route with all their apps it'd make more sense, but having both systems there is just weird.

Personally I don't see the need to change it. Stick to their guns and people will complain about it and use it anyway. Then when the next non-trivial (or not) change comes along they'll bitch about that too and everyone will say Microsoft is doomed all over again.

Welcome to the real world: users (even power users) don't read on-screen instructions. You can throw at them hundreds of pop-ups and tutorials and wizards, and they still will just go next-next-next.

This is why UI designs must be intuitive. Metro is extremely intuitive in many ways, but it royally screwed up some basics (no shutdown button, no alternative to hot corner... no no no).

I didn't get any tutorial of the new features with the hot corners etc.. Never got any introduction. I googled it and closing apps is described here: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/how-close-app

Funny part is that it just doesn't work with a mouse. It does work well on my Win8 tablet.

Also, I didn't wanna use the power button since I wanted to actually restart it. (Actually I was in a VM).

Why don't you just press the power button on your PC? That sends a signal to Windows to do a soft-shutdown.

And it will close all your apps too!

I actually was in a full screen VM. Also, I actually wanted to do a restart and not a shut down.

I've heard this a few times from people and the really baffling part of it for me is how many people still shut down their computers these days. Maybe I'm a special case, but for laptops I close the lid and it sleeps until I need it again and for desktops, I get up and walk away and it goes to sleep until I need it again. The only time it shuts down or restarts is when an update requires it.

Tell me about it! The only time I even restart my machine is that Tuesday every month when the updates are forced, and then its forced when I come to the office on Wednesday since I postponed from the day before.

I've used Win7 for years and I always use "WinKey+RightArrow+RightArrow" and then I either press 'r', 's' or sleep or restart or whatever I want (it's super quick onece you're used to it). I don't want my lid to do anything. I have SSH session open and don't want them to kill (and don't start about screen...). Also, my power button would've just shut down linux since the Win8 was in a VM.

baffling, really? Here's the other side: electricity isn't free.. Ok it's not that expensive, but I know enough people that shhut it down just for that extra bit of peace of mind knowing they are not wasting energy. Or as some might even say, in the extreme, ruining the planet even more :P

It was incredible short-sighted to force Metro upon Windows 8 in the first place and hope it will just work out somehow. Metro may be fine on a tablet, but is a inherently bad and tedious user-experience on the PC, and for people using PCs for productivity purposes it's downright useless. Current UI-Idioms have worked and have been improved upon for nearly 3 decades. They are throwing them out in favor of something, that has, as of yet, only found some limited use in smartphones.

Yes, Microsoft needs to gain a foothold in the mobile market, and the best way to do that is probably using Windows as leverage. But if they are not careful they are alienating their existing user-base. Things like removing the Start-Button to promote more use of Metro is an incredibile stupid move, and all the feedback prior to release was pointing out these problems. Yet they went ahead, hoping it'll magically work out. It's doesn't, and the only ones who loves it, are sellers of third-party Start-Button Apps ;)

Look at how OS X is set up. It shares a tremendous amount of APIs with iOS. Apps on the OS X AppStore feel similar to the ones on the iOS AppStore, yet they manage to incorporate PC UI-Idioms like Windows and Point & Click input. No you can not write one App for all systems, but it allows you to share a lot of common code, and create Apps, that have a unified UE, and still are adapted perfectly for each platform. This direction makes much more sense.

We tie OS ugrades to new hardware. After issuing a couple of hundred really nice ultrabooks with Windows 8, people were literally demanding old Dell 630's that had been upgraded to Windows 7 back.

I personally am starting to like Windows 8 -- but the experience is weird and took me about a month to get used to.

They should have held the release back until they had Office integrated with the Metro UI. That's a challenge to, because the multi-tasking, window-based desktop metaphor is kind of a key advantage of Windows that you lose with Metro.

You might be right, I'm not arguing that Microsoft's performance and decisions have been 100% correct.

Ya, the only thing I'm asking is that staid old tired microsoft use their enterprise customers as Guinea pigs for their SecureBoot and UI/UX experimentation, and leave us consumers with access to a clean marketplace for devices (read: no infecting motherboards with monopoly-extending signing keys and other DRM schemes).

That is all We The People ask.