Why Windows 7 is not the answer | Hacker News Reader

Why Windows 7 is not the answer

blog.dustincurtis.com

28 pointsdcurtis53 comments

So tell me, how do we make Windows 7 better? Do we make decisions for our users and then complaints for not offering options? Where is the medium here, and how is such a thing even remotely close to a reason why Windows 7 is not the answer? You answer this dialog once after you first install, and you never see it again if you use recommended settings. So what's so confusing about that?

Don't make me think.

> So tell me, how do we make Windows 7 better?

We? Do you work for Microsoft?

> Do we make decisions for our users and then complaints for not offering options?

That depends on what kind of decision is being made. Whenever you offer a choice it needs to be clear what tradeoff is being made. Why would anyone not want the recommended option? A better dialog would read something like this?

Do you want Windows to automatically download driver software for your devices? This works most of the time, but can cause problems with a few less popular devices.

__ Yes (recommended) __ No, I don't trust you idiots at Microsoft. I want to manage my drivers manually.

Do you want Windows to download realistic icons for your devices? Realistic icons look better, but use more disk space and RAM, and can have a negative impact on performance.

__ Yes, I'm all about the eye candy. __ No, I have the need for speed.

> Do we make decisions for our users and then complaints for not offering options?

No. You make decisions for your users and then offer them options. Under "Options." Or "Control Panel," as you so bizarrely insist on calling it.

Oh, and you realize that for 90% of your users, "driver software" == Mario Kart.

Make a non-idiot mode. When non-idiot mode is activated the following occurs:

#1 All folders show "name" "extension" "size" "date created" "date modified" and nothing else. All alterations made by the user are automatically filtered into the entire filesystem. Don't ever "guess" what a directory is for. Computers are shit at guessing things.

#2 When I try to change a .png extension to .jpg I don't want alerted that this will "make the file unusable". That is an insult to my intelligence.

#3 When I try to delete a file that another process has a lock on you TELL ME WHAT GODDAMNED PROCESS HAS A LOCK ON IT so I can kill it.

#4 The GUI should look like windows 2000, no fussing with silly transparent windows or Mac wanna-be bullshit. I avoid macs for the same reason I avoid the Candyland.

#5 All files are assumed to be text files unless otherwise associated with other applications. That is, if I click on phat.properties, load it into whatever phat.txt would have been loaded into, most likely notepad.

#6 I use notepad more than almost any other application. It's time to start giving it more features. I'll bet there are 100 hackers at microsoft who would love to make notepad into a new emacs.

#7 Port every popular unix utility (grep, locate, sed, whatever) to windows and let me run them from the command prompt.

#8 Switch backslashes to forward slashes.

#9 Bring back qbasic gorilla.

I detest the idea of a "non-idiot mode" or "expert mode". Software doesn't need to be complicated to be powerful.

#1 Google Docs has a fantastic organizational tool which is much better suited to the task than a traditional file system.

#2 Why are we messing with file names anyway? Flickr doesn't force me to think about this problem.

#3 Why can't I unlink a file instead of deleting it? Why should I have to kill a process?

#4 shrug Beautiful is welcome if you don't suck down my resources too badly.

#5 Again, normal users are forced to interact with file systems far too often.

#6 If you like Emacs so much, why don't you just use Emacs?

#7 PowerShell comes with Windows 7... or you can install Cygwin.

#8 shrug both technically already work nearly everywhere.

You are proposing "solutions" to common problems you have had. Your solutions have a remedy nature to them. You exhibit the traditional Microsoft band-aid mentality. Microsoft's culture is designed around managing complexity. We're damn good at coming up with complex solutions to complex problems. We are very weak at deriving simple solutions to complex problems. However, more importantly, we are very weak at identifying important problems to solve, and hence simplifying the needs for solutions. It seems to me like you would fit right in here. That is not necessarily a good thing.

If you like Emacs so much, why don't you just use Emacs?

Not the point. Microsoft has had a blank-slate opportunity with things like calc and notepad but has squandered them. Why not make calc the world's best calculator? Why not make notepad the best text editor? Instead, those apps are just like the 1998 versions, while they've diddled with the meaningless start menu and control panel for probably 200 million dollars in man hours.

Microsoft is not capable of making the world's best calculator or the world's best notepad.

That's the real problem.

"Not capable" can have two meanings. First, you could mean that Microsoft engineers lack the skill and ability to make a better calculator or text editor. Second, you could mean that Microsoft's hands are tied by a variety of reasons (legacy support, antitrust concerns, etc).

I know it's popular to assume Microsoft's incompetency, but that's not the case here.

Many engineers internally have proposed changes and provided patches that could drastically improve the functionality. However, the gatekeepers are incredibly conservative. Not only do they have to consider the legacy issues, but they also have to consider all of the ISVs who would kick and scream about anti-trust. The subset of the customer base who would truly appreciate a better notepad do not justify the risks.

It is 100% the point. If you want a specific tool, go use that tool. There are probably more lines of code to handle indentation in emacs than in all of notepad.

Fwiw, since '98, notepad gained keyboard shortcuts and calculator had its backend rewritten to handle higher precision decimals. Both are simple utilities for simple tasks.

And you know what? The best calculator in the world, it has physical buttons. Or, it is Mathematica. Answering which is best depends completley on the question, and totally misses the point.

Microsoft has a high-end text editor, it is called Visual Studio. The express versions are available for free.

Microsoft does ship a more powerful calculator, also for free, as a "Power Toy". It is just about as powerful as you can get without competing against Mathematica or Maple. However, I'd assume they have not included it with the OS for fear of anti-trust complaints from Wolfram or Maplesoft. All that said, Windows 7 will include an upgraded calculator with a "programmer mode": http://www.online-tech-tips.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/w...

The funny thing is that NO ONE (that matters) complains about calc or notepad. Calc and notepad are completely inconsequential to IT decision makers and personal buyers. The start menu, however, has not scaled to support the shear number of applications the average user has. It is a pain point which IT administrators complained about on a routine basis. It also supports an insanely high level of customization which is 100% controllable by group policy and the like. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

That sounds more like "my extremely personal preferences mode" than "non-idiot mode".

Why waiting for microsoft to build these things? Use GNU/Linux.

the problem is that you seem to be looking for a solution in the form of a design process, when what you really need is an organizational/political fix. You have wicked smart UI people (http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/). you just need to let them do their jobs.

There are some people whose definition of "good" is "Apple." You can never win on this turf: anything that isn't Apple, is bad; anything that is like Apple, is a copycat.

The people who have more useful information are probably those that hop on OSes all the time and spend a majority of their time in pre-7 windows flavors.

I never played with W7, but I would probably be annoyed by that dialog box if I see it in a normal situation. Right now I can see two attacks to this problem.

First, for the config-philic person, allow them to choose during OS install whether they would like to be exposed to configs-galore. For those who don't just go with the defaults and allow them to enable configs-galore themselves later. The (cognitive) memory cost here is 1 item: where to find the option to enable configs-galore.

Second, pop up these kinds of window depending on how close the action is to the OS install. If it is within a few days, my memory of "fresh OS install" is salient and it would not be surprising for me to see config dialogs pop up here and there. If it was over 2 weeks though, I'm most likely coasting already and would hate to see something disrupt my flow.

Other than that, though, that dialog box looks fine to me. I don't find it the least bit confusing. In fact, the choices it gives are quite complete and pleasing as such.

/Mac user on a daily basis.

Dustin is absolutely right that Microsoft needs to figure out a better way of 'what needs to happen automagically, and what doesn't'. The other side of this is of course the mac. With my mac I often feel like it's doing a bunch of things for me, and not letting me know what that is. I think Mac goes to far in the other direction.

Like what, exactly? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just really can't think of anything. All the stuff my Mac does automatically seems to be standard OS stuff that I really don't need to deal with personally each and every time. Like connecting to a wireless network without giving me a giant, sticky notification that it's done so.

Off the top of my head, automatically setting file-sharing to share your public folder over their AFP protocol, but hiding the ability to share files with Windows computers in an arcane dialog box. To do Windows sharing, you have to click Options under Sharing, and understand that "SMB sharing" is actually secret code for Windows sharing.

And, even though any old Mac can connect to yours, it's impossible (AFAIK) to enable anonymous sharing over SMB, which causes problems with stuff like XBMC.

A button labeled "Options..." is arcane?

It is when it's small, in the corner, and surrounded by a whole bunch of other options. There's no reason why the option to share your files with ~90% of the computing world should be buried three clicks deep and esoterically named.

edit to note: Perplexingly, it seems they got it right in Tiger before screwing it up in Leopard, which is very unlike Apple... http://guides.macrumors.com/images/4/41/Mac_sharing_screensh...

It is, in fact, the same size as any other button, and the only text-labeled button in that pane. I struggle to comprehend how it is arcane for a file sharing option to be found by clicking a button labeled "Options..." in a pane labeled "File Sharing".

That's assume that you even have to navigate to it. It's much easier to type in "windows file sharing" in the System Preferences search box and hit enter. It takes you right to it. Can we agree that typing words in a search box is not arcane?

I agree that having a hint indicating that Windows needs SMB would be helpful to people who have no idea what they're doing, but it certainly isn't a "secret code" when SMB is the actual name of protocol. In any event, the original question was about excessive automation. Defaulting to the native file sharing protocol can hardly be considered excessive.

We're splitting some major hairs here, but my point is that placing and misnaming this option, an extremely common task you'd want to accomplish in this pane, in a second-layer dialog, when a majority of the options are in the first layer, is unequivocally user-unfriendly. I would mock up a better solution, but Apple already has (see above). You're looking at this from a developer's perspective; to the average user, SMB may as well be secret code. And it has everything to do with excessive automation, mostly because it's hard for a novice to 'un-automate'.

There is no splitting hairs when you use phrases like "unequivocally user-unfriendly". This is not a minor detail. You are wrong.

Comparing to the previous interface is a non-starter, as you don't account for the differences. Previously, none of the file sharing protocols had an interface for choosing which folders to share and with what permissions. Now that there is such an interface, the three options for sharing files are grouped behind that common function. This makes the first layer consistent about what is being shared and the second (Options...) about how, an extremely common and familiar style of interface. If it is "unequivocally user-unfriendly" here, why is it tolerable in a hundred other places in almost every GUI?

Dismissing my view as that of a developer (which I am not) does not give you the authority to speak for the supposed "average user". It does not take a particularly sophisticated user to find the right pane (as my previous post showed), and once found, even the solitary use of jargon is at most a speed-bump. Even the help button on that very same pane leads to a clear answer. Using unambiguous and factually accurate terminology in the interface is not arcane or secret just because the meaning is not immediately obvious to all potential users. Consider terms like "Ethernet", "WiFi", or "DVD". Should we banish these terms from interfaces, too?

I have no idea what you mean by "un-automate". The entire process here is user-driven. The operating system is not doing anything without explicit user action. Are you against the idea of using sensible defaults?

I'm going to write off most of this as a difference of opinion, because we're not getting anywhere. I have big problems with two things - First, designers always have to make tradeoffs based on what terminology their users are familiar with. A HUGE majority of users know the terms DVD and WiFi. I'm a CS major and didn't know what SMB was until recently. There's a blatantly obvious difference, especially when the term 'Windows Sharing' could be used. Secondly, I'm not against the idea of using sensible defaults, but I don't believe the decision to not share with Windows computers is a sensible default.

I don't know that we do differ in opinion now. You appear to have given up your earlier claims, and your main assertion here is one that I already agreed with: "I agree that having a hint indicating that Windows needs SMB would be helpful to people who have no idea what they're doing".

I haven't given up on them, I just see that part as a legitimate disagreement. And the only reason I made that assertion is because you appeared (to me at least) to have given up your earlier claims, when you said "Using unambiguous and factually accurate terminology in the interface is not arcane or secret just because the meaning is not immediately obvious to all potential users." Can we call this done now? :)

I no longer have any idea what you're talking about.

I would say that SMB is pretty arcane. Further, this is likely what most people want to do when they share files if they aren't in a mac-only environment. Why isn't SMB enabled by default? Why doesn't the option mention that this is what's needed to interface with windows computers?

this is likely what most people want to do when they share files if they aren't in a mac-only environment.

Obviously true, but not a strong argument against placing the option where it is. It is not difficult to find by navigation, and searching for "windows file sharing" in System Preferences or Spotlight takes the user directly to the sheet containing that option.

Why isn't SMB enabled by default?

According to the dialog box and the associated help menu, SMB requires your password to be stored in a less secure way.

Why doesn't the option mention that this is what's needed to interface with windows computers?

I agree, it should.

Applications install.

It could be really simple, but it's definitely not obvious: With Windows, you go through the installer. With Linux, you (often) go through the command line. Mac: drag somewhere, run. Where'd it go? Where do other users find it?

The completeness of the installer packages also varies. They don't tell you drag to the same place.

Comfort with all these quirks, regardless of OS, are highly habit-dependent. Once you really know what's going on, that OS is your "answer." To me, the issue in the article is merely about conversion and new customers.

> Where'd it go?

I know you didn't mean it like this, but this is actually an interesting question. On Windows, the files probably went into the Program Files directory, but if you try to go there in Windows explorer, you get a "these are system files, keep out" warning. Which is quite correct, you wouldn't expect an end user to open an application from Program Files, there will probably be a bunch of unrelated exes to distract you.

So where is it? I guess the answer is "in the start menu". People probably believe that abstraction, to the point that MS had to put a "this is just a shortcut, you need to use add remove programs to actually delete the application" message.

Package managers, much the same story. Where are the binaries? In a versioned repository somewhere, on mac ports somewhere under /opt/local. How do you run them? Type their name in the command line, often you ignore where the files actually are.

And finally, back to OS X itself. How do you install an application? Drag it into the applications directory.

Where is it? It's in Applications. How do you run it? Go to Applications and double click on it.

The only case I've pointed to where the answers to "how do I install it", "where is it" and "how do I run it" end up in the same place, the Applications directory, is where you point out a usability issue. User interface design is hard!

My guess is it comes down to expectations. "Go to the Applications folderand click on the application I want to run? It can't possibly be that simple!" and then spend 15 minutes looking for a pull down menu to launch the application.

Yup, expectations is right. When I started out, I was dragging apps to the dock and the desktop -- and they worked! I did this even to huge packages (100+ MB) and they just worked with no process. It was mysterious, almost disconcerting. And if I did things this way, other users didn't know where to find them.

Then you have other packages which launch the installer. As longwinded as they are, they give me a sense of control and make me feel more comfortable even if the same process is happening.

You can tell that I'm a latecomer to the OS X scene; frankly still don't know where the apps are going, but because it is hidden from me already, I don't want to bother. I always launch with spotlight and I have only opened the Applications folder once.

MacPorts was also highly confusing: you get a second Python. OpenCV installs to the system, PIL installs to ports. Now I'm sure there's a way to do so-and-so, but coming from w32/linux, it's just download, install.

The best way to design an error message is to figure out why you need it in the first place, and eliminate that "need" (i.e. you don't display any message). If the proverbial house isn't burning down, the user doesn't need to know. Most messages can be non-modal, tucked away in a conspicuous spot but not immediately stopping whatever the user is doing. Even those can often close themselves, not requiring acknowledgment, ever.

Somewhere along the line, people forgot that computers are supposed to be tools, and decided it was okay to put up with constant interruptions to their work. I swear, using Windows is like raising a small, needy child.

Probably what happens when no one's in charge and the legal, backwards compatibility, etc. teams have veto power over the UX people.

See also: (re: windows vista shutdown UI)

http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-c...

It's nice to see a concrete example of the "design-by-committee" that MS is accused of with windows.

In Windows, the node I was working on was 4 levels removed from the root.

This is terrifying. It sounds like the Windows development process is about to collapse under its own complexity.

While I agree with you, I'd be interested to know if there are any 'intelligent' solutions to this problem. You can't possibly just have thousands of devs checking into one central SVN repo, can you? Any idea how Apple does it?

Apple has less than 1% the number of developers working on OS X than Microsoft has working on Windows. Im sure the problems are a lot easier to deal with.

Interesting. Do you have a source for those numbers? I can't seem to find data about this anywhere.

That is very interesting. I am sure both companies break their teams into smaller units of 5-20 people. But the structure of that environment might be quite telling.

What are the cross-sections that the dev teams work under? Who reports to what sections, what does this group feel their job is vs. that group? etc. etc.

Sorry for not following up sooner. Honestly I wonder if distributed version control systems, as currently being heralded by the open source community, might not be the answer. If you remove (or augment) the hierarchy with lateral connections perhaps you can solve some of these problems.

Of course DVCS for something as highly targeted and heavily secured as the NT code tree would open a firestorm of other potential attack vectors, but it's worth it for MS to explore those problems.

Regardless of the technical solution, this may represent the biggest challenge that MS to date has ever had to solve -- figuring out how to scale their agility has been the key to success so far and there are obvious signs that this might be a local maximum. For the good of large scale tech I hope they can crack it.

I have installed this version of W7 on a few machines and never encountered this message. Not to say it didn't happen, but it seems to be an exception and not the rule.

It seems to me that ruling out an OS because of a single, albeit lame, dialog box is serious hyperbole. Windows 7 is a serious advancement for Microsoft by any account.

This is a RC and it needs tuning. I'm not sure I know of an OS that "is the answer". I'm not looking for an identity in an OS. I'm looking for a useful tool. If you are looking for the answer in a computer operating system, you are going to be seriously disappointed.

Get your expectations in order and give it a fair shake.

Nah, it's not just Microsoft, it's the accepted and assumed by default idiotic behavior of windows software. My friends' Logitech mouse driver greets him every morning, it politely asks him if he wishes to "Download the latest incoming messages from Logitech", to what he replies "No, thank you". Every goddamn morning.

Personally I think this is one more "why lose a chance to bad mouth MS" kind of post.

Like pedalpete points, its a design choice: Windows seems to dump more decisions to the user whereas Mac is on the other extreme.

Of course the dialogs like that are silly but why judge Win7 based on that. I am using Win7 since beta and my Toshiba tecra has never been faster. The setup took less than 20 mins and no crash since I installed in Jan. No driver availability issues like with Vista.

If you are a Windows guy, I do think Win7 is the answer.

Of course the dialogs like that are silly but why judge Win7 based on that.

Because the dialogs are part of Windows 7, and they represent a distinct user interaction paradigm that exists throughout the operating system. Why shouldn't you judge an OS that you will be using regularly based on how it is designed to interact with you?

Its not like each and every dialog you get in Win7 is meaningless.

The point is that this isn't a bug or fluke or outlier, it's just an extreme example of the usual Windows model of interaction.

Well I do think 7 is a step in the right direction, but you're right, this dialog is horrible.

You know what I'd like to see? An "Engineering Windows 7" blog entry that explained exactly why Microsoft found it necessary to include this abomination in their flagship product.

There's probably an overarching design requirement that their software not contact MS's servers for privacy reasons.

The buttons should be in a different order, and the wording should be changed, though.

Actually, I think the biggest problem with this dialog box is not that it's present, it's that the question makes no sense.

As best I can tell, it's actually two questions merged into one, though the answers are still separated out, except the answer to the second question seems to depend on the first; but the first question isn't simply yes/no, it's yes/no(A)/no(B)/no(C), and by the time I've finished trying to parse the question and the proffered answers I've given up caring.

I can guess at what it's asking, but I'm a software developer. How is a normal end-user supposed to make an even halfway-informed choice?

If Windows is going to push these choices out in front of me, it needs to ask questions users can understand.

I agree with the poster, but unfortunately since Windows tries to cater to everyone they often cater to noone. If they put the dialog in, people complain. If they leave it out, people complain. I only know what would make me happy, not all of the other Windows users.

As the author noted, this is Release Candidate software. Bugs like this are supposed to get ironed out here before it is released to market.

These kinds of bugs can often be difficult to catch because when I am debugging things, I often click through dialogs without really reading them. Of course they say what they're supposed to (and it makes sense), because I wrote them!

It's like having someone else proof-read a paper. If not, you'll just fill in the holes yourself.

It's not a bug, it's a feature. I actually mean that, it strikes a balance between 'sure, do your thing computer' and 'no, I would like to specify exactly what should happen'.

This approach has been built into Windows for a long time and I like it. I have a mix of hardware in my computer and some I configure automagically but some I need to set up manually. I suspect the blogger cited in the OP has never had to do technical support for a living.

Also remember that when Microsoft call it Release Candidate, they mean 'Beta'.

This is because when they used to call this phase Beta, they found that corporate IT depts wouldn't try it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com