Hacker News Reader

Umm... You are accusing MS of just forcing their choices upon their users? Isn't that Apple's standard (and actually well documented. Remember that article about Innovator's dillemma and jobs?) policy? I thought apple was famous for completely ignoring their users and telling them WHAT they want. Now THAT is use of monopoly. Google does that too (remember closing off gtalk?).

Secondly, the Metro UI thing, IMHO wasn't a forceful use of power. It was a bet (a lost one) that touchscreen laptops will become predominant. And So they created a UI based on that bet. They (incorrectly) thought that people want exactly the same UI on all their devices. So it's not that they are EVIL, just misguided.

So i don't HATE Microsoft, i just pity them.

The problem is not that MS is forcing choices on their desktop users. Apple, Google, Yahoo, and everyone else does that. The problem is that MS is forcing terrible choices on their desktop users.

They had one job. One job. Don't screw up Windows. And what'd they do? They screwed up Windows.

Metro was a mistake. And again, everybody else makes mistakes, too. But then they went full retard, and refused to backtrack. That part is the reason for the "hate."

You sound like someone who hasn't used Windows 8 before, or not for longer than half a day anyways. Windows 8 in desktop mode really isn't any different from Windows 7, except for the fact that the Start menu is now fullscreen instead of a popup menu. Metro a mistake? That might be your opinion, but I fiercely disagree with it.

Just because you don't like Metro, for whatever reason that might be, does not make it a mistake.

14 years experience in IT. Had to google to find the shutdown switch. Sorry but Win8 is absurd.

I wouldn't say absurd... just different. I mean, if you have been using windows for 14 years and are used to teh Maximize button, and then you use MacOS and click the box button beside the x and.. something COMPLETELY different happens. does that make MacOS absurd? or does that make windows absurd to Mac users? (while proponents of both OS would tell you YES it DOES make it absurd, but they are both WRONG aren't they?) Different isn't necessarily a bad design.

Your computer's power button functions as a shutdown switch. After 14 years in IT, you have never realised that?

My computer's power button is on the other side of the room.

Don't break useful, common functionality because you think it's not important.

I was using it in a touchscreen tabletop.

Sticking to my guns on this one and choosing to let your sarcastic tone slide.

Oh come off it. Name me an established software company that hasn't forced choices on their desktop users that many of them have considered "terrible". Over a similar timescale Apple has been responsible for the debacle that was Apple Maps (to reduce dependence on Google) and the dubious aesthetics of iOS7 whilst Google and Yahoo have forced millions of users to choose other services as they go on shutdown rampages (to focus on more profitable areas) and in Yahoo's case, touted the availability of your old Yahoo email addresses to phishers (because they're crazy?). Meanwhile, despite your "refuse to backtrack" claim Microsoft has brought the much-missed Start button back in the first major patch and continues to ship Windows 7 - you can even downgrade your 8 license if you miss it too much. You can't do that with iOS7 which despite being a relatively conservative update had equally mixed reviews...

Criticising Microsoft is like shooting fish in a barrel, so it's odd you'd pick on them for innovating without thought to convention and backward compatibility - an area where they're generally more cautious than the peers you named - and a product that actually has plenty of fans.

The issue was never about the loss of the Start button. It was about the loss of the Start menu. That hasn't been fixed.

I don't understand why so many people fall for this misdirection.

I don't understand why so many people think a small text menu is better than a full page customizable selection screen with decent built-in search...

It's called "mental context."

Also, what kind of drugs does one need to ingest to make it seem like a good idea to enforce UI conventions optimized for 4" cell phones on a user with a pair of 30" desktop monitors? Are we talking plant-based alkaloids, aromatic hydrocarbons, or what?

I guess it's a person to person thing. I am still on win7 and i usually have a lot of windows open, and i rarely ever browse through the start menu. What i usually do is press the windows button, and start typing the name of the program i wanna use. OR I press win+D to get straight to the desktop (a full screen menu consisting of things i frequently use) and choose from there.

So for someone like me, isn't the Metro Start menu good design? It has both the type-to-search thing and a full screen menu of icons i usually use.

Look i admit it seemed a little intimidating when i first saw it. Heck we have been using the start menu for more than a decade! It's almost part of our DNA now, so seeing the entire screen change in place of a menu is.... unexpected. But is it really that bad? Do you REALLY still browse through the start menu?

What i usually do is press the windows button, and start typing the name of the program i wanna use.

This debate was settled when Windows replaced MS-DOS. Most users do not want to remember, or type, the names of the programs they want to use.

Do you REALLY still browse through the start menu?

Yes, frequently.

Then you are simply a different user type.

Btw I presume from the bit about ms dos that you dont llike shells. But thats ur preference

No, I live at the Windows command prompt, pretty much. But like you said, I'm a different user type.

The difference between me and the people at Microsoft is that I understand that there are different user types. None of which asked for their desktop PC to behave more like their cell phone.

Exactly. That was the big mistake behind windows 8. Their "one interface for all devices" idea. We didnt WANT same interface on all devices

But they're not forcing you to use Windows 8, do they? In the days of DOS and Win 95, they used every dirty trick in the book to force competitors out of the market. Nowadays they can't do that anymore. A lot of software that was only available on DOS or Windows is now available on Mac and Linux.

And even if you do need Windows, Win7 works fine. I feel forced to switch from XP to 7, but that's not such a terrible move. I'll skip Win8, and maybe there won't even be a Win9.

Or maybe it'll be better. Microsoft has a history of alternating good and bad products. XP, Vista, win7, Win8... just one example

Just consider. The very recent imposition of the Metro/Windows 8 interface on a widely unwilling public is prima facie evidence of MS' continuing abuse of it's particular monopoly.

If they were truly a monopoly, they would not have seen it as important to respond and revise Windows 8. Real monopolies can abuse their customers and have no qualms about it. Microsoft is no longer in that position, so they changed direction once they saw what was happening in the market. The fact that they responded to the market and changed course is evidence that they have no monopoly power in this matter. They simply made a huge mistake due to being terrified of what iPad was doing to them, and they decided wrong. It's nothing more than that.

And besides, it's not like they didn't have a public beta program in the first place.

If they were truly a monopoly, they would not have seen it as important to respond and revise Windows 8.

Obviously things aren't black and white, we're arguing the degree of monopoly of MS. Consider, yes, eventually you hit the elephant hard enough with a 2x4 and it responds. It didn't respond much even then. And even government granted, official monopolies respond a little bit criticism.

Real monopolies can abuse their customers and have no qualms about it.

Many people would view MS as being just that way. But sure, maybe there's some leeway. But "no monopoly power" is bending the stick ridiculously far in the other direction. I mean, MS is convicted monopolist. They already lost a lawsuit in the 90's. [1] MS' strangle-hold PC operating system remains the same even if other markets (the web, the phone etc) have risen. (Edit: Consider, if MS did face competition in the PC operating system market, they might feel pressure to improve the PC rather than just milking their position for the purpose of entering other markets.)

And besides, it's not like they didn't have a public beta program in the first place.

Now there's some counter evidence to all your earlier argument. All the beta people were expressing shock and horror and MS did ... nothing.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

>The very recent imposition of the Metro/Windows 8 interface on a widely unwilling public is prima facie evidence of MS' continuing abuse of it's particular monopoly.

How is that in any way an evidence for abuse of monopoly? I have Windows 7 on my laptop and have no immediate plans to upgrade it to Windows 8. Unless they force it through automatic updates or cancel my Win 7 license, there is clearly no abuse. You can still vote with your wallet.. you know?

>A huge number of Windows users woke up without a Start Button.

Huh?

I think you are describing things from the point of view of the aware, tech-savy user. The average user buys stuff and things happen.

People bought laptops and the laptops weren't what they were expecting. There's a lot they could have done in the abstract. There's a lot less they were capable of doing in reality.

I can understand from a moral/business perspective that drastic changes should be avoided in new releases but how is that an abuse of monopolistic power?

Would you call Ubuntu's decision to suddenly switch all the window controls (Minimize, Maximize, Close) from left to right in one version an abuse of their "monopoly" in the Linux desktop world?

The majority of users don't live in a Ubuntu world, they have to deal with Microsoft at their job or school. Corporations are demanding Windows 7 over Windows 8.

And Linux users have a full spectrum of distributions to choose from. If Ubuntu acts like an ass-hat, I can easily switch to Mint when the LTS version is no longer supported. I have a choice of desktops environments that all run the same services and applications. I'm not locked in, nor is my data. Squeeeeeee!

The very recent imposition of the Metro/Windows 8 interface on a widely unwilling public is prima facie evidence of MS' continuing abuse of it's particular monopoly.

Huh? First of all, companies impose new things on their customers all the time. Secondly, I thought a company was abusing their monopoly when they use it to extort profit where there was none before? Changing the UI doesn't seem to be exploiting monopoly power for profit...

I'm no fan of MS: see my comments in general. But your criticisms are a bit too extreme. MS announces EOL dates well in advance of stopping sales [1]. Those who want to hoard up on licences can do so. Windows 7 is still available for sale [1]. Those who did not want Metro could still have used Win 7. In any case, MS listened to its customers and brings back these features in Win 8.1 -- or so I hear: Linux single-booter here.

[1] http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/products/lifecycl...

Oh how you must suffer typing that comment on the Surface RT you've been forced at gunpoint to use.

Wait... how is getting rid of the start button monopolistic, exactly?