4 ms·

I remember being excited about Windows 10 a few years ago because it got people on a modern browser. https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/why-everyone-shoul

I remember being excited about Windows 10 a few years ago because it got people on a modern browser. https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/why-everyone-should-love-windows-10/ https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/why-everyone-should-... Microsoft needs to jettison more legacy so they can move faster.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
Microsoft needs to jettison more legacy so they can move faster. Move faster to where?
- unit91 9y ago
  New features, fewer bugs, increased profitability... that is, towards the goals of pretty much any (software) company.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "New features, fewer bugs, increased profitability" Can you name me one IDE that has more features, fewer bugs and better profitability than Visual Studio? I respect that Microsoft are not at the top of all fields they're involved in (search, mobile, etc...), but they aren't exactly struggling to stay competitive with every product they create.
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      They were definitely struggling with IE. Moving to Edge has brought them neck and neck again.
    - unit91 9y ago
      I didn't say, nor do I think, that Microsoft has fewer features, more bugs, and lower profit than everybody else. Rather, that the goals of pretty much everyone in the software business are features, fewest bugs possible, and most profit possible. I'm not even sure I agree with the great-grandparent post that MSFT needs to jettison legacy. Frankly, I don't know enough about their numbers to have an informed opinion. My point was that it seems pretty clear what the poster meant by "move faster". So the question "to what?" isn't all that helpful.
      - ZenoArrow 9y ago
        > "My point was that it seems pretty clear what the poster meant by "move faster". So the question "to what?" isn't all that helpful." To be honest, I find that strange. Moving faster without setting goals about what you're moving faster for (other than profit) seems like a good recipe for dilution of focus. A company requires focus in order to maximise efficiency. Building up spare capacity just to buy time to run around like headless chickens seems like a wasted opportunity, from a business perspective.
  - usrusr 9y ago
    For Microsoft, profitability depends quite a bit on people not leaving their comfort zone of "runs any old software thrown at it". If you are Microsoft, jettisoning legacy means jettisoning customers.
ShroudedNight 9y ago
>Microsoft needs to jettison more legacy so they can move faster. Microsoft would have significantly more freedom of action if they didn't repeatedly run roughshod over their users' personal agency over their devices.
Silhouette 9y ago
Microsoft needs to jettison more legacy so they can move faster. Why? For important business software, stability and longevity are good things. From a commercial point of view, I know my businesses would have happily paid Microsoft for a version of Windows 7 that continued to get updates for security and for compatibility with new hardware but otherwise stayed much the same. Likewise, we'd pay for ongoing support of key business software like Office (and other big name products from other big name brands) if that were available. Given genuinely beneficial improvements, we'd pay for genuine upgrades as well, on a timetable of our choosing. However, we have no interest in upgrade treadmills for anything that matters, whether they are pushed via subscription plans or via incompatibility. So, moving faster in this case is directly costing Microsoft revenues. While my own anecdotal experience is only that, I have to think we're not the only small businesses making the sorts of decisions we're making for the reasons that we're making them.
cm2187 9y ago
Everyone uses chrome or firefox anyway. I don't think the browser changes anything to OS adoption.
- nofilter 9y ago
  As a web developer, this is not true. An large number of clients I've worked with have used IE and thanks to Win 10 shipping with Edge (which in itself is a decent browser) I've noticed a huge decline in "but it looks odd in my browser" comments from clients. So while I don't like Windows, or Microsoft in general, I do like the push to get rid of legacy stuff by them.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    What I have read so far is that Edge usage on the web is marginal despite (forced?) windows 10 adoption.
    - nofilter 9y ago
      Yes it is, but lots of companies have upgraded to 10. Of all the offices I visit I see Edge open a lot. Chrome of course is the most popular, but I'm happy the awful web rendering engine that is IE is soon gone.
- romanovcode 9y ago
  One time I used Edge for about two months on my Windows PC just because I was too lazy to download and set-up Chrome after format. The only reason why eventually I switched to Chrome was Chromecast. Other than that Edge + uBlock Origin was doing everything any modern browsers do.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago

Microsoft needs to jettison more legacy so they can move faster. Move faster to where?

unit91 9y ago
New features, fewer bugs, increased profitability... that is, towards the goals of pretty much any (software) company.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "New features, fewer bugs, increased profitability" Can you name me one IDE that has more features, fewer bugs and better profitability than Visual Studio? I respect that Microsoft are not at the top of all fields they're involved in (search, mobile, etc...), but they aren't exactly struggling to stay competitive with every product they create.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    They were definitely struggling with IE. Moving to Edge has brought them neck and neck again.
  - unit91 9y ago
    I didn't say, nor do I think, that Microsoft has fewer features, more bugs, and lower profit than everybody else. Rather, that the goals of pretty much everyone in the software business are features, fewest bugs possible, and most profit possible. I'm not even sure I agree with the great-grandparent post that MSFT needs to jettison legacy. Frankly, I don't know enough about their numbers to have an informed opinion. My point was that it seems pretty clear what the poster meant by "move faster". So the question "to what?" isn't all that helpful.
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      > "My point was that it seems pretty clear what the poster meant by "move faster". So the question "to what?" isn't all that helpful." To be honest, I find that strange. Moving faster without setting goals about what you're moving faster for (other than profit) seems like a good recipe for dilution of focus. A company requires focus in order to maximise efficiency. Building up spare capacity just to buy time to run around like headless chickens seems like a wasted opportunity, from a business perspective.
- usrusr 9y ago
  For Microsoft, profitability depends quite a bit on people not leaving their comfort zone of "runs any old software thrown at it". If you are Microsoft, jettisoning legacy means jettisoning customers.

ShroudedNight 9y ago

>Microsoft needs to jettison more legacy so they can move faster. Microsoft would have significantly more freedom of action if they didn't repeatedly run roughshod over their users' personal agency over their devices.

Silhouette 9y ago

Microsoft needs to jettison more legacy so they can move faster. Why? For important business software, stability and longevity are good things. From a commercial point of view, I know my businesses would have happily paid Microsoft for a version of Windows 7 that continued to get updates for security and for compatibility with new hardware but otherwise stayed much the same. Likewise, we'd pay for ongoing support of key business software like Office (and other big name products from other big name brands) if that were available. Given genuinely beneficial improvements, we'd pay for genuine upgrades as well, on a timetable of our choosing. However, we have no interest in upgrade treadmills for anything that matters, whether they are pushed via subscription plans or via incompatibility. So, moving faster in this case is directly costing Microsoft revenues. While my own anecdotal experience is only that, I have to think we're not the only small businesses making the sorts of decisions we're making for the reasons that we're making them.

cm2187 9y ago

Everyone uses chrome or firefox anyway. I don't think the browser changes anything to OS adoption.

nofilter 9y ago
As a web developer, this is not true. An large number of clients I've worked with have used IE and thanks to Win 10 shipping with Edge (which in itself is a decent browser) I've noticed a huge decline in "but it looks odd in my browser" comments from clients. So while I don't like Windows, or Microsoft in general, I do like the push to get rid of legacy stuff by them.
- cm2187 9y ago
  What I have read so far is that Edge usage on the web is marginal despite (forced?) windows 10 adoption.
  - nofilter 9y ago
    Yes it is, but lots of companies have upgraded to 10. Of all the offices I visit I see Edge open a lot. Chrome of course is the most popular, but I'm happy the awful web rendering engine that is IE is soon gone.
romanovcode 9y ago
One time I used Edge for about two months on my Windows PC just because I was too lazy to download and set-up Chrome after format. The only reason why eventually I switched to Chrome was Chromecast. Other than that Edge + uBlock Origin was doing everything any modern browsers do.