4 ms·

>Windows 10 will be our best enterprise platform ever and will enable our enterprise customers to be more productive than ever before, simplifying management an

>Windows 10 will be our best enterprise platform ever and will enable our enterprise customers to be more productive than ever before, simplifying management and deployment for IT and working seamlessly with existing enterprise apps. Quote from the Windows 10 launch that the writer is complaining about >Our Product Design Process ™ includes multiple stages like benchmarking, UX, UI design, design of the technical architecture and development of the project plan. >We apply the Software Development best practices and operate with a quality mindset. Quotes from the website of the company that wrote the article. It seems hypocritical to complain that the Windows 10 launch was full of dubious statements when you are doing the same thing yourself. >It had a memorable launch, it was honest regarding its objectives, focused on the user, objective and transparent. Really? This is your argument for why we should look to Windows 95 for inspiration? Who cares about whether a launch is memorable? I doubt that the launch of Windows 95 is actually memorable for anyone outside of the tech bubble, anyways. Honesty regarding objectives is a somewhat reasonable complaint but compared to Windows 10 I don't see why someone would say that 95 was more honest about its intentions. They seem to be making this a dig at Facebook but I don't see why Facebook should be compared to an operating system in this respect. I honestly have no clue what they mean by saying that Windows 95 was objective. Transparent is pretty much the same as "honest regarding it's objectives". Focused on the user is a good thing but they haven't made a case that today's products aren't focused on the user. https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*Zt8F-ZqANVVbq4T5VUOzcA.png https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*Zt8F-ZqANVVbq4T5VU... This chart seems to be saying that computers today have less utility than a computer from 1995 running Windows 95. I don't think I even need to describe why that notion is ridiculous. For those of you that came to the comments without reading the article, don't bother. It's just a poor attempt at marketing by some UI design company.

sandrobfc 8y ago
I won't comment on everything, because we all are entitled to have an opinion, but I don't think you took the time to read all the way through the article. Maybe you find it a waste of time, maybe you were simply not interested, and that's ok in either case. Anyway, I wasn't comparing computers and operating systems from 1995 to what we have today, regarding anything else than a few characteristics like objectivity and transparency. We never had so much concerning technology and it's impossible to compare whatever was done a few decades ago with what we have now. However, regarding the mindset that surrounds a product launch, I think that we are moving in the wrong direction for some time now. Imagine if the chart that you've posted here concerned video games, for instance. Wouldn't you agree it makes sense? The same applies to applications, to smartphones, web services... etc. I don't think it's absurd, but you're allowed to think differently.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  I did read the entire article. Most of it more than once as I went looking for quotes to include in my comment. I get that you weren't trying to say that we should switch from a modern OS to one from the 90's. You make that clear. However, you absolutely spent most of the article comparing Windows 95 to modern day software. >Take the launch of Microsoft’s latest version of their operating system, Windows 10, for instance. No music, no comedians, no party, no fun and a lot of dubious statements. >I’m not saying we should solve every UI and UX issue with a start menu, but most web designs out there could surely learn a lot from how Windows 95 solved so many problems by thinking about how target users would deal with their product. >All 19MBs of Windows 95 consisted on useful tools that you could expect from a computer. There was no Cry Translator or Electric Shaver app — wonders of the modern day, available on any smartphone — as it was focused on a few objectives only. >Imagine if such a strange object as a phone that could only make calls existed. That would be the equivalent of Windows 95 on a computer back then. It had everything you ever needed from it, without the unnecessary waste of space. >What really stands out are the main qualities that Windows 95, as a product, had and that are not common nowadays. It had a memorable launch, it was honest regarding its objectives, focused on the user, objective and transparent. The problem I have with the chart is not that is shows junk and paid increasing - it's that it shows the utility decreasing. As a percentage of the junk/paid/utility trifecta, I might agree that utility's percentage is going down over time but the absolute quantity of utility has increased an insane amount in the last 23 years. Your chart does not show that, at least not very clearly. This quote is what precedes the graph: >Imagine if such a strange object as a phone that could only make calls existed. That would be the equivalent of Windows 95 on a computer back then. It had everything you ever needed from it, without the unnecessary waste of space. Phones like that do exist. You can get one for your house still. If you're willing to accept texting as a feature, you can get a cell phone like this. You seem to be arguing that such a device is somehow superior to an iPhone or my Pixel because it doesn't have the "unnecessary waste of space". You completely gloss over the fact that the utility section of the 2015 graph should have things like a web browser, Google or Apple Pay, Uber, Slack, Netflix, Spotify, GrubHub, and many others in it which make it substantially bigger than the 1995 graph.
  - 8y ago
monkeynotes 8y ago
Hypocrisy on the side of author is a logically false argument about the actual content. I can be a murdering psychopath and express in my memoirs from prison that while I love killin', murder is immoral. Murder is still widely accepted as being immoral regardless of who asserts the opinion. That aside I found the article's author heavily corralled observations to support his opinion. > I’m not trying to compare operating systems with social media or mobile applications, Yes, yes you are. > I’m not saying we should solve every UI and UX issue with a start menu I find it hard to actually understand what the author is really saying, perhaps he/she is saying nothing at all. The irony about substance and honesty isn't lost on me.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  I agree that hypocrisy doesn't refute their argument but it does demonstrate that the author themselves either doesn't believe what they're writing or they have some other unknown reason for being hypocritical. Seeing as no other reason was expressed in the article, I am comfortable taking the hypocrisy as a sign that the they don't believe what they're writing. In my experience, this usually means they are trying to sell me something.
  - monkeynotes 8y ago
    Sorta feel the same way since the article really has zero substance. I hate being cynical but the days of Win95 transparency are truly over.
    - wilsonnb 8y ago
      They're not all the way dead yet. Sublime text seems to be very transparent, in a 90's software sense. Pay some money, get some software, keep it forever. I'm sure there are other examples out there too. It does seem unlikely that any software like that will be as widespread as Windows 95 was, though.

sandrobfc 8y ago

I won't comment on everything, because we all are entitled to have an opinion, but I don't think you took the time to read all the way through the article. Maybe you find it a waste of time, maybe you were simply not interested, and that's ok in either case. Anyway, I wasn't comparing computers and operating systems from 1995 to what we have today, regarding anything else than a few characteristics like objectivity and transparency. We never had so much concerning technology and it's impossible to compare whatever was done a few decades ago with what we have now. However, regarding the mindset that surrounds a product launch, I think that we are moving in the wrong direction for some time now. Imagine if the chart that you've posted here concerned video games, for instance. Wouldn't you agree it makes sense? The same applies to applications, to smartphones, web services... etc. I don't think it's absurd, but you're allowed to think differently.

wilsonnb 8y ago
I did read the entire article. Most of it more than once as I went looking for quotes to include in my comment. I get that you weren't trying to say that we should switch from a modern OS to one from the 90's. You make that clear. However, you absolutely spent most of the article comparing Windows 95 to modern day software. >Take the launch of Microsoft’s latest version of their operating system, Windows 10, for instance. No music, no comedians, no party, no fun and a lot of dubious statements. >I’m not saying we should solve every UI and UX issue with a start menu, but most web designs out there could surely learn a lot from how Windows 95 solved so many problems by thinking about how target users would deal with their product. >All 19MBs of Windows 95 consisted on useful tools that you could expect from a computer. There was no Cry Translator or Electric Shaver app — wonders of the modern day, available on any smartphone — as it was focused on a few objectives only. >Imagine if such a strange object as a phone that could only make calls existed. That would be the equivalent of Windows 95 on a computer back then. It had everything you ever needed from it, without the unnecessary waste of space. >What really stands out are the main qualities that Windows 95, as a product, had and that are not common nowadays. It had a memorable launch, it was honest regarding its objectives, focused on the user, objective and transparent. The problem I have with the chart is not that is shows junk and paid increasing - it's that it shows the utility decreasing. As a percentage of the junk/paid/utility trifecta, I might agree that utility's percentage is going down over time but the absolute quantity of utility has increased an insane amount in the last 23 years. Your chart does not show that, at least not very clearly. This quote is what precedes the graph: >Imagine if such a strange object as a phone that could only make calls existed. That would be the equivalent of Windows 95 on a computer back then. It had everything you ever needed from it, without the unnecessary waste of space. Phones like that do exist. You can get one for your house still. If you're willing to accept texting as a feature, you can get a cell phone like this. You seem to be arguing that such a device is somehow superior to an iPhone or my Pixel because it doesn't have the "unnecessary waste of space". You completely gloss over the fact that the utility section of the 2015 graph should have things like a web browser, Google or Apple Pay, Uber, Slack, Netflix, Spotify, GrubHub, and many others in it which make it substantially bigger than the 1995 graph.
- 8y ago

monkeynotes 8y ago

Hypocrisy on the side of author is a logically false argument about the actual content. I can be a murdering psychopath and express in my memoirs from prison that while I love killin', murder is immoral. Murder is still widely accepted as being immoral regardless of who asserts the opinion. That aside I found the article's author heavily corralled observations to support his opinion. > I’m not trying to compare operating systems with social media or mobile applications, Yes, yes you are. > I’m not saying we should solve every UI and UX issue with a start menu I find it hard to actually understand what the author is really saying, perhaps he/she is saying nothing at all. The irony about substance and honesty isn't lost on me.

wilsonnb 8y ago
I agree that hypocrisy doesn't refute their argument but it does demonstrate that the author themselves either doesn't believe what they're writing or they have some other unknown reason for being hypocritical. Seeing as no other reason was expressed in the article, I am comfortable taking the hypocrisy as a sign that the they don't believe what they're writing. In my experience, this usually means they are trying to sell me something.
- monkeynotes 8y ago
  Sorta feel the same way since the article really has zero substance. I hate being cynical but the days of Win95 transparency are truly over.
  - wilsonnb 8y ago
    They're not all the way dead yet. Sublime text seems to be very transparent, in a 90's software sense. Pay some money, get some software, keep it forever. I'm sure there are other examples out there too. It does seem unlikely that any software like that will be as widespread as Windows 95 was, though.