3 ms·

What you’re describing there better fits Microsoft’s competition than Windows itself. Microsoft don’t even follow their own UI guidelines with regards to toolba

What you’re describing there better fits Microsoft’s competition than Windows itself. Microsoft don’t even follow their own UI guidelines with regards to toolbars and menus (how often have they built bespoke widgets for Office rather than using their public APIs?). Bill Gates was a great businessman. Microsoft succeeded because Gates knew how to make deals with suppliers et al. Much has been written about the good (IBM bundling) and bad (threatening retailers who shipped PCs with alternative operating systems) already though. However if you want to talk about the UI consistency or flashiness of computers in the 80s and 90s, then you’re better off looking at Apple Macs, Amiga, Acorn Electron, or even Atari before you look at Windows and DOS.

wslh 3y ago
Microsoft success cannot be explained by the old story with IBM. Obviously Bill Gates has/had amazing skills, was lucky to born in a rich family, to be in the IBM deal, etc. All condiments that does not explain the Microsoft success until today. I think Microsoft has a record of unsuccessful projects while being successful as a business, as you say they don't use their own UI offerings and had zilliones but look at their balance sheet... If it were by the original IBM tale, Xerox and others dead companies were thriving. I recommend to read "Idea Man", Paul Allen (Microsoft cofounder) autobiography. You will realize there was an incredible Bill Gates before the IBM deal. Also check the non-official chronicles of Bill Gates in "Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire" [2] (1993). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_Man [2] https://www.amazon.com/Hard-Drive-Making-Microsoft-Empire/dp/0887306292 https://www.amazon.com/Hard-Drive-Making-Microsoft-Empire/dp...
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  Every successful company has had unsuccessful products and of course people born into money are more likely to be successful themselves. You’re also focusing too much on IBM specifically. I didn’t say IBM made Microsoft successful, I said it was an example of a deal Gates successfully negotiated.
  - wslh 3y ago
    My main point is that Microsoft is a different company and probably people will understand Bill Gates genius^3 in hindsight. I think Bill Gates is in another league of intelligence. I also think that Steve Jobs was in another league, different than the Bill one, and with more detours. I expected Google founders to lead Google but they quit. Jeff Bezos work was also amazing and he continued for long. We have Mark Zuckerberg in Meta, don't doubt he is really smart but the Oculus execution was completely wrong, it is in the business literature. I remember when Microsoft launched Xbox there were a lot of concerns about attracting AAA games like Sony or Nintendo. They did it. Mark launched and maintained the Oculus without a set of apps to play with. Basic mistake: you can show the device to your father and he will be amazed and forget about it next time.
    - hnlmorg 3y ago
      I really don’t understand how your point relates to my original comment. Also I’m old, so have far more experience with early Microsoft than most people. Some of the software I’ve written is probably older than a lot of people who chat on here. Edit: you’ve added a whole bunch more to your post. It’s now sounding like you took issue that I said Gates was a a great businessman without acknowledging that there are other great business people. Weird thing correct someone on given the mere existence of other companies proves that there have been other great business people. But yeah, Gates isn’t the only one. However we were talking about Microsoft’s success not Facebook/Meta nor any other company.
      - wslh 3y ago
        I am following the thread that initiates with a parent comment. Please let me know where I am wrong or unfocused on the topic and we can continue from there.
canucker2016 3y ago
"how often have they built bespoke widgets for Office rather than using their public APIs" I don't know. How many? UI/UX development is a two-way street. The OS includes a basic set of UI controls for common scenarios. But it can't anticipate every situation. MS Office's Ribbon is designed to show only the actions available given the current selection and document. A toolbar would show available actions, but also have the invalid actions disabled, increasing required screen space. Is there some other standard Windows control that could have worked instead of the custom Ribbon?
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  I can think of 3 different occasions. First was when the menu bar would show a bezel when you hovered over it, which didn't happen normally in Windows. The second was when the menu bar became detachable like a tool bar. That also wasn't supported by public Windows APIs. The third was Ribbon. That I can at least forgive a little more because it's a massive shift in UI/UX. But the first two instances were so subtle that most people wouldn't have noticed, which then begs the question, why even waste resources literally reinventing their own APIs?

wslh 3y ago

Microsoft success cannot be explained by the old story with IBM. Obviously Bill Gates has/had amazing skills, was lucky to born in a rich family, to be in the IBM deal, etc. All condiments that does not explain the Microsoft success until today. I think Microsoft has a record of unsuccessful projects while being successful as a business, as you say they don't use their own UI offerings and had zilliones but look at their balance sheet... If it were by the original IBM tale, Xerox and others dead companies were thriving. I recommend to read "Idea Man", Paul Allen (Microsoft cofounder) autobiography. You will realize there was an incredible Bill Gates before the IBM deal. Also check the non-official chronicles of Bill Gates in "Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire" [2] (1993). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_Man [2] https://www.amazon.com/Hard-Drive-Making-Microsoft-Empire/dp/0887306292 https://www.amazon.com/Hard-Drive-Making-Microsoft-Empire/dp...

hnlmorg 3y ago
Every successful company has had unsuccessful products and of course people born into money are more likely to be successful themselves. You’re also focusing too much on IBM specifically. I didn’t say IBM made Microsoft successful, I said it was an example of a deal Gates successfully negotiated.
- wslh 3y ago
  My main point is that Microsoft is a different company and probably people will understand Bill Gates genius^3 in hindsight. I think Bill Gates is in another league of intelligence. I also think that Steve Jobs was in another league, different than the Bill one, and with more detours. I expected Google founders to lead Google but they quit. Jeff Bezos work was also amazing and he continued for long. We have Mark Zuckerberg in Meta, don't doubt he is really smart but the Oculus execution was completely wrong, it is in the business literature. I remember when Microsoft launched Xbox there were a lot of concerns about attracting AAA games like Sony or Nintendo. They did it. Mark launched and maintained the Oculus without a set of apps to play with. Basic mistake: you can show the device to your father and he will be amazed and forget about it next time.
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    I really don’t understand how your point relates to my original comment. Also I’m old, so have far more experience with early Microsoft than most people. Some of the software I’ve written is probably older than a lot of people who chat on here. Edit: you’ve added a whole bunch more to your post. It’s now sounding like you took issue that I said Gates was a a great businessman without acknowledging that there are other great business people. Weird thing correct someone on given the mere existence of other companies proves that there have been other great business people. But yeah, Gates isn’t the only one. However we were talking about Microsoft’s success not Facebook/Meta nor any other company.
    - wslh 3y ago
      I am following the thread that initiates with a parent comment. Please let me know where I am wrong or unfocused on the topic and we can continue from there.

canucker2016 3y ago

"how often have they built bespoke widgets for Office rather than using their public APIs" I don't know. How many? UI/UX development is a two-way street. The OS includes a basic set of UI controls for common scenarios. But it can't anticipate every situation. MS Office's Ribbon is designed to show only the actions available given the current selection and document. A toolbar would show available actions, but also have the invalid actions disabled, increasing required screen space. Is there some other standard Windows control that could have worked instead of the custom Ribbon?

hnlmorg 3y ago
I can think of 3 different occasions. First was when the menu bar would show a bezel when you hovered over it, which didn't happen normally in Windows. The second was when the menu bar became detachable like a tool bar. That also wasn't supported by public Windows APIs. The third was Ribbon. That I can at least forgive a little more because it's a massive shift in UI/UX. But the first two instances were so subtle that most people wouldn't have noticed, which then begs the question, why even waste resources literally reinventing their own APIs?