2 ms·

Great points, which I obviously failed to clarify! :) Regarding the architecture, I was thinking specifically of the mixed delivery of a whole new one (Metro/t

by levifig 14y ago

Great points, which I obviously failed to clarify! :) Regarding the architecture, I was thinking specifically of the mixed delivery of a whole new one (Metro/touch-driven) and the old/current one (classic Windows/mouse-driven). I've read quite a few articles about this but one I find myself agreeing with the most is Gruber's: http://daringfireball.net/2011/06/windows_8_fundamentally_flawed http://daringfireball.net/2011/06/windows_8_fundamentally_fl... -- the main point is Microsoft failed to make the choice to potentially come up with two products, one designed for Touch and this new Metro architecture (ARM, HTML5 apps, etc…) and one geared for the desktop computer. They're so caught up on their perceived value of the "Windows" brand, they're failing to make the hard decisions… As to your second question, I think my above point also covers this one in part. Microsoft is in a position to make some radical changes and improve on a product but avoids making those choices. Even the Surface will have a version with a full-blown CPU and ability to run desktop apps. Metro is caught in the middle of this "identity crisis" and, as such, fails to deliver a good experience in either camp. Furthermore, I think the core design model of "colored boxes" fails to deliver the unique experience that each app can offer: my experience with the "Music" app can't be the same as the "Control Panel". It becomes forgettable and everything blends together way too much. Yes, this particular point maybe a bit subjective but I'm sure some UX specialists could pitch in and give the hard evidence. My point is a "gut feeling" but informed by knowledge of what a good experience is… :) Thank you for your comment! :)

wcdolphin 14y ago
But they did make the hard decision-- they decided two combine two experiences on the bet that these two experiences and contexts will merge moving forward. Your device should change in context with you, and you should control it. Why would I have two machines when one will suffice? I will have a surface pro, using both metro apps as well as desktop applications. I will flip the cover over when I want to really engage with my device and hold it intimately, at an angle, etc. When I get to a desk, I can plug in my peripherals and I have a fully functioning machine that can use all of the thousands of peripherals that the ecosystem has developed. As a side note, have you used metro apps on a desktop? They work well, and generally the simplicity and hard decisions made make the experience more visually engaging.
- levifig 14y ago
  A- "What do you want: a peach or a pear?" B- "I don't know. Both?" That's how I feel about Microsoft's decision. I've tried the metro apps and while they impress visually, they fail to help me remember them the next time I need to do something they exist for; they all look alike and lack distinction and uniqueness. This is obviously all subjective, but I believe we'll see some major changes in the next 2-3 years to the Metro UI: Windows on the desktop users won't use much of it (not the Metro look, the native Metro apps)… Put a non-tech person using Windows 8 and you'll get "huh?" and "where's A or B?" at an alarming rate. A new user to OS X (coming from Windows) will have less trouble finding what he/she wants than coming to Windows 8 IMO, and that's not good for Microsoft.

by levifig 14y ago

wcdolphin 14y ago

But they did make the hard decision-- they decided two combine two experiences on the bet that these two experiences and contexts will merge moving forward. Your device should change in context with you, and you should control it. Why would I have two machines when one will suffice? I will have a surface pro, using both metro apps as well as desktop applications. I will flip the cover over when I want to really engage with my device and hold it intimately, at an angle, etc. When I get to a desk, I can plug in my peripherals and I have a fully functioning machine that can use all of the thousands of peripherals that the ecosystem has developed. As a side note, have you used metro apps on a desktop? They work well, and generally the simplicity and hard decisions made make the experience more visually engaging.

levifig 14y ago
A- "What do you want: a peach or a pear?" B- "I don't know. Both?" That's how I feel about Microsoft's decision. I've tried the metro apps and while they impress visually, they fail to help me remember them the next time I need to do something they exist for; they all look alike and lack distinction and uniqueness. This is obviously all subjective, but I believe we'll see some major changes in the next 2-3 years to the Metro UI: Windows on the desktop users won't use much of it (not the Metro look, the native Metro apps)… Put a non-tech person using Windows 8 and you'll get "huh?" and "where's A or B?" at an alarming rate. A new user to OS X (coming from Windows) will have less trouble finding what he/she wants than coming to Windows 8 IMO, and that's not good for Microsoft.