5 ms·

Since Windows 7, Microsoft has found themselves in the uncomfortable position between a downmarket competitor (Android) with which they can't be price-competiti

Since Windows 7, Microsoft has found themselves in the uncomfortable position between a downmarket competitor (Android) with which they can't be price-competitive, and a high-end, aspirational consumer brand (Apple) with non price-sensitive customers. Among all this, the teams who worked on this product (including several close friends) really busted ass to get it right. I think this will be the best version of Windows ever, and might be the first operating system that gets a touch/keyboard+mouse hybrid UI right.

RivieraKid 14y ago
Two distinct interfaces in one OS is right? Why not simply a single interface that would adapt? Something like resposive web sites (google.com looks differently on mobile, tablet and desktop).
- praxulus 14y ago
  There may very well be one interface to rule them all, but it's not going to be the windows desktop that we all know and love. Removing that completely is going to be difficult to matter how great the alternative is, so if they want to have a touch interface it'll have to be as a distinct UI.
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  Google.com isn't responsive. Those are separate "apps" that they serve to you based on your UA string.
- eldavido 14y ago
  The higher-end Surface will ship with a full Windows 8 build that supports the traditional desktop. It's meant for legacy customers with big investments in traditional line-of-business stuff (banks, insurance, traders) who run .NET apps on the desktop. This device is intended to compete with computers. The lower-end surface will be for consumers. It will run Windows RT (previously called WOA, "Windows-on-ARM"), and support Metro (touch) apps exclusively. Main expected software distribution channel is the Windows app store. This device is positioned against the iPad; it's an Apple-style "shrinkwrap" experience that resets everything for the sake of this version, which wouldn't ever fly in the business world. I've been studying this extensively because my company (Crittercism) will have a build of our mobile crash instrumentation on Windows RT from the day it launches. Email me at david@crittercism.com if you want access to the beta.
Gormo 14y ago
I'm not sure you can get a touch UI 'right' on a desktop PC. Even if there was some theoretical way to add a fully-functional touch layer to a desktop OS without obscuring or limiting access to the OS's functionality, you'd still end up having to support two distinct and unrelated interface conventions for everything, which means that in practice, every interface paradigm will likely be suboptimal. MS's stated intention was to have a consistent UI across phones, tablets, and desktops. This strikes me as an utterly absurd notion: different products call for different interfaces, each designed to maximize the unique benefits of that particular product. Phones, tablets, and PCs are not generally substitute goods; each of them has its own set of strengths and weaknesses, and a common UI just obscures them beneath a lowest-common-denominator facade.
- barista 14y ago
  When computers transitioned from command line to GUI, it seemed odd too. Too many times you were required to type commands to start gui programs and were pretty much working inside the command shell to get any real work done. But that changed in a few years as most things transitioned to UI and now there's barely any reason to use a command shell. If you see the current metro implementation, it is similar. The whole desktop is treated just as an app along with the rest of the metro apps (like command shell was in gui). This is the first version of metro and dismissing the current approach is a little premature.
  - Gormo 14y ago
    Except people transitioned to GUI interfaces because they added additional utility: program functions became discoverable within the interface; multitasking became easy and uncomplicated; integration of workflow among multiple applications became more intuitive and easier. Metro is a step backward in all of these areas: it makes functions less discoverable, it makes multitasking more cumbersome, and it makes workflow more difficult. Full-screen applications with inconsistent UIs and limited integration with other programs make me feel like I'm using DOS. What are the benefits to ease of use, productivity, and functional sophistication offered by a desktop touch UI? I can't think of any, just more limitations: in addition to the retrograde utility specific to Metro, with any touch UI you've got the problem of slower, more burdensome text entry, and having your hands obscure the stuff you're looking at and leaving smudges on the screen. I still don't understand what problem desktop touch is meant to solve.
acdha 14y ago
> with non price-sensitive customers. I think this is a very simplistic summation: the problem with Microsoft isn't price, it's the lower perceived value. For a long time, even more expensive Windows systems - particularly laptops - simply felt cheaper than Macs: the clumsy Windows system UI coupled with vendors bundling crapware or saving a few dollars with flimsy plastic parts to fit a very tight price-point, etc. Saving $5 with a screen hinge makes the entire system feel worse but for a long time it's been the rule thanks to the prevalent design-by-spreadsheet mindset. There are some people who simply won't consider buying a Windows system but I think there is a much larger group of customers who would be quite open to a high-quality system — I'm just not sure that this will happen without Microsoft getting a good industrial designer in charge of the entire product. I'm also hoping that either Windows 8 has either improved a lot since the betas, interacts horribly with VMware, or a service pack will spread the Metro design around more completely because the betas were something of a disaster once you left Metro.
- eldavido 14y ago
  I agree with everything you've said. I think there's an interesting lesson in here about perception of value in technology. I used to work at Microsoft but currently use exclusively Apple products, mostly because they're unix machines and are more familiar. That said, I know I'm in the tiny little epsilon of the general population that cares about whether it's unix underneath. At bottom, I have no idea why people buy Apple products. Also, FWIW, I'm totally price-insensitive when it comes to computer purchases; I keep these thing for 3-5 years so paying $1000 more just doesn't matter over that span.
  - thronemonkey 14y ago
    To me Apple is in a weird place also as far as Mac sales go because Macs fill two niches: (1) people like you (and me) who like to run OSX because its the most stable way to run a modern UNIX system, and (2) people who want a computer that "just works" and looks pretty and are willing to pay for it. This results in some weirdness for the techies because you're constantly having to fight Apple's "user friendly" features in order to get the system to behave the way you want, but you don't really have an alternative except jumping to Linux and all the issues that entails.

RivieraKid 14y ago

Two distinct interfaces in one OS is right? Why not simply a single interface that would adapt? Something like resposive web sites (google.com looks differently on mobile, tablet and desktop).

praxulus 14y ago
There may very well be one interface to rule them all, but it's not going to be the windows desktop that we all know and love. Removing that completely is going to be difficult to matter how great the alternative is, so if they want to have a touch interface it'll have to be as a distinct UI.
MatthewPhillips 14y ago
Google.com isn't responsive. Those are separate "apps" that they serve to you based on your UA string.
eldavido 14y ago
The higher-end Surface will ship with a full Windows 8 build that supports the traditional desktop. It's meant for legacy customers with big investments in traditional line-of-business stuff (banks, insurance, traders) who run .NET apps on the desktop. This device is intended to compete with computers. The lower-end surface will be for consumers. It will run Windows RT (previously called WOA, "Windows-on-ARM"), and support Metro (touch) apps exclusively. Main expected software distribution channel is the Windows app store. This device is positioned against the iPad; it's an Apple-style "shrinkwrap" experience that resets everything for the sake of this version, which wouldn't ever fly in the business world. I've been studying this extensively because my company (Crittercism) will have a build of our mobile crash instrumentation on Windows RT from the day it launches. Email me at david@crittercism.com if you want access to the beta.

Gormo 14y ago

I'm not sure you can get a touch UI 'right' on a desktop PC. Even if there was some theoretical way to add a fully-functional touch layer to a desktop OS without obscuring or limiting access to the OS's functionality, you'd still end up having to support two distinct and unrelated interface conventions for everything, which means that in practice, every interface paradigm will likely be suboptimal. MS's stated intention was to have a consistent UI across phones, tablets, and desktops. This strikes me as an utterly absurd notion: different products call for different interfaces, each designed to maximize the unique benefits of that particular product. Phones, tablets, and PCs are not generally substitute goods; each of them has its own set of strengths and weaknesses, and a common UI just obscures them beneath a lowest-common-denominator facade.

barista 14y ago
When computers transitioned from command line to GUI, it seemed odd too. Too many times you were required to type commands to start gui programs and were pretty much working inside the command shell to get any real work done. But that changed in a few years as most things transitioned to UI and now there's barely any reason to use a command shell. If you see the current metro implementation, it is similar. The whole desktop is treated just as an app along with the rest of the metro apps (like command shell was in gui). This is the first version of metro and dismissing the current approach is a little premature.
- Gormo 14y ago
  Except people transitioned to GUI interfaces because they added additional utility: program functions became discoverable within the interface; multitasking became easy and uncomplicated; integration of workflow among multiple applications became more intuitive and easier. Metro is a step backward in all of these areas: it makes functions less discoverable, it makes multitasking more cumbersome, and it makes workflow more difficult. Full-screen applications with inconsistent UIs and limited integration with other programs make me feel like I'm using DOS. What are the benefits to ease of use, productivity, and functional sophistication offered by a desktop touch UI? I can't think of any, just more limitations: in addition to the retrograde utility specific to Metro, with any touch UI you've got the problem of slower, more burdensome text entry, and having your hands obscure the stuff you're looking at and leaving smudges on the screen. I still don't understand what problem desktop touch is meant to solve.

acdha 14y ago

> with non price-sensitive customers. I think this is a very simplistic summation: the problem with Microsoft isn't price, it's the lower perceived value. For a long time, even more expensive Windows systems - particularly laptops - simply felt cheaper than Macs: the clumsy Windows system UI coupled with vendors bundling crapware or saving a few dollars with flimsy plastic parts to fit a very tight price-point, etc. Saving $5 with a screen hinge makes the entire system feel worse but for a long time it's been the rule thanks to the prevalent design-by-spreadsheet mindset. There are some people who simply won't consider buying a Windows system but I think there is a much larger group of customers who would be quite open to a high-quality system — I'm just not sure that this will happen without Microsoft getting a good industrial designer in charge of the entire product. I'm also hoping that either Windows 8 has either improved a lot since the betas, interacts horribly with VMware, or a service pack will spread the Metro design around more completely because the betas were something of a disaster once you left Metro.

eldavido 14y ago
I agree with everything you've said. I think there's an interesting lesson in here about perception of value in technology. I used to work at Microsoft but currently use exclusively Apple products, mostly because they're unix machines and are more familiar. That said, I know I'm in the tiny little epsilon of the general population that cares about whether it's unix underneath. At bottom, I have no idea why people buy Apple products. Also, FWIW, I'm totally price-insensitive when it comes to computer purchases; I keep these thing for 3-5 years so paying $1000 more just doesn't matter over that span.
- thronemonkey 14y ago
  To me Apple is in a weird place also as far as Mac sales go because Macs fill two niches: (1) people like you (and me) who like to run OSX because its the most stable way to run a modern UNIX system, and (2) people who want a computer that "just works" and looks pretty and are willing to pay for it. This results in some weirdness for the techies because you're constantly having to fight Apple's "user friendly" features in order to get the system to behave the way you want, but you don't really have an alternative except jumping to Linux and all the issues that entails.