5 ms·

>> Exacerbating this is the fact that Windows 7 is arguably at full stride right now and has almost no points that I really want changed. Sounds like another a

by aik 14y ago

>> Exacerbating this is the fact that Windows 7 is arguably at full stride right now and has almost no points that I really want changed. Sounds like another anti-innovation/change comment on hn. If this is not, please tell me how?

dendory 14y ago
How is changing the desktop we currently have, which works for most people and everyone is used to, for a completely new system that is clearly meant for a device other than the PC, innovation? Change != always good.
- untog 14y ago
  I think he was just pointing out that Hacker News can be somewhat schizophrenic on this topic. "WTF why won't Craigslist improve, it is anti-innovation" vs. "Why did MS change their UI?!?" And yes, before someone makes the statement, HN is made up of individuals with their own opinions etc. etc.
  - viscanti 14y ago
    I think the difference is between things that work don't need to be changed, just for the sake of change. Things that are broken, or suffer from poor usability should change. Not everything needs to change, but I think it's fair to want broken things to change without advocating that everything change just because.
    - HelloMcFly 14y ago
      But that's so short-sighted! You know what worked? The Motorola RAZR. But then the iPhone came out and it was a radical change and, even though many said at the time "I just need to make calls and text", it set the standard. If your mentality is always "if it ain't broke don't fix it" then you're probably going to get disrupted. Windows 7 wasn't broke, but the future of the desktop environment looks like it might be, so Microsoft is trying to merge desktop and mobile. It may not work, but you must at least somewhat sympathize with their need to try.
      - CamperBob2 14y ago
        Metro is no iPhone.
        HelloMcFly 14y ago
        No, it doesn't need to be in order for the illustration to be apt. "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" is a mentality asking for disruption.
        viscanti 14y ago
        The argument isn't "If it isn't broke, don't fix it". It's that not all change is necessary (or even good). If something is clearly broken, by all means fix it. If it's not, then things get more complicated. Maybe a change is still in order (but maybe it's broken in a non-obvious way, like the Razr in a smart-phone world). The idea that change is always good and always a sign of progress is absolutely false.
- aik 14y ago
  I think everyone is getting stuck on the design decision concerning the start menu. Windows 8 is more than just a new start menu. There are a number of other changes that I believe sound very interesting, and are very much PC innovations and changes not made for tablets.
baddox 14y ago
Innovation and change are not inherently good, but they are inherently risky and costly. This is especially true when it comes to the operating system on your main computer.
wtallis 14y ago
Change for the sake of being different is stupid and shows that you don't care about your current users. An improvement has to be worth the trouble of re-learning how to use the software and changing your habits. That's why the Ribbon got so much flak - it moved every button and ate up a lot more screen space, for relatively minor improvements to overall UI organization and discoverability. The UI-formerly-known-as-Metro doesn't seem to offer even minor benefits to keyboard and mouse users. It's benefits to Microsoft are more clear, but that doesn't make the inconvience to users any less real.
- HelloMcFly 14y ago
  This isn't change for the sake of being different, it's a radical (and risky) attempt at change such that the mobile and desktop environments become merged. And you Microsoft Office ribbon example is great! That was another change that many saw as "change for change's sake", but it's become a UI function that the vast majority appreciate and depend on. I'm sure many of the HN crowd would have, or did, lambast the ribbon on introduction, and I'm equally sure many of them have come to love it. It sure didn't take me long.
  - katbyte 14y ago
    well I don't particularly like it, but i manage. the ribbon i think is far less of a drastic UI change then metro. The ribbon was just changing the text menus to a persistent large tool bar with tabs. Metro is like bolting a touch interface overtop of the standard desktop interface and replacing the start menu with it.
  - wtallis 14y ago
    I know what Microsoft's attempting to do with Metro. What I don't know is what benefit it will have for desktop users. Merging their touch and desktop visual styles might strengthen Microsoft's brand, but I've yet to hear any plausible theories for how it will benefit (or even not harm) usability for desktop users. There's decades of HCI research that says touch interfaces should be different from desktop interfaces. So what's the upside for users? Why should they accept Metro, if not just because Microsoft has a monopoly?
CamperBob2 14y ago
Yessirree Bob, I remember what my rich uncle used to say. He said, "Son," (even though he was my uncle and not my father), "Son, if you really want to make money, forget all that stuff about finding a need and filling it. That's the old way. Everybody's doing that, and everything's been done. No, son, what you want to do is this. You want to find something that isn't broken, and fix it. That's where the big money is."

by aik 14y ago

dendory 14y ago

How is changing the desktop we currently have, which works for most people and everyone is used to, for a completely new system that is clearly meant for a device other than the PC, innovation? Change != always good.

untog 14y ago
I think he was just pointing out that Hacker News can be somewhat schizophrenic on this topic. "WTF why won't Craigslist improve, it is anti-innovation" vs. "Why did MS change their UI?!?" And yes, before someone makes the statement, HN is made up of individuals with their own opinions etc. etc.
- viscanti 14y ago
  I think the difference is between things that work don't need to be changed, just for the sake of change. Things that are broken, or suffer from poor usability should change. Not everything needs to change, but I think it's fair to want broken things to change without advocating that everything change just because.
  - HelloMcFly 14y ago
    But that's so short-sighted! You know what worked? The Motorola RAZR. But then the iPhone came out and it was a radical change and, even though many said at the time "I just need to make calls and text", it set the standard. If your mentality is always "if it ain't broke don't fix it" then you're probably going to get disrupted. Windows 7 wasn't broke, but the future of the desktop environment looks like it might be, so Microsoft is trying to merge desktop and mobile. It may not work, but you must at least somewhat sympathize with their need to try.
    - CamperBob2 14y ago
      Metro is no iPhone.
      - HelloMcFly 14y ago
        No, it doesn't need to be in order for the illustration to be apt. "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" is a mentality asking for disruption.
        viscanti 14y ago
        The argument isn't "If it isn't broke, don't fix it". It's that not all change is necessary (or even good). If something is clearly broken, by all means fix it. If it's not, then things get more complicated. Maybe a change is still in order (but maybe it's broken in a non-obvious way, like the Razr in a smart-phone world). The idea that change is always good and always a sign of progress is absolutely false.
aik 14y ago
I think everyone is getting stuck on the design decision concerning the start menu. Windows 8 is more than just a new start menu. There are a number of other changes that I believe sound very interesting, and are very much PC innovations and changes not made for tablets.

baddox 14y ago

Innovation and change are not inherently good, but they are inherently risky and costly. This is especially true when it comes to the operating system on your main computer.

wtallis 14y ago

Change for the sake of being different is stupid and shows that you don't care about your current users. An improvement has to be worth the trouble of re-learning how to use the software and changing your habits. That's why the Ribbon got so much flak - it moved every button and ate up a lot more screen space, for relatively minor improvements to overall UI organization and discoverability. The UI-formerly-known-as-Metro doesn't seem to offer even minor benefits to keyboard and mouse users. It's benefits to Microsoft are more clear, but that doesn't make the inconvience to users any less real.

HelloMcFly 14y ago
This isn't change for the sake of being different, it's a radical (and risky) attempt at change such that the mobile and desktop environments become merged. And you Microsoft Office ribbon example is great! That was another change that many saw as "change for change's sake", but it's become a UI function that the vast majority appreciate and depend on. I'm sure many of the HN crowd would have, or did, lambast the ribbon on introduction, and I'm equally sure many of them have come to love it. It sure didn't take me long.
- katbyte 14y ago
  well I don't particularly like it, but i manage. the ribbon i think is far less of a drastic UI change then metro. The ribbon was just changing the text menus to a persistent large tool bar with tabs. Metro is like bolting a touch interface overtop of the standard desktop interface and replacing the start menu with it.
- wtallis 14y ago
  I know what Microsoft's attempting to do with Metro. What I don't know is what benefit it will have for desktop users. Merging their touch and desktop visual styles might strengthen Microsoft's brand, but I've yet to hear any plausible theories for how it will benefit (or even not harm) usability for desktop users. There's decades of HCI research that says touch interfaces should be different from desktop interfaces. So what's the upside for users? Why should they accept Metro, if not just because Microsoft has a monopoly?

CamperBob2 14y ago

Yessirree Bob, I remember what my rich uncle used to say. He said, "Son," (even though he was my uncle and not my father), "Son, if you really want to make money, forget all that stuff about finding a need and filling it. That's the old way. Everybody's doing that, and everything's been done. No, son, what you want to do is this. You want to find something that isn't broken, and fix it. That's where the big money is."