4 ms·

We could say that Microsoft never lost its way in that regard, it has always been predatory. Where it lost its way however is Microsoft actually cared about Wi

by GuB-42 7mo ago

We could say that Microsoft never lost its way in that regard, it has always been predatory. Where it lost its way however is Microsoft actually cared about Windows, it was their flagship product after all. It was terrible in some aspects, but also excellent in some others. I particular, they took compatibility very seriously, which is far from an easy task in the wild PC ecosystem. They were also quite good in the UI/UX department. The Office suite was unmatched too, I tried a few alternative, none of them came close. Now, they completely broke their UI/UX, and that's not just the ads, forced Copilot stuff, etc... It is pure incompetence. They still have good compatibility, but it is not as impressive of a feat as it once was, as apps today are naturally more portable because of all the abstraction layers (performance be damned, but that's another story). The traditional Office suite is still good, but they are in the process of sabotaging it with web-based apps that remove tons of features without actually simplifying anything.

yfw 7mo ago
Its as steve jobs said, once you control market share theres no incentive to build a good product and you lose the ability to do it.
olav 7mo ago
> The traditional Office suite is still good I don't think so. The web version is mostly incompatible with the Windows or Mac desktop versions. Have you compared the UI of Word/Powerpoint/Excel with alternatives like Apple Pages/Keynote/Numbers or Google Docs/Sheets? For me, the MS products are a complete mess with arbitrary collections of unrelated buttons, abysmal font rendering and insane defaults.
- GuB-42 7mo ago
  > For me, the MS products are a complete mess with arbitrary collections of unrelated buttons In the case of Office I actually consider it a strength. Office has to take into account a large number of use cases, most people will use only a fraction of what is available, but not everyone use the same fraction. So that "unrelated button" may be someone else's essential feature. The "insane defaults" are what people are used to. I don't know about Apple, but I tend to get to the limits of Google Docs/Sheets rather quickly. It may cover 99% of my needs, but Office gives me the missing 1%. That's for the traditional Office Microsoft are sabotaging, the web versions are only a shadow of it, and by most points worse than the Google suite, and that's the problem. As for font rendering, I am sure that Apple is ahead, it has always been their strength. Microsoft may be the king of the office, but when it comes to art and creative work, Apple has always been on top.
- kstrauser 7mo ago
  The font rendering is a dealbreaker for me. I have to use Word periodically for exchanging files with customers where we have zero say in the mechanism. That is, when they say "here's our version of the contract for review before we give you $$$", and it's in Word that doesn't open cleanly in something better like Pages or Google Docs (yeah, I said it and I meant it), then Word it is. I can't stand using it a moment longer than I have to, and never, ever use it for anything other than this kind of legacy doc compatibility situation. The font rendering is so, so bad that I just can't look at it. If MS ever cared to fix it then I bet that could move their Mac adoption by at least a few percent, which would work out to a nice chunk of change at their scale. But alas, no. We get stuck with something that looks like they took a photo of an LCD calculator screen and downscaled it.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
Gigachad 7mo ago
Windows used to exist in a competitive environment where they had to fight to remain relevant. For a long time now they have become complacent, no matter how many ads, product placements, and user abusive features they push, people will tolerate it. The situation has only just changed now that Apple and Valve are getting close to threatening the Windows monopoly.
- makapuf 7mo ago
  Frankly I don't know why we still have laptops. Honestly I think my mobile with a usbc base for screen and usb would perfectly work in a hardware pov. I don't know if Android would work, and besides of that a small fixed pc for whatever needs power.
  - dec0dedab0de 7mo ago
    because phones are not general computing devices, and really shouldn't be. They are too important to modern society to be unlocked for their full potential. That said, I doubt the average person on a laptop even needs a general computing device, so your point does make sense. Though, is carrying around a screen and a keyboard and cable any better than carrying a laptop? I could see an argument of it being cheaper, but that would take years, possibly decades, of multiple competitors in the space for the market to make that true. Now, if we could have a decent folding keyboard and monitor that fit into the same case as your phone, that would be a game changer, but I don't think anyone is risking the investment to develop that.
    - philistine 7mo ago
      People want a full-size keyboard. Adding a couple of millimetres underneath that keyboard allows you to put a whole computer in there. We have laptops because it makes sense. Look at Apple's Macbook Neo. The tiny logic board on that computer is the least of Apple's worries. The most expensive components are the display and case. Why not charge 100 bucks more and not have to worry about this thing being a phone accessory?
HexPhantom 7mo ago
Yeah, it used to feel like "we'll crush competitors, but at least we ship solid software"
blincoln 7mo ago
> Where it lost its way however is Microsoft actually cared about Windows I agree with you, but I feel like they've stopped caring about most of their software. Windows is just the most egregious, high-impact example. SharePoint and Teams were the first ones I noticed. I used to run an enterprise SharePoint farm for a big company. Under the covers it was a Rube Goldberg machine. Microsoft has some of the best database-related developer knowledge in the world because of SQL Server, but SharePoint was storing its data in giant XML blobs instead of using proper, efficient table schemas. That lazy "it works (most of the time), and it's cheaper for us to offload the cost onto our customers' devices" approach was even more pronounced in Teams, and now Office and Windows itself each spawn about a million Edge WebViews for the same reason. I never thought I'd be nostalgic for the Microsoft of the mid-2000s.
- p_ing 7mo ago
  > giant XML blobs instead of using proper, efficient table schemas. Prior to SharePoint 2013, Microsoft used sparse columns. It made for massive tables and was poor design. Moving to XML blobs for user-defined schemas was the correct choice. The table schema became significantly smaller and user-defined schemas (for Lists/Libraries) could become much more complex.

by GuB-42 7mo ago

yfw 7mo ago

Its as steve jobs said, once you control market share theres no incentive to build a good product and you lose the ability to do it.

olav 7mo ago

> The traditional Office suite is still good I don't think so. The web version is mostly incompatible with the Windows or Mac desktop versions. Have you compared the UI of Word/Powerpoint/Excel with alternatives like Apple Pages/Keynote/Numbers or Google Docs/Sheets? For me, the MS products are a complete mess with arbitrary collections of unrelated buttons, abysmal font rendering and insane defaults.

GuB-42 7mo ago
> For me, the MS products are a complete mess with arbitrary collections of unrelated buttons In the case of Office I actually consider it a strength. Office has to take into account a large number of use cases, most people will use only a fraction of what is available, but not everyone use the same fraction. So that "unrelated button" may be someone else's essential feature. The "insane defaults" are what people are used to. I don't know about Apple, but I tend to get to the limits of Google Docs/Sheets rather quickly. It may cover 99% of my needs, but Office gives me the missing 1%. That's for the traditional Office Microsoft are sabotaging, the web versions are only a shadow of it, and by most points worse than the Google suite, and that's the problem. As for font rendering, I am sure that Apple is ahead, it has always been their strength. Microsoft may be the king of the office, but when it comes to art and creative work, Apple has always been on top.
kstrauser 7mo ago
The font rendering is a dealbreaker for me. I have to use Word periodically for exchanging files with customers where we have zero say in the mechanism. That is, when they say "here's our version of the contract for review before we give you $$$", and it's in Word that doesn't open cleanly in something better like Pages or Google Docs (yeah, I said it and I meant it), then Word it is. I can't stand using it a moment longer than I have to, and never, ever use it for anything other than this kind of legacy doc compatibility situation. The font rendering is so, so bad that I just can't look at it. If MS ever cared to fix it then I bet that could move their Mac adoption by at least a few percent, which would work out to a nice chunk of change at their scale. But alas, no. We get stuck with something that looks like they took a photo of an LCD calculator screen and downscaled it.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]

Gigachad 7mo ago

Windows used to exist in a competitive environment where they had to fight to remain relevant. For a long time now they have become complacent, no matter how many ads, product placements, and user abusive features they push, people will tolerate it. The situation has only just changed now that Apple and Valve are getting close to threatening the Windows monopoly.

makapuf 7mo ago
Frankly I don't know why we still have laptops. Honestly I think my mobile with a usbc base for screen and usb would perfectly work in a hardware pov. I don't know if Android would work, and besides of that a small fixed pc for whatever needs power.
- dec0dedab0de 7mo ago
  because phones are not general computing devices, and really shouldn't be. They are too important to modern society to be unlocked for their full potential. That said, I doubt the average person on a laptop even needs a general computing device, so your point does make sense. Though, is carrying around a screen and a keyboard and cable any better than carrying a laptop? I could see an argument of it being cheaper, but that would take years, possibly decades, of multiple competitors in the space for the market to make that true. Now, if we could have a decent folding keyboard and monitor that fit into the same case as your phone, that would be a game changer, but I don't think anyone is risking the investment to develop that.
  - philistine 7mo ago
    People want a full-size keyboard. Adding a couple of millimetres underneath that keyboard allows you to put a whole computer in there. We have laptops because it makes sense. Look at Apple's Macbook Neo. The tiny logic board on that computer is the least of Apple's worries. The most expensive components are the display and case. Why not charge 100 bucks more and not have to worry about this thing being a phone accessory?

HexPhantom 7mo ago

Yeah, it used to feel like "we'll crush competitors, but at least we ship solid software"

blincoln 7mo ago

> Where it lost its way however is Microsoft actually cared about Windows I agree with you, but I feel like they've stopped caring about most of their software. Windows is just the most egregious, high-impact example. SharePoint and Teams were the first ones I noticed. I used to run an enterprise SharePoint farm for a big company. Under the covers it was a Rube Goldberg machine. Microsoft has some of the best database-related developer knowledge in the world because of SQL Server, but SharePoint was storing its data in giant XML blobs instead of using proper, efficient table schemas. That lazy "it works (most of the time), and it's cheaper for us to offload the cost onto our customers' devices" approach was even more pronounced in Teams, and now Office and Windows itself each spawn about a million Edge WebViews for the same reason. I never thought I'd be nostalgic for the Microsoft of the mid-2000s.

p_ing 7mo ago
> giant XML blobs instead of using proper, efficient table schemas. Prior to SharePoint 2013, Microsoft used sparse columns. It made for massive tables and was poor design. Moving to XML blobs for user-defined schemas was the correct choice. The table schema became significantly smaller and user-defined schemas (for Lists/Libraries) could become much more complex.