Network World
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
DNSstuff.com
Get information about your IP
IP Information
50+ On-demand DNS and network tools

Mitchell Ashley: Converging on Microsoft

Microsoft Subnet

Navigation

10 Things That Won't Make Windows 7 A Success (and 1 That Will)

What lessons did Windows Vista teach Microsoft? ComputerWorld is reporting Microsoft will keep the Windows 7 code name as the final product name for Windows OS destined to replace Vista. I suspect no one will be happier to turn the page on Vista than Microsoft. To say Microsoft's seen better days in the eyes of their OS customers would be a gross understatement. The obvious question is what is Microsoft doing to avoid a repeat of Vista so Windows 7 doesn't fall flat again. A simple name change certainly won't turn around the perception of the entire market. I can tell you what things didn't make Vista a winner in the marketplace. Here's my tongue-in-cheek look at what Microsoft shouldn't do to make Windows 7 a success.

What Didn't Work

1. Better security. As much as we all have bashed Microsoft for security flaws in their software, a redesigned, more secure Windows Vista kernel wasn't in the end enough to get businesses or users to flip from Windows XP to Vista. That's proof positive that good enough security trumps better security. Claiming Windows 7 is more secure than Windows Vista or XP won't make Windows 7 a success.

2. Lipstick On A Pig. Vista's redesigned interface in many ways was simply an overlay on top of existing Windows XP configuration settings. Rather than making it easier to use, it meant Windows knowledgeable users had to learn a new layer just to get to the same underlying functionality already existing in Windows XP. Why take the overpass when the freeway will get you to the same destination, faster.

3. 3D User Interface. Vista's Aero interface features and transparency added a cool, glossy look but in the end didn't materially improve the end user's experience. For many users it slowed down the user interface, making Vista seem slower than the older Windows XP running on older hardware. More proof that iCandy alone won't make users switch.

4. Letting Apple Dis You One Commercial At A Time. Like that yapping terrier next door, Apple just kept coming and coming at Microsoft, attacking each new flaw and imperfection in Vista. Eventually, like enduring the marketing equivalent of water torture, we all just gave in, encouraging Apple and making their "I'm a Mac" commercials just that much more enjoyable. Time for Microsoft to learn the art of smack down and not let Apple paint Windows 7 in the next Vista corner, which you ...know... they just can't wait to do.

5. The New Jersey of Operating Systems. In the 1980's Bill Joy called Unix the "New Jersey of operating systems" because it had a little bit of everything thrown in by just about everybody. Vista seemed to never have met a software app or feature it didn't like, giving it much the same kind of "bloatware" issues. Then adding online equivalents of many of the apps didn't help. Tell me again what's the difference between Windows Live Photo Gallery and Windows Photo Gallery? I thought so. Windows 7 needs to be a contestant on The Biggest Loser and it needs to win.

6. Hardware Won't Save You. Like so many times before, Microsoft counted on the speed improvements in hardware processors and the cost of storage to make up the difference for bigger, bulkier OS and applications. That didn't work out so well for Vista and making the same mistake for Windows 7 won't work out either.

7. The Upgrade Treadmill. Every corporation in America now knows the drill: Microsoft will put the squeeze on customers to upgrade to the new OS, the new OS will require new hardware, and thus, we'll wait until we absolutely positively have to upgrade our hardware and then just bite the bullet and do both... but only if we have to.

8. Death By A Thousand Versions Of The Same Product. How many versions of Vista are there again? Okay, if you say so. We only need 3 versions of Windows 7: a home version, a business version, and a mobile version. Three products, and three SKUs. That's it. Give us any more and we'll send you back into timeout, Microsoft.

9. Fixing What Wasn't Broken. Oh, my... where do I start. Probably the best example I can think of is epitomized by ribbon menus in Microsoft Office. (Yes, I know that's not Vista but it's a great example of what I'm talking about.) Problem ribbon menus solves: none. Customer benefit: none. End result: negative user productivity. Ribbon menus was about as good an idea as switching to the metric system. I'm sure somebody thought it was a good idea, but nobody asked if it was worth the price we'd have to pay.

10. Annoying The User. UAC was the direct approach. Ask the end user at every turn possible a question they don't care about, don't know the answer to, for something they are going to do any way. Or there's the indirect approach, the sum of a lot annoying little problems: slower file copy, a slower computer using experience, a lack of drivers, stability issues, confusing product editions, etc. Either approach works great at annoying the end user. Doing both guarantees it will happen. 

What Will Work

1. Make Windows 7 Better For the Customer. That's it, that's what Vista forgot to do. Make the OS better for the user -- the end user and the business. But the "baseline of better" isn't Vista, it's still Windows XP. Windows 7 has to be better in the customer's eyes than XP. If not, well..., we know how how this movie goes.

Windows 7 has to be cheaper to operate and worth the upgrade price, i.e. it's about TCO. Its got to be easier to use, and more stable than XP (not Vista, that bar's too low.) Windows 7 has to empower users and businesses to move into the era of SaaS, Software+Services, cloud services, synchronized data, and virtualization on the desktop. If Windows 7 does those things, then some flashy cool stuff will be appreciated, but only if the fundamentals are better than Windows XP.

The evidence of what not to do with Windows 7 is overwhelming. A layup even. And by not doing a bunch of wrong things, Microsoft can set themselves up to do the right things to make Windows 7 a success.

Like this? Here are some of Mitchell's recent posts.

Mitchell's Book Recommendations:

Also visit Mitchell's other blogs and podcasts:


Visit Microsoft Subnet for more news, blogs, opinion from around the Web. Sign up for the bi-weekly Microsoft newsletter. (Click on News/Microsoft News Alert.)

 

And how?

Useful answer?
0

Last news - MS has Windows 7 development where every fourth person is a manager, I'm sure it will turn to a beautiful user experience - or maybe not? What happened to agile?

OK, a cheap shot! But seriously - I'm not a corporate/office user so this is may not be the most common view, running XP under OS X and Fusion on MacBook (and Linux&VMWare&XP on PC) for Word (yes, OO still has some problems, a little known secret http://www.softmaker.com/english/ is good but haven't yet updated), development but not for Vista, testing different browsers, some other small chores - beautiful, up in 5+ seconds! Rock steady! Vista, I tried, ouch, I don't have time or memory or cpu power or .., maybe it works?

So - if Windows 7 is at least on level of XP and offers something new, I may think.

I don't believe that MS can do it yet, maybe Windows 8? They still can't make a distinction between business and home user, business doesn't need the eye candy and home doesn't need 60% of what has to be there for business. The core can be same - much too bloated today but the presentation is even worse issue.

30+ years architecting, designing, developing and coding systems I have to say that Windows today is the most bloated there is! For no reason except they just don't seem to have an architecture but pieces and parts slammed together and, same as in many other large sw companies, the number of API's, objects, methods and lines of code seems more important than the functionality. Who can even keep up with those and I thought that Motif was bad? And, please, simplify and freeze .NET and C# etc to some level, I can't find people who know what, where or when, not even in MS!

Anyway, yes, at most three versions! One core, different presentation layers and each has their own selection of services. Shouldn't be to difficult, much easier to handle the security, etc but the time is running out.

Windows 7 must be the biggest loser

Useful answer?
0

I was serious about Windows 7 entering The Biggest Loser contest and winning it. Windows 7 has to go on a serious diet. It would be nice to get back some of that performance in the process too. Mitchell Ashley

Converging Network, LLC
Personal blog: http://theconvergingnetwork.com
Personal podcast: http://www.clickcaster.com/ss

The only way to cut the fat...

Useful answer?
0

is to drop backward compatibility. They won't do that when they have tens of 1000's of customers telling them they'll switch OS's if they drop support for DOS apps. Maybe two OS's, one for the old fogies, and a new leaner OS for those ready to move on. Bite the bullet MS, give us something worthy of the 21st century.

What Windows 7 really Needs

Useful answer?
0

If Microsoft really wants to make Windows 7 a success heres what they need to do.

Take all the hardware away from the developers. Give every person a P4 3gHz, 512MB RAM and a 10 Gig drive. If they can't make it scream on that hardware then it shouldn't be released. This way when it hits our systems it will put every other OS to shame with its speed.

Think about it. Imagine if you went to buy a car and they said this car is the fastest thing in the world, but it will cost you 4 times as much to get the engine, tires, transmission and other things. We just sell you the shell.
No one would touch it (except maybe a BMW buyer).

Really

Useful answer?
0

Take all the hardware away from the developers. Give every person a P4 3gHz, 512MB RAM and a 10 Gig drive. If they can't make it scream on that hardware then it shouldn't be released.

Brilliant! Just brilliant, sometimes simplicity is seen as complacent or boring but how about letting us use our powerful machines for application power instead of taking a good percentage of our resources for simply running the OS?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <i> <b> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote> <br /> <br> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

About Mitchell Ashley

Mitchell Ashley is principal consultant at Converging Network LLC where he provides product, technology and social media consulting to emerging technology companies. A successful CTO and product innovator, Mitchell has created many successful, award winning products in the networking, security, convergence, Internet and IT industries. In addition to blogging for NetworkWorld, Mitchell regularly blogs at TheConvergingNetwork and co-hosts the widely popular StillSecure After All These Years podcast.

RSS feed Subscribe to Mitchell Ashley's Converging on Microsoft feed

Mitchell Ashley's archive.

Microsoft Subnet

RSS feed Microsoft news RSS feed

The opinions expressed in this Weblog are those of the writer and may not represent the opinions of Network World.

Advertisement: