Discussions

I don't know whether ousting Ballmer is the answer.  If you were just looking at stock prices, then someone could make the argument.  The problem is, the stock market makes no sense when thinking about it from the theoretical point of view.

Typically you buy a stock, the company makes a profit, you make money.  Unfortunately, today's stock market is rife with speculation. People don't buy stock to share in profit, they buy stock for the market price of the stock.  If it's sexy it sells.  That's why GOOG and AAPL are raking in the dough, it's the stock price not the fundamentals of the company.

I will be honest, when I was in systems administration and planning, I looked at the Apple stack as an alternative to Microsoft.  Apple has nothing for the enterprise, in fact all of their moves lately shows they are running away from enterprise business.  If enterprise wants to deploy Apple, they are on their own.  No management system for iPad or iPhone, no real server product, no central system for software management.  Have you ever looked at the logistics of upgrading or downgrading the latest Apple products?  We had a few Macs, and when we ordered a MacBook with Lion with known issues with Adobe, there was no way we could downgrade.

Microsoft is still the best for enterprise at this moment.  With open source trying to chase them down, they may not hold forever.

As far as the Zune, Kin, etc.  Kin was a reject from the get go, and an example of a bad acquisition.  Taking an open source product and trying to make it a Microsoft product, throw on top of that the Intellectual Asset of the founder of Danger running to your rival made it a disaster from the get go.

Zune on the other hand succeeded too late.  It was far superior to it's competition, yet could not gain market traction.  This comes back to the one thing Microsoft has always lacked, and that's sexy marketing.  Could the Zune product succeed? Yes, but the marketing strategies and the commitment of the company had to be there.

So what does that mean for now?  I think Ballmer needs good technical leadership if he is to remain.  He needs to stay back, let the tech person lead with vision, and Ballmer needs to handle the numbers. 

Does Microsoft need to pay attention to it's enterprise customers? YES. 

With the rumors about the start button and boot to desktop, I believe they are.  It's these two things that gives me hope.  No, the start button doesn't bring back the start menu, but it's a beginning.  Honestly, that bloody button is the one thing that could make me think about deploying Windows 8 with minimal training. Listening to feedback from the admins of enterprise systems would go a long way towards cementing Microsoft permanently as the OS or business.

(Side Rant: If I had known that Customer Experience would be used to determine the life of the start menu, I would have skipped ever single setting that pinned programs to the taskbar and placed icons on the desktop in my answer files when I deployed 700 machines year before last.  Instead of making things convenient for my users, I would have made sure they would have to go to the start menu for every program they launched.  If the decisions to remove the start menu were based on Customer feedback instead of a data point saying that customers didn't use it, then we would never have had this hullabaloo in the first place.  END RANT)

Ok back to topic.  So, let's say that Ballmer is thrown out.....Who in the heck would you replace him with?  Would he be business focused?  Would she be marketing focused?  Would they be tech focused?

I think business wise, Ballmer is doing a good job, but he needs someone there that can provide the input for the tech side, and argue why losing money on a tech product is better for the long run.  God knows he could use someone savvy in marketing for sure.

I hate it when I take time off, and the time I take off is lost because of the workload I face when returning.

If you are really under that type of pressure, they don't have enough people working for them, or your manager hasn't planned projects with leave time in mind.

I have been lucky to work for some great people that when I had to go that extra mile, there was extra rest to compensate.

Good luck on your project, and hope you get the well deserved rest you have earned when it's completed.

@N2Cheval:I'll Bite on some of these.

Windows to explain itself.--Nifty concept.  In the meantime, I would suggest a small training doc about the Problem Steps Recorder in the meantime. 

More Info here:  http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/How-do-I-use-Problem-Steps-Recorder

Windows 8.1 to detect the mouse and start at the Windows desktop--Not a big fan of this one.  I have a Touchsmart and a Surface RT running Win8.  If it detected the mouse, then I miss out on the touch benefits just because I want to use all three as input devices.  I find a lot of times I will use mouse/keyboard as primary and augment with touch when appropriate.  Example: I will browse the internet using keyboard and mouse for precise control, but touch for scrolling.  I think there's a world where all three are useful and when combined contribute to productivity.

To get off WinXP--This isn't a consumer demand issue that's causing this problem.  It's a business perspective issue.  Computers are considered commodity tools for business, a good example is a cash register.  A cash register is necessary for day to day business operations, but you don't see businesses buying the latest cash register when it comes out.  Businesses treat computers like cash registers, they see the need for one, but they don't understand the impact of the machine.  (Leaving Windows 8 out of this argument.  That's a story for a different day.)  I can't tell you how many times some idiot decided to skimp on RAM trying to save a business money and that direct decision causing loss of productivity because the machines would run slower than the workers.  The eighty bucks they saved in the cost of the machine ends up costing them thousands in labor costs due to the reduced productivity.  Until you can get a change in the mindset of a business, they will buy whatever they want and hold onto it until it's a smoking crater.

Business IT is a marathon, not a race.  Until you can get leaders to understand this, and plan for it in cycles, then workers could strike all day long, and it still won't matter about upgrading an os or physical machine.

Windows 9 to use Active Touch instead of Passive Touch--Another interesting concept.  I don't like the idea of static electricity as the feedback mechanism.  I am sure one day we will have materials that can flex and give physical feedback, today is not that day.

Reinvent the idea of username/password logins--It's like democracy, it's the not the best but it's the best we got.  Until you have a hardware solution that every manufacturer agrees upon, every technical company agrees upon, and every company agrees upon, you will not have that solution.  Even if you could get everyone to agree on a standard, you will have some rogue company decide their way is better and use market pressure to try and force their solution.

In the meantime I will just leave this: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/password_strength.png

Ok, just a thought here.  Maybe thinking outside of the box is what is needed.

Let's just take consumer pricing, wouldn't it behoove Microsoft to include a recovery USB Key.  A 16gb memory stick is about 15 dollars now.  With volume pricing it would be even less than that.

Originally OEM's included a recovery disc, wouldn't it be progressive and cost effective for Microsoft to do the same thing with modern tech.

As is, I couldn't even think about purchasing a 64gb Surface with that much storage restriction.  Especially with the known issues with integrating a microsd card as part of the storage.  (Bring on the Windows Home Server Storage Pool, thank you very much.)

1 day ago, elmer wrote

Returning to the OP for a second... as the saying goes... where there's smoke...

and in other news... Apple seem to have a similar (if less alarming) problem looming.

What would one expect out of a culture programmed to be consumers and not creators?

Consumption devices rule the day.

I think this is what is a bit disappointing about the whole Devices + Services revolution.

Computing power used to be about empowerment, now it's about consuming, and like any other consumption paradigm, it all leads to obesity.

At what point is one service/subscription more is too many?

At what point do we push the chair back, and say enough is enough.

The PC/Computer was the great equalizer, (and still is at this moment.)  At what point in human history could we create so much so easily.  The idea of becoming a world class film maker in the Pre-PC world was impossible, now it's so easily achievable, that any person with a computer, a decent camcorder, and software can rival the great directors of yesterday.  When in time could a person write a novel, illustrate, and publish with a fraction of cost?

The race towards the consumer app model will never bring us to that level but instead is a race to dumb down things.  I won't say it's not necessary, because for the vast majority of individuals the "it just works" model is sufficient.  My worry is what we lose in the meantime.  The whole Google apps vs. Office debate is a prime example.  Yes, Google apps does meet most people's needs.  Unfortunately, if I have to do a research paper or a professional publication, I WANT WORD at my side.  Then it comes to a business decision for the software maker, more features or cut features to compete.  Make less complex, for more accessibility. In the meantime, for those that are used to these "power tools" we find our power saw exchanged for a hacksaw. Outlook vs. Mail app for example.

And for all this doom and gloom, there's still a bright future.  The future of Windows with Azure has unbelievable potential.  The pricing just needs to be tweaked a little lower to make the "future is now" achievable.

Computing as a utility has unbelievable potential, it just has to be priced differently.

Imagine a world where you paid 20 dollars a month for your computing needs.  Not 300 to 1000 every 3 to 5 years.  You pay a lease for a thin client that attaches automatically to your Azure Virtual Machine, unlimited bandwidth and storage.  Every MS Software product available included. Complete computing power, and the only thing your bandwidth uses is the bandwidth for RemoteFX.  No longer are you limited by your processor, your ram, your storage or your bandwidth, you will only be limited by your datacenter.

(A smart businessman would tell you that 12 * 20 is 240 dollars and by 3 years is 720 dollars, more than you would pay for an outright buy of a cheap computer.  But that fact is only for those that can do math.)

The start menu as we know it is dead.  I miss it, but I am not going to pine away for it.  I do think that the current implementation for the start screen has some issues that need to be addressed.

Mousing over to the corner is not consistent from machine to machine.  Sometimes if I hover the mouse just correct, the start option and the multi-task will come up, sometimes it won't.

My suggestion would be to bring back the start button, but let it launch the start screen instead.  We don't have to have the old menu, but we do need to some improvement in this interaction.  A button guarantees feedback for the location and activation to the user. 

Second, the start screen should have a better search system.  Instead of having to dig into results to find what you are looking for, it would be better to present all results, and then allow the user to filter by type.  The current implementation is search, change filter, find.  It would be better to search, find, filter if not found.

Third, even though the start screen does react in a similar fashion to the old xp start menu, fly out on mouse position, it's not consistent either.  Now whether this is a performance issue due to my machine, or code, I can't be sure.  It's very jerky on my system and not as smooth.

Although with this release, they have added the demo on startup, I truly believe that it's not fully fleshed out.  Maybe a step by step demo for those that want to use it comparing the old way to the new way would help a lot of people out.  Show pressing the start button, then show mousing the start area.  A look at the old menu, transition to the new "menu"/screen. Etc. If this type of demo is done, make sure that people have the option to skip out of it easily, but accessible from the desktop and start screen should people want to spend more time training later.

Just a few bits to add to the conversation:

I think it's fair to make these complaints regarding what one dislikes about what Microsoft is doing, and the way that Microsoft handles it.

I also think it's better to be constructive.  Don't just say I hate X without first explaining your reasoning for hating X, and also offer an alternative solution.  Saying I hate X because it's X doesn't do a thing to solve the issue. Without explain why you dislike something, it does come off as whining.

I think one of the reasons why the echo chamber has gotten so loud concerning Win 8, was that the normal feedback channels that have existed have suddenly "vanished".  MSConnect for all the good things that it does, has ultimately failed when people file feedback only to have the issue closed as design.  It often feels that the issue raised, has been dismissed out of hand without proper explanation.  After filing numerous issues to help the team work on usability items and bugs only to have them "dismissed" by design.  One stops filing the feedback when one feels that it will be ignored.  It's work to leave feedback, and when you are working for nothing you will soon stop.

If a bug is closed for design reasons, make a post about the design, the reasons why, and the decision making process, then link to that post every time that "bug" or "ui feature" or suggestion is closed, so that someone has more to go on then just "closed".  They may not agree with the decision, but at least they understand.  I understand the building windows blogs were supposed to handle some of this, I just think that in the end it wasn't a two way conversation.  I believe the blog alienated a bunch of Microsoft users, instead of reassuring them.

I have been one to complain in these forums before, but I always tried to be somewhat clear in what my complaints were and why I complained, and what I thought Ms should do.

I will say that overall, Windows 8 is a step in the right direction.  I think the Surface is an awesome product, that could use just a couple of "tweaks" to be perfect.

Channel 9 was developed and designed for the two way communication between the mothership in Redmond and the end developers and professionals.  A way to understand.  I think the company getting back to those roots will be the cornerstone of success.

@magicalclick: Microsoft has hired out reference designs to push OEM's before.  Long Zheng had a great article about some of the designs that MS was pushing to OEM's to think about when creating Windows Vista PC's.

http://www.istartedsomething.com/20071128/microsoft-ammunition-longhorn-pc-concept/

Full Gallery:

http://www.ammunitiongroup.com/work/#microsoft_1

Taking a look at some of those concepts, I would love to have any of those running Windows 8.  In fact one of those designs looks like it might have inspired Vizio's all in one.

http://www.vizio.com/computing/

HP, Dell, and other OEM's have dropped the ball.  When was the last time you saw a PC or Laptop where the design is what made you want it?  Alienware is probably the only company that has made those products, and now they are part of Dell. Their current laptop designs are reminiscent of the early Latitude D610 laptops and have lost their luster.

I hate to say that there's a bit of collusion with PC OEM's, but it does appear they have been struck by collective laziness and greater concern about profits rather than customers.  Why else preload their models with crapware?  Why else the lack of desire to differentiate?

Right now, Microsoft realizes the absolute truth.  All computers are in competition with each other , whether Linux, iPad, MAC, or Windows PC's.  The OEM's are stuck in the past thinking that it's still the 1990's and they are only in competition with other OEM's.  It's a new world and Microsoft has stopped relying on the OEM's and is fighting for it's product.

The Surface is an interesting experiment.  I think the question that has to asked is if Surface is a success, should Microsoft get into the hardware?  Or if the Surface is a success and the iPad phenomenon is reduced, should Microsoft hand the market back to the OEM's.

Needless to say I think that the future is going to be very interesting indeed.

@blowdart:Thanks for the link.  Will read up on it and see if there will be any usage scenarios that will be beneficial.

@evildictaitor: I believe in testing ahead of time, if you don't that's ok.  Are any of the final tests available until RTM?  No.  Although taking the time to work with any new release helps improve skills and preplanning.  Even if one doesn't deploy an operating system within 6 mos to a year or later after release, one will have to deal with it as consumers purchase new computers preloaded with the os and ask you questions.

Here's the thing.  I like being prepared.

Any deployment of Windows in the organization has to balanced with benefits.  Will this improve things for the users, will this make things more secure, is the cost of upgrading worth it when compared to upgrade costs of other software?  In the end, how does it benefit the organization? 

10 hours ago, evildictaitor wrote

*snip*

Microsoft disabled lots of features for the beta so the beta could ship on time, and intends to put them back in before RTM. At Microsoft it is absolutely not the case the difference between beta and RTM is cosmetic.

Name more than 5 major things that changed from Windows 7 beta to Windows 7 RC.

Small changes yes, adjustments yes, performance increases, yes.  Major?

@evildictaitor:  I can appreciate your point of view, but I happen to disagree with it highly.  If you have any idea about how budgets work, then you would know that it's better to go ahead and tell a department they have to upgrade their software six months in advance.  Those of us that got on the ball early were prepared for Vista when it came out.  Departments were notified that software needed to be upgraded, budgets were made to take into account of those new purchases.  Workarounds were prepared ahead of time.  If you wait until RTM to begin the process, you can be years out with a deployment.  Pre-testing allows a large environment to be aware of the problems and look at solutions should the final product not be up to snuff.  In many cases, it allows us to push departments to prepare instead of waiting until the last minute and have confusion.

Should one plan on the beta to be the final. No.  Although, if you have been through this long enough, you would know in 90% of the cases, there are very few large scale changes from beta to release candidate.  RC is usually the polish stage.

I haven't made a final judgement on Win 8 at this point, although if I wasn't testing I wouldn't be doing my job which is preparing an organization for any changes that are coming. If I wasn't keeping up with the press releases about final decisions, I wouldn't be doing my job.

21 minutes ago, magicalclick wrote

@RLO:

Speaking of App Store, do you have to create 700 accounts for installing the app, or is there a coroporate account for volumn licensing? I mean, that's pretty much a next step if you give Win8 a go, so, anyone know how that works? Thank you.

I don't know, if the information is out there, let someone post a link.  In my area, the appstore isn't the answer.  We have tons of "public" access computers, the idea of allowing anyone to install anything at anytime doesn't fly here. Even if it's free.