Windows "Blue"

[TaoPhoenix]

Fresh off Windows 8, the MS Marketing dept has changed directions again.
http://news.softpedi...-Rumors-310494.shtml

"The Redmondians are reportedly planning to make Windows Blue a low-cost or even free operating system, just to make sure all users will make the move to the new OS. The Windows SDK would also be updated to the new release, while Microsoft would encourage developers to create apps for Windows Blue, with a lowered focus on Windows 8.
...
Last but not least, Windows Blue would also be the first product supposed to kick off a yearly update schedule for Microsoft, as the Redmond-based technology giant is looking into ways to challenge the other companies on the market, such as Apple and Google."

What does all that even mean, contextually? Firefox's trick of renaming tweaks into "major versions"? So all of us "waiting for Windows 9", apparently that now means July!

"...and will comprise significant UI changes, most likely supposed to address the controversial Windows 8 features."
I'll let everyone take their skeet shots at that one! 

[barney]

^Pull!

[dr_andus]

This would still only sound relevant to those wanting to use touch screens (probably mostly laptop and tablet users) or those who already upgraded to Win8. How would this make any difference to desktop users of Win7 with non-touch monitors?

[Edvard]

So, Microsoft embracing the idea of Rolling Release^w?
Pull!

[40hz]

Hmm..,

Fix Vista and remove most of the unnecessary annoyances = Windows 7

Fix Windows 8 and remove most of the unnecessary annoyances = Windows ???

 

[TaoPhoenix]

Hmm..,

Fix Vista and remove most of the unnecessary annoyances = Windows 7

Fix Windows 8 and remove most of the unnecessary annoyances = Windows ???

 

-40hz (November 28, 2012, 07:10 PM)

Basically that's how I read that. : )

[dr_andus]

Fix Windows 8 and remove most of the unnecessary annoyances = Windows 7 (for a desktop PC without touch screen)

[TaoPhoenix]

Fix Windows 8 and remove most of the unnecessary annoyances = Windows 7 (for a desktop PC without touch screen)

-dr_andus (November 28, 2012, 08:01 PM)

Well, another article has come out about Blue, and they're doing ... uh... Stuff to it.

http://hothardware.c...et-Windows-81-Right/

It look like they keep fiddling with those Program Tiles. Except why can no one realize how incredibly much space that those take up? And look at the categories:
"Health and Fitness"? "Chat and Browse"?

Granted I am due for a cleanup again, but I have 120 items in my start menu and another 30 in an "App Links" folder. So No Tiles for me.

[40hz]

I swear this was their inspiration for Metro.

 Windows "Blue"

(Note: I gave it a quick run last weekend. About all I can say is: if "sucks ever so slightly less" is the same thing as "significantly fixed and improved" in their virtual reality, then they've met the goal with aplomb.)


With ads like this, can we get some idea where Microsoft's brain is at these days? Especially at the 20 second mark with that "you want some?" move. Jeezus Redmond! What were you thinking?

 

[dr_andus]

With ads like this, can we get some idea where Microsoft's brain is at these days? Especially at the 20 second mark with that "you want some?" move. Jeezus Redmond! What were you thinking?

-40hz (July 02, 2013, 08:50 AM)

You mean Steve Ballmer's signature move? You should see him doing it on the dance floor... 

'Fancy' advertising is hardly going to make a difference. You need a product that works and which appeals to the prospective user, not one that is shoved down their throats and which frustrates and confuses them.

[40hz]

Regarding some of Softpedia's reported 'rumors'...what are these guys smoking?

"The Redmondians are reportedly planning to make Windows Blue a low-cost or even free operating system, just to make sure all users will make the move to the new OS....

-TaoPhoenix (November 28, 2012, 02:02 PM)

That's simple wishful thinking on Softpedia's part. Free on that scale is not something Microsoft does. Besides, they already made that very move when they turned a complete blind eye towards all the installations using "borrowed" OEM media for Windows95 and Office back in the 90s. Dell's copies of Windows and Office got passed around quicker than a spliff at a Grateful Dead concert back then. That was what established Microsoft as "what got used."

Letting everybody grab a copy for "free" effectively neutered Wordperfect, Lotus, Novell, Netscape, Harvard Graphics, Borland - and just about everyone else who was actual competition. That also prevented BSD and Linux from gaining anything other than a toehold on the desktop. So there's really no need to repeat that market growth strategy again. Now it's time to cash in on it.

The Windows SDK would also be updated to the new release, while Microsoft would encourage developers to create apps for Windows Blue, with a lowered focus on Windows 8.

I think that's largely wishful thinking too - as borne out by Microsoft's recent announcement ending TechNet software subscriptions.

Microsoft wants big developers who can pay the tariff and play the game Microsoft's way. They're not interested in dealing with 5,000 small developers - no matter how innovative.

Anybody that has a product Microsoft truly wants will wither be sued into submission, sell out to Microsoft - or face a protracted and expensive patent battle. Microsoft could also simply take what it wants and then tell the smaller guy: "Come sue me - and may the man with the deepest pockets win!" That's a strategy that worked wonders for all those Asian knockoff shops.

Nope. It's all been done before with the railroad companies, auto manufacturers, airlines and telcos. It will be done again with software development.

In fact, it already is being done.

Right now I'm waiting to see if Microsoft finally makes good on Ballmer's threats about legal action and finally goes after Linux big time for patent infringement. Considering how Linux really is their only possible competitor for a desktop operating system, now would seem to be the time considering Win8's poor sales record.

Microsoft couldn't even give things away in order to compete. Linux is already free for the taking. Ditto for LibreOffice. And the advantages gained from consumer inertia and corporate FUD paranoia can only continue to serve Redmond for so long...

 

[Arizona Hot]

Is this article more flame to the fire or does everyone here already know about it(or is it not revelant to the final release)?



A look at the black underbelly of Windows 8.1 'Blue'  Microsoft windows - InfoWorld

[Vurbal]

At least Windows Blue is a fitting codename if only because it describes the language most people use after about 30 seconds attempting to use Windows 8. Windows #@&?! would have been impossible to pronounce.

[40hz]

Microsoft effectively put the "personal" in personal computing. At least for most people - and businesses.

Now they're trying to take it away.

Lovely...

And to think that people got so mad at Google for shutting down Reader.

So how come these same people aren't screaming bloody murder about something like this?

I really need to stop caring about this stuff. Seriously. I really do,  

[Vurbal]

Microsoft wants big developers who can pay the tariff and play the game Microsoft's way. They're not interested in dealing with 5,000 small developers - no matter how innovative.

-40hz (July 02, 2013, 12:12 PM)

I agree with the rest of your post 1000% but this bit is what pisses me off the most. If not for an army of independent, and mostly unpaid, developers coming up with creative answers to questions Microsoft has never thought to ask Windows would not be what it is today. When it results in an enterprise success like Citrix they create a watered down copy and try to squeeze the original out of the market. When it's something like DivX or ffdshow they rework their existing software in an attempt to make it less useful.

That kind of thinking worked great for railroads and telcos because they controlled scarce resources. Like a lot of other megacorporations Microsoft has convinced themselves they can artificially impose the limitations of the physical world on the virtual one so they can pretend nothing has changed. It won't work any better for them than it has for newspapers, record labels, or TV networks.

It's not surprising. When a game changing technology shift occurs it's the rule rather than the exception. The more successful you are, the harder it is to change your thinking. Some companies change late in the game and at least survive. Some move on into other industries or fade to insignificant companies serving niche markets but refusing to adapt has a 100% failure rate.

To paraphrase a nugget of wisdom from Despair.com, the only common thread uniting all your unhappy customers is you. And to quote myself, if the answer is obvious and simple you probably don't understand the question. Unless and until Microsoft gets new leadership with a completely different mindset the downward spiral isn't going to stop. They still have big enough cash reserves to start over and turn things around. What they don't have is any idea where to go. As soon as 2 or 3 years from now it might be too late.

[Stoic Joker]

To paraphrase a nugget of wisdom from Despair.com...

-Vurbal (August 14, 2013, 08:48 AM)

I Freaking Love That Site!

[40hz]

That kind of thinking worked great for railroads and telcos because they controlled scarce resources. Like a lot of other megacorporations Microsoft has convinced themselves they can artificially impose the limitations of the physical world on the virtual one so they can pretend nothing has changed. It won't work any better for them than it has for newspapers, record labels, or TV networks.

-Vurbal (August 14, 2013, 08:48 AM)

Probably not.

But they still have the capacity to make life a bigger hell than most people are willing to deal with when the easy option to just go along with Microsoft is available. And many will.

As far as innovation goes, Microsoft's current position is depressingly predictable.

Innovation is only of value to a business when it is still actively competing. Once the business and its product become established, innovation is then viewed as a threat. And the strategy such businesses resort to is: first, to get innovations outlawed as "disruptive"; and second, if failing that, to argue for regulation in the name of establishing 'standards' which have the tendency to dampen innovation by favoring existing products and providers. Today, they will also throw in the fight against terrorism, drugs, media piracy, and kiddie porn when the old argument for 'standards' breaks down.

There's no innovative strategy here. Just Microsoft doing what every other company has tried to do once they thought they cornered a market: feature-freeze the technology and lock out the competition

[Vurbal]

But they still have the capacity to make life a bigger hell than most people are willing to deal with when the easy option to just go along with Microsoft is available. And many will.

-40hz (August 14, 2013, 01:15 PM)

Exactly right. The question isn't really whether they will fall. It's how much collateral damage they inflict on the rest of us in the process.

[superboyac]

That kind of thinking worked great for railroads and telcos because they controlled scarce resources. Like a lot of other megacorporations Microsoft has convinced themselves they can artificially impose the limitations of the physical world on the virtual one so they can pretend nothing has changed. It won't work any better for them than it has for newspapers, record labels, or TV networks.

-Vurbal (August 14, 2013, 08:48 AM)

Probably not.

But they still have the capacity to make life a bigger hell than most people are willing to deal with when the easy option to just go along with Microsoft is available. And many will.

As far as innovation goes, Microsoft's current position is depressingly predictable.

Innovation is only of value to a business when it is still actively competing. Once the business and its product become established, innovation is then viewed as a threat. And the strategy such businesses resort to is: first, to get innovations outlawed as "disruptive"; and second, if failing that, to argue for regulation in the name of establishing 'standards' which have the tendency to dampen innovation by favoring existing products and providers. Today, they will also throw in the fight against terrorism, drugs, media piracy, and kiddie porn when the old argument for 'standards' breaks down.

There's no innovative strategy here. Just Microsoft doing what every other company has tried to do once they thought they cornered a market: feature-freeze the technology and lock out the competition

-40hz (August 14, 2013, 01:15 PM)