Bill Gates 'Not Satisfied' With Microsoft's Innovations

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Outlook.com almost gives me the power of the Outlook program from Office 365, but web-based and free, OK email itself isn't very interesting but it must be doing something right because 20 million of the 60 million are former Gmail users...MS did buy Skype, but now it is fully integrated system, it is on phones, PCs and soon to be Xbox 720, integrated into Office and will be merged with Lync, MS may have bought the Skype name but it is vastly differant animal...Skydrive may be just cloud storage but it is not a reaction to Google Drive, several companies pushed out cloud storage all at the same time and the popularity of the services have only come to a head very recently, cloud storage is again pretty boring stuff but it is the total integration that makes it a good product...Office 365 is not just another way of paying for Office, it is a way to have a full strength Office Suite that is totally mobile and I can use it anywhere even if it is not installed on a machine. Googe Docs is good, but serious businesses will want to stick with Office, things like BYOD will mean all you need is a network connection and you may as well be sat in your office...Xbox Music is not just a music store, it has free streaming music similar to Spotify and can integrate all the existing music already on your PC, it looks amazing on a big screen TV...Surface Pro is the first of it's kind and a very good attempt, it willl make a lot of people very happy - please note I only refer to the Surface Pro, I still think the ARM RT is a toy and a huge mistake - if the Surface Pro manages to sell well, which I hope it does, then the Surface Pro 2 will be a monster to be feared by all the lazy OEMs that have got rich and fat off the back of the PC industry and not innovated into the tablet era...WP8 is very good, Windows 8 has some niggles that I have worked around alreay but so did XP and Windows 7 prior to service packs or some basic 3rd party customisation, the global software industry is awash with people that have made a very good living making skins, customisations and such and Windows 8 is just another OS to work with, the UI aside Windows 8 is fast, stable, secure and has loads of under-the-hood improvements - it has even resolved some issues I had with DOSbox for some really old games and memeory management is fantastic - does it need more polish? Maybe, but I would prefer a product that works that I polish myself than the alternatives that look polished but just don't have the function or the capability.[/citation]

That is where the difference between innovation and preservation comes in. MS used ideas from others for almost everything in your examples. I'm not saying that that is inherently bad, especially since the strategy of letting other be the pioneers before you often means more stability in the success of what you do, just that it is not innovation. MS is doing the job well with much of what it does, but it is not doign the job well in a lot of other things.

I like that Windows 8 works too, but MS undoubtedly put a lot of work into its UI. I don't mind fixing it up myself, but that MS would do so much with it and it to turn out so poorly is bad for MS. They made many great mistakes with Windows 8's UI in more than just Metro and those are mistakes that should not have happened if they'd simply used common sense in their work. I, personally, don't let such things get in the way of me using Windows 8 and Server 2012. I don't care that MS dropped the hat in many ways because I can fix it up in minutes for my own use. I can and I do use 8 and server 2012 on several systems without issue. However, that MS's mistakes don't hinder me doesn't excuse them.

Also, Surface Pro is not even close to being the first of its kind. It is one of the best at what it does, but it's far from the first.
 
Its funny how Windows 8's UI (minus Metro) makes Windows 7's UI look a little dated once you adjust to it. It's not as bug-free on my Dell as I would like but that will likely change with updates.
 
I don't see anything in Win 8 that makes it worth spending my money on to upgrade from Win 7 Ultimate. I find Metro fugly. I know there are programs to get around that problem, but M$ should have had that included.
 
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]Translation: Win8 sucks, if it did not suck then ol' Billy bob would be saying Win8 is gonna pave the way for the future and on and on and on... AND OF COURSE THE SHEEPLE WILL TAKE THIS ARTICLE AT FACE VALUE AND SAY "IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WIN 8 IS BAD!"That's what subtle criticism is for...Anyways...Face it, Win8 is another vista.Fire Ballmer and have a bonfire with the remaining copies of win8....[/citation]
If you can't hold your head up, just take a nap. Don't rest your elbow on your shift key. It's not as though anyone reads comments will all-caps all over the place (or angry immature rants for that matter).
 
I have been using Windows products for almost 30 years (yes there was such a thing as Windows 2.1). I have always been very critical of M$ product and business practices and always been a late adopter of version upgrades. For example I stuck with Win 3.11 for the longest time before jumping on the XP bandwagon (waited for SP2), I skiped Vista althogether, and waited up to early 2012 before using Win7. Man I wish I had used Win 7 earlier. Love it. My son bought a Win8 laptop last fall and you know what? Love it, love it, love it. Super fast and slick. YES, it does take about 2 days for an old fart like me to get used to the vanishing Start button, but once you realize that the "Start Screen" is just a giant "Start Button" you are in business. Stop whining and get off my lawn now will you!
 


XP was fail until SP2 and after SP2 for Vista, it too was no longer fail. Unlike XP, there was a Vista 2.0 right after it (7), so a lot of people seem to have not gotten that memo.

8's only major issue is that some people dislike Metro and the switching of Metro's start screen with the old Start Menu. That is something that anyone who actually cares about their OS is more than capable of changing just like most of us here at Tom's would change our web browsers instead of using IE. It isn't a valid complaint. So, like I've said before, that "Tick-Tock" idea about MS's operating systems is a misunderstanding by people who didn't actually research their claims and think about it well enough.
 


I agree this. There allways seems to be some period when driver system has been remade that there will be not so good driver support for a while. Allso every new UI system (maybe not counting win 7, allthough many changed it to classics because they think that 3d/aero eats so much rosources...) seems to cause some hate mail.
I am waiting some "service packs" for win8 and after that we can say something.Even at this moment win8 seems to be as fast as win7 so not so big problems in that front. Mayny hated now much loved winXP because it was so slow compared to "sleek" win98se ;-)
I just hope(believe that win8 will just get better, just like every other os has been so far with upgrades. Those peoples who now have used win8 a longer time seems to like it. I can not say it because I am still in winXP period so real PC fossile, but my old computer works guite nicely with XP at this moment and many things would not if/when I would go to win7 or win8, so my upgrade is still mayting for better times... But as I said I have met guite many very pleased customers that use win8 a lot and then I have met guite a lot peoples who don't like win8, but have used it very little time or not at all... I think that there seems to be some pattern in there...
 
Whoa. Y'all keep saying Windows 8 sucks, but I don't see a single justification. How does it suck, really? Don't tell me it's because of the lack of the start button. PC makers could always have Pokki or Stardock's Start8 preinstalled--there, a start button. Computer shops selling PCs with Windows 8 too could have em preinstalled, no big deal. You too could install it, in case your friends or kids didn't know how to, right? Apple's always only had a single mouse button and no one ever, though finding it difficult to get used to, saying it sucks cause it don't got a right mouse click.
 


Sorry, shouldn't have to install a program to make the software work the same way it has since at least Windows 95. I despise Metro and all its stupid tiles. It is way too cluttered. The less icons on my screen the better. I know I could run desktop mode. I already have that with Win 7. Many complaints are lack of start button. I have worked on a couple Win 8 systems. It was frustrating enough to convince me to stick my win 7 ultimate. The supposed performance increases aren't enough to justify the cost of a new software I would have to learn to use.
 


Are you joking? Absolutely nothing works in exactly the same way as Windows 95. Even only thinking about the start menu, it's so different from 95 in 7 that it's ridiculous to compare them as if they're the same.

Metro in no way needs more tiles than 7 needs icons or text strings and 8 in no way needs more icons than 7 either. It's only cluttered if you don't only let in what you want to be in and you have control over what is in the Metro menu without needing any third party software, so there's no excuse for that.

Furthermore, if you want something to work in the exact same way as it did almost twenty years ago in the computer industry, then yes, you probably do need a third party program with that even if you don't use 8 and you really shouldn't expect anything less.

What exactly am I supposed to think that your point is?
 
Getting to things in older versions of windows vs that of Win7 isn't hugely different. Removing the start menu was a bad idea and I have seen various reports that it is one of the bigger complaints for Win 8. I use it all the time myself. I am sorry, but I see no value in upgrading to Win 8. Win 7 does all I need it to do and doesn't have fugly Metro tied to it. I am staying with Win7 until I have no choice but to upgrade. My PC is not a tablet or a phone and shouldn't have to look like one. That seems to be the direction that M$ is going UI wise with Metro, if leaks of Blue are any indication. At least with Crapple, the OS's are different but made to work well together. Leave it to M$ to try to be Crapple and fail so miserably at it.
 


Anyone who tried to convince you that there's much reason to upgrade to 8 from 7 is generally wrong. Recommending that 7 users upgrade is not at all what I'm doing and I've specifically said this many times before.

The vast majority of people don't use the start menu in such a way that Window 8's replacements aren't just as useful, if not more useful. So, it got cut. For the few whom do, well, there's no need to upgrade your OS anytime soon and even if you do for any reason, you know how to fix the issue in a minute or two no problem or you can Google it. Not really something worth complaining about.

I also disagree with your first sentence to a huge degree. Just looking back at some of my older systems running 95, 98/98 SE, ME, 2000, XP, etc. shows that I have to do a lot of things differently, sometimes very differently. Heck, going from Vista to 7 has many things working very differently desptie how similar the two are. For example, the difference in some of the display/UI menus and how to get to them between Vista and 7 can be greatly different.
 


How has it been resurrected? Looks to me like this thread has been going on with an update ever few days or so. The only one being a troll here is you.
 
[citation][nom]logainofhades[/nom]How has it been resurrected? Looks to me like this thread has been going on with an update ever few days or so. The only one being a troll here is you.[/citation]

All I am trying to do is keep my forum update section clean, as this post keeps showing up "every couple days" (since February 19th) for no reason other than to bash / support windows 8, I don't feel I'm the one trolling. I'm asking people to let this thread go to pasture.
 
It is unfair to compare Windows Vista to Windows 8 because Windows Vista is good OS and usable. Windows 8 is unusable, and Metro is just plain ugly and distracting. Who wants big squares on screen?

Windows 8 is an insult to IQ in every possible way.
 
I've only used the Win 8 phone for a short time and that works wonders however I don't have to do any customizing to it or add hardware to it so it does work.

The reason why I don't like Win 8 is for support reasons. Everything takes longer to get to. Trying to set it up on a different wireless network or having to add a DNS IP entry to the network card is a b***h. Everything is more clicks and it's not always in the place that makes the most common sense. Because of this, trying to walk someone else over the phone on where they need to go to click something when you don't have an option to remote into their system and fix it yourself is beyond frustrating sometimes. In Win 7, going to Start\Search and doing \\Server name was as easy as telling someone to do exactly that. Now I get "I don't see that." or "I can't find that." It's irritating as hell sometimes.

The Metro interface is great on the phone because you CAN'T change the hardware on the phone and don't need to go into a lot of the hardware settings for anything but for laptops and desktop, it does suck and everything DOES take a little longer to do.

Didn't realize this was that old of a post... or the one about Gates "Not Satisfied" with MS....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom