The new Microsoft: Impressively fast

[anuseems]

Summary: Significant change is underway in Redmond, with Microsoft reshaping itself to meet current market conditions. The most impressive change is how fast it is moving to address customer demands.

Anyone who has followed Microsoft for very long can tell you that moving fast has never been the company's strong point. The gigantic infrastructure consisting of separate business units has long led to slow, plodding change. That has to change to keep up with the rapid pace of the mobile space. Impressively, moving quickly is what we are seeing Microsoft not only attempt, but doing well.

win8greasecar(Image: Jason Perlow/ZDNet)

Those of us who have worked closely with Microsoft for years know all too well how slowly the company has always moved. Having served as a Tablet PC MVP for seven years, I saw this slow, plodding Microsoft too many times. Even when rapid change was required, the company often would still take its time to alter the status quo. Opportunities were often missed as a result of the lack of internal speed.

Until recently, the company had been so large for so long it was no surprise nothing ever seemed to happen quickly. Just getting one team to meet with another on the Microsoft campus often required a shuttle bus. Yes, the campus is so big that buses are required to get workers from one side to another.

Having seen this in person for so long, I was skeptical every time I heard that internal operation was going to speed up. I admit I didn't think this was possible.

What's Hot on ZDNet

Microsoft's Nadella on courage, subscriptions and unique value

As iPad sales slow, hybrid PCs begin to find a foothold

The new Microsoft: Impressively fast

Six clicks: Great tips and tricks for Android

That's why http://www.zdnet.com/the-new-microsoft-impressively-fast-7000028772/

Edited April 26, 2014 by anuseems

[stylemessiah]

Not moving fast enough most would say

Lets see:

They ignored like 12+ months of feedback about NOT removing the Start Menu BEFORE Windows 8 was released

Then they released it having ignored the above

Then then lost money left right and centre

Then they were rumoured to be putting the Start Menu back in the first update (we cant call it a service pack because they said they werent doing those anymore, but its a service pack).....never happened

Then they were rumoured to be putting the Start Menu back in the latest update (we cant call it a service pack because they said they werent doing those anymore, but its a service pack).....never happened

And six months out from its 1 year failaversary, theres still no Start Menu, and its again rumoured that theyre putting the Start Menu back in the next update (we cant call it a service pack because they said they werent doing those anymore, but its a service pack).....which id be surprised if it actually happened

so having ignored a years worth of feedback about removing the Start Menu + 6 months of retail life where they continued to ignore their customers means they have ignored their customers for over 18 months. Not the way id run my business.

So yeah, theyre definitely listening and "moving fast"

Microsoft STILL hasnt figured out its not even in with a snowballs chance of being in the "mobile market", it lost before it even began producing those godawful Surface tablets that they cant give away and continually shave $50-$100 every x months in the hope that they can even make $1 per unit. To date they have lost close to a billion dollars on the entire Surface craptastrophy.

Instead by trying (in vain and stupdly) to become an ecosystem like crApple, they alienated their long term users and customers, who use a fricking desktop, not some bloody fumblepad.....

My bowels move quicker than Microsoft (i just had my gallbladder removed last week:) )

The OP belongs over with the douches at Neowin....

Edited April 26, 2014 by stylemessiah

[nuthut]

the start menu ain't that big of a deal.

What did you do when you had DOS and Windows 3.XX.. No start menus there, you learned where stuff was and went to it.

If you want quick access to certain things.. attach it to your task bar or put a quick link on your desk top.

Damn, start menu is getting to be an old excuse not. think of something new.

[stylemessiah]

the start menu ain't that big of a deal.

What did you do when you had DOS and Windows 3.XX.. No start menus there, you learned where stuff was and went to it.

If you want quick access to certain things.. attach it to your task bar or put a quick link on your desk top.

Damn, start menu is getting to be an old excuse not. think of something new.

Nice try,

The Start Menu is apparently a big deal, or are you purposely ignoring the sheer number of downloads of replacements like Classic Shell. A couple of tens of million people would tend to disagree with you.

What did i do with DOS and Windows 3, well in DOS i used dos commands and even then there were menuing systems available (maybe you dont remember such things as DOS menu systems - trust me they were around and very popular), and in windows 3 i used desktop shortcuts and menus.

Then in EVERY other windows version for over a decade i used the Start Menu, because it was designed to make things easier to find. It was something called progress. Sticking every shortcut to every file, program etc on the desktop is just non-sensical. Its easy to understand the Start Menu and use it(unlike the abomination that is the "Modern Interface"), hence the Start Menus popularity (still)...its organised and a fixed reference point.

Windows 8 interface alone is a backwards step, actually its even worse than that. Its the OS people told Microsoft they didnt want before they released it, because they wanted the Start Menu. You ignore your users at your own peril, as

they have found out to the tune of about a billion dollars....

Other things to hate about Windows 8, the ridiculous size of "updates" (remember we're not allowed to call them service packs anymore, but thats what they are)...lets see the first "update" was he size of the entire OS - has that EVER happened before in windows history..No. then the latest one is around a Gb. Its true, they arent doing service packs anymore, because apparently the code was so bad overall theyre having to replace large (if not all) the Os code every x months.

If you call that progress and love it so much, go and join the cultists over at Neowin, im just saying, you might find that instead of having your replies debunked that you will be right at home amongst the yes men there.

Edited April 27, 2014 by stylemessiah

[Rok]

Microsoft moving fast 'really' ! Forget about other things, where is the Start Menu in Windows 8, that we have been requesting the company to add, even much before the release of Windows 8.

[CPowell46]

I wouldn't use 8 even if I liked it (and I don't), because it's so spectacularly bloated. 8 gives you nothing significant that XP doesn't give you, whether Microsoft cultists will admit it or not. But 8.1 runs about 2.87 Gb, and XP about 625 Mb! What does all that code do? Anything?

[CPowell46]

Not that XP is a marvel of coding efficiency. The operating system for my Atari Falcon took 114.5 Kb. Of course, XP has more capabilities...but 5600 times more?

[MidnightDistortions]

Wow, i like how people will use the argument that people refused to upgrade to Windows 3.1 and Windows 95, XP ect. While granted i was not dependent on PCs during that time every Windows OS was a profound improvement over the other until Vista came out, then it was some things improved, some things did not and others is a regression. For some reason or another some prefer the start screen over the start menu and it's expected that Windows 8 has improved some stuff over Windows 7. But when you buy something new you expect it to improve and be better then the old.

If i buy a new car i expect it to be better then the one i am replacing. Microsoft has always been slow at doing things. It took them 5 years to release Vista after XP and now all of a sudden they want to update Windows 8 every year like your installing a new OS. Kinda late for that considering MS allowed Xp to function for 13 years before cutting off life support on it. MS barely updated Windows 7 but really Windows 7 is essentially a service pack to Vista, except that W7 wasn't exactly free unless they had some deal i didn't know about. Under Ballmer, the start menu was totally discarded. I think with the new guy he is trying to get the start menu back, but they're probably using XP's death to try to get users into the Windows 8 UI so if they do indeed restore the start menu in the fall update it's because they have failed at trying to get more users off of XP to upgrade to Windows 8. However with all the delays more and more users are avoiding Windows 8 all together so any update to Windows 8, including the restoration of the start menu will be too little too late, at least for awhile anyway.

[cyberber]

its sounds like a broken record all this bitching of the Start Menu. Is windows XP capable of using the extra Ram ( !6 Gb of Ram) does it take advantage in full of a Intel i7 processor or can it read SSD Drives of coarse not, but you can stick to your old technology just because you never wanted to innovate in life just stick to your old habits.

Edited April 27, 2014 by cyberber

[CPowell46]

1. 32-bit XP can only address 4 Gb, not because it's XP, but because it's 32-bit. 64-bit XP can address 128 Gb.

2. Of course XP can use SSDs.

For a Senior Member, Cyberber seems a bit out of touch.

[CPowell46]

And XP works perfectly well on an i7.

[nuthut]

And XP works perfectly well on an i7.

Things I want to waste money on:

Buying a personal watercraft in Alaska. Sure you can use it for maybe 4 weeks out of the year...

Snow skis is Florida. Sure, Florida will get snow once every seven years but hey... you are prepared for it.

A raincoat for when I take a trip across the Sahara Desert.... it has been known to rain there a few times so, why not be prepared.

an 8 core processor for a native 32 bit OS. True, they did make a 64 bit pro version of XP but tell me how popular THAT was.

[cyberber]

I couldn't care less if Win8 or 8.1 comes with a Start Menu there are plenty of alternatives including Classic Shell 4.1.0 which are free and very easy to set up that replaces them btw is the one I use. So continue to use your old clunker and discontinued XP

Edited April 27, 2014 by cyberber

[CPowell46]

Microsoft is indeed fortunate to have faithful followers like Nuthut and Cyberber. (By the way, the fact that few people have ever used 64-bit XP could have something to do with the fact that most people think, correctly, that a 64-bit OS will give them nothing they want or need that a 32-bit system won't give them.)

Edited April 27, 2014 by CPowell46

[MidnightDistortions]

Meanwhile Windows 8 hasn't changed users opinions of it: http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-8-1-Full-Version/product-reviews/B00EDSI7QO/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

People say it's awful to use, heck im not going to waste my time with an OS hated by the consumer base either. Heck, i think if it wasn't for Windows 8 i wouldn't be so influenced to get on the Linux bandwagon. Windows 8 is fine, long as the UI doesn't frustrate you while you try to install 3rd party software after installing security updates.

[nuthut]

Meanwhile Windows 8 hasn't changed users opinions of it: http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-8-1-Full-Version/product-reviews/B00EDSI7QO/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

People say it's awful to use, heck im not going to waste my time with an OS hated by the consumer base either. Heck, i think if it wasn't for Windows 8 i wouldn't be so influenced to get on the Linux bandwagon. Windows 8 is fine, long as the UI doesn't frustrate you while you try to install 3rd party software after installing security updates.

Replace HTC1 with Windows 8 and it is a perfect example of the sheep...

http://youtu.be/30aN29-r400

[mjall]

I can see the positive change in MS and happy in what they have done so far

[dcs18]

Microsoft moving fast 'really' ! Forget about other things, where is the Start Menu in Windows 8, that we have been requesting the company to add, even much before the release of Windows 8.

The native Start Menu which I'm using on my Windows 7 is dumb, static inflexible and cannot be enhanced or customized - it has never received an update even once in it's entire 5 years. I'm tired of using the same old b!tch - I can't even run those awesome 3rd party Start Menu alternatives on my own Windows 7 (and, how I wish I could.)

I'd rather have the power to choose my own Start Menu for my Windows 8.1 from a wide selection of actively developed alternatives such as StartIsBack, Start8, Classic Shell, etc., etc. Besides, these Start Menus ship with the capability to disable the Modern UI. Moreover, I'm able to dictate to Tihiy or to Neil as to the exact changes and/or enhancements I want with my Start Menu for Windows 8/8.1 - can I even dream of approaching Microsoft to complain about the abject impotency of my Windows 7 Start Menu? Microsoft can never grant us an exemplary and scalable Start Menu like this one on my Windows 8.1 Update - even if they can . . . . . . . . . . . . will they???

I hope Microsoft won't try to foist their abysmal Start Menu with the next update to Windows 8. :thumbsdown:

[dcs18]

I wouldn't use 8 even if I liked it (and I don't), because it's so spectacularly bloated. 8 gives you nothing significant that XP doesn't give you, whether Microsoft cultists will admit it or not. But 8.1 runs about 2.87 Gb, and XP about 625 Mb! What does all that code do? Anything?

Can your beloved XP boast of the following luxuries or even dream of ever being able to run the latest releases of:--

• Windows Updates
• UEFI
• GPT
• Secure Boot
• Adobe Photoshop CC 14.0
• Adobe Lightroom
• Adobe Illustrator CC
• Adobe Audition CC
• CorelDRAW Graphics Suite X7 17.0
• Adobe Premiere Pro CC

Microsoft is indeed fortunate to have faithful followers like Nuthut and Cyberber. (By the way, the fact that few people have ever used 64-bit XP could have something to do with the fact that most people think, correctly, that a 64-bit OS will give them nothing they want or need that a 32-bit system won't give them.)

Right - few people have ever used the 64-bit XP.

The reason for that is the usual step-motherly treatment from Microsoft - Users of the 64-bit of XP were never blessed with the SP3 which was granted to Users of the 32-bit.

Users of the 64-bit iteration, had to contend themselves with a stonewalled SP2.

[MidnightDistortions]

I didn't know it was sensible to continue using XP.

I don't have anything against XP, but with vulnerabilities going crazy at the MS shack i'd prefer using Linux or even 8.1 than stay on XP. Though it's probably another ploy by MS to get more users off of XP, you can't use 3 or 4TB+ hard drives on XP. With wanting to get off fossil fuels a newly built machine with W7, W8 or Linux would have far more energy efficiency than a piece of junk P4 single core PC that barely runs on it's native OS. Heck, i am giving up my cheap '99 PC originally on W98 that should have been retired when i got Windows 7, but i kept using it for XP which runs like total crap now it can barely get to the logon screen without it locking up and takes 5 minutes to load. Not to say that all old PC's from 2001 (to the beginning of time) runs like this but i would just take apart that PC and get rid of the junk at a recycle center instead of trying to get it to work when modern stuff is far more energy efficient and takes advantage of the new technology.

[CPowell46]

Drama, it's now 25 days after Doomsday, and the Attack of the Hackers hasn't happened. It won't happen. Much has been made of one...count it, one..."XP vulnerability" that wasn't an XP vulnerability at all. It was an IE vulnerability, one that affected Vista, 7, and 8, as well as XP. But Microsoft released a patch that was designed to work on Vista, 7, and 8, but not on XP. (They later patched XP too.) The fuss about this "vulnerability" was just part of Microsoft's campaign to sell 8.

I don't say a word against anyone who wants to use 7...or even Vista and 8. I prefer XP, but to each his own. I don't know what's wrong with your XP machine, but my two XP machines continue to work just fine (as does my one 7 machine).

Perhaps someday Microsoft will release an OS that I dislike less than I dislike XP. If that happens, I'll adopt the new OS. Until then, XP is, for me, the least of the available evils. Perhaps your tastes differ from mine; but what you choose to do is none of my business.

Edited May 3, 2014 by CPowell46

[MidnightDistortions]

It wasn't originally an XP machine it was originally a Windows 98 machine but that's the reason i have newer PCs in my home. Even when i had gotten a machine running Vista it was frustrating to use mostly because it lacked RAM so then i decided to build my own PC which is far better but i also added RAM to my Vista machine which runs smoother but now it's getting slow again, it works ok as a media machine while my newest machine was built for gaming and other heavy processing stuff. I probably won't be buying new PC equipment for a long time other than replacements. I don't have many problems with XP but since i have W7 i don't have many problems with that either so i'm going to stick with W7 for awhile. The problem i have with my older PC's is that it doesn't provide the resources i need to properly use it.

[CPowell46]

Drama, it sounds as if your problems may have more to do with the limitations of your hardware than with the limitations of your OS.

[dcs18]

Boy, oh boy, just take a look a these 3rd Start Menus alternatives for Windows 8 - they sure make XP look like a pu$$y. :evil:

[derpycat]

I'm making it my policy to ignore the rants of dcs 18 and his ilk, and to confine myself to reasoned discussions with reasonable posters. I recommend this policy to other sensible posters.

What do you consider reasoned discussions? It seems to me that you're wilfully ignoring the points laid out by everyone else on this thread about the weaknesses of your sacred OS, while giving absolutely no arguments in favour of XP except that it costs 2 GB less to install than 8.1.

I used to be a staunch XP lover until 2012. I had it customized up the wazoo with tweaks, and it ran like a dream for me. When I switched to 7, I realised that modern OSes don't need even a tenth of the tweaks that XP needed in order to be even remotely usable. It also clearly performed better (I won't bother linking benchmarks, but if you'd care to spend one second Googling, you'll find plenty of proof that 7 is faster than XP), and made better use of modern hardware. One of the very few things I lamented about with Windows 7 was the lack of hardware accelerated audio, but that's actually made a return in Windows 8. XP also has a dearth of support for new hardware, and software releases are always going to be increasingly scarcer for the dead OS.

Show us with "reasoning", and not just ad hominems, why you think XP is better than modern operating systems. 2GB of storage space is a ridiculous concern in the modern era. It's not even a valid concern on SSDs, the smallest of which are still 30 times that size. What validates all that extra code? I don't know, I'm not a software engineer. But for me it's enough that Windows 8 has newer features like support for the 8 year old DirectX10, and the 5 year old Directx 11, and 11.1 and 11.2 which came with Windows 8 and 8.1, respectively. It's enough for me that I'll never have to worry about software compatibility. It's enough that my OS is supported by the company that made it. It's enough that Windows 8 supports all of my modern hardware. It's enough that it makes use of hardware more efficiently (marginally, I admit) than Windows 7, which itself is more efficient than Windows XP. It's enough that it has a few new little features like the Win+X key, improved hardware monitoring, native ISO mounting, and native SSD trimming that make it better, if only incrementally, than Windows 7, which can do everything XP can do but quicker.

After all, if you consider Microsoft's software to be so bloated and awful, why are you stuck on the now-obsolete, unsafe, unsupported, and slow Windows XP instead of moving to something else? I don't know who you're trying to win over with your insults and weakness in reasoning, but you're practically baying at the moon over here. Nobody on these forums wants to go back to XP, whether they're on 7 or 8.1, because both of these new operating systems outstrip XP in nearly every aspect.