Perhaps I'm too much of a cynic, but I tend to think these are things that were always planned but didn't make the beta. They've now been finished and this is just marketing spin, that this is due to feed back rather than finishing the product. They probably got really excited when getting a request for something they were already working on.

Remember most product plans prioritize features and these might have been a selection of lower priority features that made it in late. The danger is that when things are added late, it can break other things and damage quality. After all these 38 things are subject to a shorter QA and client testing cycle.

Didn't seem to address the main requested feature or being able to upgrade easily from earlier versions and to support more hardware drivers.

hell no they're not listening too much to beta testers. all these ui "changes" you refer to are all minor and to prove it, they would not have been changed unless they were. like already mentioned, some of these may have already been planned.

this is no huge change in the os and changing these 4-6 months before release is plenty of time.

Could be that although most Microsofties "eat their own dog-food" maybe the culture in Redmond precludes non-developers from making obvious suggestions. The UI changes seemed like good ones to me - from a user POV. They also don't seem like radical changes... just tweaks really.

I'm a Mac and Linux home user and a Windows XP business user. I'm actually looking forward to 7. I hope it's as good as its reviews.

Is Joe honestly suggesting that Microsoft should be running a beta in which it doesn't incorporate any of the user feedback? It's been tried before you know, and there's not a lot of love for that approach... Almost all of the changes mentioned in the shell blog article he referenced appear to be driven by quantitative telemetry data analysis supported by qualitative user feedback. Isn't this what we would all hope they would be doing at this stage?

This isn't called "design by commitee" - it's called "customer focused design" and it's an industry standard best practice that is basically the art and science of designing iPods (great products that really resonate with their target market) Win7 is the first version of Windows to be designed using this methodology from end to end and top to bottom. Slide 6 from this presentation gives a super high-level view: http://socalitpro.com/Presentations/MSApril2007_Final.pdf

They don't listen, they get criticized. They listen, they get criticized.

Re: "They don't listen, they get criticized."

No kidding, Sherlock Holmes.

Re: "They listen, they get criticized."

But only to the people they didn't listen to. People still clamor for standards, and Microsoft's ears go deaf. Businesses still clamor for XP because they can't afford the mass investment in the latest hardware when it doesn't offer them any more benefits than what they currently have, and Microsoft tries to shut out their pleas. People have clamored for proper security, and Microsoft has been stone-deaf up until recently, which is the ABSOLUTE WORST time to incorporate security into a product.

But that's ok, Paul. Steve Ballmer has your shoulder to cry his river of tears on. Poor baby, Steve. You own 95% of the world's desktops, 85% of the US Government's politicians, and you still hear criticism. Life's just not fair, is it? Well, you can cry an ocean on Paul's willing shoulder. Now, now. Doesn't that feel better?

UI changes are NOT critical changes on any system, if your design is good and you have kept your model decoupled from your views. Any programmer can tell you that...

I don't like the buried UIs in MS products. A lot of the UIs are counter-intuitive. It's slowly getting better on some products, worse on others.
.
click-click-click-click.

Joe I don't get you.

The changes I read about are

A: Great.
B: No real problem to implement.
C: No big deal in the greater scheme of things.

Are you running out of things to post about?

@Philosopher
Quote "You own 95% of the world's desktops, 85% of the US Government's politicians, and you still hear criticism. "
-
Its getting harder to find anyone on this site (or on any site) with anything good to say about Microsoft.
-
As usual Philosopher, your eloquent post summed it up perfectly.

My money is on smist08's explanation. It's largely about doing what was already planned, but marketing in such a way as to maximize the "feel good" for the users. Customer Management 101, and yes, cynical :)

That being said, I read through the announced changes for the RC and they pretty much all make good sense. Thus far my experience with Windows 7 beta has far surpassed my best days with Vista ("days" is generous), and I'm cautiously optimistic MS will launch this one right.

Frankly, I'd be worried if someone (anyone) ran a beta test and then made absolutely no changes based on the feedback. You wouldn't make major changes at this stage in the development, but minor tweaks based on user comments make perfect sense.

My masters project at uni was designing a new user interface to someone else's program and a few minor tweaks in UI made a huge difference in whether or not people liked the program. I'm all for Microsoft making UI changes based on what users have said.

"If the committee decides, Windows will be doomed to mediocrity."

Do you mean that Vista/Win7 are already mediocre and will remain so?

My guess is that MS did the GUI with some idea in mind and now it's gone for the road test and people are saying it needs some work. I agree that MS shouldn't try to please everyone, but they do need to get an idea of where users have serious problems and think about how to improve things.

In para 4 of the blog to which Joe is referring, the author, Chaitanya Sareen, wrote:

"We won't be able to cover all the changes (as we're still busy making them), but for today we wanted to start with a sampling of some of the more visible changes."

Joe, which syllables in "a sampling" and "more visible" don't you understand!

Chaitanya's intro informs the reader of the articles scope, and that is precisely what is discussed in the article body. Chaitanya didn't indicate that file system or process management changes were in the scope of the article, which probably explains their absence.

Whatever you or anyone thinks of MS business practices, its execs or its products I suggest that its employees deserve to be treated with a bit more respect than you are granting them, you could do that by actually reading what they write and accepting it at face value, unless you have factual evidence that what they have written is false!

It's clear, as others have already eloquently elucidated, that you know zilch about system development practices, modern or ancient. Just stick to your knitting Joe, and don't post about things of which you have no understanding.

"Frankly, I'd be worried if someone (anyone) ran a beta test and then made absolutely no changes based on the feedback."

Betas are supposed to be feature complete but need some extra testing to fix bugs. All of the new things added to the RC seem like features not bug fixes. If MS is incapable of making a usable OS without help from the public then they should release Alphas for feedback on features.

It is no wonder that businesses do not bother testing until a release, MS is notorious for even making big changes in RC->Release.

This all sounds like the IE 8 Beta debacle. There are massive changes between beta 1, beta 2 and RC. New features added and old features which have their behaviour changed. Compatibility view was added between beta 1 and beta 2, so if you tested your site on IE8 beta 1 it will look different to beta 2. Click Jacking defense was added in the RC and was never in the beta. Adding features to an RC is stupid because they are bound to have bugs and RCs are supposed to be as bug free as possible.

This is not software engineering, it is marketing. To Microsoft beta just means "we will release it soon, don't buy anything else".

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/01/29/overview-of-platform-improvements-in-ie8-rc1.aspx

"Beta 2 supported all properties in the CSS 2.1 specification and passed over 3,200 test cases. We’ve made significant improvements since Beta 2 and this week’s RC1 passes well over twice as many test cases as Beta 2."

If you check the previous blog post, it is about how the UI changed between beta 2 and RC. They should have released another beta if they are adding features.

They expect us to test the beta and then re-test on RC because it is totally different. They must think we are morons.

@mikey

In the '90's I was a development manager for a large financial services corporation, in that position I had close links into MS's (and IBM's) internal development practices.

Within the context of the "partnership" between the two parties, MS would manage & facilitate usability workshops directly with the end users (trading floor, back office, treasury, customer service, human services, marketing etc). The software under the microscope was theirs -- Word, Excel, Windows etc and ours, which was built with their tools and SDK's. So they weren't eating dog food back then.

Whether they still do that sort of stuff I don't know, it was before Steve Ballmer came to the fore, I'm not sure I'd even heard of him back then. The degree to which MS were hands on is indicated by the fact that Gates participated in one the morning workshops for a couple of hours.

@Jess Meats:

Re: "I'm all for Microsoft making UI changes based on what users have said."

Are you saying that the only users that Microsoft responded to all clamored, "Please make the UI in Vista and Windows 7 so vastly different than in XP, and be sure that everything we were used to easily finding in XP is buried somewhere else and renamed in Vista and Windows 7 so that we can't find it!"

Because two attributes of Microsoft's versions of Windows that have helped to ensure their continued desktop monopoly are Application Compatibility and User Interface Consistency.

The first attribute is sacrosanct. An operating system that exhibits a cavalier attitude and blames third-party developers digs its own grave.

The second attribute has some leeway. Going from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP required some leeway. But the Start menu (jokes about Start to stop the system aside), its arrangement required retraining but was handled fairly well in the long run. But Vista is different for no big reason. Yes, smart people will adapt, but those same smart people can also adapt to Mac or Ubuntu with equal ease.

And businesses have a valid reason for not wanting to spend money to buy new hardware to run an operating system that requires them to spend for added training and doesn't run all of their needed applications.

Blaming businesses as being lazy or dragging their feet is just flat-out wrong. Blaming application and device driver developers for lagging behind is flat-out wrong. Bill Gates knew that developers and businesses bought into his vision because they perceived that it gave them value, not because they worshiped Microsoft as a Holy Church. Business does NOT owe Microsoft ANY loyalty: Microsoft owes business the perceived value that in turn earns loyalty. Loyalty is not OWED, it is EARNED.

If Ballmer forgets this, or worse, doesn't understand this, he will end up digging Microsoft's grave. And it doesn't matter if some feel sorry for Microsoft, would hate to see Microsoft go away, or would love to dance on Microsoft's grave. Your opinion and my opinion differ, but neither opinion is relevant to the outcome. Only Ballmer's actions (or the actions of his replacement) matter.

Interesting comments as always, however what I would like to ask is regardless of Windows 7 is or isnt, wheres the one thing thing that is going to set it aside from any other Windows ver?
-
I read a very good report that highlighted for example, the first Windows ver with USB support etc, which set it appart from other versions. Since there is certainly no hardware that is Windows 7 only, and since the whole "advantage" of Windows 7 is apparently smaller footprint and lower min specs, not many people have sat back and said "hang on, I had to increase my specs to get Vista to run acceptably, why on earth would a smaller min spec be an advantage, when Ive got the specs to apparently run Windows 7 very well anyway?"
-
So IMO it now looks like Vista --> Win 7 is not really needed, since as our MS supporters say Vista is now so great. I can only assume that Win 7 is aimed at the XP user, but the XP user is very happy with their OS and certainly Id question what they would require Windows 7 for.
-
So it now comes down to the question ive been asking since last year. What on earth is the advantage of Windows 7 over Vista/XP? What can Windows 7 do that Vista/XP cannot either natively or via 3rd party software?
-
And lastly, can Microsoft please shut up about those silly gfx effects on Windows 7. Compiz users have had them for a very long time, and they are certainly (IMO) no innovation of Microsoft.

Goblin :

Not that you give a damn Goblin, because you're a small minded little hater.

7's UI is one hell of a lot more usable than Vista or XP. It also out performs both while being more secure than XP.

Of course you'll dismiss everything I say because you don't use EITHER of the three, and if you did... you'd "get it" And it's more than the way the UI "looks" It's design is intuitive and as friendly as OSX's. In fact I'd say the new taskbar is superior to OSX's dock.

When I see remarks from people like you asking such questions I have no choice but to laugh in derision. See you don't want people to use any MS product. You simply want them to roll up and die.

And compiz.... see the problem with that is you have to run desktop Linux.... NOPE. Not here bub. If MS rolls into the great beyond I'll just keep using my Macs. Anything to avoid that unregulated buggy, ghetto, garage built, band aided crud.

@Goblin:

I posted this on the next MS Watch blog entry, but it bears repeating after the insulting tirade of lies that was just directed at you. Check out:

www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Open-Source-Code-Finds-Way-into-Microsoft-Product/

“"MPI is key middleware that was designed by a consortia of all the supercomputing vendors in the 1990s to allow the easy portability of code. It abstracts away things like low-latency interconnect, and our focus is making it super easy for ISVs to move their code," Kyril Faenov, Microsoft's director for High Performance Computing, told eWEEK in a recent interview at Microsofts campus in Redmond, Wash.

"Actually, we are probably the first team at Microsoft that will actually ship an open-source component inside of our solution, but we haven't made a lot of noise around this yet," he said.”

Imagine, Microsoft has to use "unregulated buggy, ghetto, garage built, band aided crud" because their multi-hundred-billion-dollar professional software development company doesn't have the brains or desire to do it themselves.

Hi CC.torment, posting in your usual childish way. For the record Ill set the record straight again, just for you. I use Vista and xp at work, all day everyday. I think XP is a very tight OS and ive already said id prefer xp on a laptop to a mac any day.
-
I notice while you were making guesses in regards to what Iuse, you failed to answer the question. I wonder why you come here since you seem a very angry young person, and your attacks are not just limited to the numerous commenters here who disagree with almost everything you rant, but you also like to target the owner of this site aswell.
-
Please answer the question if you are going to respond to me, i thought wed seen the last of the dubious sock puppets when Ridley et al left here.
-
and before i forget cc.torment you are a liar. I have never said i didnt want people using microsoft products, infact if you look over the last couple of days, youll see i directed a comment at a poster who was going to boycott microsoft products because they were discontinuing ms flight sim. I actually discouraged him.
-
You say 7 is more secure? dont be so silly, it hasnt hit rc yet so the full extent of its security cannot be assesed until then. You are simply making up facts.

@Goblin

"You say 7 is more secure? don't be so silly, it hasn't hit rc yet so the full extent of its security cannot be assessed until then. You are simply making up facts."

True enough. I don't see how anyone right now can say a whole heck of a lot that could be considered meaningful about an operating system thus far, either way until RC status has been achieved, by hey, that's just me.

I am no fan of Linux, don't get me wrong, it sucks for me, don't like it, never did. I know that you evangelize about it, and that's okay.

I got bigger fish to fry than listening to what is the better operating system from anyone. But that phrase I quoted needed my comment.

Quote "I know that you evangelize about it, and that's okay."
-
Hmm, Id like you to show examples. I litter my posts with (IMO)'s I try to highlight Linux as an OS not as a single distro, and my ethos is more about alternatives per say, rather than simply Linux.
-
Quote "I got bigger fish to fry than listening to what is the better operating system from anyone. "
-
Then it puzzles me why you would read and respond to anyones opinion. I have always made it clear that my opinions are my experiences, thats why I wont comment on Windows 7, I havent used it. I have used(and am still using) Vista/XP at work, and a plethora of alternatives at home.
-
The term evangelize to me means that all good points are praised and the bad ones "fudged over" that is simply not true in my case, and I think you'll find on both my twitter and blog (and also here) that my choices of software are based on those right for me. I believe you will find that Ive said "if Windows 7 turns out to be as great as its suggested, you'll even find me championing it"
-
I make my software choices based on the best system at the time. I am not locked in (in any sense of the word) and I can quite believe in 2 years time, the choices I make will be very different to the ones I make now. Choosing Linux (or any alternative) simply because its not Microsoft is just silly and completely counter-productive. I assure you, I wouldnt waste my time typing about my experiences unless it was based on honest held belief. Like you, I would have better things to do with my time.
-
I am sorry my post made you waste some of yours (in that you felt you had to respond) and whilst I respect your opinion on Linux, it doesnt really fill me with any confidence that the best you could come up with is "Linux sucks". That to me doesnt suggest you are coming from any position of experience, but then thats just my opinion.
-
Quote "I got bigger fish to fry" - Im sure you have, because as an IT critic (IMO) you have plenty to learn.

Yes Goblin, you truly are a waste of my time and an over-opinionated idiot that assumes too much, but that's besides the point.

You people real make this easy dont you?
In the time you took to write:
-
"Yes Goblin, you truly are a waste of my time and an over-opinionated idiot that assumes too much, but that's besides the point."
-
You could have instead spent it typing why "Linux Sucks" (your words)
-
Ill let you get back to your "bigger fish" since you have not a modicum of credibility with me.
-
One thing though, "over-opinionated idiot"? I spend time with my posts, unlike you with your comments of "bigger fish" and "Linux sucks". I wonder who the real idiot is here?
-
@Joe Willcox
-
Im sure everyone was blown away by the informative comment of "Linux Sucks", maybe you could consider asking Darius to spend a little time away from the "bigger fish" and guest write for this site? Im sure they will be a valuable asset and a great insight into the finer details of cross platform discussion.
-
In all seriousness Joe, its been a while since we've had a Darius type post, I hope it continues.

@Goblin:
I do believe that we both can agree that Darius has a perfectly valid point.

However, I think we can also agree that if he parted his hair correctly, it wouldn't show.