How Microsoft is Killing Itself

There has been no lack of Vista bashing lately. Nearly everyone knows by now that Vista is not the operating system people hoped it would be. I think one big reason for this is pretty simple: Microsoft has been trying to make windows 'easier to use' for years when it should have been making windows simpler, even as it added more functionality.

These two things are not the same; if Microsoft continues to head down the road it is currently on, I fully expect Microsoft to commit seppuku by being broken up and sold off to various other companies in a decade or two. Microsoft is not alone in this confusion about what is best for personal computers: Linux has exhibited this fatal flaw for years. To suggest that aspects of Microsoft's user interface are becoming more like Linux may seem counter intuitive, but stick with me and I think you will see what I mean.

First, let me explain what I mean by the difference between 'simpler' and 'easier to use.' The idea behind making something 'easier to use' is to put a facade over an inherently complicated task. The job of this facade is to make understanding of the underlying controls unnecessary.

I give you, for example, any one of a number of Microsoft's many wizards.

Microsoft has decided that the average user is incapable of understanding how to perform certain tasks within Windows. Wizards, therefore, act as a proxy between the "unknowledgeable user" and the complicated controls beneath. These wizards do not, in any way, change the underlying behavior of windows.

If you are an advanced user or an expert, your first inclination (certainly my first inclination!) is to reach for these wizards' off switches. These wizards do make setting up tasks easier, but they also require more time and in general don't offer as many options or as much functionality. It is rare that what I want to do is completely covered by the functionality of any wizard in Windows.

Contrast this idea with the concept of making something simpler. The idea behind making something simpler is to replace a complicated task with something less complicated.

Let's use the concrete example of hardware configuration. In Windows 95/98, nearly all controls for hardware were centrally located in the control panel. There were some exceptions, such as the net command accessible from the DOS prompt, but the command didn't do much that you couldn't do from within Windows. Certainly setting up certain options was not intuitive, but it was predictable. Once you learned how to run the system, it pretty much behaved the same way regardless of what hardware was installed.

As the operating system became more complicated and hardware vendors began adding more functionality, the locations of various controls within windows began to migrate away from the control panel. Each developer of a particular video card began creating their own signature method of presenting their control panel to the end user. Wireless network device vendors each have their own unique user interface.

Even Microsoft has been careless with the location of controls. Take, for instance, the "adapters and bindings" settings dialog. This dialog box allows you to specify the order in which connections are accessed by network services; that is, the binding order.

The binding order is not something that anyone generally needs to tweak. Do you know where this dialog box is located? I'll bet good money the average power user doesn't even know this dialog box exists, for two reasons: One, it's a feature one generally does not need to tweak, and two, it's located in an obscure location. To get there, go to start->network connections, then choose the advanced|advanced settings... menu option. You cannot arrive at this dialog box by any other means that I am aware of.

If you are trying to set up a multi-homed WINS server, you must adjust the adapter binding order in this dialog in order to set the "primary IP" of the machine. If you don't, the external network may be unable to resolve NETBios names properly. You probably didn't even know what a multi-homed WINS server was. If you do, you might not have known this setting existed... you might have even given up in frustration trying to set up such a system! This is because when you set up a WINS server, there's no documentation pointing to this obscure dialog box. The dialog box itself doesn't even have decent documentation once you do find it. The only way to learn about the important role this control plays is to do a lot of reading on the Internet.

Microsoft's solution to this problem, if they ever decide it is a problem, will probably be to offer another Wizard: the WINS wizard. This wizard will dutifully ask the right questions to configure your system properly, making it "easier to use" Windows, but doing nothing to simplify the actual Windows system.

The correct solution is to eliminate all the existing wizards and move all hardware controls to a centralized location, the reasonably named Control Panel. Replacing the old wizards should be a new set located exclusively in the help system rather than directly embedded in the control panel itself. These wizards should not merely go about setting up the controls for you; instead, they should really be tutorials which guide you through the process of setting up the options in question yourself.

Microsoft has traveled the path of "making things easier" because they erroneously believe their user base is incapable of learning to operate a complicated system. This is clearly not true. Today's adults have grown up around technology and have managed to learn how to control their PCs quite well in spite of Microsoft's efforts.

I say Microsoft has become more like Linux because they have permitted their operating system controls to sprawl, making it difficult to discover every nook and cranny of the OS. They have attempted to cover up this sprawl with flash and mirrors to make it appear easy to use. Clearly, Linux is not immune from my ire. In my opinion it has always suffered from an abundance of complexity. The Linux community has responded to this problem by covering it up with flashy user interfaces, which is not to say that a good windows manager is unimportant.

For instance, it is a celebrated tradition in Linux circles to use obscure names for programs and commands.

Compare these common tasks between Microsoft Windows and Linux:

It it any wonder the average new Linux user is confused? Who in their right mind thinks, "I want to edit a document. Let me type 'pico mydocument.txt'?" The Linux solution has been to invest a huge effort into the development of KDE and Gnome, but this is simply a smoke and mirrors cover for a very complicated system. Why not simply choose a very good editor and point "edit" to it?

If you want to release the world's best Linux distribution you don't need to make the next advancement to the x-windows manager. Instead, simplify the OS. Rename things well, redesign the file structure to be less confusing, and change the documentation system to be less obfuscated. There should be a standard way to retrieve terse yet clear examples of the most common ways each command is used! This idea is blasphemy to the Linux crowed, however, since all experienced Linux users expect things to be in certain places and named certain ways, even if new users think those conventions are confusing.

Compare all of this to OS X's configuration system. In OS X everything is neatly organized, clearly labeled, and easy to find. There is no necessity for wizards to intervene for the user because everything is easy to understand.

I have yet to use a Mac; using OS X is on the short list of things I intend to do in the next few years. My understanding is that Apple is the one OS vendor which understands this principle fairly well, although that understanding may be an accidental one. By controlling both the hardware and software, their presentation to the end user is completely uniform, if not always immediately obvious. I'm told that once you learn how to perform a task on a Mac, you can be fairly certain that same procedure will work elsewhere.

Many claim Mac's popularity is due to a relative immunity to malware. I don't think that claim is either true or relevant. I think people love the Mac because it's easy to understand and use. Whether Apple fully understand how important it is that the OS remain fairly uniform is questionable. As new technology is invented, will they allow new control panels and interaction methods to sprawl away from their current central theme?

In short, Microsoft's OS's are becoming bloated with unnecessary and unhelpful code, Linux continues to be baffling, even to knowledgeable users, and Apple may be poised to take over the world if they can fully grasp what it is that people love about their OS.

-- ThoughtKeeper - 08 Feb 2007

Ok now that was worth reading. I mean I've tried Linux I use windows I even have Vista on my pc along side my old xp and you are right and I totally agree with you windows and Linux in their so called clash have done nothing but make each other more and more bloated, and though I never actually owned a mac I did test out Darwin x86, witch was I think the code name for the mac os versions for the new Intel platforms, and I can tell you one thing I is amazing it just blows your mind away I mean one minute you are starting your computer and the next you are on your desktop listening to your favorite music and surfing the internet no waiting for what ever nonsense to initialize or load just pure bliss an one would put it. And I wonder is it that hard to do something like that just make an os that not only has all the bells but is all so friendly.

-- TWikiGuest - 10 Feb 2007

i agree completley. having used osx all of last year full-time and xp at home i understand the advantage of having a simple control panel. i was brought up with windows however and seeing the two factions come together would be to my taste indeed