XP was my idea: Why are removed features not explained, documented, accounted for, replaced or updated and reinstated?

Friday, November 20, 2009

Why are removed features not explained, documented, accounted for, replaced or updated and reinstated?

Since the development of Windows Vista and the adoption of the Security Development Lifecycle, Microsoft has been touting a "responsible disclosure" attitude which means "don't say anything unless you're sure you can ship". While this in most cases is about reporting software vulnerabilities discovered by third parties to Microsoft (so MS can take their time to patch and test them), it also applies to any new feature announcements for a future version of a product. What they lack is a analogous "responsible removal" approach. Features are removed without any explanation being given, nor are all of them documented on MSDN. There's no one accountable when the infuriated user asks about a particular removed feature; nor does Microsoft provide a quick hotfix to resolve the issue or suggest appropriate third party replacements in all cases.

Features get removed during the beta too if the whole experience is not robust enough to ship (which is absolutely normal) but even then they are not documented. Case in point: Windows SteadyState. Its main component, Windows Disk Protection was improved upon to require only a logoff instead of a reboot to undo all changes, renamed as Guest mode and was included in the Windows 7 beta, yet it silently disappeared in the RC. Poor users who used it daily on Windows XP and Windows Vista are left longing forever. They are asking for it in Microsoft's forums: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Other features which shared the same fate include: Native Bluetooth audio support, Accelerators for Windows (the Accelerator platform made it in), RSS Desktop Slideshow (which also managed to get in and is documented and supported in the INI theme file supplied but without an end user GUI), Removing beta features is perfectly normal though, in contrast to removing features shipping in an earlier Windows OS which is absolutely pathetic. In both cases, Microsoft does a poor job of documenting them and their reasons and an even poorer job of fixing them once users start complaining.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Got Windows 8/7/Vista annoyances?

I am good at usability testing of software and overall User Experience - having a great UX is essential to any piece of software. I imagine, plan and envision it - how to build a great user experience to achieve end-to-end scenarios. I'm a Windows enthusiast since the Windows 3.0 days but I have no official computer science training or qualification. My knowledge of Windows client is self-taught and unofficial. I make mistakes too but I know one thing by common sense: It is TOTALLY WRONG to abandon backward compatibility, drop functionality at random and break all usability like MS continually does. I am a critic of current Microsoft software and culture, because it compromises on existing features people use to give place to new ones. All concept of backward compatible UX is dead at Microsoft. I rebel against this but not necessarily to go against Microsoft or hate on them, but to bring them on the right path. Microsoft's technical prowess of writing stable, fast, secure and innovative software is still excellent but their understanding of usability and good user experience is disgraceful. The importance of a good user experience is underrated in software. I feel they have lost their way after Windows XP. We all know how Vista turned out and Windows 7 only succeeded because of customers' passion for Windows. As much as I still like Windows, the later versions just obstruct productivity, and to the average user, it is a constant process of re-learning for no reason.

So my programmer buddy, Ivo Beltchev created Classic Shell and I gave him feedback on the user experience. I help out in testing and giving ideas and feedback around UX of Classic Shell but I personally use Windows XP. If the user interface of Windows 7 or Windows Vista annoys you, try Classic Shell, the amazing FREE app that fixes dozens of these annoyances with the Start Menu, Explorer and Internet Explorer 9/10.

Want to fix Windows taskbar? 7 Taskbar Tweaker is the perfect utility for the job.

Want to find a decent alternative to the useless Windows Search? Try FileSearchEX (reasonably priced) or FileLocator Lite (free).

If you are struggling to make Windows 7 work the way you want, you may want to look at this eBook detailing the "To Work" options.

Office Ribbons driving you crazy and reducing productivity? Try Classic Menu for Office or UbitMenu.

Yes I know, it's a shame Microsoft software today requires third party fixes to complement and make it work properly. Don't tell me you have ignored the list of features removed in Windows Vista or in Windows 7. Were you foolish enough to believe from the reviews that Windows 7 was good and didn't make an objective comparison yourself? Were you foolish enough to dish out your hard earned cash and didn't miss any XP features in Windows 7? The software I listed above only fixes some of the usability issues and broken features but there are still many features Microsoft must fix themselves.

You may think why is XP still my idea and it is rather foolish to not "upgrade" to Windows 7. XP still rocks. XP is where the UX feels complete and well-rounded. Don't believe the fanboys who are blind, the shills who get paid to write favorable reviews, or the mainstream media which is clueless and just parrots what one "expert" shill says. In many areas, Windows 7 is a downgrade, not an upgrade and you will realize that from hands-on experience. XP hit the sweet spot for sufficiently powerful, customizable yet easy to use computing. I am a power user and if Windows 8 makes you feel that the OS is getting dumbed down to the point of uselessness, I feel pretty much the same about Windows 7, which is also extremely dumbed down from a power user's perspective. The geek in me refuses to accept Windows 7 as a viable replacement for the more-customizable Windows XP. As a power user I cannot make compromises about quality and Microsoft's commitment to quality is decreasing by the day.

I wrote hundreds of Wikipedia articles on Microsoft and Windows topics with over 5000+ contributions before realizing that Microsoft was cheating their users by removing features. I agree that software engineering is about tradeoffs but just deleting features people use and want is just ridiculous. It's all happening in the name of "simplifying" and "telemetry". I want Microsoft to acknowledge these issues which make Windows 7 unusable for serious work and fix them through hotfixes or service packs. Windows Vista and Windows 7 are not all bad, there are hundred different things to like about them, but being good only in part doesn't make the sum of parts better. What matters is the overall experience which is still degraded and sub-standard compared to Windows XP. Why Windows 7 is so successful is because it is sufficiently decent, so it works for the average user who just needs to get this job done and doesn't need perfection. It would be unfair to say don't use Windows 7 at all. I also do use it once in a while because it does have hundreds of nice improvements but it won't touch my main PC. Windows XP may not be as strong on security by default as Windows 7 or Vista are, but XP can be secured properly and is more usable than "simplified" later versions.

I am ready to assist Microsoft in improving Windows client if a certain quality bar is set and agreed upon. I believe I have a unique understanding of how to design the perfect UX without introducing too much complexity while at the same time, keeping it powerful and customizable. My passion and loyalty to Microsoft for great products will always remain but not at the cost of any compromises in quality of the product.