XP was my idea: August 2010

Friday, August 27, 2010

The Zune is Dead

So I recently got a Zune HD and its HD output dock accessory as 720p HD output was enticing me ("too late" you'd say and I would even add "too little"). The Zune HD's OLED screen, audio quality, MPEG-4 ASP support and 720p output are its only plus points over the iPod. But I am not satisfied at all. Looks like I ended up buying exactly the loser device:
- No support for soft coded subtitles. iPod Touch and iPhone on the other hand support soft subtitles.
- No Flash player! Say no to dozens of video sites that stream Flash videos. Can you believe that? Maybe it will get one when Windows Phone 7 gets it. (C'mon Microsoft, this is only a software update, the hardware is more than capable).
- Okay, so no Flash but why not even a dedicated YouTube app. MAJOR FAIL. You call this an internet-enabled media player and it doesn't have YouTube!!! (This is also fixable Microsoft via a software update).
- No built-in microphone or even microphone in socket, so no VoIP/Skype, no voice recording. Limited by design.
- Internet Explorer mobile based on some shitty IE version, scores 5/100 on Acid3 standards compliance test and sucks at JavaScript performance, pictures are out of order on so many sites, no always on address bar, no battery meter, no bookmark button. FAIL FAIL FAIL. This issue is fixable in theory but I doubt Microsoft cares enough.
- No speaker like iPod Touch 2nd gen+ has (this isn't that big a deal but it helps when you occasionally want to show something to your friends).
- No Google Maps. iPod Touch has.
- No third party app store with 100000 apps and Games, only Microsoft supplied handful apps. No one writes games for XNA or OpenZDK. They might as well have put Android on this thing which has an active developer community.
- No Voice Control like iPod Touch 3rd gen has.
- No Zune to Zune sharing (Removed from Zune HD!!!!)
- Limited storage, no expansion (they apparently didn't get their own Zune 120 either). HD right, how can I do HD without ample storage?
- No 3G or mobile internet connectivity, only Wi-Fi (the iPod Touch doesn't have it either but iPhone has)
- No Bluetooth like iPod Touch has so no wireless headphones
- Separate dock required for HD video output (This is the final nail in the coffin which kills off any chance of Zune HD being super-successful). The price of Zune HD isn't $200, it's $290 (a $90 premium you have to pay for HD output).

Plus with the 4th gen iPod announced, Zune HD now also lacks:
4th gen iPod's:
- 960 x 640-pixel resolution at 326 pixels per inch
- H.264 Main Profile Level 3.1!!! (Holy crap Main Profile)
- HE-AAC (although WMA Pro is comparable, it's lesser used so less of a standard)
- 720p HD recording rear camera
- Front facing camera for video chat!
- 802.11n (Wireless N)
It looks like Apple took the latest iPhone and stripped off the 3G and phone functionality, GPS and some other power features.

The Zune fails harder this time. I wonder how or why it got so many positive reviews when it launched. But then so did Windows 7. If only, they added Flash and a better web browser based on a newer IE mobile (the same one Windows Phone 7 uses). But they won't. There are unconfirmed rumors of a new Zune but I doubt Microsoft can add all of these features in a single revision. Even if you ignore the fact that the Zune HD is not designed as a multi-purpose device but only to serve as a great media player, it's a major fail because an internet-enabled media player in this day and age ought to play YouTube videos.

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.