It’s the users, stupid! Vista, Win7, Chrome and how OS vendors might get some new market share

July 8, 2009

I’m long overdue for a new computer. Looong, overdue. But I’m waiting. “Why?!?” people ask me. Well, truth be told, I’m trying to figure out what’s going to serve me best, though it’s not like there’s much choice of operating systems: Windows, Mac, Linux. Choose and be done, right? Now, I’ve used Mac and Linux before as supplimentary systems, but Windows has always been my primary. I’ve been on Windows for a long time. I’m used to it. It’s familiar. And I originally planned on going from XP to Vista, like many others. But after reading all the press after the painful Vista launch — users “upgrading” from Vista to XP and even Microsoft admitting after Visa that the next version of Windows would be “less annoying” than Vista — I decided to hold off. Then came the final nail in the “upgrade coffin”: a Microsoft employee actually told me Windows 7 was so much superior to Vista, he recommended hanging on with XP until Windows 7 is realeased. Ouch.

What went so wrong with Vista? It doesn’t look bad. It’s not like Microsoft put too little effort into it. Major initiative, lots of resources, lots of time spent, but lots of users still hate/hated it. Complaints abound. So what’s the deal? Where did Microsoft go wrong with what, technically, seems to be a really cutting edge operating system. Well, in my opinion… Read the rest of this entry »


When a Web page is no longer a page

September 5, 2008

With Google’s announcement and release this week of their own Web browser, Chrome, a lot of discussion has taken place amongst my colleagues about the potential impact of yet another Web browsing option. Based on Google’s track record, reputation, and the description of Chrome’s features, I have no doubt that this new Web browser will eventually make its mark on the Internet world. But what fascinated me more than Chrome’s features and benefits was Google’s statement on why they chose to make a browser. Contained in their rationale was an observation I’ve also claimed for years — that the use of the Web and Web “sites” has changed significantly. Google sums it up this way:

“We realized that the web had evolved from mainly simple text pages to rich, interactive applications…”

Indeed, when I first hit the World Wide Web in early 1995, the WWW was almost entirely static pages of textual information. Explaining the Web to new PC users wasn’t terribly difficult. I framed my descriptions of the WWW as “pages” of content — like a page from a magazine, book, flier, or catalog — all viewed through a piece of software — the browser.

Of course, as the web evolved, we continued to push the original medium to its limits, adding primitive interactivity via forms coupled with server-side technologies for data processing. That’s where the line started to blur. Today, we’ve somewhat reinvented the Web to allow for more sophisticated imitation of traditional* programs/applications within the browser, gaining the benefit of transmitting both the “program” and the program’s data across the Internet/network. With the more recent push toward completely distributed applications and mobile capabilities, a good many sites are looking and performing like entire software apps or suites running right in the browser. The odd thing about this rapid evolution is that these new tools are all still being developed and accessed on top of the original Web framework… individual pages accessed one at a time with a browser program. Our “Web software” still relies on the Web browser and what it can provide.

Now think about all of this from the newer PC user’s perspective. Understanding software programs is one hurdle. Understanding the Internet and the Web is yet another. Once the distinctions between the two have been blurred, in some cases to the point of the latter replacing the former, how can the technology teacher adequately explain — and the new user grasp — all the finer differences? After all, while many Web sites have pushed toward application-level interfaces, “old-fashioned” Web pages on sites still abound. For PC users most familiar with old-fashioned (non-networked, non-distributed) software, how will they perceive and make sense of the shift?

To provide a case in point, I recently had the opportunity to observe some pre-release user testing of an upgrade to an existing Web-based application. The largest “ah-ha” moment for me was when I realized the concept older users most struggled with was that their “software” — the application running via the Web browser — could and would be changed without them taking any action (e.g.: user-initiated installation.) With careful questioning, it became obvious to me that the users viewed the application like any locally-installed software application rather than a Web site. They couldn’t understand (let alone articulate) the difference.

This subtle but increasingly commonplace difference was a challenge to deal with as I wrote the introduction to the Internet/Web chapter in my forthcoming book, The Ultimate PC Primer. I’m still not sure I’ve adequately communicated the differences, but there’s only so much one can write in the attempt to explain it. My lingering and somewhat fearful thought today is: how will Google change this even more considering their claim that Chrome will “power the next generation of web applications that aren’t even possible in today’s browsers.” Perhaps Chrome will become the long-anticipated “platform” for fully-distributed applications, setting that concept apart from simple Web page browsing. If not, my hope is that whatever Chrome evolves into doesn’t make the Web much more confusing for new users than it has already become.

* By “traditional,” I mean “installed” software, which many in the IT industry would call a thick client or fat client. Pardon my informality, but I’m not usually concerned about the exact industry terms…”insider speak” doesn’t help much when attempting to explain concepts to new users.