Comment by andyjohnson0
4 years ago
> I believe the poor UI situation is holding windows back from gaining market share.
I'm having a hard time believing that. While some Mac users who are used to a more integrated user experience might be deterred, I'm not sure that the os's ui esthetics really affect windows adoption. My feeling is that most people who use Windows do so because they're either (a) told to use it or (b) they choose to use it because it's the shortest path to doing what they want to do.
I'm sure Microsoft know this and understand the tradeoffs very well
I use it because it supports any bit of hardware thrown at it, with little fuss.
I tried to go all Linux many times, gave up, I just wanted something that works.
It doesn't always work. I have two machines, one that has issues with a north bridge, which initially prevented shutdown and prohibits, suspend and hibernate. And another where the Bluetooth dies until reboot on an Intel wireless card. Another machine wouldn't upgrade due to a wireless card, that took about three days of troubleshooting. My Linux boxes glitch too. I rarely have stuff that just works.
Hardware vs software issues right there.
The exception to this is older hardware. My ATI Radeons are still useful as 1080p graphics adapters under Linux, but they are totally unsupported by Windows. My laser printer is in a similar situation.
Most people use it because most people use it. It's what's compatible and widespread, and comfortable and known. It's the reason that people send docx files.
I send PDFs, but always generated from docx files. I did the Open/Libre Office thing for about 15 years and if you do a lot of work in these you’ll find that MS Office is simply superior. You can still use a mostly compatible version of odt with it. There’s just too many handy things about MSO that I’ve learned it’s worth paying for. One example is opening PDFs with Word and having it do a surprisingly good job at converting it to a Word doc. Very handy stuff.
> I'm sure Microsoft know this and understand the tradeoffs very well
Microsoft understands keeping their customers. That is why backwards compatibility is king with Ms.
Windows is not growing in adoption. It is under attack by Google (Android killed Windows on phones and Chromebooks are eating away the education market), Apple, and on the server, Linux.
Windows user from 3.1 to Win 7 here. Once I saw the MacOS experience in 2012, I never looked back. an engineer might say the juice isn't worth the squeeze, but to a consumer, and a power user, the swath of UI and UX inconsistencies is what keeps me away from Windows.
For the price of the absolute cheapest MacOS running computer (Mac Mini, with a monitor) one can get basically 2 entire Windows computers.
For the cost of the average computer running MacOS, one could buy a TV, a console, a desktop Windows computer, and a laptop. Or whatever it may be. ($1500 on an iMac could be $400 console, $500 TV, $500 computer. Or whatever your break down is. For the lower middle class and working class, trying to 'gear up' their family and make their kids happy and be happy with their home, this is real math they have to do).
While it is true that for those who are wealthy or who can justify the cost, the experience is very nice and justifiable, the cold hard facts of living in the western world is that most people would need to spend irresponsibly to use MacOS regularly.
It is what it is but it's no surprise that the cheapest mass market OS has 90% market share, and anyone who thinks that "UX" is the reason instead of cost doesn't understand the industry fundamentally.
> the cold hard facts of living in the western world is that most people would need to spend irresponsibly to use MacOS regularly.
A $900 MacBook Air would probably have lasted far longer and needed less time troubleshooting than a $500 computer made with subpar components. The amortized costs are far lower with Apple products (or other products using higher quality components) compared to buying the cheapest devices made with the lowest quality components, so there is no point in comparing the two.
And most people only need 1 computer, if that. I would actually bet most people can do everything they need to with iOS and an iPad would suffice. And other than the smaller screen size, I can see people make do with an iPhone even, especially if all you are doing is consuming.
7 replies →
I don't understand how your views on cost-value are related to my views on the user interface and experience.
2 replies →
Cost is not the same as value. Apple hardware routinely runs better, lasts longer, and has longer software support. This is reflected in the incredible demand and higher resale values.
This actually helps makes new devices more affordable as the cost is amortized over a longer and more useful lifespan, while the secondary market serves others very well.
2 replies →