Archives for July 23, 2007

post

Why Would We Need a New Desktop OS?

I’m glad to see ZDNet agrees with me. David Berlin poses the question: By 2010, will Windows ‘Seven’ (or any desktop OS) really matter? My question a few days ago was: Windows Seven in 2010. Does Anyone Still Care?

David goes on to explain how almost everything he does nowadays is done in the browser – that is online. His experience with installed software is painful – like the recent Vista upgrade. As for myself, I still have to cool off before I can tell you how badly a forced Microsoft Money update scr***d me and all online banking users. Arrogant ignorance by Microsoft, as usual.

On the other hand, are these new Windows versions getting any better? We can read stories of high-profile bloggers switching back to XP, analyst firms advising their CIO clients NOT to upgrade to Vista, but today is the first time we here a major PC manufacturer (Acer’s President) clearly labeling Windows Vista a flop. Technically as well as commercially.

“The whole industry is disappointed with Windows Vista”

“Users are voting with their feet …. Many business customers have specifically asked for Windows XP to be installed on their new machines”

It’s great that he can now openly say this – a few years ago Microsoft would have penalized Acer.
Analysts think the problem is that consumers prefer lower-cost machines that might not work well with Vista.

“Most of the machines I see pitched in catalogs are in the $700 range, certainly under $1,000,”
“Computers with that amount of hardware are a better fit for XP. With Vista’s requirements, people may be thinking about sticking with XP, and putting less money into the hardware.”

Exactly. But this is a chicken-end-egg issue: why would anyone want to buy stronger hardware just to run a new Operating System? It only makes sense for tangible benefits, i.e. gaming, video editing..etc. Otherwise, buying more powerful machines only so they can be bogged down by Vista (or Windows Seven for that matter) is meaningless arms race. For productivity / business use, the trend is just the opposite: with the move to Web Applications, wee need less CPU, storage, memory (well, maybe not that, with zillions of FireFox tabs open…). Since I switched to Web Apps, I barely ever hear the fan come up in my trusted old laptopsmile_wink

I’m confused though:

“Microsoft reports Microsoft itself says Vista has been a smashing success, saying it had already sold 20 million Vista licences by March.”

With consumers not buying, corporate CIO’s not upgrading, manufacturers being disappointed … where did those 20 million customers come from?

Update (7/23): It’s really amazing how Donna Bogatin does not get it. She writes off David Berlind’s article as simply based on the author’s personal computing habits… Web Worker Daily, can you hear this? Microsoft OS extinction case? What are you talking about, Donna? I re-read and re-read the Berlind piece and don’t see it. That’s not what he (and I) are talking about. But here’s another ZDNet-er, Ryan Stewart coming to our rescue: in case it’s not clear, what we’re saying is The desktop OS will still matter, just not which one.

P.S. Donna’s blog does not allow commenting. What a surprise…

Related posts: /Message, Dvorak Uncensored, ParisLemon, Wired,

Update (8/9):  a very good analysis by eWeek: Broken Windows

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

post

Flow vs. Structure: Escaping From the Document & Directory Jungle

I do not think/work/create like a machine.

My thoughts flow freely and I tend to discover relationships between events (hence “Connecting the Dots” above in the Blog Header), so I like linking things – at least mentally. Why would I confine myself to the rigid directory & file structure that computers have forced on us for decades? There are better ways… let’s look at some.

A while ago Atlassian CEO Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote and excellent piece on how Enterprise Wikis Replace Shared Drives. Shared drives as collective document depositories are a disaster, we typically can’t determine where, to put things, and certainly don’t know where to find them. And if we do find a document, how do we know whether we have the latest version? How do we know who changed what in the dozen other copies with similar but cryptic filenames spread around the shared drive?

Wouldn’t it be easier to use the equivalent of a directory structure with meaningful names, the ability to attach longer narratives to our documents and find them easily via search and tags? That’s essentially what you get when you use an enterprise wiki as your “shared drive”. Think of not documents/files only, but the very reason they exist: in business we typically work on a few “projects” at any one time. If we create wikis / wiki pages for each project / function, the page content becomes the “narrative” that describes what we do, why and how, and further supporting details are in the document attachments. There really is no reason to bury documents (doc, xls, ppt) in some central dumping place (document depository) anymore – they belong to the wiki page (project description) where by definition they are in context. Of course they can be used in several other places, in different context, which is where linking comes handy – linking to wiki pages as well as other content (documents, web sites, etc).

Now that we established the wiki as the “glue” to tie all our documents together, let’s take a step further. As we get comfortable with the wiki, we’ll often wonder when to create a separate document and when to use native wiki pages. If your wiki supports a rich word processor, textual content can easily move in the wiki pages themselves. (Interestingly, Blogtronix, the Enterprise 2.0 platform vendor uses the “document” metaphor for what others call a wiki-page.) Of course whether we call them pages or documents, they should still be easy to share with “outsiders”, by using workspace or page-level permissions, or exporting to PDF and other file formats should you need to “detach” content and email it.
This works well for text, while for other needs we shoot out to the point applications and attach the resulting files (ppt, xls… etc.)

However, like I stated before, I do see the irony of working in an online collaboration platform (the wiki) yet having to upload/download attachments. Atlassian’s Webdav plugin for Confluence is an elegant solution (edit offline, save directly to the wiki), but for most other wikis the process involves far too many steps. Why not directly edit all these documents online? This of course takes us to the old debate whether the wiki should become the new office, or just the “integrator” holding the many pieces together. As a user, I don’t see why I should care: I just want seamless workflow between my wiki, spreadsheet, presentation manager, project management tool …etc. Such integration is easier when all applications/documents are online, and there are excellent applications from Zoho, ThinkFree, Editgrid, Google, to do just that.

Working directly on the Web is not just a matter of convenience. Zoho’s Raju Vegesna points to mobility, sharing & collaboration, presence & communication, auto-Versioning, auto-save, access & edit history as native benefits of web-documents.

As we link web documents to each other, and smoothly transition between applications, a paradigm shift occurs: the definition of what we call a “document” expands. Offline, a document equals a file, defined by application constraints. Spreadsheets, presentations need to be saved in their own specific format, and they become “black boxes”: there’s not much we know about them, other than a short title. There is an overhead in opening every one of them, they need to be virus-checked, then “stitched” together to support the “flow-thinking” I was referring to earlier.
Those boundaries are stretched on the web: a document is no longer a file of a specific type, generated by a specific application: it’s a logical unit, defined by context, which weaves together content created by several applications.

Zoho’s Notebook is an experimental application that allows us to create, merge and store information the way we think, no matter whether it involves writing text, drawing charts, shapes, crunching numbers or recording/playing videos. Experimental in the sense that we don’t know how it will be used. In fact I don’t know what the future web worker productivity / collaboration tools will look like, but I suspect they will have elements of Notebook – multi-format, multi-media – and wikis – user-created structure, everything linked to everything – merged together.

Files, formats become irrelevant: there is only one format, and it’s the Web, defined by URL’s.

Additional reading:

Update (11/13/07): Read I Hate Files on Collaboration Loop. (via Stewart Mader)