Windows 7 is "good enough" - and that's a problem

A large portion of the Windows user community has complained -- loudly -- about Windows 8 and its new user interface. People, as individuals or as members of a corporation, have made their displeasure known. They have written articles in trade magazines. They have posted blog entries. They have given presentations. (I suspect that there are anti-Windows-8 videos on YouTube.)

Most folks care more about getting their work done and less about the operating system. They don't want Windows 8, or even Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel. They want their invoices, they want their estimates, they want their analyses.

The technology stack of PC hardware, Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, and specialty software are tools. They are a means to the end, not the end.

Changes to that technology stack, when invisible, are unimportant. An update that fixes a security hole is good, especially when it has no effect on the workflow. After the update, Windows boots as usual, applications run as usual, and the work gets done.

Visible changes, such as removing the "Start" button, affect the workflow. The introduction of "ribbon" menus in Microsoft Office were also met with complaints.

The problem facing Microsoft is that their software (Windows, Office, SQL Server, etc.) has become good enough for use in the workplace. It has been good enough for years, which is why people use old versions.

In the good old days, new versions of software were clearly better. Windows 3.1 was much better than DOS. Windows 95 was better than Windows 3.1. Windows XP was better than Windows 95. People could see the benefit and were willing to move to the later version.

But once software becomes good enough, the benefits of a later version are less clear. Windows Vista was not clearly better than Windows XP. Windows 7 was better than Windows Vista, but perhaps not that much better than Windows XP.

Windows 8 is clearly different from Windows 7 (and Windows XP). But is it better? People perceive Windows XP and Windows 7 as good enough.

Which is ironic, as Microsoft built their empire on software that was good enough. They shipped products when those products were good enough to compete in the market. They improved products to become good enough to deliver revenue.

Microsoft Windows 8 must compete against Windows 7, and Windows 7 is good enough.

Two observations:

The current users of Windows believe their current systems to be good enough, and they are unwilling to change without clear benefits. The features of Windows 8 are insufficient to warrant a change.

A vendor cannot force products upon the market. (This lesson was made earlier with Microsoft "Bob" and IBM "Topview".) Users must see benefits, not merely features, in a product.