Quote:
Originally Posted by JAcheson
Loved your story about the Hammond organs, Katsunami.
|
Thanks. I actually do feel toward the SK2 as I feel toward Windows 8.
Hammond says that it is a "modern Hammond for the 21st century". However, while the SK2 is modern, it can on *no way* replace a vintage Hammond with regard to usage. The XK3 (or XK3C), when combined with it's lower manual, bass pedals and installed into its cabinet, is everything every Hammond player since the 50's wanted: lighter (by 325 pounds!), cheaper, transportable, deconstructable, configurable, without sacrificing the layout and way of playing.
Depending on the cabinet/stand you choose, this organ is called
Mini B3,
XK Traditional, or
XK Professional.
The only problem for some is the looks of the Mini B3; many people find it doesn't fit well in a modern living room, but to remedy that, they have the Hammond M44,
which basically is the Mini B3 in a modern cabinet with included speaker system.
For the diehard people who have €15-25.000 available, they have:
- The New B3 Portable (B3-sized version of the XK Professional, €15K)
- The New B3 (a 1:1 replica of the original vintage model, €20K)
- The New B3 Ultimo (a New B3 with the looks of the M44, €25K)
They created what people wanted, from a "cheap" single-manual keyboard XK3C (at €2350), which you can expand into the Mini B3 whenever you want, right up to the monstrously expensive New B3 Ultimo. And they did it WITHOUT LOOSING THEIR ROOTS. That is the reason why Hammond still exists today.
===
The above is what Microsoft needs to do. They need to drop the "we have to become modern for tablets, blablabla" stuff. I agree, they need a tablet operating system, if they don't want to fall behind in the mobile market, and something that uses an interface such as Metro is fine by me. However, don't force that same interface onto people's desktops. Some people keep screaming and hollering that Windows 8 is a fine operating system, and that it can easily be used to do daily tasks, and that it's just a matter of getting used to it.
You can say all of that, and it may be true, but there is one thing that's even more important than anything else: People don't want, or need that. People want a better Windows which is faster and supports new technologies but without having to change half or all of the way they've been used to working.
For many people, Windows 2000 was good enough. Windows XP was better, after Service Pack 2. Windows Vista improved a lot of things, but had driver problems in the beginning, and was too heavy for the systems of its time. This drastically improved with Vista SP1, and after the new systems of 2007 started appearing. Windows 7 is a perfected version of Windows Vista, and in the eyes of many people, Windows is now *finished*.
The only thing they want is ongoing support for new technology such as USB3, SSD's, new versions of SATA, or whatever may come along. Maybe there should be some tweaks or a fix here and there. Many of these things could be provided in an upgrade pack that costs €25 or so; one each year. As soon as you require some technology that your current Windows-version does not support, you buy that year's upgrade pack (which should include all previous ones), install it, and be done. If you get a new computer, you get a new license (that is of course freely upgradable to the latest version at that point), install it, and be done. People only want to move to a different or new operating system if advances in technology require it.
There is no technology that requires a move toward Windows 8. Had Microsoft wanted to do so, they could have tacked Metro on top of Windows 7 as an optional update and sell it for €25 or so to people who wanted it.