Are VCs part of what is wrong with DCIM? Features that miss the concept of START

I don't know about you, but whenever I see a DCIM dashboard.  I am confused on where to start.  One of my data center friends has gone through the exercise of looking at about 15 different DCIM solutions.  We agree that one stands out as it is easier to use than the rest.  Why?  You know where to start and the first steps to use the product.  Windows 95 focused on usability and highlighted "START".

Windows 95 introduced a redesigned shell based around a desktop metaphor; unlike Windows 3.1 (where it was used to display running applications), the desktop was re-purposed to hold shortcuts to applications, files, and folders. Running applications were now displayed as buttons on a taskbar across the bottom of the screen, which also contains a notification area used to display icons for background applications, a volume control, and the current time. The Start menu, invoked by clicking the "Start" button also contained on the taskbar, was introduced as an additional means of launching applications or opening documents—while maintaining the program groups used by its predecessor, Program Manager, it now displayed applications within cascading sub-menus. The previous File Managerprogram was also replaced by Windows Explorer.

So, what is wrong with DCIM and why is the "START" not the focus of the user experience.  One of the tips shared to my data center friend from one of the vendors is the VC community is pushing for more features to compete against the other DCIM products.  But, no users are asking for these features.  Yeh, who is screaming for more features.

Focusing on "START" was key to Microsoft's success.  If Microsoft had tried to demonstrate and market all Windows 95 features, then users would probably be confused and not know where to start.


When you buy your DCIM solution do you know where to start?