Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Jan 2014 10:06 UTC
Windows

Paul Thurrott on the next version of Windows and the future of the platform.

In some ways, the most interesting thing about Threshold is how it recasts Windows 8 as the next Vista. It's an acknowledgment that what came before didn't work, and didn't resonate with customers. And though Microsoft will always be able to claim that Windows 9 wouldn't have been possible without the important foundational work they had done first with Windows 8 - just as was the case with Windows 7 and Windows Vista - there's no way to sugarcoat this. Windows 8 has set back Microsoft, and Windows, by years, and possibly for good.

With even Paul Thurrott claiming Windows is in trouble, it becomes virtually impossible to deny it is so.

Thread beginning with comment 580597
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Windows Nap Time
by hackus on Mon 13th Jan 2014 21:04 UTC
hackus
Member since:
2006-06-28

I mean seriously.

Unless you're playing games, why would you use Windows?

Even if you are in the computer industry, why would you not work on LINUX when the challenges are so much more grandeous and much more satisfying knowing your are contributing to technology on such a basic level?

So much less frustration because everything is open and can be identified as either a problem or a solution and you can intervene personally to either improve your technology for your users and business.

Windows prevents any of that from happening.

Why the hell would you use Windows and compete in the industry with those sorts of restrictions that your competitors using LINUX do not have?

-Hack

Edited 2014-01-13 21:04 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Windows Nap Time
by WereCatf on Mon 13th Jan 2014 23:07 in reply to "Windows Nap Time"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

why would you not work on LINUX


Because time and time again Linux on the desktop tends to be a buggy, incomplete mess and not all the most important stuff are available for it or the alternatives are not up to the scratch?

It's a great OS and all, especially on servers, but it's not a fucking magic bullet and doesn't work for everyone.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Windows Nap Time
by allanregistos on Tue 14th Jan 2014 03:31 in reply to "RE: Windows Nap Time"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

"why would you not work on LINUX


Because time and time again Linux on the desktop tends to be a buggy,
"
Please, do not spread falsehoods.

incomplete mess and not all the most important stuff are available for it or the alternatives are not up to the scratch?

I said on this thread, that there is a need for Windows, and using Windows only makes perfect sense, not because Linux desktop is an incomplete mess.
I also install Ubuntu and use wine to run MS Office.

It's a great OS and all, especially on servers, but it's not a fucking magic bullet and doesn't work for everyone.

No, its also great on desktop.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Windows Nap Time
by Morgan on Tue 14th Jan 2014 00:05 in reply to "Windows Nap Time"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Even if you are in the computer industry, why would you not work on LINUX when the challenges are so much more grandeous and much more satisfying knowing your are contributing to technology on such a basic level?


That makes sense for someone whose company uses GNU/Linux regularly, like Google, but most companies (especially older ones) run Windows, and there's no getting around it. As I said above, we can't move to Macs because of proprietary software. I do use GNU/Linux at my test bench, in fact there are some tasks I can't complete easily without it. But the corporate world at large is Windows, for the foreseeable future.

Also, I play as many games on GNU/Linux as I do on Windows, thank you very much! ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Windows Nap Time
by ilovebeer on Tue 14th Jan 2014 00:09 in reply to "Windows Nap Time"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

A person can easily rebuttal with `why would you use Linux unless you're only running a server`?

You already describe Linux challenges are being more grandiose. People tend to want their computer experience to be simple & painless, not frustrating & difficult.

I don't know why you view using Linux as "contributing to technology", or why using Linux is somehow more satisfying in general. If I had to take a tally, I see more complaining from Linux desktop users than their Windows counterparts. That suggests the more satisfying of the two is generally Windows, not Linux.

[/q]So much less frustration because everything is open and can be identified as either a problem or a solution and you can intervene personally to either improve your technology for your users and business. [/q]
Huge mistake on your part thinking that open source software causes less frustration. Linux experiences plenty of breakage & regression on a regular basis. So much in fact that I often see old versions being recommended to users if they're looking for stability & a less problematic system.

Further you point out that the user can be part of the solution to the mess. That's terrific, real simple to do in theory, but the truth is reality tells a much different story. Linux devs are in constant disagreement over coding style, design, implication, etc etc etc. These are the people who are supposed to be at the forefront of Linux advancement and they have difficulty amongst themselves. Do you think Joe Blow from nowhere is going to pop up, submit his patches, and they're just merged by default? Often times I see those guys asked to make tons of changes or take a completely different approach. Or their stuff is rejected flat out. So much for fun in Linux dev.

Oh any btw, are you under the impression tons of Linux users are 1) coders, who 2) have the necessary knowledge & experience to contribute worth-while code? Nope. And Linux is not where everyone is welcome and holding hands. If anything the open source nature of Linux causes just as much, if not more, arguing than if it were closed.

Windows prevents any of that from happening.

Windows doesn't prevent people from writing their own drivers, applications, games, etc. Aside of altering the kernel, what do you think Windows prevents?

Why the hell would you use Windows and compete in the industry with those sorts of restrictions that your competitors using LINUX do not have?

I always get a kick when people try to sell Linux as the os of rainbows & unicorns. This magical os where everything is great and everybody welcomes you with open arms. The truth is Linux has many of the people problems that Windows does. Its' open source nature can be as much of a drawback as it can be freeing. Linux and Windows have far more in common than the fanboys of either are typically willing to admit.

So "why the hell would you use Windows"? Because generally speaking it's solid and fulfills users needs & wants. Maybe you'll respond by saying the exact same thing about Linux. People who aren't shackled by their own bias & ignorance realize both have a lot to offer, and neither hands-down shits all over the other.

For the record, I use both on a daily basis and in a capacity that each is good at. I don't "love" one more than the other. To me they're just tools that I use for different purposes, that's all. I don't get emotionally attached to software, or companies, or distros, or any of that.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Windows Nap Time
by lemur2 on Tue 14th Jan 2014 02:19 in reply to "RE: Windows Nap Time"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You already describe Linux challenges are being more grandiose. People tend to want their computer experience to be simple & painless, not frustrating & difficult.

I don't know why you view using Linux as "contributing to technology", or why using Linux is somehow more satisfying in general. If I had to take a tally, I see more complaining from Linux desktop users than their Windows counterparts. That suggests the more satisfying of the two is generally Windows, not Linux.

...

So "why the hell would you use Windows"? Because generally speaking it's solid and fulfills users needs & wants. Maybe you'll respond by saying the exact same thing about Linux. People who aren't shackled by their own bias & ignorance realize both have a lot to offer, and neither hands-down shits all over the other.

For the record, I use both on a daily basis and in a capacity that each is good at. I don't "love" one more than the other. To me they're just tools that I use for different purposes, that's all. I don't get emotionally attached to software, or companies, or distros, or any of that.


I too use and maintain both.

Linux is far less frustrating than Windows, and far easier to use, and easier and much quicker to maintain, install new apps, update, and upgrade.

Edited 2014-01-14 02:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Windows Nap Time
by allanregistos on Tue 14th Jan 2014 03:28 in reply to "Windows Nap Time"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

I mean seriously.

Unless you're playing games, why would you use Windows?

Even if you are in the computer industry, why would you not work on LINUX when the challenges are so much more grandeous and much more satisfying knowing your are contributing to technology on such a basic level?

So much less frustration because everything is open and can be identified as either a problem or a solution and you can intervene personally to either improve your technology for your users and business.

Only a handful of few people among millions of businesses worldwide would care to improve the OS in which their application was running.

Windows prevents any of that from happening.

Why the hell would you use Windows and compete in the industry with those sorts of restrictions that your competitors using LINUX do not have?

-Hack

We use Windows because there is a need of Microsoft Office, and inhouse/legacy software written for Windows and will run only on Windows.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Windows Nap Time
by davidiwharper on Tue 14th Jan 2014 07:14 in reply to "RE: Windows Nap Time"
davidiwharper Member since:
2006-01-01

We use Windows because there is a need of Microsoft Office, and inhouse/legacy software written for Windows and will run only on Windows.


To be fair, for core use cases [basic productivity and web/email tasks & no Windows-specific software] going to a Mac is feasible, or even to some sort of Linux with LibreOffice if your starting point is Office 97-2003. Google rolls their own Ubuntu desktop for exactly this sort of user, in addition to developer types. Only people who actually need Windows software get Windows workstations if I recall correctly.

The problem for desktop Linux adoption, as distinct from Apple, is not so much feature parity (compared with an XP/Office 2003 era starting point), but rather that companies with limited internal support resources - that's all small and medium businesses, and many larger ones too - struggle to make the switch because there's very little training available for end users or the internal I.T. staff who have to support them. It's not like you can send your less savvy workers away for a few days to do a refresher course like you can with Microsoft Office, and pretty much any new employee who walks through the door will have to be retrained as they will undoubtedly have come from a Microsoft background. Unless you're the size of Google and can afford to create your own training, using some of the savings made on licensing costs, that's pretty much the end of the discussion in most instances.

Having said that, if an SME has stable access to I.T. personnel who know desktop Linux, and particularly LibreOffice, well, and is also are blessed with staff who have good experience with non-Microsoft platforms like Android or iDevices, the idea of evaluating desktop Linux can still make sense. You've got users who are already comfortable with non-MS platforms and apps, and you've got support people to help get them used to LibreOffice & Thunderbird etc. In cases like that it's worth crunching the numbers, running a pilot, and seeing what comes out the other end.

Reply Parent Score: 4