Slashdot Mirror
Windows 8: Do I Really Need a Single OS?
gManZboy writes "If you skip Windows 8, you lose the appealing opportunity to synchronize all of your devices on a single platform — or so goes the argument. If you're skeptical, you're not alone. OS monogamy may be in Apple's interest, and Microsoft's, but ask why it's in your interest. Can Microsoft convince the skeptics? 'If the hardware and software are the same at home and at work, one can't be "better" than the other. It would help if Microsoft convinced users like me that their platform is so good, we'd be fools to go anywhere else,' writes Kevin Casey."
It's called USDP - Unifying Single Developer Platform. By having a single developer platform they make sure that developers have streamlined approach to application development. This is also illustrated by Visual Studio by allowing you to easily switch between Windows desktop and mobile target platforms.
.NET. Microsoft wants to create unifying access to developers and this has also been one of the major successes of Windows OS. Why change something that is good and works?
This isn't new in any shape, either. It has been long strategy by Microsoft and can be seen from DirectX to XNA to C# and
To me, having multiple operating systems on a computer is like having multiple wives--there's no tangible downside to it, but it just feels wrong.
I would much rather have a variety of operating systems or platforms which use common protocols and formats so that I can switch between them. Technology evolves, operating systems change. Locking one's self into one platform at the exclusion of others is not a good idea. At least not for the consumer, it just makes it harder to switch when the existing platform falls to provide the quality demanded.
Single source OSs or anything else. If they manage to get it right, the perfect OS that satisfies every user, meets all of our needs. Then what happens? Does the world stagnate, or do they go ahead and produce something that may be totaly crap, and we are all locked in, so we all adopt the crap. No thanks, I like variety, choice, and options. I like being able to decide what I want, and what I do not want. I hope the patent situation around the world does not kill inovation, and I do not want this, as it would do the same.
Except that on Slashdot it's: "If it's not Linux, it's crap!"
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
from a butt
At least we can see the source code in the Linux camp.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Now Redmond wants to assimilate our computers!
Wait, maybe MS isn't Borg Central after all. Maybe it's Brainiac!
Is Bill Gates from Krypton?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Infoweek blog crap. Everyone has opinions; most aren't worth listening to. Especially true at infoweek, pcworld, and others.
Some kind of devices and activities are better suited for some kinds of interactionl. Screen size, to have or not touchscreen, keyboard, mouse, that you must hold it or use it on a surface, are between the factors that make one user interface better suited than others. In Linux you have a lot of different user interfaces, is not the same playing with Meego, Unity, KDE, Android or Sugar, but is all the same OS (or at very least, kernel and basic toolchain) with different user interfaces that are meant to fit to certain range of hardware.
Well, aside from the obvious risks of everyone being beholden to the same OS if a security hole suddenly arises (but I'm sure that won't happen with Microsoft) there are reasons to build your skills with other OSs on your own.
Where I work I am already the Windows goto guy for light IT support because calling Bangalore is like going to the dentist only less productive.
However recently I changed groups and lo and behold, the designers use both Windows and Red Hat Enterprise. They already have a dedicated Linux support guy who is really good but it's almost a certainty that I'll be doing work in Linux before too long. The fact that I've been using it at home for years will really help me to adapt quickly.
you're already an idiot...
Not really... what I need is x86 hardware in a tablet form factor that uses the same amount of power (or preferably less) than current ARM tablets, with a decently bright high contrast display, a decent stylus and a big battery. I'll still be carrying my laptop (Windows 7) and smartphone (Android) around in addition though...
Most of the people don't even bother to wonder: they buy something they've known for a long time / from the office, i.e. a PC. And what OS comes with it? The last Windows == 8. It reminds me of the recent iphone 5 discussion: despite iOS6 and Maps problems, lack of innovation and a satellited price people just buy it. It's a trend which path takes years to get affected. Unfortunately, slashdotters are, by far, a minority.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
What you're spouting on about is what management thinks is ideal. Any real, experienced developed knows that "write-once, run-anywhere" or even "write-once, run-everywhere" is nothing but a massive load of bullshit. Any user of such software knows the same.
How many fucking times do we have to go through this? For crying out loud, it's the same each time we do it! It doesn't matter if it was BASIC in the 1970s, or C in the 1980s, or C++ in the 1990s, or Java in the 2000s, or JavaScript today.
The end result is that the software is really fucking shitty to write, and it's really damn shitty for the users who have to use it. The developers still get stuck dealing with cross-platform issues, even when it's just the same OS running on different devices. The users get a really half-assed experience, because the developers had to cut corners all over the place just to make the software run on all kinds of different OSes or devices.
Yeah, management loves it, but that's only because they aren't actually creating the shitheap, nor are they the ones who get stuck using it day-in and day-out. They see some great cost savings in the short term, but then things get really fucked up in the long term since the existing users and customers will flee as quickly as they can. You can't run a software business when all the customers left because your software became a raging pile of donkey turds thanks to embracing WORA hype.
No I don't! I'll just use another platform for them.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
If I want a single OS platform, I'd go with Apple. For all the handwaving Apple fanbois do, Apple actually does the unified experience pretty darn well. I'd own an iPhone, MacBook and an iMac to keep things concurrent.
If I wanted to, that is. I don't , and will stick with the mix thats's proven to be effective for me
That's what Canonical is trying with Ubuntu. First laptops, desktops and servers and next will be TVs, tablets and phones.
If you skip Windows 8, you lose the appealing opportunity to synchronize all of your devices on a single platform
Linux(Ubuntu/Fedora/Arch/etc+Android)
Please ignore the above ignoramous , obviously he doesn't know how to post on Slashdot.
Just to point out here the assumption of the question is wrong. Apple is proposing the exact opposite of ubiquitous computing. They instead have two products iOS and OSX which evolve semi-seperately so that data can pass between similar applications but that the applications are quite different.
Microsoft conversely is proposing a shift to ubiquitous computing that applications and devices can alter themselves based on the way they are used, the form factor of the human. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6cNdhOKwi0 ).
What the author is proposing is different from either one of these, the current situation where there are loose standards for moving application data and different applications.
current: loose standards
apple: seamless data portability
microsoft: seamless application portability
Apple's views and Microsoft's views shouldn't be confused.
"If you skip Windows 8, you lose the appealing opportunity to synchronize all of your devices on a single platform". HUH?
Does anyone really believe that the various flavors of Win 8 (or any OS) on devices of greatly varying capabilities could possibly allow you to "synchronize" all your devices on a single platform"? My cellphone is gonna run MS Access on my large business database?
That's not necessarily true. There's love for BSD here, too.
Since now you can get everything running Linux (phone, palmtop, netbook, nettop, notebook, blah blah blah up to server, cluster...) you can actually live the dream
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You can, but what percentage of users really do?
currently, I use Windows at work because it's necessary to run some of the apps I use professionally. My workplace is mixed. Some of my co-workers use Macs, some use Linux, some use Linux and Windows. As far as I know, nobody uses Mac OS and Linux there. The only tablet that's allowed on the network is an iPad.
At home, I have one Windows machine and one Mac. My family has 2 iPads (only one of which I paid for). My daughter and my wife use iPhones. I use an Android phone.
I guess I'm one of the many who doesn't see a need or even a benefit to using only one operating system.
This message was brought to you by VMWare
Windows 8 is far more powerful than windows 7, and runs twice as fast. It is also much harder to pirate, and this point more than anything else has the Linux crowd in a panic.
It wont be long until Windows 7 is no longer supported, and when that happens, what is Linux going to do ?
Linux will have to find a way to work under Windows 8 from here on, since it wont be able to rely on Windows 7 being readily available anymore.
Linux may seem like a good alternative to Office, but all that is happening in linux is that the windows interface is cleverly hidden away. It still needs the drivers and software services in order to run, and in most cases - that happens WITHOUT a valid windows licence.
This is just plain piracy.
Windows 8 will finally put an end to this blatant abuse of intellectual property, and linux should decline, taking the pirates with it.
Anyone that supports the continuation of Windows 7 in place of Windows 8 surely has a hidden agenda .. and you will surely be caught out.
that the argument is more for the developers than the users. There is a bit of overlap with things like iWork on iPad and Mac, and Office on an ARM tablet and PC but for the most part the argument from MS at least has been: learn metro run your code everywhere. So why does the user care? Does a user really want a 20"+ screen that is primarily geared towards touch (sounds like a good idea until work starts feeling like a workout)? Does it make sense to lobotomize a desktop app to make it interaction friendly for someone poking at it with a finger in a moving car (big buttons, few controls etc) on a 4" screen? I don't think so.
... was that it wasn't locked down like Apple OS X.
because I want my router running Windows, I want my TV running Windows, I want my NAS running Windows, I want my phones runnign Windows, I want my tablets running Windows, I want my DVR running Windows, I want my electric meter monitor running Windows, etc etc. And all running the same version because running Windows is the smart way to go. WTF, are they really trying to sell this idea?
And it still doesn't. Microsoft has for decades tried to sell us on the idea of one bloated, legacy-crap-filled OS on all devices, it was just a matter of the hardware catching up with their requirements. When they were finally convinced that a KVM interface didn't work on touch devices (giving us wonderful mind-numbing features like a "Start" button and walking menus on a 3 inch phone screen) the solution was obvious -- run a touch interface everywhere, using ideas, rebranded, that have already been successful on other platforms (example, "tiles" instead of "widgets") and convince the computing public that they will love a touch-based interface with huge sliding tiles on a 1920X1200 screen, unless they're some kind of communist.
And a few people will buy into it enthusiastically, as always, and some people will put up with it because it's a requirement for whatever they need to do, and because of Microsoft's lock on PC manufacturers, some people will put up with it because they bought the computer like that and they don't know what to do about it, and that might be enough to maintain their 60-odd percent market. And the rest of us will use something else.
I do have to use windows for some things I do. But I'm just now migrating to 7 from XP, and I have no intention of buying another copy of Windows until I see what 9 looks like. And maybe not even then, if a few companies get off their collective butts and port their products to some other platform.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If one makes the presumption that the modern IT is all about the internets, then you have to ask yourself 'Does the Linux even have a choice in this matter ?'
A modern computing system is not one that is run from the DOS command line - it is a system that is tied in with the internet instead. Just have a look at Vista with Aero for an example of this done right.
You need the outlook to connect in with the mass of email flowing around us every day. And then there is document collaboration - the sharing of Wordfiles and Excels between users across state boundries ! Voice over IP, internet enabled 'surface' computing, and voice command interfaces - all tied together with .NET and the Aero interface.
The driving force behind this internet is the Microsoft Sharepoint Server - a central peice of systems software which connects all these end points together, in a synergistic kaleidoscope that achieves both balance and symmetry.
The smart Vendors know that in order to get ahead in the future IT, that means integrating with the internet.
And so, we will see more and vendors of the Linux remit their legal obligations to Microsoft, and then benefit by getting onboard the .NET revolution.
The reason to upgrade to Windows 8 has nothing to do with this stupid "Metro" crap. The classic desktop has countless actual improvements.
The reality was of course that MS Windows was not a single OS, but a number of related OS with similar user interface. In the days before MS WIndows XP took over the world, there was chaos. MS did two things to alleviate the chaos for developers and users. The first was Visual Studio, which provides what MS calls cross platform, meaning runs on various version of MS Windows, and cross language. The second was IE, which allowed a consistent application front end for the various versions of windows, and for a time Mac OS.
The both show what users want is run programs and a consistent user interface. MS has does a good job providing this. But Apple was also brought up, and the links between OS X and iOS are not as tight as the versions of MS WIndows 8. MS is radically changing the desktop experience to fit the mobile platform. OTOH, Apple is allowing the applications to be different, while focusing on the underlying data protocols, most of which are standard and open. The applications and user interface is different, but the data is the same. This is the lesson of the Newton.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
True enough.. imho the best appliance distros (NAS & Firewall) are BSD based...
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
So if I run linux on three laptops (ubuntu, fedora, redhat), and my (android) phone, is that one single OS?
I don't want to run the same OS on my phone, desktop, laptop and hypothetical tablet, set-top box and server. They each have distinct uses, and each require (or at least, would benefit from) a slightly different OS.
Hell, I don't even use just one desktop OS. I run Windows/OS X on my desktop - OS X is a good desktop Unix, but it's weak on gaming so I have a Windows disk as well. My laptop is currently Windows + a blank partition I haven't gotten around to slapping Linux on. Windows for light work and gaming, Linux for quick-boot, low-power stuff like media playing.
Now, what I would like is better cooperation between systems. Get read/write drivers for all the major file systems on all the major operating systems.
This is such self-serving BS. Microsoft needs a single, unified OS, not you. Microsoft did what they needed to do, for themselves, and this argument was invented after the fact to make it look like it's good for the consumer. What I need is an operating system that doesn't have to reboot every month on Patch Tuesday.
Do I really need TWO OS'es?
Unless you're a programmer or a hobbyist, I don't see why anybody would need two. Just pick one and get on with more interesting things.
I don't respond to AC's.
Are they trying to imitate Apple like with the Apple TV, the iPad, iPhone and the MacBookPro? Pity windows stinks...
That's like saying "why buy insurance, you rarely ever get in a car accident!"
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
"Can Microsoft convince the skeptics?" They don't need to - Apple already did. For better or worse, the average user LIKES a unified operating experience. Microsoft is doing this because the trail's already been blazed, and the complaints from skeptics and people afraid of the spread of walled gardens aren't enough of a drawback.
It's more like saying "why do my insurance premiums go up over time due to accidents that did not involve me?"
Imagine if Toyota had a near-monopoly on passenger cars. There would be other makers selling specialty trucks and busses, but most people would be driving Toyotas. On top of that, Toyota would be producing a single model every few years, like Corolla 95, Corolla 97, Corolla 2000 and people would feel like getting a new car is a requirement. Now suddenly some smaller maker Kawasaki releases a new model of a motorcycle that everyone enjoys driving and sales go through the roof. The controls are very different than those of Corolla – the shape of steering wheel, how you switch gears with your foot, several brakes, and it is a significantly more fuel efficient than any Toyota. New uses for the motorcycles are discovered – they can be driven on pedestrian walkways, or can even be taken into the offices. There are talks how everyone will be driving motorcycles in the future, how we are entering a post-car era, and how, if you want to be current, you need to make motorcycle-friendly roads.
At the same time Toyota remembers how it tried making motorcycle in the past with a round steering wheel and no one bought it, so it needs a new plan. It develops its own version of Corolla-Moto that has a new set of controls where you switch gears with your elbow. Some people saw a test model and had different opinions – some liked it, some hated it. Toyota plans to start producing motorcycles that mimic the Kawasaki, but it first needs to teach users how to shift gears with the elbow and other oddities of motorcycle controls. Since nearly everyone is driving Corollas, Toyota comes up with a plan to install motorcycle controls in the new version of Corolla alongside with the regular controls. And it allows switching controls while driving! Yes, the shape of the steering wheel changes, the gear shifter moves from the right hand to the left elbow, etc. All that while you drive!
Since everyone already knows how to drive Corollas, Toyota needs to make the existing car controls a little bit more inconvenient so that users are forced to use the motorcycle controls. For example, the only way to start Corolla-Moto is to rev up the engine by twisting the right handlebar. No one ever needed to twist anything on any car model before. So the plan is to beat Kawasaki, and has nothing to do with making the car better for the driver. Many start blogging that “motorcycle is the future” and if you don’t buy new Corolla-Moto (which gets renamed to Corolla-Toyota-Style in the last minute) you will be left in the past. Very few question true Toyota’s motives and quarrel about little details of the new interface and discuss how they intend to skip the Corolla-Toyota-Style and keep driving their existing Corolla-2007. Once enough people learn how to shift gears with their elbows, Toyota plans on introducing more motorcycles with similar controls and driving Kawasaki out of business. That’s the nature of business.
There's no such thing as "illegal download"
Well put.
The MS approach is quite different from Apples. I'm not crazy about the extra mouse clicks required to get some things done under Windows 8, but a seamless experience across all my devices (or screens) feels like a net productivity gain. I ve tinkering with Linux and even OSX, but I still use Windows everywhere I want to get things done. Linux has some great components, but 2 copies of the same distribution aren't even guaranteed to be binary compatible let alone sharing a common structure. At the end of the day I want to be able to log into my profile, launch solidworks, office, or whatever program I need, and get work done.
- tensions in our lives that are attacking our minds, unite themselves together to make our consciousness blind - op'ivy
I've got windows 8 out at work (Best Buy) and i dont like it. Still cant find how to get to "system Information" i just type it in the windows 7 search box but i cannot find it in windows 8.
I use System Information to find out if the A6 in the laptop is a dual core or a quad, or if that I5 is 2.5ghz or 1.7ghz it tells you the video card, and its ram. You can also find out the exact wireless card in System Information (to then find out if it supports monitor mode)
No, it's like having insurance so that when shit hits the fan you can fix it -- Even if the vendor goes bust.
I do not want to 'synchronize' my devices. Ever. It's a primary reason why I went with an Android phone over an iPhone originally (though since then, I have amassed more reasons - I like the Android interface). It's also why I would never buy an Apple TV device. I never have to plug my Roku into my computer. I want my media and data real-time. Are we still using POP mail too?
iTunes is a pile of shit. I just want to download my content directly to my device. I should never have to plug it in to a computer, and I don't ever need to synchronize. Duplicate files are duplicate files. Why is it even an app that you have to install on a computer, unlike Google Play? You'd think in the age of cloud storage my devices could be completely autonomous. It's like we're in the dark ages of PDAs without wireless connectivity.
Apple and Microsoft have this wrong, and Google has it right.
Nobody ever had that opportunity, so they can't lose it. Besides, what devices are we talking about? My car? My television? My guitar amp? Sure, I have a few computers, but only a small minority of those is running some form of windows and only because of legacy reasons, not for anything current or a current windows version. My phone has a battery life of a week and is not hindered by rogue apps or illegible screens in bright sunlight, because that's what it is, a phone. This is trying to blackmail people with a possible loss of something they never had before and never will have, nor should they ever want it. You don't want to lose all your computing power if for some reason there is a vulnerability in the thing they all have in common or a vendor goes belly up.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
We all know Apple, Microsoft etc try to keep you on their platform by providing exclusive services that only works on their platform. By patenting these solutions, they effectively block competing platforms from their services. E.g. they can block Skydrive-integration on Linux if they want to. I find it kinda strange that they are allowed to do this, as one might say that "-hey, why can't I access this service from an Apple computer?". A question comes to me, why is this allowed? Patents was about having monopoly on an invention that gives exclusive right on selling this invention. So, if I program an OS and would like to connect to some of the services from Microsoft, they are allowed to have exclusive rights on selling me this service. But this is not happening, they refuse to sell the service to us, because they say they only license the usage to partners whom they choose.
Well. This is where patents have derailed from the ideal runway. The thought of patents was never about exclusive rights on refusing to sell an idea. It was the other way around.
Patents should not be about blocking competitors from your platform. It's like requiring Nike shoes only on some sports courts.
So, ideally in my world, if e.g. Microsoft cannot make a fully compatible Android-client for a service they provide, then you are no longer breaking if you program a competing solution.
I already synchronize all my devices on the same platform: the Google Platform. The best part is that it is OS agnostic (though I do wish they'd hurry up with Google Drive for Linux).
fuck vi, emacs, etc
I've used pico since 1995 and still do :)
easy peasy fast to move around and it highlights it all for me :)
it's like linux notepad but on steroids
Been using 8 for over a year. Took me about 3 weeks to quit looking for the start button. Tight coupling between devices and services makes for a better experience. Yes they are copying apple on this but I can't wait for my computers, phone and living room console to all work together.
Most non-techy people I know, seem to think "Windows" is a synonym for "Computer".
I love this thread. It happens every week or so in some fashion or another and it basically boils down to people saying this:
"YOUR PERSONAL CHOICE IN OPERATING SYSTEM AND WORK ENVIRONMENT SUCKS. MINE IS SUPERIOR."
"NUH UH, MINE IS."
Nobody ever puts any thought into the possibility that MAYBE if something has worked efficiently for someone and has produced the best results for them over time then there is no reason to change. Change is only good if the transition is to something OBJECTIVELY better than what was used before (horse and buggy to automobile, for example, in the case of speed and transport capabilities.) Change for the sake of change only serves to reduce efficiency. It's always nice to learn new things, but if those new things give you no net gain and instead only introduce a long learning curve for you to essentially get the same results then maybe it really isn't that good of an idea to change.
This is the primary problem with Linux vs Windows. Once you're used to one, there is almost no reason to switch to the other except in the case of using tools that are ONLY available on that platform and even then: that's what virtual machines are for. Yes, it's nice that you can completely customize everything ever in Linux if you put it enough (sometimes unfathomable amounts) of work or that you get pretty GUIs that explain everything for you in Windows, but unless either of those things are key to keeping up with your workflow, then there's no reason to switch.
Linux will continue to be a platform for some developers and hobbyists. It also continues to be the platform of choice for certain, specific applications that the OS can be tailored around for maximum efficiency and security (e.g. servers.) It fills those niches. It doesn't NEED to be anything else. When it tries to be something else bad things tend to happen (right, Ubuntu users?) Why does it matter how much of the desktop market it has?
Windows will continue to be the desktop OS of choice because of its simplicity (Windows 8 notwithstanding,) the ability to get things done for the average person with minimal fuss and for rapid deployment in most any enterprise environment. It will also be the OS of choice for some developers because some people prefer the development tools available on it.
This is, always has been and always will be a non-argument that exists only for people to try to tell others 'I'm better than you because I'm using xyz. abc sucks and you should feel ashamed for using it.'
Stupid.
Nobody cares what the CAPTCHA for your post was.
The logic being presented here is very flawed. The root of the argument is this quote:
"There's a productivity gap when [users] come into the workplace and have to switch operating systems to work with 'in house' software versus 'mobile' software. Windows 8 bridges that gap. Same device at home as at work. Same software. Same cloud back end. Same identity system," wrote reader "moarsauce123."
This post is wrong on so many levels.
- Odds of most large corporations upgrading to Windows 8 any time in the next 2-3 years is slim to none. Windows 8 is a huge paradigm shift and there is simply zero reason for them to endure that kind of re-training cost.
- Odds of most large corporations allowing you to cloud-sync your work machine with your home machine is also slim to none. I can't even plug in my own USB thumb drive at work, you think they are going to allow me to cloud-sync my OS? Crazy town.
- Your company does not want you using the same 'identity system" at work as at home. You think my company wants me logging into Windows with my hotmail address?
It would help if Microsoft convinced users like me that their platform is so good, we'd be fools to go anywhere else.
Metro was created to convince you to go anywhere else.
The only reason a person would want this is because they desire to blue screen all of their devices.
First and most obvious: a single set of consistent APIs whether it be for a mobile phone or a 32 core server. There are differences of course but the TCO of developing apps drop dramatically when you only have one kernel to worry about.
Also: consistent user experience. If you can navigate an Xbox, you can navigate any PC, tablet, phone, whatever. There are differences of course but the feel is the same.
That should do it. If you don't see value in the above you are a fool IMO.
throw new NoSignatureException();
Give me Android OS for my pc's and my world will be complete >.>
Is Microsoft really better? Or do so called "fans" of it just prefer not to learn a new OS, and stick with what they are used to? I believe it is the latter.
that works, which is why I will avoid anything that comes from Microsoft.
That's like saying "why buy insurance, you rarely ever get in a car accident!"
Buying car insurance is like going to a bookie and betting against your favorite sports team in order to ease your suffering when they lose.
"His name was James Damore."
I don't see any issues on using a single OS from a single vendor for every device and every task I perform.
It's not like MS is going to develop close-standards, or closed-services which will keep me from moving elsewhere, or choosing my own service providers later on.
Honestly, isn't Slashdot about news for Nerds and stuff that matters? So why do we keep discussing operating systems? The far more interesting stuff is built on top of the operating system, and the operating system merely serves that. I don't use the operating system to draw in 2D or 3D, I don't use it to write software, and I don't use operating system to write mail and posts.
Current operating systems offer file systems and hardware abstraction, and have done that for decades. We should be discussing where we want to take technology, not where it lead us in the past. How can we find better metaphors for storing data than a folder structure? How can we improve collaboration between different applications? How can we make more intelligent machines? Let's keep dreaming, and find ways to make these dreams come true.
This isn't to belittle the efforts of Linux, Microsoft or Apple, but just to put stuff into perspective. Operating systems are overrated. When people care about code being able to run on several operating systems, that just proves my point.
Microsoft is right on this one, but it's not Windows 8 that shall be everywhere but linux.
I think the idea is that the user will have the same experience on any device, and in the background available sub menus have more classic device specific apps and controls. e.g. on a PC you can still bring up a command line or control panel. The deskop menu is the same though whatever device you use, and since they require a Microsoft account you also have access to the same data. Of course, in the interest of supporting so many devices and user scenarios most people end up with a great deal of processes and applications they don't need. This is where Apple has traditionally excelled. They control the hardware, and are able to streamline their kernel and drivers for a much smaller subset of devices which are optimized for their OS. Microsoft is taking advantage of the cloud market cupertino has created and gotten people used to. Of course, there's no real need for this in the desktop market. Windows 7 is fine, but only recently ready to be put into a production environment where a variety of applications are in play. Windows XP is where the inertia of the business place still lies. Microsoft is trying to drag us along and get us to be subscribers, generating yearly and monthly revenue streams so that we won't wait to upgrade our OS until we need to. They will lock us out if we don't. e.g. XBOX 360.
I already run Debian Linux on my (64-bit) desktop, (32-bit) eee-pc netbook and (ARM) Nokia N900 phone. They all run the same software, use the same apt-get for updates, run the the same CNU C complier, communicate with each other using the same open-SSH, etc. It all just works, and has been working for years.
Considering the ARM version can only download and use softwares, from the microsoft appstore. If I want to install something on my desktop and use that same software on my tablet, it needs to be in the appstore, which sucks.
Providing the system allows freedom to develop and create as you wish the having a single base is not a bad idea to a point, allowing faster development times, and easier device interaction etc, BUT If they go the way of Apple and limit what you can and can't do depending on their own internal beliefs, then it's definitely NOT the way to go for many. If microsoft is only going to allow programs to be installed through their gateway, then many will avoid it like the plague. Its one of the primary reasons I see as to why Apple hasn't taken off in the business and general computing world.
The downfall of course, is that if the base system is crap, then that will basically apply to all of them.
I believe Windows 8 and variants will become a major player, but the likes of Android and other open systems will always be there as well, and favoured because they are different!
If you could remove the horseshit Metro from the OS and the Desktop worked fine... Maybe
..Microsoft is like a girlfriend who gives you the clap, then has a makeover and promises she's clean, but you get the clap again. Now the girlfrind has had yet another makeover (#8?), looks very sexy, and promises an experience unlike any you've ever had. Seriously, are you really going to risk another dose of the clap?
If I want a single OS platform, I'd go with Apple. For all the handwaving Apple fanbois do, Apple actually does the unified experience pretty darn well. I'd own an iPhone, MacBook and an iMac to keep things concurrent.
If I wanted to, that is. I don't , and will stick with the mix thats's proven to be effective for me
Oddly, Apple is the company that, when deciding on a tablet/mobile strategy, decided to create a completely separate OS.
iOS is for mobile/tablet; OS X is for desktop/laptop. They share kernels and some frameworks to reduce engineering costs, but the UI is different, the hardware is different, the applications are different, the marketing/branding is different, and never the twain shall meet.
The long and short of it, as I see it, is that Apple convinced the market and industry to accept a monopolistic approach to providing OS, hardware, and software distribution (ITunes store). Microsoft is following.
Regardless of whether or not you like Apple or Microsoft, Windows 8 (and in many ways Windows Server 2012) is an ENORMOUS leap forward.
Microsoft developers are LEGION. Enterprises want low cost PCs and servers and developers who can drop customized apps in a matter of days. It's why MS Access won't die (no matter how much I wish it would). It's why a Windows 8 (WinRT) $400 tablet may just take off (I know of a certain big box store that dropped a 400K unit order for Ipads on the off chance they can equip their distribution chain with a platform that their army of .NET engineers can delivery software for and their IT team can control tightly).
I've spent months on Windows 8, and Server 2012. There are a lot of mistakes. But if you focus on the expectations of those mid twenties and younger, the new UX is paradigm MUCH more comfortable for them ... touch everything, fingers on the screen (when not in their mouth).
(and the core of the tech is soooooo much better from a security perspective. Okay, well not that much better, but a step forward).
GM
The only advantage of having a single OS is that one would not have to learn multiple OS'es. Thus the learning curve could be minimized. This is only good if this OS is the best or at least very good at doing just about everything you would ever need it to do.
The problem arises when you realize that this simply isn't the case. Microsoft will try to prove this in a few years when they come out with Windows 9, otherwise there will be no reason to upgrade. Each OS has it's advantages and disadvantages, some are better at one thing, others are better at other things. While I'm not saying it's not possible to be the best at everything, it's highly unlikely that that will ever happen. Especially with windows 8 which is already receiving criticism for making some previously simple tasks rather complicated. Heck, tasks that are simple to do with a mouse like high precision pointing, are difficult to do with touch interface. But a touch interface is better at quick selection across a larger surface area. And neither of those can match the ability of a pen to produce fluid lines.
I find it unlikely that there will be an OS or even just an UI that can seamlessly handle all three interfaces.
I can see why Windows is trying to push this development of USDP, but honestly its stupid and open alot people to alot problems. If you have everything tied up into a single system, it makes things vulerable. If something goes wrong with OS, everything is down. You'd better wish that your heat-controls to house, television, phone etc not tied up to it, or you maybe down and out. Its stupid, it may make thing easier to "manage" if like being network manager. Certainly things should be kept off the grid.
Microsoft's thinking is still in the ActiveSync era - where mobile devices were slaves to the master PC, with propriatary synchronization between them. Apple started moving away from that model with iOS5, and Android was never constrained by it in the first place. Mobile devices are first class clients in their own right - they sync to wherever the data lives (generally in "the cloud"), using industry standard protocols. The PC is just another device in this modern world, with no more restrictions on what its OS should be than a mobile device.
No, wait. Don't. As soon as we see it, we'll know it's not the real source.
Let the Smoke'n'Mirror Process of Software Development and Sales(tm) begin today!
I've run both Windows and LINUX of various flavors for many years in both dual and multi boot (with multi I just select the boot disk at boot time). All I care about is that the computers can talk to each other over a network. I could care less about what they call "syncronized". I also avoid "The cloud" as much as I possibly can. I also plan on skipping Windows 8. I can see no advantage in going to it. There are multinational corporations still running XP because it does what they want. Particularly large corporations with their own IT departments only care about whether the OS and software does what they want. They are not going to spend millions of dollars for new hardware, the OS, applications, training programs, and lost productive time just because some one says a new system can do things they don't need. They have the backups and don't really care about updates or whether MS still supports it. Many of them also avoid the cloud for their operations. If the govt wants to sneak a peak they'll at least have to work at it a bit instead of just telling a supplier they want to take a look. IF and I emphasize the IF, an OS does every thing you want and you have the ability to fix it should it get wiped out it makes no sense to upgrade. These same companies allow *some* workers to work from home. When I was a sys admin and then project manager, I did at least half of my work at home and/or logged in from home.