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."
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.
Of course, since you can now run vi in emacs then emacs is not just an operating system but can also be used as an editor.
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.
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
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.
I use VS at work a XCode at home. I've used Eclipse at work back in 2005-2006. In my opinion:
Visual Studio:
This is the best IDE IMO and has been for a while. This could change of course. I develop the fastest with this IDE. This might be biased since I use it the most. Delphi was great in it's day (5) and VS took a lot of cues from Borland's IDE. Microsoft started as a developer tools company, and I think they still have a soft spot for it.
XCode:
XCode was a little cumbersome back in 3.x but is getting much better with every release. It's picking up a lot of cues from VS and Delphi IDEs.
Eclipse:
This is a juggernaut and it shows. I haven't used it really since 2006, but at the time, it was huge and a little cumbersome. I would have liked to see Apache/Tomcat configuration be a little more automated, because when I first set it up, it took too much time. This may be different now.
Netbeans:
As an aside, my GF used it for some MIS class projects. It's not a bad little IDE, but I haven't used it extensively.
IntelliJ IDEA:
We switched to this for our Java IDE when I used it in a previous live. This was a nice IDE when I used it for 6 months.
"Oh man, you mean you hate being required to learn how things work?" Why do you say that (at least I took it as such) in a sarcastic way? If I'm being employed by COMPANY XYZ to make a product, they don't want and I don't want to spend 3 months trying to figure out all off the bullshit to get my job done. Software is one of those unique things that can be molded into a tool that is BOTH functional AND easy to use. I've never quite understood why the FOSS crowd (and I do love FOSS so we're clear on that) INSISTS on making things stupidly complex. WYSIWYG and "Point-Click" Wizards are not bad things, even for those of us who CAN sit down and figure everything out. There are days that I look at a piece of FOSS and go "that is so cool", but if it'd take me 3-4 hours to set it up JUSt to get it working I might just be turned off on it. FOSS should be more than just "you can customize it", it has the capacity to BE better than Commercial software from a non-technical standpoint. All too often I feel like developers forget the human element of your target audience.