My honest reaction to that is Windows 8 is actually the *best* tablet OS out there, bar none. This is coming from the owner of an iPad, Nexus 7, Windows phone, and iPhone 4s. Once the apps reach a critical mass (which I expect, won't take too terribly long given the codebase), you'll see the Windows tablets being the best things there are on the market.
I agree with you in terms of Intel pushing the FUD because they aren't ready for a tablet OS -- it's true. But conversely, Microsoft is failing to make a good desktop OS and making a fabulous tablet OS. A step backwards overall, I'd say.
The great -- it's really, really fast. Boot times are under 10 seconds to completely usable, apps launch fast, and IE10 is really not as bad as I thought it might be. The snapping of windows to side by side and whatever work really, really well, and I find myself more productive by seeing my email snapped to the side and then browsing or whatever.
The bad -- the experience is really jarring. Most of my time is spent in the "desktop" which is a complete carryover from Windows 7. I would have thought that Microsoft would have taken the effort to re-skin that in a way better than they have (see here: http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/24/2822891/windows-desktop-ui-concept), but they didn't. It's a complete lack of effort. Not to mention, that things like battery life remaining, the time, are hidden into the OS and don't make appearances anywhere.
The ugly -- Media Center. Fuck man, that's probably the best app in Windows, and could really kick the crap out of the Apple TV or Google TV if it was properly developed. With Windows 8's API structure there could be a lot of integration here, making media center the "hub" for entertainment on the PC. So if you wanted Netflix, or Amazon, or whatever - you'd have to integrate it into Media Center. But they just booted it out because people weren't using it. Of course they weren't... when you treat it like a third rate product, it's going to get third rate attention.
Also ugly -- control panel. There are two of them in the OS. One is the 'desktop' version which remains unchanged from Windows 7, and then there's the Metro one that lets you work on settings for "Metro". Additionally multi monitor support with "hot spots" is a nightmare. I have two monitors and at work, I have 3. Trying to get into the bottom right or left to click on the start menu is extremely difficult, and in a remote desktop window, even harder. You can't use shortcut keys in remote desktop, but I've gotten used to using Windows Key + C for the charms bar, but realistically it's annoying.
All in all it's a mixed bag. Microsoft needs to step up development to complete the UI experience because right now it's a joke. The OS itself is fundamentally better too, in terms of speed, stability, resource usage, sleep/hibernate, etc. However nobody's going to care if it acts like a fucked up monster to play with. Most people will adapt, as they always do, and it's not terribly hard to get used to. But if you want to compete in a world of where Apple makes design a #1 priority, and people VALUE that, then you have to fix the UI experience in Windows. It's not all about usability.
And this is a huge problem for me as well, as I'm working on a project hoping for something better out of HTML5.
Streaming video with sensitivity to bandwith is something not available in the HTML5 spec at all. It's a simple "video" tag, which offers very little flexibility. h.264 will be the standard, VP8 is effectively dead. And that's fine, but when you have a situation where you want to auto adjust the quality based on bandwith (ala Silverlight "Smooth Streaming" or Flash), you can't do it in HTML5.
There's a project in works called MPEG DASH to do something around this, but that project is moving slower than molasses. I think people are content to keep using Flash or Silverlight, but in reality.. developers really want better options and HTML5 is already an archaic standard in a lot of senses.
And I'll continue buying my GM modified food that's cheaper, as tasty (if not tastier), and often more nutritious.
The only thing I dislike about GM foods is that we have a single strain that could be hugely impacted by a disease, but otherwise... Organic is just stupid.
Everything that gets done in Unix/Linux can be done in Windows in a different way. In *NIX you need to create LDAP groups for authentication purposes, for single signon, and in Windows you have to do it in AD. You need to know about group policy and how it nests. You need to know about forests, trusts, domains, DNS (which is basically the same thing in NIX/Windows). You need to know about automation -- people that know VBScript or PowerShell are important here, and PowerShell can read like C type code if you know that stuff.
MCSE/MSITP is a useless piece of paper. You can study really hard for that test and pass, without ever having TURNED ON A COMPUTER. It's fairly ridiculous. Looking at resumes, look at the technology they list. I had a guy that listed "Managing Telnet/NTP servers" and he worked for a finance company last. I knew it was bullshit so I called him on it, and he stammered.
Also, a good Windows admin KNOWS LINUX TOO. Not in any amazing way, but they understand the basic concepts of how to use a package repository, what builds (Ubuntu, Mint, Red Hat, SUSE, etc), They also know about cron jobs (and should be able to tell you what they equal in Windows).
Realistically for a good Windows admin you just need a smart person that knows technology and some basic Windows administration. Because not everybody is going to know everything; so things like certificate services are something that usually "creep up" over time in Windows, but aren't there unless you have a big investment. Choose accordingly in your candidates. If you hire somebody you think that knows Windows well you might wind up a loser, but if you hire somebody that knows enough to keep servers running clean, can write some code for automation purposes, and knows how to learn fast and adapt technology of any kind, you'll probably be best off. At least, with a small set of Windows boxes like you have now.
When you grow that into a bigger farm of Windows servers, that person will grow with you, and if they have a hungry appetite they'll know your Linux systems so well that you'll have great interoperability between the two. People that are diehard one way or another (I love Windows or I love Linux!) usually fare very poorly as an organization grows to really get the best of technology. It's a tool, and the people that recognize and respect that of each platform are usually the best suited for most tech jobs.
Because they have almost no LTE coverage in the US right now. So yea, you can get unlimited data, but since it's so damn slow you won't bother downloading anything on your mobile device.
I am leaving them as soon as my contract is up.... what a terrible idea that was.
I like Azure for the SQL (as somebody else mentioned) but my biggest beef with them is no ability to talk to the hardware. We are doing some CUDA development, and with Amazon I have the ability to talk direct to the hardware in a VM... not so with Azure. It's a niche need but something I'd like to see.
He's a fiscal conservative... for the top 1%. He doesn't want the US to have any of their money, and he's doing a great job by creating what is basically an austerity plan to destroy the middle class and set us back into a full blown depression. Cutting spending in a recession or stagnating growth period is the fastest way to shit on your economy. This is simple macroeconomics though.
I didn't say businesses, I said enterprises. Your linked article agrees with that. As for Linux, I meant Linux on the desktop. Every sizeable org uses Linux for an app or DB server somewhere. It's nowhere on the desktop in any meaningful install base. On the mobile side though, it's doing very well. Your second link shows Linux in use in some "major way", which is rather broad.
The next generation of monitors, laptops, etc... will all have touchscreens. So to say it's "worse" is premature, and my guess is that the majority of people who hate the new UI haven't even used it for a prolonged amount of time. I used it for a bit, and while things are awkward, they certainly haven't slowed me down any in getting anything done. But that's because I'm very familiar with Windows 7, and not at all with Windows 8.
When "companies pull that crap" there are not just one set of outcomes from IT. First IT decides whether they want it, then they decide HOW to integrate it, HOW to support it, and HOW to train for it. If you're at the bottom end of this trying to create workarounds I'd say that the management in your organization probably sucks. I don't have that issue though, I'm also the one who is in management of it:)
If you want people to use the system a different way -- keep them on a different system. Windows 7 isn't going anywhere, and that's the whole point. Windows 8 is there if you want to migrate to it, and I don't think any enterprises are going to rush to do it. However that said, I think you'll find as consumer adoption picks up (and it will), enterprises will give it a harder look to see if it's worth integrating. MS isn't coming at this from only one angle, they have IT tools and enterprise tools that go along with Windows 8 and a mobile solution for enterprises as well. It's a multi-pronged strategy that despite the new interface/training, might actually save a company money and time. If that's true hell if I know... we aren't even going to look at it before a year or so.
No, nobody is going to move to Macs or Linux on an enterprise desktop. They will stick with Windows. Windows 7 will not sunset on support for quite some time, and in the interim people will wait and see what Microsoft is going to do; either Windows 9 will be a better benefit to them, or they will figure out how to make Windows 8 work for them.
The one thing people know about Apple is that they do NOT support enterprises in any meaningful way. Look at XServe, which was pulled from its product line, and OSX Server which is basically an equivalent of Windows Home Server. And Linux? Comon... the arguments for retraining users apply for Linux and Mac TOO. The amount of investments made around the Windows platform are for many companies, quite large, and nobody's going to throw them away because despite the new interface, its enterprise pinnings are still pretty good on the client desktop.
I'm in the "wait and see" crowd. I don't particularly think the new interface is appealing, especially as a keyboard/mouse user, but given how little I use my start menu as it is, maybe it's not such a bad change... I really don't know. I do know that when we got preview copies running on PCs, all the Mac users came running by and told the IT teams how much they liked it. Go figure, eh?
Technology changes. And for many non-IT users of computers, Windows 8 is going to be great, simple, and straightforward to use. Viruses won't happen as easily because of the App Store, IE can't have any plugins/addons in its metro form, so all in all, it will be a boon to those folks. The IT folks who resist change will be the same people crying about the MS Office ribbon, or whatever else they got stuck on and didn't want to adapt. You're IT people -- you're supposed to adapt and change. Granted this change may not be the best, but you use it as a tool rather than a religion and you may find it better. Or not. In either case I don't think Metro is going anywhere, and the Surface tablet, if it does as well as people think it might, will just reinforce the fact MS made the right decision.
No, but Xbox live integration is huge for developers because when they spend the time and effort into making XBL achievements for the consoles, carrying them over to the PC is just gravy.
That's the concern from Valve. In either case, my steam library is HUGE, and I don't see any reason not to keep growing it.
Then your work sucks -- we image everything here so if your computer dies and you get a new one, then you still get the corporate image on it. Which is Windows 7.
Re:Let the bitching begin....
on
Windows 8 Is Ready
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Too bad the only games that will follow onto the Linux steam platform are games you've already beaten 5 or 6 years ago on the PC.
Best of luck getting Valve to convince other dev studios to port games to Linux at a huge expense, when the audience simply isn't there. Linux on the desktop is dead. It's linux on the "device" that has a chance. I know why Valve is pushing towards Linux because the Windows 8 App store will eat their lunch, but realistically nothing is going to change. Windows 8 has gotten more idiot proof than usual, and that's what draws in people that don't already somehow have a PC.
I'm not a huge fan of the new UI, but I think I'll adapt. I am looking forward to the performance improvements though.
I don't spend a lot of time in the start menu as it is, so I don't think it's a huge loss to me, just a change in how I normally operate. I'm okay with change. But seems a lot of people, especially people in technology (weird?), have a HUGE problem with change.
The nice thing is, if you don't like it, don't switch. I don't know why such a huge deal is made of this, but Microsoft will lose if people don't adopt, and I don't recall them ever having struggles with Windows or Office which coincidentally, also got a huge redesign that everybody hated (and now everybody is used to).
I don't think licensing technologies like ActiveSync is equivalent to patent wars against Android. It's not to say that they don't do this -- they all do -- but in this case Microsoft licenses tech to Google, and they pay for it. I don't know where the patent war implications are but I'm willing to be enlightened. Otherwise this is FUD.
Look at MS over the last few years, they've actually put up a pretty damned good product and due to their OEMs, have suffered in reputation heavily. Apple has been able to gain a foothold not because it was so great, but because people really hated Windows PCs. What made them so terrible? Dell. HP. Gateway. And all their fucking crapware.
If you look at what MS is doing with the Surface they are building a device that tells the OEMs, if you build it shittier than this, don't bother selling it. They are trying to raise the bar. Look at Vizio, now coming out with some great looking PCs and -- surprise surprise, have NO crapware installed. It's a simple Windows 7 image with anti-virus. It runs smooth, clean and fast, as Windows 7 really does run. Despite what Linux lovers may say, Windows 7 is a pretty damned good desktop OS.
And why not? Microsoft has more OEMs (Vizio for one, and a few other Chinese ones) to offer their OS, and some opting to go the "Microsoft Signature" route -- no crapware, like Vizio. They don't need every OEM, but every OEM does need them. If Dell's sales drop off because Vizio starts to cannibalize them -- low cost, good looking PCs with no junk -- then you can bet that Dell will start to rethink its way it packages Windows 7. It will NOT at least, push out a tablet that's a piece of crap -- well, I say that by thinking that Dell has a modicum of sense, but I may be wrong. Surface sets the bar pretty high, and I expect that any tablet that comes into the ARM/x86 world with Windows on it will need to exceed that, or cut the price in order to compete against it.
And honestly, we could do with some higher quality hardware anyway. Now that Vizio is out there, and the Surface, I have a little more hope to see some good hardware from the PC centric OEMs. But I may have my faith misplaced in the others, but I am eyeing a new Vizio laptop at some point... after Windows 8 launches probably.
What is the purpose of the change? To bring Linux in just because it's an alternative to Windows is just idiotic. I've heard it from the engineers that work under me, and then I try to let them explain before I bash them in the face with logic.
Companies don't CARE what OS works for them, so long as it lets them do their job. Replacing things and moving to Linux are first, usually a HUGE move, and secondly, bring HUGE impacts in terms of productivity and support. I can bring in Linux on the desktop and what do I gain? Almost nothing. The stability isn't an issue -- Windows 7 has been fine. Office productivity would be down because we use Sharepoint/Office/Lync and it works together seamlessly and with a relatively low cost. We'd be UP in the amount of time to troubleshoot issues because Linux can't be administered in the same way for user issues... it's a case by case basis, and while I could push VNC to all the machines, it's retraining all of my IT people to do things entirely different.
Computers, software, hardware are TOOLS. It's what annoys me greatly about Slashdot that it seems that many folks think that "Linux is the answer!" but never bother to list the question or reason for using it. There are instances in which I think Linux is great -- we run Linux servers all over the place. But Linux hasn't earned its place on the desktop because it's simply NOT BETTER, and if it's not better by a good margin, there is no point in switching.
So again -- answer it... WHY switch, and what are the benefits?
Slashdot Mirror
It's almost a tit for tat copy of Windows Phone, in so many ways.
My honest reaction to that is Windows 8 is actually the *best* tablet OS out there, bar none. This is coming from the owner of an iPad, Nexus 7, Windows phone, and iPhone 4s. Once the apps reach a critical mass (which I expect, won't take too terribly long given the codebase), you'll see the Windows tablets being the best things there are on the market.
I agree with you in terms of Intel pushing the FUD because they aren't ready for a tablet OS -- it's true. But conversely, Microsoft is failing to make a good desktop OS and making a fabulous tablet OS. A step backwards overall, I'd say.
And I can say it's great, and it's terrible.
The great -- it's really, really fast. Boot times are under 10 seconds to completely usable, apps launch fast, and IE10 is really not as bad as I thought it might be. The snapping of windows to side by side and whatever work really, really well, and I find myself more productive by seeing my email snapped to the side and then browsing or whatever.
The bad -- the experience is really jarring. Most of my time is spent in the "desktop" which is a complete carryover from Windows 7. I would have thought that Microsoft would have taken the effort to re-skin that in a way better than they have (see here: http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/24/2822891/windows-desktop-ui-concept), but they didn't. It's a complete lack of effort. Not to mention, that things like battery life remaining, the time, are hidden into the OS and don't make appearances anywhere.
The ugly -- Media Center. Fuck man, that's probably the best app in Windows, and could really kick the crap out of the Apple TV or Google TV if it was properly developed. With Windows 8's API structure there could be a lot of integration here, making media center the "hub" for entertainment on the PC. So if you wanted Netflix, or Amazon, or whatever - you'd have to integrate it into Media Center. But they just booted it out because people weren't using it. Of course they weren't... when you treat it like a third rate product, it's going to get third rate attention.
Also ugly -- control panel. There are two of them in the OS. One is the 'desktop' version which remains unchanged from Windows 7, and then there's the Metro one that lets you work on settings for "Metro". Additionally multi monitor support with "hot spots" is a nightmare. I have two monitors and at work, I have 3. Trying to get into the bottom right or left to click on the start menu is extremely difficult, and in a remote desktop window, even harder. You can't use shortcut keys in remote desktop, but I've gotten used to using Windows Key + C for the charms bar, but realistically it's annoying.
All in all it's a mixed bag. Microsoft needs to step up development to complete the UI experience because right now it's a joke. The OS itself is fundamentally better too, in terms of speed, stability, resource usage, sleep/hibernate, etc. However nobody's going to care if it acts like a fucked up monster to play with. Most people will adapt, as they always do, and it's not terribly hard to get used to. But if you want to compete in a world of where Apple makes design a #1 priority, and people VALUE that, then you have to fix the UI experience in Windows. It's not all about usability.
They are in the US, as am I for many, many years. I'm born and bred here. And it's not sanity. It's education that really makes the difference.
Let me tell the PM to go f*ck himself.
Mobile devices still need native apps, which is something I truly dislike for something as simple as video.
And this is a huge problem for me as well, as I'm working on a project hoping for something better out of HTML5.
Streaming video with sensitivity to bandwith is something not available in the HTML5 spec at all. It's a simple "video" tag, which offers very little flexibility. h.264 will be the standard, VP8 is effectively dead. And that's fine, but when you have a situation where you want to auto adjust the quality based on bandwith (ala Silverlight "Smooth Streaming" or Flash), you can't do it in HTML5.
There's a project in works called MPEG DASH to do something around this, but that project is moving slower than molasses. I think people are content to keep using Flash or Silverlight, but in reality.. developers really want better options and HTML5 is already an archaic standard in a lot of senses.
http://michaelgrayer.posterous.com/in-which-i-blow-a-gasket-and-get-very-uppity
Sample size of TEN. The article goes more in depth, but for fuck's sake...
And I'll continue buying my GM modified food that's cheaper, as tasty (if not tastier), and often more nutritious.
The only thing I dislike about GM foods is that we have a single strain that could be hugely impacted by a disease, but otherwise... Organic is just stupid.
Everything that gets done in Unix/Linux can be done in Windows in a different way. In *NIX you need to create LDAP groups for authentication purposes, for single signon, and in Windows you have to do it in AD. You need to know about group policy and how it nests. You need to know about forests, trusts, domains, DNS (which is basically the same thing in NIX/Windows). You need to know about automation -- people that know VBScript or PowerShell are important here, and PowerShell can read like C type code if you know that stuff.
MCSE/MSITP is a useless piece of paper. You can study really hard for that test and pass, without ever having TURNED ON A COMPUTER. It's fairly ridiculous. Looking at resumes, look at the technology they list. I had a guy that listed "Managing Telnet/NTP servers" and he worked for a finance company last. I knew it was bullshit so I called him on it, and he stammered.
Also, a good Windows admin KNOWS LINUX TOO. Not in any amazing way, but they understand the basic concepts of how to use a package repository, what builds (Ubuntu, Mint, Red Hat, SUSE, etc), They also know about cron jobs (and should be able to tell you what they equal in Windows).
Realistically for a good Windows admin you just need a smart person that knows technology and some basic Windows administration. Because not everybody is going to know everything; so things like certificate services are something that usually "creep up" over time in Windows, but aren't there unless you have a big investment. Choose accordingly in your candidates. If you hire somebody you think that knows Windows well you might wind up a loser, but if you hire somebody that knows enough to keep servers running clean, can write some code for automation purposes, and knows how to learn fast and adapt technology of any kind, you'll probably be best off. At least, with a small set of Windows boxes like you have now.
When you grow that into a bigger farm of Windows servers, that person will grow with you, and if they have a hungry appetite they'll know your Linux systems so well that you'll have great interoperability between the two. People that are diehard one way or another (I love Windows or I love Linux!) usually fare very poorly as an organization grows to really get the best of technology. It's a tool, and the people that recognize and respect that of each platform are usually the best suited for most tech jobs.
Just my $.02.
Because they have almost no LTE coverage in the US right now. So yea, you can get unlimited data, but since it's so damn slow you won't bother downloading anything on your mobile device.
I am leaving them as soon as my contract is up.... what a terrible idea that was.
I like Azure for the SQL (as somebody else mentioned) but my biggest beef with them is no ability to talk to the hardware. We are doing some CUDA development, and with Amazon I have the ability to talk direct to the hardware in a VM... not so with Azure. It's a niche need but something I'd like to see.
He's a fiscal conservative... for the top 1%. He doesn't want the US to have any of their money, and he's doing a great job by creating what is basically an austerity plan to destroy the middle class and set us back into a full blown depression. Cutting spending in a recession or stagnating growth period is the fastest way to shit on your economy. This is simple macroeconomics though.
I didn't say businesses, I said enterprises. Your linked article agrees with that. As for Linux, I meant Linux on the desktop. Every sizeable org uses Linux for an app or DB server somewhere. It's nowhere on the desktop in any meaningful install base. On the mobile side though, it's doing very well. Your second link shows Linux in use in some "major way", which is rather broad.
No, what I'm saying is that these devices will become more commonplace and Windows 8 will seem more useful and easy.
And when it gets acceptance with consumers, it will get acceptance within the enterprise.
The next generation of monitors, laptops, etc... will all have touchscreens. So to say it's "worse" is premature, and my guess is that the majority of people who hate the new UI haven't even used it for a prolonged amount of time. I used it for a bit, and while things are awkward, they certainly haven't slowed me down any in getting anything done. But that's because I'm very familiar with Windows 7, and not at all with Windows 8.
When "companies pull that crap" there are not just one set of outcomes from IT. First IT decides whether they want it, then they decide HOW to integrate it, HOW to support it, and HOW to train for it. If you're at the bottom end of this trying to create workarounds I'd say that the management in your organization probably sucks. I don't have that issue though, I'm also the one who is in management of it :)
If you want people to use the system a different way -- keep them on a different system. Windows 7 isn't going anywhere, and that's the whole point. Windows 8 is there if you want to migrate to it, and I don't think any enterprises are going to rush to do it. However that said, I think you'll find as consumer adoption picks up (and it will), enterprises will give it a harder look to see if it's worth integrating. MS isn't coming at this from only one angle, they have IT tools and enterprise tools that go along with Windows 8 and a mobile solution for enterprises as well. It's a multi-pronged strategy that despite the new interface/training, might actually save a company money and time. If that's true hell if I know... we aren't even going to look at it before a year or so.
No, nobody is going to move to Macs or Linux on an enterprise desktop. They will stick with Windows. Windows 7 will not sunset on support for quite some time, and in the interim people will wait and see what Microsoft is going to do; either Windows 9 will be a better benefit to them, or they will figure out how to make Windows 8 work for them.
The one thing people know about Apple is that they do NOT support enterprises in any meaningful way. Look at XServe, which was pulled from its product line, and OSX Server which is basically an equivalent of Windows Home Server. And Linux? Comon... the arguments for retraining users apply for Linux and Mac TOO. The amount of investments made around the Windows platform are for many companies, quite large, and nobody's going to throw them away because despite the new interface, its enterprise pinnings are still pretty good on the client desktop.
I'm in the "wait and see" crowd. I don't particularly think the new interface is appealing, especially as a keyboard/mouse user, but given how little I use my start menu as it is, maybe it's not such a bad change... I really don't know. I do know that when we got preview copies running on PCs, all the Mac users came running by and told the IT teams how much they liked it. Go figure, eh?
Technology changes. And for many non-IT users of computers, Windows 8 is going to be great, simple, and straightforward to use. Viruses won't happen as easily because of the App Store, IE can't have any plugins/addons in its metro form, so all in all, it will be a boon to those folks. The IT folks who resist change will be the same people crying about the MS Office ribbon, or whatever else they got stuck on and didn't want to adapt. You're IT people -- you're supposed to adapt and change. Granted this change may not be the best, but you use it as a tool rather than a religion and you may find it better. Or not. In either case I don't think Metro is going anywhere, and the Surface tablet, if it does as well as people think it might, will just reinforce the fact MS made the right decision.
I on the other hand, will just wait and see.
It's outperforming DX9. DX11 is a different animal.
No, but Xbox live integration is huge for developers because when they spend the time and effort into making XBL achievements for the consoles, carrying them over to the PC is just gravy.
That's the concern from Valve. In either case, my steam library is HUGE, and I don't see any reason not to keep growing it.
Then your work sucks -- we image everything here so if your computer dies and you get a new one, then you still get the corporate image on it. Which is Windows 7.
Too bad the only games that will follow onto the Linux steam platform are games you've already beaten 5 or 6 years ago on the PC.
Best of luck getting Valve to convince other dev studios to port games to Linux at a huge expense, when the audience simply isn't there. Linux on the desktop is dead. It's linux on the "device" that has a chance. I know why Valve is pushing towards Linux because the Windows 8 App store will eat their lunch, but realistically nothing is going to change. Windows 8 has gotten more idiot proof than usual, and that's what draws in people that don't already somehow have a PC.
I'm not a huge fan of the new UI, but I think I'll adapt. I am looking forward to the performance improvements though.
I don't spend a lot of time in the start menu as it is, so I don't think it's a huge loss to me, just a change in how I normally operate. I'm okay with change. But seems a lot of people, especially people in technology (weird?), have a HUGE problem with change.
The nice thing is, if you don't like it, don't switch. I don't know why such a huge deal is made of this, but Microsoft will lose if people don't adopt, and I don't recall them ever having struggles with Windows or Office which coincidentally, also got a huge redesign that everybody hated (and now everybody is used to).
I don't think licensing technologies like ActiveSync is equivalent to patent wars against Android. It's not to say that they don't do this -- they all do -- but in this case Microsoft licenses tech to Google, and they pay for it. I don't know where the patent war implications are but I'm willing to be enlightened. Otherwise this is FUD.
Look at MS over the last few years, they've actually put up a pretty damned good product and due to their OEMs, have suffered in reputation heavily. Apple has been able to gain a foothold not because it was so great, but because people really hated Windows PCs. What made them so terrible? Dell. HP. Gateway. And all their fucking crapware.
If you look at what MS is doing with the Surface they are building a device that tells the OEMs, if you build it shittier than this, don't bother selling it. They are trying to raise the bar. Look at Vizio, now coming out with some great looking PCs and -- surprise surprise, have NO crapware installed. It's a simple Windows 7 image with anti-virus. It runs smooth, clean and fast, as Windows 7 really does run. Despite what Linux lovers may say, Windows 7 is a pretty damned good desktop OS.
And why not? Microsoft has more OEMs (Vizio for one, and a few other Chinese ones) to offer their OS, and some opting to go the "Microsoft Signature" route -- no crapware, like Vizio. They don't need every OEM, but every OEM does need them. If Dell's sales drop off because Vizio starts to cannibalize them -- low cost, good looking PCs with no junk -- then you can bet that Dell will start to rethink its way it packages Windows 7. It will NOT at least, push out a tablet that's a piece of crap -- well, I say that by thinking that Dell has a modicum of sense, but I may be wrong. Surface sets the bar pretty high, and I expect that any tablet that comes into the ARM/x86 world with Windows on it will need to exceed that, or cut the price in order to compete against it.
And honestly, we could do with some higher quality hardware anyway. Now that Vizio is out there, and the Surface, I have a little more hope to see some good hardware from the PC centric OEMs. But I may have my faith misplaced in the others, but I am eyeing a new Vizio laptop at some point... after Windows 8 launches probably.
What is the purpose of the change? To bring Linux in just because it's an alternative to Windows is just idiotic. I've heard it from the engineers that work under me, and then I try to let them explain before I bash them in the face with logic.
Companies don't CARE what OS works for them, so long as it lets them do their job. Replacing things and moving to Linux are first, usually a HUGE move, and secondly, bring HUGE impacts in terms of productivity and support. I can bring in Linux on the desktop and what do I gain? Almost nothing. The stability isn't an issue -- Windows 7 has been fine. Office productivity would be down because we use Sharepoint/Office/Lync and it works together seamlessly and with a relatively low cost. We'd be UP in the amount of time to troubleshoot issues because Linux can't be administered in the same way for user issues... it's a case by case basis, and while I could push VNC to all the machines, it's retraining all of my IT people to do things entirely different.
Computers, software, hardware are TOOLS. It's what annoys me greatly about Slashdot that it seems that many folks think that "Linux is the answer!" but never bother to list the question or reason for using it. There are instances in which I think Linux is great -- we run Linux servers all over the place. But Linux hasn't earned its place on the desktop because it's simply NOT BETTER, and if it's not better by a good margin, there is no point in switching.
So again -- answer it... WHY switch, and what are the benefits?