

Why Windows 8 Scares Me -- and Should Scare You Too - pwpwp
http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2012/05/fear-and-loathing-and-windows-8.html

======
pwpwp
TL;DR:

\--Windows 8 is not Windows, it's a new operating system with Windows 7
compatibility tacked onto it.

\--Although Windows 8 looks pretty and is great for tablet-style content
consumption, I question its benefits for traditional PC productivity tasks.

\--Big OS transitions like this one traditionally cause users to reconsider
their OS decision and potentially switch to something else.

\--Microsoft has worsened the risk that people will migrate away from Windows
8, by disabling some key features of Windows 7, and mishandling the consumer
"preview" program.

\--However, people won't necessarily abandon Windows because it's not clear if
they have a good alternative to it.

\--Apple could provide the best alternative if it chooses to. This might be
Apple's best chance ever to stick a fork in Windows.

\--If Windows 8 is even moderately successful, it could weaken Google and the
big web services companies. The trend toward bundling web services into the OS
is potentially very disruptive to the web community, and they should be quite
worried about it.

\--If you're a PC app developer, you should probably hold off on Metro because
it's not clear how quickly its user base will grow.

~~~
dfxm12
Is it bad that none of these things really scare me?

~~~
zeeed
Coming up next in this article series:

Why I am avoiding articles with headlines that end in "and you should, too"
and why you should, too.

~~~
michaelcampbell
Or, "Why I Am Avoiding Articles That Start With 'Why'".

It seems these are the new "10 Ways/Reasons/Thoughts/etc. on...".

------
jsz0
For almost every release of Windows it seems Microsoft has arbitrarily moved
important and commonly used features around. Windows 8 is a larger _visual_
overhaul but really not a huge departure from the typical musical chair sort
of changes you always get with Windows releases. People will probably just be
confused for a while, get used to the new system, and Windows 9 will change it
again somehow. That's how it's always been so it doesn't concern me. My guess
is most people will just randomly click on things until they get back to a
semi-familar Windows desktop. They will remember the steps required to get
back there. Metro and all these other things will just be another annoying
thing that pops up when the computer starts.

~~~
herval
Windows' general look and feel disn't change much since Win 95, actually - one
exception being the "settings" (preferences? Control panel?) menu, which
changed every time. Win8 kinda changes the entire look and feel (although,
just like the control panel, there is a fallback)

(fun fact: I ALWAYS click "switch back to the classic view" whenever I get to
a windows machine)

------
moistgorilla
If only Adobe and Autodesk supported linux I would make the full transition to
Ubuntu. Ubuntu doesn't have the learning curve that Linux is known for anymore
but still manages to let you have full control of your system when you need
it.

There are so many open source options that I don't think it's worth jumping
through the hoops microsoft lays out anymore. Office tools aren't windows
specific anymore because of software like Google docs and libreOffice. Gimp
has all of the features of photoshop although a little less intuitive. Qt
creator is an excellent replacement for visual studio for c++ developers. Unix
command lines make life so much easier. For the average user that only browses
the internet and uses microsoft office I really don't think there is a reason
to stick to windows other than for autodesk and adobe applications. Thousands
of dollars can be saved by people if they just switched to linux.

~~~
jaybill
This is true so long as you don't count the _latest_ version of Ubuntu. Unity
is a train wreck because it makes the same set of false assumptions that Win 8
makes in terms there being one interface that will work for tablets, phones
and PCs.

A year ago I would have agreed that Ubuntu was poised to take up the slack
that a lackluster Windows 8 launch would create. Now they just come off as
another vendor trying to copy the success of the iPad. As a person who used
Ubuntu as his primary desktop for development, I've had to move to another
distro (Lubuntu) because Unity/Gnome 3 actively enrages me. I'm not saying
that to be dramatic, either. Every time I've tried to use that thing I feel
like I have to wash it off my hands. I realize that this might not be as big
of a deal to a completely new computer user, but how many of those are really
left?

As an aside (and I don't mean this to start a flamewar) Gimp is _not_ a
suitable replacement for Photoshop. Gimp has all the same _functions_ as
photoshop (and some more, in fact) but that user interface is so bad that it's
not really a viable replacement. Sure, there are plenty of people who disagree
with me, but I think you'll find most of them are engineers and not people who
work with images for a living.

If you don't believe me, look at what happens when Adobe itself makes the
_slightest change_ to _any_ of its products. Its user base is immediately
infuriated and threatens to revolt.

 _EDIT: Fixed typo._

~~~
freehunter
As a ~long time Linux user (2004), I love Unity. Gnome 2 was horrid as a
default. On a fresh install, the first thing I had to do was to change their
ridiculous taskbar settings to condense it down to one. Then I had to spend an
hour changing settings to keep it from wasting taskbar space. Icons for
programs makes sense, searching for apps makes sense. The only thing I'm not
terribly keen on is the behavior of the global menu bar, but it does make
sense in a way.

I've never seen the point in making things overly complicated. Changing things
from release to release is complicated, but it's better than sticking with
tired metaphors that made sense in 1995 but not today. Might I suggest this
rage Unity/Gnome3 makes you feel might be because it's radically different,
rather than because it's radically worse?

~~~
jaybill
When I first read that you were a "long time linux user" that started with it
in 2004, I chuckled, then I realized that 2004 was actually _six years ago_ (a
totally legit "long time") and that _I am really old_. :)

I'll give you that the way Gnome 2 was set up by default in Ubuntu was pretty
annoying. I also spent some time "moving in" after a fresh install. I did,
however, find that I could get it just the way I wanted it before too long,
something I've been unable to do with Unity.

Here's the thing: Ubuntu's primary user base (to this point) is PC users. I'm
all for a bright future where Ubuntu runs on phones and tablets and toasters,
but seriously, where are they? What problem does Unity solve for PC users that
a more "traditional" desktop metaphor doesn't? I can't get past the fact that
it's obtuse and annoying solely for the sake of novelty.

To each their own, though. The magic of Linux is that there are plenty of
options. Windows users, sadly, don't have that luxury, which is what the
original article was pointing out.

~~~
freehunter
Yeah, 2004 was still kind of the "dark ages" of Linux: where the other OSes
had moved on but Linux was still mainly sticking with the text-based install
and "network drivers need to be downloaded" phase (in my experience).

I will give you that Unity suffers from a lack of customization (I'm willing
to give Canonical the benefit of the doubt that it's still a WIP).
Unity/Gnome3 is exactly what I've been trying to customize Gnome2 to be like
for the past 6 years.

~~~
jaybill
Oh, dear $DEITY, I remember that. Getting the wireless to work meant spending
the whole weekend recompiling the kernel and crossing your fingers.

------
eslachance
I'm fairly certain this has been said before, but... What if Apple officially
supported installing Mac OS X on a regular PC? I mean, it's already possible
to do this ("hackintosh" or "OSx86"), but it requires some mucking around...
if Apple added support for popular non-mac hardware and just let people buy
and install it on any machine, wouldn't that become serious competition to
Windows?

Because let's face it, a lot of people that stay away from Macintosh do so
because of the price of the hardware...

Edit: Well that settles it for me, then. Thanks for the replies :)

~~~
kapowaz
Apple is a hardware company. They make money selling computers and other
gadgets. Those computers and gadgets happen to run software, but that isn't
what they make their money from (it's akin to a loss leader, even if it might
not actually lose money).

Those customers you speak of, who stay away from the Macintosh because of the
price; how much more money do you think Apple would make from them if they
chose to buy a clone sold by another manufacturer? And how much money would
they _cost_ Apple in effect by taking advantage of software development
subsidised elsewhere?

Killing the clones was (from a business point of view) one of the smartest
things Steve Jobs did when he returned to Apple, and I can't see that decision
ever being reversed.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Right. Compare the price Apple charges for a full version of OS X Lion ($29)
to what Microsoft charges for a full version of Windows 7 (~$300 MSRP for the
full monty, though you can get it for $250 at Amazon and other places), or the
price Apple charges for Xcode ($5.00 or free, depending on the phase of the
moon) compared to what Microsoft charges for Visual Studio Professional ($590
MSRP).

------
cmvf51
A long winded article that basically calls at issue Microsoft risk taking
changes with Windows 8. I think OP would be happy if Windows 8, was just
Windows 7.5 - change is scary.

