Why don't you try some of the other operating systems Out There? Ubuntu linux, for instance? You download it for free (yes, free. What a concept) AND its source code if you're a real trooper, and put it on a USB stick or a CD or DVD and boot off of it? If you decide you like it, you install it. Try it. Linux has come a long way and its very friendly. And totally free.
Why should one have to do any of this? The Magic Incantation to get a product to work in manner with which one is familiar, one which leverages the user's place on the learning curve, rather introducing yet another surprise to get use to?
Why can't this company simply produce a better product that is consistent and well thought-out?
As long as we are willing to accept cut-rate products at premium prices, we deserve what we get.
Microsoft's products consistently violate established and proven guidelines for successful user-interface design. Cardinal Rule #1: Never, ever, ever surprise the user.
Cardinal Rule #2: Always leverage what the user already knows, unless there is clear advantage to the user by introducing something new.
Cluttered screens full of animated icons and browsers which expand to fill the screen by default and totally different motifs and layouts are not a compelling-enough reason to toss the user's learning curve out the window with each release, which is exactly what Microsoft has always done.
So what if Windows 8 has better performance than Win7, when the unnecessary cosmetic changes reduce the user's own performance? Is our focus so exclusively on the machine's performance that the users' needs are just tossed by the wayside?
Every new Windows release has failed to capitalize on what the user already knows. It is not as if people have nothing better to do with their time to sit around idly and learn anew what is essentially the same operating system, but with yet another, different coat of paint. Why? That Windows_Key + d/D is just a hack, like Windows has always been: a hack job.
If any of this communicates a message to Microsoft's customers, it is this: we haven't a clue as to what you want or need in an operating system, and we care even less about your time. Just give us your money and get lost - until the next release.
And we accept this.
Speaking of advertising faux pas, consider a few of their more recent advert campaigns: "Imagine...Life Without Walls"
The first thing that occurred to me when I saw this advert: "Without Walls...Who the Hell Needs Windows?"
Next: Microsoft Azure. Azure is a shade of blue. Now ask yourself, "What else is Microsoft famous for, something also having a shade of blue?"
Why, the infamous BSOD, the Blue Screen of Death.
So they named their new product after a shade of blue. Doh.
Next, Microsoft comes up with a new logo for Windows 8: four panes, all blue. Not only is the new logo bland, it suggests the soon-to-be-fashionable QSOD - Quad Screen of Death.
One might wonder who inside Microsoft is holding a grudge. That, or they're just plain stupid.
But you had to wait for Windows 8 to get your better performance, yes? Why are you so willing to be at Microsoft's mercy, gratefully accepting whatever crumbs they shove your way? And given their untarnished record of consistent inconsistency, who knows? Maybe their next release will another Vista, only more so. Or maybe not. Microsoft is like a Forrest Gump's Box of Chocolates, except with this box, they rather just shove them down your throat. It is their One Consistency.
"The second item is Microsoft quietly introducing UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) or secure boot... effectively Microsoft is forcing PC manufactures to embed UEFI which prevents non certified O/S's from booting... and Microsoft is the only vendor that can provide security certificates... Thankfully the Linux community is addressing this, but again it disturbs me that Microsoft is over stepping their bounds in the manner they have."
This is not a new practice and it is not all that different than what used to be practiced by mining companies in the United States.
Mines issued company 'script' which could only be redeemed at the Company Store. In this way, the company could place enormous markups on goods, making workers completely dependent on the company, thus enforcing their "loyalty" to the company. With UEFI, Microsoft would exclude all but their software from running on users' machines.
PC hardware manufacturers better take note: Microsoft isn't the only game in town - nor the world. If they knuckle under Microsoft dictatorial demands, they'll soon find themselves queuing up at the soup kitchen. The world doesn't need Microsoft.
I will not buy PC hardware on which only Microsoft's products will run. I have choices; good choices, too. Its not longer the case where we're stuck with even two choices: Windows or Mac. We've got dozens with more on the way.
Microsoft still thinks it's 1989 and that they own the show. Ain't so. And as far as I'm concerned, they can go piss off. I don't need the Redmond Dinosaur.
Nor does anyone else.
Sam writes: "Quite honestly I do not need Microsoft or anyone else being my big brother for what apps/drivers I want or need to use."
Exactly. And rather than listening to their customers - really listening and taking their input to heart - Microsoft sticks with Ye Olde Tried and True "We know what's best for you so shaddup and puddup." No thanks. Its a New Day, and one old, fat, has-been monkey don't make no show.
Just ask Detroit.
The issue here is that PC sales are falling. The cause is a lack of any PC-related innovations in Win 8 to make an upgrade compelling.
Grafting a touchscreen on Win7 and creating a tablet does nothing for PC value.
Win 8 forces the same touch screen oriented interface on tablets and PCs. It might be OK for a tablet, but it is terrible for a non-touchscreen PC. What are they thinking? That we will go out and buy Microsoft tablets after we have grown to hate win 8 on our PCs?
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.