Windows: It’s over, tech site declares

Fox News ^ | April 16, 2013

[Olog-hai]

Calling the latest operating system a “failure” and Microsoft’s leaders “idiots,” a top tech website has proclaimed the PC era over. Windows is coming to a dead end, they say.

PC shipments collapsed in the last quarter by almost 14 percent, analysts with IDC said last week, marking the biggest drop in sales since the firm started tracking them 19 years ago. The problem, said ZDNet’s well respected Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols, isn’t the designs from the likes of HP and Dell or the size of consumer’s wallets. It’s Microsoft.

“Look at the numbers: Metro-interface operating systems have already failed,” Vaughn-Nichols wrote in an essay on the site. “Microsoft is betting all its chips on the silly notion that Metro will be the one true interface for its entire PC and device line.”

“Idiots,” he wrote. …

[ArrogantBustard]

Is that the best you can do?

Your comments are really wierd. Do you think I'm engaged in some sort of bizarre kiddie-game of one-upsmanship?

Seriously?

Grow up.

I don't like the tiles.

Deal with it.

[adorno]

Cute, but still a lie.

Metro is not one of those “personalities”, in case you hadn’t noticed.

But, your graphic is still a big lie, since of the three OSes represented, the biggest and most used and most practical, was Vista. In fact, vista is still used more than all versions of Mac OSes release, combined! Nothing gay about the biggest and baddest OS of its time, and it’s still beating Macs and Linux combined. ;)

[right way right]

Too much gimmickry since XP.
And the economy is in the toilet.
I like quality not fluff.
I.E. I Want to create my own picture folder
or doc folder and I want to store it where I want to.

[adorno]

Your statement is somewhat confusing

iOS is closed, but, Android is closed in a different way, and that is with the "cheap OS" and the massive head-start they enjoyed in development of apps,for about 3-4 years. People can be easily fooled into believing that, an Os is superior when the apps store has many times more apps. Thus, the mental lock-in.

Otherwise, Android is "more" open than iOs, and it will be easier to displace it in the marketplace by Windows RT and Windows Phone 8. It will take time, but, in about 3-4 years, Android will be a distant third to Windows RT/WP8, and to iOS. The winner in a competition, is usually the one that brings the superior product or skills, and not the cheapest.

[adorno]

Your comments are really wierd. Do you think I'm engaged in some sort of bizarre kiddie-game of one-upsmanship?

Actually, you're the one that first came up with your immature challenge to me, about being "emotionally invested in this".

If your approach had been different and not so immature, I would have responded accordingly.

Think before you type.

And, grow up if you want to be addressed in the same fashion.

[quimby]

It will take time, but, in about 3-4 years, Android will be a distant third to Windows RT/WP8, and to iOS.

lol, android is adding 1.3 million devices a day, and if sales continue at that rate will have over a biilion devices by years end.

you may be right, but i doubt apple ios will ever dominate like they did a few years ago. There are too many competitors.

[chris37]

haha no doubt, I am so opposed to change though. I am absolutely rigid, certainly a shortcoming on my part.

[chris37]

Yep, that’s true. My various desktops are pictures that I love. Love looking at them.

[Fire_on_High]

Hey, if ppl actually want the Idiocracy UI, they can have it. I’d much rather work with the first.

Also, while you’re at it, name me some things you find so terrible about Win2k, that aren’t directly related to “they stopped making things for it”. I admit to being utterly baffled how anyone could find fault with such a clean and elegant OS. Even XP makes a few tradeoffs that sacrifice speed for function you may well not care about, but end up having to accept if you need the compatibility.

[quimby]

name me some things you find so terrible about Win2k, that aren’t directly related to “they stopped making things for it”.

Win2k was great. The problem is it is usecure because it is not being patched for threats. But if you are careful on the web, you may not have a problem. Believe it or not, security has advanced in the 13 years since w2k was realesed. More than simple cosmetic changes have been made.

[Fire_on_High]

That’s exactly the point I was making, actually.

The design still holds up beautifully and it was INCREDIBLY solid. It did an awful lot of things *just* right, far more than any other version.

If it had been patched to current and various things kept compatible with it, it’d still be quite worthy.

[publius911]

I’m still using Windows 2000 Professional on my desktop. Works great.

That sort of illustrates a very critical point in the discussion.

It's not so salient that new Windows sales "plunged," but rather how many Windows boxes are still active regardless of age, compared to other OSs.

By the way, not knowing better, I consider all Linux systems essentially "PC" clones.

[publius911]

Tell Microsoft to fine tune Windows 7. Basically it works fine.

You'd think that MS had learned their lesson with Vista, which I swore I would never buy (and never did.)

I would rather switch than even think about Win8.
Ever.

I want no close relationship for the flighty have-to-have-the trendiest gadget crowd in any form.

Make Win 7 stable, fix all the bugs regardless of how obscure and I will use it forever. Don't know if I will live to see a 128-bit OS.

Hell, I would be happy with an interpreted BASIC OS, only 1000 times faster

[freds6girlies]

bookmark

[Vinnie]

They changed the interface so much that I had to look up on the Internet just how to turn it off!

LOL. We 'upgraded' to Win 7 at work recently.
Got Word 2007 in the pkg. I had to search for the PRINT button.

Never found it. So to print it's...CTRL P. :)
That version of Word is a major step backward.

I have one XP machine my wife plays games on. Not connected to the internet.
Other 3 'puters are Macs. Yes, I switched starting in 2007. Smart move.

[Vaquero]

I am not a computer guy. I don’t play with computers. I use them. I have used windows since 95 (pre windows 95). Nothing has changed so radically as this. If it was as easy to us as my iPhone I would not mind. But it s NOT it is convoluted and counter intuitive.

[ArrogantBustard]

No, child, your snarky comment: "Just go with something designed to be used even by the little kiddies, like iOs" demonstrated a lack of maturity ... and a lack of understanding. If anything floating around in the current OS space is "designed to be used even by the little kiddies" it's Win8's "tile" interface.

Which you apparently like.

Not being a psychologist, I won't attempt to analyze that.

Think before you type.

Good advice. I suggest you follow it.

[B Knotts]

The reason is simple. Different things work differently. The user interface for an automobile is different from that of a motorcycle.

A tablet/smartphone interface is driven by screen interaction; a desktop/laptop is not. So, the interfaces are naturally different.

[davisfh]

I’ve had no problems and am beginning to wonder if the hackers have forgotten how to hack operating systems as old as Windows 2000.

[adorno]

The reason is simple.

The reason is really quite simple. Smartphones and tablets and PCs, all work basically the same, except for the sizes. They are all computers, and some are more powerful than others, but, in the final analysis, they can be made to work the same, and there is absolutely no reason to make them work differently from the user interface. The things they can do might be different, but the interface can still look the same. The screen is not much more than a launch pad for the apps, and it's also the means to display static information.

A motorcycle and a car are not the same, although their basic purpose is the same. A car can do things that a motorcycle can't, and vice-versa. Smartphones of today can do things that PCs of a few years ago were able to do, and more.

If the user interface can look the same, then the user is the winner in all aspects of computing. The biggest reason to make the different form-factors work and look the same, is because they serve the same purposes, and can do the same kind of applications. A smartphone is not a phone. It is a computer, with phone capabilities included. A tablet is a PC, but with less capabilities. But, when they all can do basically the same kind of tasks, there is no reason to differentiate them from the "start" screen. The tablet-PC from Microsoft (the Surface tablets), are quite capable, and they are actually PCs, and the WP8 smartphones can also perform a lot of the same tasks that a lot of PCs and tablets can. WP8 smartphones were designed with more PC-like capabilities. and, though the screens are smaller, they can still handle a screen that looks like that of a regular PC.

Now, what is the difference between the "launch" screen of an iPad vs that of an iPhone. They both use icons for launching tasks. Same with Android. Why would the iPhones and iPads need to have different "start" screens? Like I said in an earlier post, even the Macs will be transitioned to look like the iOS devices in the future. No need to make them look different if they are actually performing the same basic tasks.