Why Microsoft Can't Change the Windows Interface; Too Much

Microsoft has long been the operating system of choice for many to write software.  Though not all industries count on it they way they once did, most still do.  And here lies the problem.

With lots of software come lots of responsibility.  This is one of the many places where Linux and it's variants have troubled enterprise and residential clients in the past.  If your software worked yesterday, you would expect it to work tomorrow. 

Since most people aren't very fluent in computer, even the least little change can cause great confusion.  To expect one thing and get another is a frustrating thing even if you are used to speaking digital.  This is why enterprise IT departments don't like untested software, changes or devices.  

So you can surely understand the reasons for people being unhappy with Microsoft's changes to the desktop and it's function in the Windows 8 release.  

Well we can look forward to similar changes with the Window's 10 release.   This insistence to make such major interface changes seems short sighted and possibly led to the decision to make the release free for valid, current users.  The possibility also exist that Microsoft was simply concerned about the market share that other OS's have been gaining, though it's still a small portion, the numbers are significant enough to warrant paying closer attention. 

The heart of the interface change is with regards to current software.  Windows is far larger in size than it would otherwise be based on the backwards compatibility it offers.  Far more so than Linux, Mac or other choices offer.  Macintosh forces this issue far more than other operating systems and it works for them.  The difference being that Mac customers want the latest and greatest.  Where there are far more people on the Microsoft and Linux side that tend to run older software.  This is especially prevalent in large companies, where software changes are not looked upon favorably.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

Though they have back tracked from the travesty that was Windows 8, I imagine there will still be a fairly, large segment of Windows users that will want to wait as long as possible to make the change.  

There are many more reasons to be confident in Microsoft's products than skeptical, but that doesn't mean that people will be accepting enough to take the chance with their personal data.  

People tend to feel lost and uncomfortable when things don't look familiar.  The advantage of change it that you can introduce new features, implemented in a unique way.  The downside: people will be confused at first and may not adopt the changes.  

Apple seems to think that people will like whatever they will do, which they tend to.  There is an overall advantage to forcing upgrades, mainly that you don't have to continue to support your mistakes.  There are always going to be bugs, I guess that question is then, old bugs or new bugs.  

New bugs may be mysterious, but this option gives you the ability to fix the old nagging bugs that you don't like.   Continuing to support the previous system means that more of the bugs are known and you tend to have better security.  So like everything else, you must decided what your priorities are. 

It is obvious that Microsoft has wrestled with these things and we shall see if Windows 10 is a better mixture of form and function than Windows 8 was.  Taking money off the table was, I feel, a good move, and may lead to a bit more adoption than if people were expected to be paying for what seems to mostly be an upgrade and ultimately a revision of the Windows 8 fiasco. 

Are we really still arguing about the Linux Desktop?

I have written on this before, and I feel slightly bad for speaking on the topic again so soon.  This is far more out of frustration then a need for things to be further clarified, or points to continue to be pounded into oblivion.

After reading some recent stories it struck me how much people don't understand about using a computer as a tool. I think it is agreed, by all authorities on the matter, that there is a pronounced learning curve associated with Linux.  This is because things that make the computer happy, are rarely easily understood by the average user.

To reiterate a point further, Linux mimics the community around it.  If you compare the CentOS and Ubuntu distributions one thing that you should notice immediately, if you are looking in the right places, Ubuntu has far more available packages out of the box and far more diverse offerings installed from the start.  This is due to the community surrounding Ubuntu.  They are people that like to tinker, but may not yet have an in-depth knowledge of the system. So those that support the system spend their time thinking about what their users need to be happy with the OS.  

I have noticed quite a bit of the college classes that use Linux, use Ubuntu.  So this means that most of the scholastic packages that one would find useful have a binary built for Ubuntu, and in most cases, other distros based on Ubuntu and/or Debian.

In contrast the available packages for CentOS are focused around server and business productivity software, as that is the most common tasks associated with it's user-base.  I have added extra packages and built software for my particular CentOS 6 install, most of which would not contain useful functionality for those that are not working with the particular use-cases that I am.  Any one who would be using CentOS in the same way I am (media, file, and mail server with some rather persnickety scripting ) would install the needed software themselves and be capable of doing so and configuring it as needed.   Those that aren't would no so, and choose an out of the box solution. 

Though this may be bad for their freedom, it does give you a working product with a very small time investment, and in reality that is what people want. 

The really damaging thing to Linux on the desktop is the fact that anyone that is incapable of using the system in it's current form, for all but the most simple applications, wouldn't find the additional functionality that these systems offer useful -- since they wouldn't understand how to use it. 

Even the nerds among us download the easy to use application to get some work done and save time. This is not to say that is would be impossible for the average user to find value in using Linux as opposed to a proprietary solution -- especially if they are a student -- though they should seek out help from the community before they run into problems; a rarity.

In a perfect universe people would be interested in computing for the sake of using it as a tool, and would have the time to take such interest.  Though, again, this is not reality.  Rather people want to get a specific job done with as little understanding as possible.   So while Windows* is available and is the easier solution, that is what the majority of people will use.

So is Linux/Unix a better operating system than it's proprietary partners, of course!  Evidenced by the fact that it is harder to use.  It is like comparing a Formula1 car to the average minivan.  The level of knowledge/skill that you have to have to drive the Formula1 car is appearent, if not immediately by it's appearance, it is abundantly clear once you attempt to drive it.   Then again, you wouldn't want to be charged with modifying the Formula1 car to pick up the kids or do the shopping.

“UNIX is an operating system, OS/2 is half an operating system, Windows is a shell, and DOS is a boot partition virus.” — Peter H. Coffin.

You have been spoiled by technology.

Have you ever listed to all the complaining concerning technology?  Most people are able to do far more by using technology then they otherwise would be able to without it.  This is fairly easy to see; if you don't see this as a fact, you should take this time to throw yourself down a steep embankment.   

I have watched quite a few videos relating to people hating one technology or another, from operating systems to phones. Most people wouldn't be able to do half the things they are able to do now if someone didn't package the technology for them.  This is clear when you look more advanced operating systems market share.  The more computer friendly something is the harder it is to use; the opposite is also true, if something is user-friendly it is going to use a lot of resources.  This is going to basically transform into a pernicious investment in hardware for the user and does not guarantee the availability of advanced functionality.   

People proclaim to know about computers are usually full of shit.  It is more likely that they are regurgitating something they heard or read from someone that actually understands what they are talking about -- though few of the tech pundits these day do.  If they are having a problem with something they own, it is likely a problem they are causing in some way, shape, or form.  This is not to insinuate that people are idiots, though most humans are, just that they lack the ability to be especially proficient in multiple areas.  This is not as much of a fault as it is a result of being average; and let me assure you people, there is a lot of bellow-average out there.  If you don't work with computers for a living, chances are, you may still be better than your tech guy at work -- though that isn't saying much, is it? 

It is not that people are incapable of understanding, they just need to be motivated. They understand and are proficient at using things that they want to use, but when it comes to something that challenges them on a fundamental level, they have to have some inner motivation for figuring it out. 

Just take a look at all the primates yelling about Windows on Youtube.  It would be more useful for them to run about dragging their knuckles on the ground grunting; what we should do is just put actual chimps in front of the camera and get their opinion -- I think this would not only be more productive -- serving to be a research tool for several fields of study -- but it would also be more entertaining to watch.

Microsoft's Windows operating system is one of the most successful* operating systems produced, it has dominated in the business workstation and desktop space for virtually the entire time that business and personal PC's have been a major industry.  That says that they are doing something right, even if this isn't necessarily something that you agree with; but then again, if you knew what you were talking about you would have written a better version yourself.  Please don't confuse this with me saying Windows[*] is the best thing out there, it is just something that works that has won in the market; clearly. 
 
When someone say's that they are having a problem with a particular technology, and it is automatically the programmer/developers fault.  They don't think for a second that they could be doing something wrong; or perhaps they are using the wrong product for their use-case; until it is blatantly pointed out. Computers are complicated.  New Technology used to be something that was more able to be easily understood, as things have progressed they have become much more complicated, and you must take the time to digest smaller sections at a time -- since the whole is just to large and abstract to understand by taking it in all at once.  This is similar to most things when you get to a lower, more percise level of focus.

Regardless of the operating system that we are talking about, the people that worked on it have done everything in their ability to improve the user experience and/or the general functionality.  At times this will be off base, this can be related to a number of issues; one thing it is not however, it is not intentional. In most cases a decision to do one thing or another comes down to complicated choices that all have trade offs in one direction or another.  This could also be related to something as out of the developers control as vendor support for a product, a particular service unavailable on that particular platform, or some intricate software licensing issues that are all too often at the root of the problem. 

For most developers, we are doing it because we are passionate about technology and have a talent for figuring out problems in general.  The same people that you are screaming about doing this or that, are the ones providing you with the work-around to the problem many times.   

I have worked for businesses that have made decisions with a piece of software that I haven't agreed with as the developer of that software, though that is not really my decision.  My job is to do what I am told, and that usually means taking direction from a person who doesn't really understand how computers work and are making their decisions based on other peoples opinions.  So you may end up with a product that has a limitation that is based solely on corporates inability to listen to specialists they are paying.  Then again, this is your fault, since you are the ones buying the product.  If you don't like how the program works, don't use.  Perhaps there is a better choice out there for you; how about using your energy you are putting into hating stuff to do some diligent research? 

This isn't to say that this is the way things should work, but this is the way things often do work.  Now this is also not to say that the software is bad, it usually works quite well for the average use-case, though the more powerful or niche features aren't going to be there in many cases -- either because of money, time, or both.  If you want software that is especially full featured you are going to have to pay for it.  And if you want really good software, especially customized to your use-case, start looking for investors and a market in which to sell that software in; because it is going to be far more expensive to produce for personal use.  Though this isn't true in all cases, this is generally true if we are talking about something at the level of Photoshop, OSX, or say Windows[*].  Programers need to eat too! 

Lets be clear, I am not saying that it is not ok to complain about a program or feature.  What I am saying is that it is not useful to make statements that are so general.  If people spent some time researching a particular application and making specific points about needed functionality changes, chances are they would quickly find the answer to their particular problem or would gain a greater understanding of the program as a whole, which would lead to useful feedback by default.  Since they now understand what they are working with, to a degree, this also allows one to now be a type of contributor.  If not directly by contributing code, one could contribute to the community by writing documentation, providing general help and guidance for other users, or simply by giving useful feedback to the development team. Saying, "... this sucks..." does not count as useful feedback.  Chances are if it is broke, and it is not a particular hardware issue, someone knows and there is a reason why it isn't fixed yet. 

For some reason it is rare that you hear from people when things go as planned.  For all those times that you turned on your computer and it ran flawlessly you didn't think of sending those hardworking, pencil pushers over-there at Microsoft some thanks.  No notes, no nothing; but as soon as something is wrong (ie. you broke it), fuck them; right?  Just because someone makes it look easy, it isn't, and that goes for whatever it is.  From freestyle motocross, to flying, to programming.  It takes years, and then it take more years to refine.  But by all means, if you think you can do it better, please pull up a chair, a keyboard, and a text editor, and start pushing up some commits -- if that is not in your skill set, this would be a good time for you to STFU! Thanks.


Samples of what people who don't know what they are doing say and do: 

• Now this is a bit tangential, though I think it is still fairly relevant since he is really driving the point home about not understanding software; clearly. http://youtu.be/eD3Isw4dzU4
• now this is just crazy, but i did start following dude just because he was talented in other areas and generally entertaining: http://youtu.be/TmPiYZnrWlk
• Now I feel a little bad here, this is pure frustration(funny though): http://youtu.be/l9t5-qXcNLk  
• This is the gentleman that prompted by earlier GNU/Linux article; and got me trolling around for the other 'tech-hate' videos; idiocy at it's finest: http://youtu.be/oTiztqndGco

 Things that People who understand technology talk about: 

• TEDxTelAviv - Paul Pablos Holman - Hacking the Future: http://youtu.be/8Kga-CHf-pU
• Colloquium on Computer Systems Seminar Series: http://youtu.be/x8ZLNxnYslM
• Java is "heavyweight, verbose, and everyone loves to hate it," but Wall still thinks you should know it...: http://youtu.be/LR8fQiskYII
• Greg Kroah Hartman on the Linux Kernel:  http://youtu.be/L2SED6sewRw 
• "Nobody should call themselves a professional if they only knew one language.": http://youtu.be/NvWTnIoQZj4
• Problems with the Linux Desktop and what could be done to solve those problems: http://youtu.be/YoYL4R3Te2s  
• alternative for those using Microsoft Windows: Linux Mint.  http://youtu.be/7G7TJyZPKPo

Why Linux isn't taking over the desktop, and why it eventually will.

To be honest there are plenty of articles on this topic.  I am sharing my conclusions because they seem to be fairly unique to this fairly common question.
 
Most of the people that use Linux are professionals.  This is true to an extent; many are -- or start as -- hobbyists. Though this is less to do with Linux itself and more to do with the fact that these people know what works, or just prefer to do things themselves.

This is not to say that all distros are built with the new user in mind -- this is because they are built by the community -- they just reflect what the community feels is the right approach to a given use-case.  If the community has more new users or someone sees and opportunity to gain users (ie. "do it my way!") by making certain changes to an existing distro/s (this happens arguably more frequently than it should.), then you will see a fork that goes in that direction.  Many of which have worked our really well.  Ubuntu, Mint, and Puppy Linux are great examples of this.  They saw and need or had a vision, and went with it -- to everyone's benefit. 

At the base level, the Linux kernel allows you, to do what you need to, without writing all the code, just the bit you need.  Allowing you to focus on you're data, and not how much money and time you have.  It is the operating system and tools that say, " you know what you are doing, now go out there and do it; your way!".

In the last 10 years some distros have seen lots of new users, and we have seen them start to mirror the community that is using them, that supports them.  This is also a common attack point during 'holy wars'.  The more automated something is the more that older Unix/Linux users despise it.  Luckily some  talented programmers have seen fit to still provide tools for the incompetent among us.

The primary reason that I use Linux is because I like to be completely in control of my system, and I want to be able to change things at will.  This is much easier to do on Linux then it is on proprietary systems. Yes, it is that simple.

 The primary reason that I think you should use Linux is to avoid lock in, and because it just works.  That is not to say that you cannot manipulate other operating systems to achieve the same goals (ie. Turing paper on computable numbers and the Church-Turing thesis on Computable Functions) That is to say that Windows confines what it tells you, to what it feels you should know, and decides what you should be doing with your machine without taking your feelings into consideration. 

Some would say this is a good thing -- I say "here's 5 cents, go buy a real computer...". This is not to say that Windows is a bad operating system, use it for a whole bunch of things -- or just because it is the one available.  Much of the Linux structure and software direction is dictated (in the truest sense) by the community.  Since they can install what they want after all -- and most of the software components are compatible across distros.  Another reason, is the lack of one central group or committee.  This enables projects to fork and be remade or altered in a more organic way.  This also means that innovation moves faster.  This type of environment causes software that is not made well, or less useful to be disposed of quickly, and the better bit seem to rise to the top naturally.  Not to say that Linux doesn't have software that doesn't work well; it is that we prefer to say, "... it doesn't work well in certain circumstances..."

Because the community also personally depends on the software, there is less of a chance of contamination.  Software sources are vetted, unless you alter the source configuration, you can be as certain as one could be that everything is secure.

The side effects of this reach dynamical into the business sector -- since companies can have the technical ability of larger companies regardless of their physical size or available capital by using free software.  So this is where free software makes you money.  This is why 95%(ie. alot) of servers run Linux and it largely controls the embedded and specialized use case markets (tooling, robotics, etc.).  In these areas, speed of implementation is key.

Most people are not aware of how many things they own that are running Linux.   If the consumers were aware of this fact, one would imaging that they would be much more receptive to using it on the desktop, and support for open-source by vendors would increase overnight.

The fact is, FOSS saves you money by allowing you to do computable tasks for the price of the hardware.  This means you can just go out and buy components and then use them with out having to write the software yourself, or purchase that software from a company.  In the last decade this has gotten far easier than it had been.  Even though, since the beginning of Linux, most people would have been able to install it, though configuring it was a different story. 

Most of the criticism that Linux receives on the desktop market is related to the look and feel of the operating system, or compatibility with proprietary standards.

 As far as the look and feel goes, that is just a policy of the productivity minded; since award winning graphics are not something needed to get work done, and really just take up system resources.  Though there are a few graphic implementations that will help in some instances with productivity -- this is rare and mostly a result of doing graphic type work(video editing and graphic creation). Still most of these tools use a simple 'chrome' interface and extend the functionality of the space; putting more in less space, causing overall resource usage to go up.  Similarly, some ''tab' switching' interfaces use a bit more resources to show you a preview and some extra information, and can be useful in some cases.

Compatibility will continue to be a nagging issue until there is a high-level of overall adoption in the desktop market.  This is simply business, not software related.  If people aren't buying it, then the company isn't going to spend money making it.  Very few companies are concerned about Linux on the desktop since it doesn't have a large enough hold on the consumer community.  The companies that do support it, do so because it produces market share in some way.  Take Nvidia for instance -- they have been very lax in their support for Linux until they saw that it was worth what they would spend to support it.  It is not an engineering decision -- just economics.

All these problems virtually melt away when you work with a professional to install the software.  If there is a headache, we fix it, not you.  So that remove the primary argument that people have with Linux.  This especially is true with businesses, schools, and government offices.  These people aren't responsible for their own system administration, so you should have the most secure, most fungible, most stable software running on these systems.  Since you have 'professional support' this shouldn't be a problem.  Though it will cost you a bit more for the professional that can do this, since you aren't paying the same amount of licensing fees, you are actually saving money.

This is also true for consumers, since in the end, you really aren't fixing your computer.  You may install a program, or run something that fixes a problem -- though this is not the most productive, accurate, or generally proficient way of doing things in the long run.  One is spending thousands on something that you could have spent a couple hundred on to have a pro do it for you.  The fact that all people don't have someone that facilitates all their technology purchases is astounding as well.  Especially if they can afford to do so. 

Ninety-five percent of the installs that I do go are done in 2 to 3 hours depending on the amount of software the person needs. This comes to about $50.00 to $100.00 in cost to the customer. Every once in a while some things have a bug in them for some particular device.   Because Linux allows me to see the source code and get verbose information about what is happening with both the software and the hardware, I am able to either fix, or go around these bugs until an official fix can be found.  I basically eat that cost, because this is not something that is the customers fault, and I have already bid the job. Though this seems like it would be a problem in some industries, I actually enjoy doing it.  It is a journey of discovery, and builds my skills, so this is technically a benefit to me.  I also commit what I learn back to the community, as others do, so this also benefits the community.  So each problem that is solved actually builds in tangible value to the software.

This allows customers to have a more flexible, dynamic environment then with a standard install of proprietary software.  Though I do provide the same services for proprietary software, since I have no reason not to -- the reason for giving people the option of open source software is simply because they should be presented with all options, and not necessarily because of functionality differences.

This brings me to perhaps my favourite reason for doing work on Linux.  Because it allows me to support all systems.  Even if you don't choose Linux for your system, it is very easy for me to still use it to work on your system/s.  This allows me to be more productive, spend less, and do more then I would otherwise be if I had to work solely within the confines of closed-source software.

So I guess in the end, everything is about choice; which is probably one of the most human qualities found in such an artificial space.