Why Windows Blue heralds the death of the desktop

[Britton30]

Yet another prediction of the demise of the desktop.

Brace yourselves, faithful PC enthusiasts. You aren't going to like what I'm about to say. Heck, I don't really like what I'm about to say. In fact, I'm almost terrified to lay out my case in black and white. But that doesn't change the fact that it needs to be said.
There's a very good chance that Microsoft will kill the desktop in Windows 9. No more Task Manager. No more File Explorer. No more legacy compatibility. It'll be 100 percent Live Tiles, 100 percent of the time.
That day is still on the distant horizon, but it is coming. Indeed, if Windows Blue, the just-leaked update to Windows 8, shows us anything, it's that Microsoft is willing to de-emphasize desktop functionality in deference to the modern UI.

PC World

 

[King Arthur]

Honestly, I expected this ever since release of Windows 8, the current environment surrounding Windows, and the current general-computing environment:

1. MS wants to unify Windows's GUI across PCs, mobile, and I would also presume Xbox. The Desktop just stands in the way of this vision as far as MS is concerned.
2. MS and others want to kill off the Win32 API and imagine as if it never existed because of alleged code rot and inefficiency stemming from years of development. WinRT which comes with Windows 8 (and lots of baggage) is MS's answer.
3. Metro serves nicely to allow MS to actively control what is allowed to run on Windows and take a share of all profits driven from software sales, a marked difference from the current Desktop which is a completely open ecosystem. All hail closed ecosystems with "app" stores and the people behind it who care not for a developer's or user's freedom or wants, all that matters is money and whether MS approves.
4. The entire computer industry is (whether we like it or not) moving out of local hardware/software and onto remote hardware/software, the so-called "cloud". Metro is the perfect environment to facilitate a "dumb terminal" to serve the cloud as much of it and Windows 8 are already internet-reliant.

And while there's still a chance MS might decide to keep the Desktop, it's simply highly likely it will get axed because there aren't any long-term repercussions at the end of it:
1. Linux desktops, while certainly enticing, are in no position to replace Windows on most consumer and business computers because of lack of familiarity and software (for consumers) and technical assurance (for businesses). Ubuntu's LTS, which only lasts 5 years, is a far cry from MS's offering for example, XP has lasted 12 years and will be supported for 1 more year still!
2. Macs are not a proper answer to replacing desktop Windows given Apple's closed-ecosystem nature, plus the pricetag is simply not appropriate for just everyone.
3. ChromeOS, while a nice concept, is even more cloud-reliant than Windows 8 and its presumed successors will be and thus cannot serve as a desktop OS.
4. Major software developers and vendors like Adobe will simply have to develop for Metro and WinRT when Desktop and Win32 get axed, to not do so will mean that they will then lose a major revenue stream. Desktop Linux is simply too decentralized and too minor to invest in; Macs might work out for investing in (I hear Macs have an awesome array of graphics and video editting software already), but who knows?

So do I expect the Windows Desktop to die at MS's hands? Yes. Am I sad and aggravated at MS's current path? Yes. Do I see MS realizing the folly of just forcing Metro on everything? No. Do I see a practical replacement to Windows? No. Short of a miracle like a complete change in Microsoft's management, I doubt we're going to see anything that even closely resembles a happy ending.

 

[PwnFrnzy]

From the way MS is going, I won't be moving to any newer versions of Windows. My current future plans seems to be sticking with Windows 7 until support ends then going to Ubuntu or other flavor of Linux, I need a desktop environment to enjoy my computer. I also heavily dislike this touch movement, even to the extent of still using flip-phones.

I do agree with most of King Arthur's points too.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Rhel ...

1. Linux desktops, while certainly enticing, are in no position to replace Windows on most consumer and business computers because of lack of familiarity and software (for consumers) and technical assurance (for businesses). Ubuntu's LTS, which only lasts 5 years, is a far cry from MS's offering for example, XP has lasted 12 years and will be supported for 1 more year still!

RHEL has 10 year server support.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server supports all leading hardware architectures with compatibility across releases and a 10-year update and support lifecycle.
...
Available in either desktop or workstation configurations.

Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server

 

[King Arthur]

I was talking in regards to desktop usage of Linux, IE workstations used by employees at a company to crunch spreadsheets and write up paperwork or your at-home PC that your mother might use to calculate taxes or manage her blog.

Server usage of Linux has always been a major player alongside Windows servers and Red Hat is a shining example of it. Sadly though, bringing up the success of server Linux in a topic about desktop Linux is akin to comparing apples to oranges; they're both Linux, but their intended markets and uses are completely different.

 

[Britton30]

As I see it MS is killing itself. How many pros are going to do CAD or even type 100s of documents a day on some silly, small tappity-tap thing-a-ma-jig? Heck I read posts here that some OP is on their tablet/phone/netbook and can't upload a snip.
Yeah I think a lot of us computer users will be investigating Linux, hmm, maybe Apple iCrap. I can imagine the Apple gang watching the MS Windows debacle with keen awareness.

I know of some (very small) business owners still using Win 9x. I worked for an apartment company 11 years ago still using Windows 3.1,XP had been out 2 years I think.

 

[Gary]

The Desktop is going nowhere. MS would not survive without it. The gaming industry will keep it alive and well.

 

[Layback Bear]

I do think back in the Research and Development dark room of Linux they will be working on a desktop operating system to fill the vacuum that Microsoft is trying to create.
With a 100 million plus of needy customers on PC's it's to big of a market for every company that makes operating system just to abandon.

By the time hackers and infections get done with major cloud computing the security risk will be so high that business, industry and governments will find another way of doing things.
Some method that they will have more control of their own security.
The bottom line on a P&L statement using cloud will only look good for a short time. Then I do believer the big operators of industry and business will take a step back to their own hardware, programs, and security. The cost of a proper I.T. department will look small compared to the losses of stability and security when depending on a major cloud usage.

Just think of a company like 3M who would spend millions and million of dollars and years to develop a new product just to have the information hacked out of a cloud and sold to the highest bidder.

 

[Britton30]

There is also a multi-billion dollar enthusiast market for desktop PC parts and pieces. There will be some outcry from them too like there has been on the heels of Intel's announcement they weren't going to make socketed CPUs anymore. They have back pedaled on that.

 

[Layback Bear]

Very good point Britton. Sooner or later the market place wins.
Considering we are referring to a billion dollar market place.

 

[Britton30]

I can't find the article, but I read Win 8 is at 2.7% saturation at the same point in time w7 was at 7.8% after its release.

 

[Berkey]

I can understand that MS is moving towards "the in" which is tablets and phones. I was getting lunch one time and saw a 3 year old navigating his way on an ipad better than I ever could. This kid will never use a desktop on his own accord, because all he is ever going to know is the swipe/touch style. MS understands that the next generation of kids are only going to be interested in this style and is trying to make the move now, so when they are at a certain age it is the morn. I can appreciate that from a pure business stand point.

The problem is they are forgetting the generations that were here up to this point and many of us do not want touch screens because we are comfortable. Desktops might be a thing of the past in the distant future (Iron Man's computer in mid-air was cool ), but think of it this way: People still buy vinyl records and players, even though Cassettes then CDs and now Digital music has ruled the music world, but many people like using LPs even younger kids for some reason. Those records should have been obsolete by 2013, but some bands even will make a special edition on vinyl for the true fans and collectors. Rather than SONY saying they'll refuse to produce anymore players or parts for a player (not sure if SONY does, just an example) they take care of their customers, but they put their emphasis on their current business flow and always look toward the future.

Don't see why MS wouldn't think in this fashion and take care of it's customers regardless if they don't get on board with the Cassettes and CDs of the next movement in computers. The difference is, while millions of kids enter this new movement and will be on board, there are millions that will not be part of the movement so there is still plenty of business to gain from desktop users. Unlike the music example, there is not an overwhelming population of vinyl users rather a niche, but they take care of that niche, MS seems to not care so much about the overwhelming population that wants/needs a desktop.

 

[King Arthur]

I can't find the article, but I read Win 8 is at 2.7% saturation at the same point in time w7 was at 7.8% after its release.

I recall reading that the uptake of Windows 8 has been slower than even that of Windows Vista, which says a lot.

----

On a different note, I'd like to clarify (I'm uncertain if I was clear enough) from my initial post regarding the Win32 bit that I want the Win32 API to live on, be developed even further, and flourish regardless of what MS and developers have to say about its alleged inefficiency and obsolescence. MS might want to kill off Win32 for a myriad of reasons, but as an end-user I consider Win32 and the software that (will) run and depend on that API invaluable in their worth.

 

[Dallas 7]

I can't find the article, but I read Win 8 is at 2.7% saturation at the same point in time w7 was at 7.8% after its release.

2.7? What a coincidence; That matches M$'s latest IQ score.

 

[Britton30]

I can't find the article, but I read Win 8 is at 2.7% saturation at the same point in time w7 was at 7.8% after its release.

2.7? What a coincidence; That matches M$'s latest IQ score.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Fallacy

I was talking in regards to desktop usage of Linux, IE workstations used by employees at a company to crunch spreadsheets and write up paperwork or your at-home PC that your mother might use to calculate taxes or manage her blog.

Server usage of Linux has always been a major player alongside Windows servers and Red Hat is a shining example of it. Sadly though, bringing up the success of server Linux in a topic about desktop Linux is akin to comparing apples to oranges; they're both Linux, but their intended markets and uses are completely different.

Desktop programs run on servers too.
There is no difference running CentOS as a desktop or a server (apart from using the server functions).

Unlike Windows, you are charged exactly the same amount if you use CentOS on a desktop, or a server (free).
I'm not sure how RHEL does it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server supports all leading hardware architectures with compatibility across releases and a 10-year update and support lifecycle.
...
Available in either desktop or workstation configurations.

If you need more power, you buy better hardware (e.g. multiple CPUs, HDDs, NICs, etc.).

Don't forget that MS deliberately cripples its desktop operating systems, so you can't use them as servers (i.e. artificially limits the number of connections, maximum RAM, etc.).
If they didn't, they couldn't sell the more expensive Windows Server editions.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
servers are also multi-user OS'es -- which the Linux kernel was designed to be from the start. Windows was initially conceived as a SINGLE user OS (one person at a time --of course you can have several accounts).

However what do we really mean by "The Desktop". Is it just a platform for launching applications conveniently -- if so then so long as you can conveniently Window applications (and re-size the windows of course) does it matter HOW these are launched -- provided of course they can be done CONVENIENTLY -- and this is where the arguments start out as what is convenient to some isn't important at all to others.

Where the stupid "modern UI" fails is in setting a FIXED number ( I think Windows Blue now allows 4 applications) of applications that can run concurrently in fixed window sizes depending on the resolution of your hardware.

Now almost anybody can see that this type of approach is TOTALLY BONKERS. I really don't care a toss whether my applications run from "The desktop" or anywhere else so long as I can launch them EASILY, can have as many or as few open concurrently that I choose and can re-size all the windows to fit with MY hardware -- not be dependent on some stupid rigid Pixel size formula and navigate easily between the windows.

I don't have a problem with removing "The desktop" per se -- but I do have a problem with Fixed size and number of Windows as envisioned in "The Modern UI" look.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[mart4494]

Where the stupid "modern UI" fails is in setting a FIXED number ( I think Windows Blue now allows 4 applications) of applications that can run concurrently in fixed window sizes depending on the resolution of your hardware.

Now almost anybody can see that this type of approach is TOTALLY BONKERS. I really don't care a toss whether my applications run from "The desktop" or anywhere else so long as I can launch them EASILY, can have as many or as few open concurrently that I choose and can re-size all the windows to fit with MY hardware -- not be dependent on some stupid rigid Pixel size formula and navigate easily between the windows.

Cheers
jimbo

It's not bonkers jimbo if the OS was designed for tablet/phone which it's becoming increasingly obvious W8 was. Not a problem in itself if MS had designed an OS that detected at install time whether you had touch screen or a conventional desktop/laptop setup and surely this was not beyond the expertise of the company. There are many 'under the hood' improvements with W8 although what they are I'm not sure as I haven't extensively tested the thing myself.

The Cloud (which MS is pushing) is great provided it works 100% of the time and you have confidence that everything placed there will be again 100% secure. But we're not at that stage and probably never will be so whilst it sounds great and works fine in Redmond that's not the case in the real world. Living in the MS bubble it never occurred to them that often internet connections are flaky or non-existent so then just how does that work out.

MS need to rethink the W8 concept and hopefully will do so before it's too late. But for now there are plenty of W7 systems working just fine. Just seems a shame though there will not be a SP2 for W7 with some of those under the hood improvements incorporated - that's assuming it can be done of course.

MS knows (assuming they are listening which is debatable) how to take the sting out of the negative publicity that W8 is receiving and that's to offer choice at install time.

 

[mart4494]

I can't find the article, but I read Win 8 is at 2.7% saturation at the same point in time w7 was at 7.8% after its release.

here it is, 'borrowed' from eight forums

 

[Barman58]

I can't find the article, but I read Win 8 is at 2.7% saturation at the same point in time w7 was at 7.8% after its release.

here it is, 'borrowed' from eight forums

The only thing that worries me with this particular type of comparison is the actual validity of the data, not the raw data which I am sure is completely accurate, but the fact that the whole ecosystem has changed since the time of vista.

Today people access the net from a vast range of devices with an equally diverse set of operating systems, when Vista was released, (and to a certain extent Windows7), you did not have the huge use of mobile devices accessing the net, using iOS or Android in the main. This means that the overall percentage of people accessing the net from windows would be less than in the past.

I myself would show my net access from any Windows OS to be less than it was when I ran Vista as my main OS - I am now permanently connected to the net on my Android phone and connected most of the time on my Android tablet, I connect through windows 7 for about 12 hours a day, and a Windows 8 test system occasionally