Windows 8: Microsoft's Big Mistake?

This past week saw the release of official information from Microsoft regarding the anticipated follow-up to Microsoft Windows 7, which is itself enjoying a growing adoption across the PC community. Windows 7, in fact, is arguably the best OS release from Redmond since Windows XP, an operating system that continues to enjoy a prominent place on desktop PCs across the world—and for good reason: it’s solid and stable.

Back in December 2010, I wrote two articles (Windows 8 – Is Microsoft ready for the future in computing? and a follow-up article, Windows 8 – The Virtualization Solution, Continued Discussion) addressing what Microsoft would need to do with Microsoft 8 if it was going to survive in an industry that shows more diversity in Operating Systems than in years previous. I have yet to see any hope that Microsoft gets it when it comes to the current developments in the way that people do their computing.

For one thing, computing has become mobile. Cell phones and tablets will inevitably become the method by which people perform tasks that formerly required a desktop or laptop PC.

There’s no question—at least in my mind—that “cloud” computing will continue to make in-roads as the go-to method for people, for better or worse.

Still, is Microsoft’s development of Windows 8 a suitable response to a changing industry based on “cloud” computing and storage? Not if what I’ve seen so far from news outlets and geeklogs is any indication. In fact, a recent article from renowned John C. Dvorak asked rather pointedly whether Will Windows 8 kill Microsoft? and the points he brings out are the very ones that I’ve been concerned with since early leaks of information about the operating system made their way across the internet back in late 2010.

I think Windows 8 is shaping up to be a BIG mistake, however.

For one thing, there should be no Windows 8. Period. At least not to address the above-mentioned issues.

Microsoft is not Apple, nor should it try to either shoehorn itself into the Apple OS release model where every year has to see a new operating system in order to appear “hip” and current to its market. Apple typically releases a new OS either in response to its parallel release of new gadgets and hardware “updates” (read: component upgrades), or in preparation for said releases. This business model is fine for Apple because it manufactures the hardware upon which its OS runs. A result of this marketing model is that Apple can force obsolescence in older hardware, in effect drawing a line and compelling people to purchase newer gadgets and hardware if they want to enjoy the newer operating systems that Apple releases every year.

Except Apple isn’t releasing new operating systems—they are simply updates with enhanced or new features, attached to catchy names like “Tiger,” “Leopard,” “Snow Leopard,” and the forthcoming “Lion.” Clever marketing, to be sure, but beneath the sheen remains the familiar way of performing tasks, the operating environment or system in which the user resides. So, Apple really hasn’t changed how computing is done, which is the role that an operating system plays: it just markets each subsequent OS as though it has changed computing.

Microsoft would do well to note this and stop being so insecure in its own software development process, which results in rushed products that end up costing Redmond more in PR repairs and criticisms than they spent in development itself. Windows ME® and Vista® are the biggest snafus to date from Microsoft, but if Microsoft continues on this development course, Windows 8 will be the next one—regardless of what it finally names the OS it releases in 2012.

Microsoft: Rethink Windows®

The first thing Microsoft needs to do is drop Windows 8, at least for the foreseeable future.

Period.

Windows®, as an operating system, was born and bred for the desktop/laptop computing environment. Period. It has no place in mobile computing because the way that the user interfaces with their device to perform tasks is completely different from the way they interface with their desktop/laptop PC. Mobile computing has become tactile in nature, with various functions performed through swipes, lingering presses of the finger (or multiple fingers), and even voice command. The Windows® paradigm is unsuitable.

Equally unsuitable is redesigning Windows® in any fashion in order to fit the mobile computing world. Resorting to colorful tiles and a sliding UI screen doesn’t alter that fact.

Microsoft needs to rethink Windows in this respect, realize that reality dictates a check, and forego any and all efforts to force-fit Windows to the mobile computing world when it belongs with the desktop/laptop computing world. Further, it needs to start fresh and have confidence in its ability to put together a UI that takes the best offered by Android, iOS, and the rest of the mobile-based operating systems, and then take it to the next logical level.

Microsoft Zune is an ideal example of potential where mobile computing is concerned. Microsoft has gone on to adapt the Zune OS to its Windows Mobile Phone line, of course. This has resulted in accolades from most critics and with good reason: it’s a reasonable interface for mobile computing.

What Microsoft needs is to develop an OS that builds on that used on the Zune/WMP7. Call it Microsoft Touch™ and develop it with cloud-based computing in mind, making it convenient for the end-user to access their personal data whether they are on their cell phone, tablet, or desktop/PC. Windows Live Essentials is a starting point, philosophically speaking. So is the cloud-based version of Microsoft Office.

Microsoft has the elements already at-hand to put together an amazing UI for the mobile computing community, but evidently lacks the vision and direction to implement it. It lies far outside of my knowledge why this is so, but it is unfortunate.

Windows 7: Second Edition

Taking Microsoft Touch™ and its cloud-based aspects a bit further, Redmond could also put together the means to interface in the same way as the Touch™-based devices will do, right from the desktop, seamlessly. Release this ability in Windows 7: Second Edition.

The reader may recall the significant advancements in internet integration that came with Windows 98: Second Edition. From a development point-of-view, we’ve arrived at a very similar evolutionary stage where the world wide web is concerned. Developing a Second Edition of Windows 7 makes sense, especially if it were to include the tightly-integrated features associated with mobile access to personal data. It would also afford Microsoft an opportunity to refine Windows 7 itself and clear up remaining issues in consistency and stability. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that we should be looking forward to a release of Windows 7: Second Edition rather than anticipating Windows 8, which is clearly the next debacle to come out of Redmond unless they drastically change course between now and 2012.

Windows 7: Vista Second Edition

This may come as as surprise to many, but the next Operating System being released by Microsoft is still Beta.

Apparently, the majority of people who heard that a Beta version would be getting released to the public for free do not understand this. Just a sampling of the questions that arise from Live Search Q&A’s “Windows 7″ keyword verifies this, with questions like “I upgraded to Windows 7 and now this doesn’t work; what do I do?” or “Why isn’t Windows 7 recognizing my [fill-in-the-blank-hardware-device]?”

Judging by the posts I’ve seen on there over the past few weeks, the majority of those posting their questions had no business installing Windows 7′s beta release. Unfortunately, in their eagerness to take advantage of something free from Microsoft, they didn’t read the warnings before downloading the beta test version, nor did they understand that this is a beta test version or even that it will expire on August 1, 2009.

It also made sense for me to continue my series on the Windows 7 Beta Release by first explaining who should and should not be meddling with the beta version.

First, the obvious:Anyone that has to ask why such-and-such isn’t working now that they upgraded or did a fresh install of Windows 7 Beta should automatically be excluded from using the Windows 7 Beta release. That should weed out around 85-90% of you. A Beta release means that things are not going to work, or, they are not going to work right. It could be due to lack of support, unfinished code, incompatibility, or any number of other possibilities.

Second, anyone feeling frustrated, disappointed, or otherwise irritated because of the new Windows 7 features, user interface, or cosmetics should automatically be excluded from using the Windows 7 Beta release. That should weed out another 5% of you. A Beta release means that this is not the final product. Some things are either still being finalized, may yet be changed, or tossed out entirely by the time that the finalized retail version hits the store shelves.

That leaves us with around 5-10% of viable Windows 7 Beta testers who are more than qualified to install and run the beta version.

Obviously, there are going to be those people who complain that Microsoft should have been a lot more clear about who should’ve and who should not have downloaded and installed the beta testing version. Then again, if Microsoft would’ve never released it to the public like they had, there would likewise have been other people who would’ve complained that Microsoft should’ve been more open and free with their new OS during beta testing stages so that any inherent issues would’ve manifested themselves. It is definitely a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation, and I, for one, am only too happy that they decided to release it to the public.

That’s because a major advantage of having access to a pre-released version of an operating system is that it affords us an opportunity to know with plenty of advance notice whether our computer system or—in the case of us IT guys—whether new systems being introduced into our intranet will have issues. Although the OS code is not yet finalized, there is more than enough there for us to know right out of the starting gate what’s going to happen. A lot of commendations need to be given to Microsoft for making sure that the vast majority of drivers that worked for Vista will likewise work with Windows 7. That is going to save us from a tremendous amount of grief.

We can also, by participating in the beta testing stage, participate in reporting bugs back to Microsoft, as well as offer feedback and suggestions. Whether or not Microsoft actually will listen is a whole other topic; nevertheless, the option is there.

So now that I’ve narrowed down who I am going to be talking to throughout this serious of articles, let me spend a few minutes explaining what I intend to do with this series.

I will be covering my own experience with Windows 7 Beta, from installation to feature coverage. I’ll also be touching on various options as to security and system protection. I’ll also be giving my thoughts and opinions throughout each stage of the series, as appropriate to the given situation, and I will strive to do so fairly.

I hope that you find this series of articles helpful and insightful.

Windows 7: Vista Second Edition

By now, you’ve either heard that Microsoft has issued Windows 7 Beta or you’ve downloaded it, or both. No matter, because one way or another, PC desktops soon will be sporting the latest Operating System produced from Redmond, Washington. Early reports from testers and reviewers alike indicate that this version of the Windows operating system is a far better fare than Vista, although the majority of the Vista functionality and appearance are in Windows 7, as well.

Indicators are, then, that Windows 7 should rightly be considered as Vista Second Edition—a term many of us long-timers are familiar with and a reaffirmation that history really does repeat itself. In a previous life, the Windows operating system was essentially overhauled after the release of Windows 3.11. The result was Windows 95. It took the GUI-based operating system to a whole new level for us PC owners, introducing countless new features that could never have been implemented under the Windows 3.11 core or kernel.

However, Windows 95—as fantastic as it was—had issues. It served its purpose, of course, by creating a new level of expectation from the enduser in one’s operating system, and it also opened up a whole new world of potential. But the issues were pretty serious, nonetheless. Who remembers the catchy phrase “Plug and Pray,” for example?

But then, along came Windows 98, which built on the technology behind Windows 95—and more! Finally, Microsoft had an operating system that demanded attention. Still, it, too, had some serious issues, and shortly after Windows 98 was on the streets and in PCs, along came Windows 98 Second Edition. Nearly all of the issues that had plagued the operating system based around the Windows 95 concept had now been resolved.

Windows 98 Second Edition became the operating system to own.

That is, until Windows XP was released.

Now, you’ll notice that I passed over two Windows operating systems between Windows 98 SE (Short for Second Edition): Windows ME and Windows 2000 Professional.

Windows ME was a laughable, horrible operating system in itself. Everyone that knows anything, knows that. I could go on for days, weeks even, and still not even begin to scratch the surface of the debacle surrounding that operating system. Think of the ME—which supposedly stood for Millenium Edition, according to Microsoft’s ad department—as Massive Error. And Microsoft knew it.

Windows 2000 Professional Edition, on the other hand, is still considered one of the most stable Windows operating systems ever produced by Microsoft—but it wasn’t really for the home user, either. Personally, I still think Windows 2000 is amazing. Microsoft certainly got something right on it. And thousands if not millions who still continue to use it on their business systems would agree.

Microsoft, though, wanted to save face with their Windows ME joke, and set out to take the stability of Windows 2000 and dress it up with the curtains of Windows ME. The resulting version of Windows was Windows XP.

Clearly, they got their act together, because Windows XP continues to enjoy a commanding share in the world’s desktops and laptops as the operating system. While early adopters had a number of issues because of how the “rules” changed with the new operating system’s core and kernel, everyone seemed to agree that it was the bandwagon to jump on, and within a couple years, we saw the support for Windows 98 SE dry up and fade away in spite of cries and screams from loyal 98SE users.

But according to Microsoft pundits, Windows XP has been showing its age in light of advancing technologies, and a new operating system had to be developed to meet the incoming demands and capabilities of that technology.

Their response was Windows Vista.

Response to Vista was mixed at best. For me, personally, it’s fine as far as operating systems go. It’s certainly prettier than Windows XP! But you can dress up Windows XP with countless third-party packages.

Driver support has been slow in coming for Vista owners, unless you buy OEM desktops and laptops. For me, Creative Labs and NVidia were among the worst in supporting Vista, and to this day, end-users continue to have issues relating to both Creative Labs/Soundblaster and NVidia. Adaptec and Promise seem to have handled the Vista operating system in much the same way, by either producing driver updates compatible with Vista in an unbearably slow manner—or not at all, instead considering products incompatible with Vista as “EOL” (End of Life) and forcing their userbase to upgrade to new products.

In spite of all the drama, Windows Vista made inroads in the one area that mattered: it brought 64-bit into the mainstream in a way that Windows XP 64-bit didn’t seem to be able to do. It is, in fact, the 64-bit capability of Windows Vista that keeps me sticking with it in spite of the occasional hiccups. Everything works in my system, including my XFi card (a MAJOR issue in early drivers from Creative Labs). I, for one, absolutely enjoy being able to use the full 8GB of RAM in my system. I enjoy the stability afforded by a 64-bit operating system. But I’m also smart enough to admit that the next PC user may not be having a similar experience with their installation of Vista.

Does that mean I’m not looking forward to the street release of Windows 7? Absolutely the contrary! I am very much looking forward to it because every indication so far is that the issues with Vista seem to be getting addressed. But it’s a scenario that almost immediately reminded me of when Microsoft released Windows 98 Second Edition. This seems to be a repeat of that. There isn’t any real driving reason that I’ve seen that one should leave Windows XP for Windows Vista. Similarly, I don’t see any justification for one to abandon Windows XP to upgrade to Windows 7 once it’s released. Not if their Windows XP is doing everything that they need it to do.

Now, when I say that there’s not any reason or justification, I say that with a single caveat: 64-bit. Windows Vista brought 64-bit into the mainstream, as I already mentioned. But Windows 7 will continue that trend. And eventually, we will see the pattern repeat itself, just as in the gradual abandonment of Windows 98SE in lieu of Windows XP. Eventually, Windows XP will be committed to days past—even though it really is no less functional and is actually faster and more efficient at this point than Windows Vista OR Windows 7. But the only real reason that will happen is because for us to take full advantage of the processing power that we can tap into today, we need an operating system that can do it. The Windows XP operating system can do so, but not so well as the Vista/Windows 7 core and kernel can do. Further, 64-bit access just makes more sense today. It provides additional security and stability, and seems to handle 32-bit softwares just fine, which is another plus.

Does the average end-user need more than 4GB of RAM in their computer? Not yet. And again, that is why Windows XP will continue to dominate. But it’s equally nice to know that those of us who do need more RAM in our systems have the ability to use it in order to work more efficiently. It’s also nice to know that if our system works under Windows Vista, that it will most likely work under Windows 7. So, no worries there, either.

But I still hold to my opening opinion: Windows 7 is not a new operating system. It is Windows Vista Second Edition.

And I’ll be offering further insights and opinions into Windows 7 beta soon! So watch this space!