When Windows 10 came out in 2015, it was supposed to be, the last version of Windows (it was not).
However, Windows 10 has been increasing in versions, from 1607, now at 1903. From my perspective, Windows 10 is just meandering, with no real goal or vision. Sure, Microsoft has included new themes, and refinements to the OS. They are also, getting rid of bloatware, and unifying the system settings. Something that was messy in Windows 8.
Windows 10 is still, fundamentally the same OS. It still has the same start menu, the same old file explorer (no tabs still), etc. At some point, people will eventually become bored or unexcited with Windows 10. Many people already are right now.
This is why I feel, Microsoft should just do a complete reboot of Windows again. Release a new Windows, called Windows 11 or something else. Release a totally new theme, or keep the light theme they have now. Additionally, make Windows 10 even further lighter and resource efficient. Most importantly, make it with less major system updates, and only with feature and app updates. Updates, that you don’t have to perform an entire OS upgrade. This would entice, especially business users.
What are you thoughts?
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435007">In reply to jimchamplin:</a></em></blockquote><p>So 5 years from now a Windows program that uses the latest Windows API will run fine on the original version of Windows 10? Versions play an important role in making compatibility issues clear. Remember Windows 3.1 is Windows too.</p><p><br></p><p>I believe "Windows 10 forever" will fall by the wayside just like many other Microsoft decisions, and its replacement won't just be called just "Windows". Besides every new CEO has to make changes to justify their job.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435754">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's not just a matter of being ugly, it's a matter of not being remembered. It's best if the name is a small number, a date, or an object name. That's one thing that Apple has done very well.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435864">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't think users care all that much about the release date, they just want to know if the version they own is supported by the third-party product or service they're interested in. If there are significant changes more often than once a year (at most), there's already a problem since third-parties aren't going to update their documentation all that fast. This is particularly true for physical products that may be on the shelf for years without their packaging being updated.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435025">In reply to curtisspendlove:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't see how these mini-OS's are any more exciting than the desktop ones. IMO to the average person, all OS's are boring.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435062">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think you're making a lot of assumptions about how people think. For one thing, there's a lot of bad social interaction along with the good. </p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435278">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think most people would leave their work area during a break regardless of whether they wanted to use a device or not. Many companies discourage workers from using the company computers for personal use. </p><p><br></p><p>I don't see how using a phone during a break is evidence that users are excited about mobile OS's.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436458">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>You apparently believe that smartphones and PCs are direct competitors. I don't. My teenage kids use both their smartphones and their PCs on a daily basis. They aren't into programming or any tech activity, so they're not in any "elite" group of users. Why use two different devices? Because they are designed to serve different purposes.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435767">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>The only real evidence we have to estimate the demand for a Chromebook type device is the sales of the Chromebook itself which so far isn't very impressive. The rest is just speculation. </p><p><br></p><p>You many not use many Win32 programs beyond your browser, but it's a mistake to make broad generalizations based on one person's preferences.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435865">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>First of all, there is no "Big"<em> </em>Windows, just Windows. No generalizations are needed to indicate that Windows is the dominant productivity OS, the numbers prove it.</p><p><br></p><p>"In the pipeline" suggests products that have been officially announced and have at least an approximate release date. None of the "products" you mentioned qualify. </p><p><br></p><p>I'm not sure it's true that "most modern apps are cross-platform" but most of them <em>do </em>appear to be rather limited. That's OK for mobile use where the expectations are also limited. </p><p><br></p><p>Since every mobile product Microsoft has released that didn't support Win32 programs has failed and the non-Win32 platform UWP has also failed for the most part, it's likely that future products in the same vein will fail too. </p><p><br></p><p>If Microsoft wants to compete in the compact device space, they should forget completely about Windows and build OS from the ground up that is designed specifically for that kind of device. I doubt it would be successful given the head-start that Android and iOS have, but at least they won't face the compromise and expectations involved in tying it to Windows and the Windows name. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435921">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think you need to look up the definition of "Correlation does not imply causation." because it doesn't apply to my comment. </p><p><br></p><p>The past in "<em>no </em>way" determines what happens in the future? Not at all? So for example, the fact that we use the Internet today doesn't mean we will still be using it a few years from now due to the "no way" rule?</p><p><br></p><p>I must have missed Paul's "Big Windows", article, can you link to it?</p><p><br></p><p>Had you read my comment carefully you would have noticed I stated that I doubted the OS I described would be successful. Since I also said it wouldn't be tied to Windows you should have realized that it wouldn't support Win32 which is a Windows-specific API. </p><p><br></p><p>Windows LIte if it didn't support Win32 would just be another Windows that can't run Windows programs. You can't just remove portions of Windows and then claim the result is an OS designed specifically for compact devices, because it's origin is Windows, an OS that obviously wasn't designed for compact devices.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435922">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>Salesforce is hardly the length and breadth of Win32 programs. There's lots of Win32 programs running outside the enterprise.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436106">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>It makes sense. The desire to keep the application that you are familiar with and does the job for you can be an important factor in how you value it and the OS you use. This is certainly true of some developers who still use primitive text editors despite the fact that a case can be made that there are better alternatives created after the 1970's.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436318">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think it would be quite difficult to create a version of Windows that is different enough that it would be worth bothering to build and yet similar enough that it has full compatibility with Win32. And historically products that achieve only partial compatibility fail at least as far back as the PCjr. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436393">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't know how much memory it could use, but In the era of the PCjr 256K would be considered a fairly loaded system. Only very heavy users would have 640KB RAM in those days. I think with a name that included <em>Jr </em>it's pretty clear<em> </em>it was not intended for advanced users. Still the lack of compatibility was a big factor in its very short life.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436495">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>Most home office work in those days didn't require Lotus 1-2-3 and there were many PC games in 1985. But IBM was hoping to position the PCjr against cheaper home computers like the Commodore 64 and Apple II by adding more game-friendly features.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436401">In reply to AnOldAmigaUser:</a></em></blockquote><p>Chromebooks aren't really any cheaper but they are probably are easier to maintain. I don't don't know if K12 education is a big enough market to justify a new OS. And as history has shown, being the dominant platform in K12 education doesn't really translate into dominance in the non-education world. </p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><em><a href="#436318">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>"Possibly a tangent, but I don't see any benefit MSFT would gain developing a Lite OS which wouldn't run Win32 software."</p><p><br></p><p>If there's anything that the vast popularity of the smartphone has taught me, is that outside of the workplace, the vast majority of users don't need anything more than a web browser and / or apps that are integrated with web services. If you need Win32, just run Windows 10 proper.</p><p><br></p><p>And besides, Windows 10X (which is a "Lite OS") will provide Win32 compatibility via a sandbox container on-demand. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436418">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>That sounds like the tail wagging the dog. Win32 programs are what customers want to run, why do they need to run them in a bag on the side?</p><p><br></p><p><em>Slim, fast, light</em>. Not exactly implementable technical requirements. They are glittering generalities like <em>Things go better with Coke.</em></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436622">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>But beyond techie circles, nobody knows or cares about "cruft". If Win32 is holding Microsoft back, where are the more powerful and effective programs running on other non-Windows operating systems that Microsoft developers are unable to duplicate? A difference in relative security is abstract art to most Windows customers.</p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436869">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>Nobody has made a successful business favoring what customers "should" want vs. what they actually want. It's the same with developers which is why UWP wasn't successful. </p><p><br></p><p>What Bjarne Stroustrup said about computer languages can also apply to OS's. "There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses." </p><p><br></p><p>Obviously this is not true of OS's in the large, but is pretty much true with regard of productivity work on PCs.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436996">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>Government regulation is orthogonal to this issue.</p><p><br></p><p>Yes, different companies offer different features and while some people find USB-C to be essential, others find it's a dongle-full nuisance. Fortunately there are options so nobody is forced to use it or not use it. They choose the device that supports the features they want.</p><p><br></p><p>MacBooks already have a small market share and the lack of a decent keyboard is probably limiting sales. This isn't an example of an Apple sucessful business strategy forced on users, it's a failed business strategy. </p><p><br></p><p>Price really isn't relevant either – even Apple wouldn't imagine that customers want a higher-price device.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#437044">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>Fundamentally it's the Internet itself that is insecure. An unconsidered consequence of the End-to-end principle which results in security being pushed to the clients rather than embodied in the network itself. </p><p><br></p><p>When people talk of a OS that is secure by design, I'm reminded of the promises made for Ada that the result of using it would be programs that are provably correct. As a practical matter it was never achieved. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#437267">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>Well, Ada predates his lecture, so it couldn't have any influence.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#437470">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>But your point was that they never read his lecture. What he was thinking in college when he was just another student wouldn't have mattered at that time.</p><p><br></p><p>And people have found ways around his compiler security problem.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436870">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>So what killer features would you imagine a new OS could include that would compel developers to abandon Win32? IMO there hasn't been any new features like that in the last decade on any platform. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436841">In reply to curtisspendlove:</a></em></blockquote><p>Both "Modern" and "Lite" are amorphous concepts. Better to think of them as branding rather than having any technical meaning. Ultimately one has to wait to see an actual product and then analyze the advantages and shortcomings.</p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><em><a href="#436418">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>"Exactly. I've been arguing for nearly a decade, that Microsoft should relegate Win32 support to a virtual sandbox, loaded on demand and make the main OS slim and fast."</p><p><br></p><p>They are doing that in Windows 10X.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436078">In reply to curtisspendlove:</a></em></blockquote><p>The popularity of any particular Win32 program or who produced it is irrelevant to the aggregate value Win32 holds to its users. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436255">In reply to curtisspendlove:</a></em></blockquote><p>The point is there really isn't any indication that a market for another non-Windows Windows is viable. You could say IF the PC market starting growing significantly, Win32 program sales would grow significantly too. You can speculate on anything.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435095">In reply to ghostrider:</a></em></blockquote><p>If "Windows 10" is just a brand name, it's a very, very poor one. </p><p><br></p><p>Thanks for sharing what you <em>personally </em>think an OS should be, but there's a diversity of opinions on that. I think it's safe to say that most people want their device (mobile, PC, whatever) to do <em>something </em>useful "out-of-the-box". </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435265">In reply to ghostrider:</a></em></blockquote><p>Your just repeating the same argument. Sure, Windows 10 has stuff not everyone wants or needs just like every Linux distro or any other OS, but that's doesn't mean that everyone wants a system that initially supports nothing but installation. What people consider "lightweight basic tools" is going to vary from person to person.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435102">In reply to karlinhigh:</a></em></blockquote><p>I agree with the universality, but disagree with the rest of the analogy. Windows isn't inherently inefficient the way the QWERTY keyboard layout is. For productivity work, mobile devices are more comparable to QWERTY.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435316">In reply to red.radar:</a></em></blockquote><p>There's no viable market for Office 365 on Linux. It's not open source and Linux users would have to finally admit that LibreOffice is inferior. Plus it costs money. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435655">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't know for sure (and I suspect you don't either), but I wouldn't try to draw analogies between average Mac and Linux users, they seem to me to be at opposite ends of the spectrum.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435871">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>Maybe I was missing your point. Was it that an Office 365 for Linux wouldn't have a viable market even though Office 365 for MacOS would because users of the former would just use the Windows version via a VM while users of the latter wouldn't be likely to use one?</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435937">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>Sounds like a the battle of the negligible.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436104">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think corporate ego is involved in the continued promotion of UWP, but I still believe a paid MS Office for Linux is a non-starter. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435816">In reply to Bill_Russell:</a></em></blockquote><p>My point was not so much that LibreOffice was inherently inferior as much as a Linux user would have to acknowledge it to justify buying Office 365 for their Linux PC if such a product was available.</p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><em><a href="#435316">In reply to red.radar:</a></em></blockquote><p>Both of those are available for macOS. I'd much rather go that route.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436083">In reply to curtisspendlove:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think PCs were never really consumer devices in the same sense as smartphones are. I don't think there's much evidence of demand for devices that are more than a smartphone but less than a PC, Mac, or LInux desktop/laptop. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436306">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>The irony is that sophisticated users can work around some limitations but a "lite" OS would target the novice. </p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><em><a href="#436306">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>Most of the apps in the ChromeOS store are ported over Android apps which don't provide a great user experience since they're not native to the platform. That's not a recipe for long-term success.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436082">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>I guess the question is whether there really are a significant number of "leisure" users who want to use a PC form-factor but aren't already invested in Windows or MacOS. Chromebook users are predominantly students who didn't really choose the device they use. </p><p><br></p><p>Of course there's nothing that stops a Windows or MacOS user from using their computer in non-sophisticated way. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436295">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't know, ease of updates for MS sounds like a pretty weak motivation for a very expensive and risky proportion. Can they afford yet another RT-style failure? </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436390">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>I agree but I also think that a Lite OS that ran Win32 software wouldn't be different enough to justify it's existence. In others words, IMO, it's dead either way.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436456">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>I know you didn't ask <em>me </em>but ..They could probably get rid of some of their built-in applications, but it's not as if there's a lot of low-level code in Windows that isn't required for Win32 operations. Even the global Registry is necessary to prevent current programs from breaking (I know because I've written such programs).</p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><em><a href="#436494">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>"I figure MSFT would love to do so if it were possible."</p><p><br></p><p>From everything I've read about Windows 10X, it will provide Win32 compatibility but via a sandboxed container. Not a bad trade-off.</p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><em><a href="#436012">In reply to curtisspendlove:</a></em></blockquote><p>Regarding the last paragraph, MS is doing that with Windows 10 / Windows 10X</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#436030">In reply to Illusive_Man:</a></em></blockquote><p>If the "species" of a low-level implementation of an OS is likely to be significant to end-users, then that OS is unlikely to qualify as "light". </p><p><br></p><p>To me a Unix-based Windows makes about as much sense as a Windows-based Unix. </p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><em><a href="#436030">In reply to Illusive_Man:</a></em></blockquote><p>Windows 10X (consumer). Windows 10 (Enterprise)</p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><em><a href="#435831">In reply to james.h.robinson:</a></em></blockquote><p>"Perhaps Microsoft should create a new OS just for the consumer market where people think it is “fun” to grapple with entirely new OS’s."</p><p><br></p><p>You've essentially described Windows 10X</p>