Windows 10 turns 5 today

<p>Unfortunately, the Windows platform seems to focus from a long term vision which has a focused UI for the different platform/form-factor – which has different focus groups each focused on different use cases. It especially went of the rails with Windows 8. Microsoft made Windows 8 focused solely at the tablet style market without taking into account the different use cases. I believe a unified OS is a good thing, but a unified OS does not mean one UI fits all use cases (tablet, laptop, desktop) — and that was the biggest mistake Windows 8 made (IMHO). You want a unified OS, and a unified application development environment – but not one size fits all for the UI (one of the big object based patterns is the model-view-controller… which detaches the view(s)). </p><p><br></p><p>I use Windows 10 (mostly for working remotely for customers that are primarily Windows shops), but since around 2008 I have for the most part preferred macOS as my daily driver. I have all three OS (Windows, macOS, and Linux) installed at home on several computers – and use them for various purposes…. but Windows is my least favourite to use for development. </p><p><br></p><p>I feel Microsoft has got themselves into a pickle and if anyone tells you how easy it is to solve it – they are likely delusional or lying. The 'legacy' as a feature has lead to a situation where it may not be easy for them to respond to shifting dynamics in the marketplace. In my opinion, 'legacy' is another word for 'technical debt'. The minute you release software (or likely before) it begins to depreciate and treating your software as a cash cow with a limited vision of actively updating it to modern frameworks — will eventually get you into a situation like Microsoft is in where the path to get out of it at times seems insurmountable (if that happens you might as well treat your software as a cash cow since you are signing it's death warrant sometime in the future anyways). It takes regular focused updating to ensure software has lost investment due to depreciation is maintained for the future. I use to be on a board at a condo, and we had to have a plan and sufficient funds to basically replace or upgrade the building as components in the condo wore out – and enough funds to make sure it would be consistently brought up to currently required regulations. Failure to do that would eventually wipe out everyone's investment of the owners in that condo project. </p><p><br></p><p>Issues I have with Microsoft Windows and Microsoft's focus are :</p><p><br></p><p>The UI needs a refresh — with a focus to having one standard interface which has different views depending on use-case (and a smooth way to switch between those views if the use-case changes): Desktop (laptop plugged into external monitor, keyboard, mouse — where you are no longer interacting with the laptop itself), laptop, or tablet. You can leave the start menu in the corner if you want but it does not mean you have to have the menu attached and expanded up from that corner or the search in the corner… The 'application library' that is part of the start menu – should be cleaned up and trimmed down to just applications you need and the folder structure just makes it more difficult to navigate – it should be more flat. Currently the UI is decades out of date and a mishmash of styles.</p><p><br></p><p>Applications in Windows have scattered components, when I first found out how macOS applications were organized it was just so simple and so elegant in comparison. The registry should be deprecated (I despise it), and all the components (with the exception of drivers) should be placed in an application folder (extension maybe .app – looks in the explorer/menu as an application, but underlying it it is a folder) like in macOS (resources, executables, dlls etc. – if it is a legacy app a 'sandboxed' registry could be created). The OS can build an active cache if they need to have a list of components that can be interacted with for the purposes of cross application components. The first time I removed an application from macOS… it was like what – you just drag it to the trash can and it is gone… woah! </p><p><br></p><p>WSL/WSL2 is a great start, but it is still a partial step. I should not have to install a linux distro in it to get the functionality of UNIX/Linux from a developer. I often and ssh/telneting into hosts (UNIX based) and back and the shell and the differences can be outright annoying. I should have one terminal window available to me and I should be able to configure the user for a specific shell (zsh or bash). (when you are writing a shell script in UNIX you indicate the shell it has to run on at the top of the script). The shell should not place me in some obscure Linux installation folder way up in the corner. My first Mac purchase was because I had given up on having Windows/Linux dual boot on my bleeding edge laptops (2008) and macOS gave me that UNIX underpinning with a nice modern UI with access to quality commercial applications. There were times with Linux I literally had to make a small compile time switch change in the kernel and recompile and install it on my laptop, and then there were always some driver issues – not to mention the setup for multi-monitors (which may or may not be there when I plugin) was a nightmare. I primarily develop major applications for banks and brokerages and the mac is just gives me more when developing locally. </p><p><br></p><p>As an independent developer I found that Microsoft did not really value them. The cost to get access to MSDN was prohibitive as an independent and did not give me the value that I needed for the cost that was charged. As a developer, I would think that the best option would be for Microsoft not to treat you as a profit center (until you have an app to sell in their store). In the end developers give life to the platform they develop for and should be treated as valued members. They should allow for access (license) for development use – everything that is in Visual Studio (professional), software betas, sql server etc. for development purposes for a nominal fee. </p><p><br></p><p>Not much of a fan of drive alias (C: D: etc.) either – it should just be a directory structure with mount points for multiple volumes etc. (same as UNIX etc.)</p><p><br></p><p>I view any application or OS that is not actively maintained, developed – to be a risk ('technical debt') and as soon as it reaches that point — there should be a plan to drop the use of it. Unmaintained software is a security issue. No matter how much the company tries — there is a risk that unmaintained software will stop working and if you were not planning ahead it could put you in a poor situation. The focus on having backwards compatibility back to the stone age — makes it more difficult to move forward and lets users/developers become complacent… and that is what has lead Microsoft down a golden road only for it to start turning to lead. Legacy is a two-edged sword.</p><p><br></p><p>I am still hoping that they can start a more consistent plan, transition — for Windows 10X.</p>