What makes Windows 10 so bad?

Windows 10 is both the most advanced and most controversial operating system ever released.  Its focus on unifying the Windows experience across a myriad of devices is laudable but the premise of its launch is suspect.

While proponents and shills of Microsoft's latest SALES platform treat such observations as the ravings of the tin foil hat crowd, a cooler head finds legitimate issues with Satya Nadella's strategy for the platform.  

Ask yourself the following questions....

Can anyone trust an operating system that constantly monitors your habits for no other purpose than to sell you something?

Is it OK to force an operating system upgrade that you don't want? 

Let me show you why I can't take Windows 10 seriously in the video below...

A new perspective on old Operating systems

I see a lot of uproar over Operating systems lately. 

Not the normal Windows versus Mac versus Linux fare.  No, the wailing starts around the time an older version is no longer supported meaning no further updates are produced for it and every request for help is met with the maddening phrase...

"Upgrade to the newer version."

Now truth be told, we rarely hear anyone complaining much about the abandonment of an old version of Mac OSX or a Linux distribution.  Devotees of those platforms are usually breathlessly awaiting the next release. 

It's usually the Windows world that complains the most and with good reason.  Their customer base is always wary of a new Microsoft release especially if it follows a successful predecessor.  That's because success is usually followed by failure.  A short review of recent history bears that out..

• Windows 2003/Windows XP - Stable, easy to manage and user friendly at least after the first service packs.
• Windows Vista - I don't care what Paul Thurott says, it was/is slow and almost completely unusable before service pack 2.  Microsoft's "my way or the highway" stance didn't help it gain many fans either.  It's the reason why Windows XP only recently entered obsolescence.
• Windows 7 - Everything Vista should have been and for many the worthy successor to XP.
• Windows 8 - A sign of things to come in interface design but a bit too much too soon.  Great for tablets but lousy on anything without a touch screen. 

So the trend is evident.  Expect the release of a successful Microsoft product to be immediately followed by a failure. 

Perhaps a change of perspective is needed here.

Operating systems are just "products" and products have a shelf life.  That means after a certain amount of time they go "bad."

So I'm proposing we think of operating systems in the same way we think about cars. 

When you buy a new car you can expect that for at least 5 years you're going to have full support from the factory that made it.  Any little thing that goes wrong will be quickly and cheerfully rectified and you can bet that all the latest features will be there for the taking.

Now moving past that 5 year mark we're getting into the realm of "mature" products.  You may still have a warranty but you're going to find that if the sun visor falls off it's going to be fixed but it's probably going to be on your dime.  If the engine blows up, however, it'll probably be covered.  Don't expect any feature updates from the factory though.  They've moved on to this year's model which more likely than not isn't much different than yours so there's no real compelling reason to "upgrade."

Once we get to 10 years you now own an old car.  You're probably not visiting the dealer to get it repaired anymore mostly because it's too expensive.  If you hold on to it you've either got a trusted mechanic close to home or you've suddenly taken an interest in automotives.

Over 10 years and the words "End of Life" start showing up.  At this point you're into legacy status and the factory could care less about your car.  If you really like the car you'll find all sorts of "aftermarket" parts and services to keep it running.  Chances are the factory and dealer won't be able to do much for you at this point. 

I think the model works pretty well for operating systems too.  At some point you have to accept that nothing is forever.  A 12 year old operating system is like a 12 year old car.  Obsolete, poorly supported by its maker and dependent on an "aftermarket" to support it.  There's nothing wrong with the aftermarket so long as they have good standing but it's a roll of the dice.  Also know that just as an old car may not have the safety features or fuel efficiency of a new model, an old OS may not be as secure or perform as well as a newer one.

So run Windows XP or MAC OSX Tiger if you want, just know that from now on you're going to be on your own.

Are Macs invading the enterprise?

"Better watch out, better not cry Macs are gonna make your IT guy sigh..."

Set to "Santa Claus is coming to town"

Usually I ignore the daily LinkedIn updates in my inbox informing me of the goings on of people who may know people that were once in the same state as a guy I sat next to in Burger King 1o years ago.  Wow, that whole 6 degrees of separation thing must be true...

So one of those strangers in my inbox was recommending a link to a story on Business Insider talking about the increase of Macs in the workplace.  The cliff notes version goes something like; Rich professional people are really creative and like Macs more than PC's and because of it they want to use them at work. 

I've actually seen evidence of this in action at my last employer.  The entire organization was run on PC platforms but there were a few Macs floating around as well as some Mac "servers" Which were glorified 1U server chassis' running Snow Leopard.  AKA, not a server.

True to the assertion of the article, our Mac users were in the executive suites and generally didn't want to do more than get their email and browse the web.  Anything else required running terminal server sessions a la' Parallels just to edit a word document. 

I remember on my first day I got called to the office of the regional manager whose only complaint was that the terminal server session and desktop wasn't like his Mac desktop.  Great first impression I made that day.

By the time I came along the Mac users already accepted the fact that we could never be a pure Mac shop mostly because everyone else had to do lots of boring uncreative stuff that didn't work on Macs.

I've written other articles about Macs in business environment so I won't belabor the point here.   Suffice it to say that as long as Apple treats all their products  as consumer devices (even if it says "pro" on it) with no regard for business  process, there will always be resistance by IT departments.  In this case, resistance is not futile because the bottom line is that Macs don't play well with most enterprise networks and applications.

This isn't meant to be derisive it's a simple statement of fact.  Remember that the sandbox that is Apple rejects conformity.  99% of enterprise networks are running non-Apple hardware and operating systems.  They conform to the evil IBM model because they have to, there isn't a good alternative.  Linux is still somewhere around the level of Windows 98 for the desktop and Macs have to use Microsoft office because they still don't have a good productivity suite. 

If you live in a sandbox, sometimes you gotta order out...

I'm sure the Mac enthusiast is thinking, "Well, the enterprise needs to change then"  Yes, maybe it does but right now it hasn't and honestly it can't.  As long as the bulk of corporate America doesn't produce anything more creative than a suggestive photo at the Christmas party nothing will change.

Until corporate America finally decides to drop its 19th century labor model and realize that people don't have to be under your nose to be productive, nothing can change.  Journalists, consultants and others not dependent on a corporate cubicle have figured out how to excel without the chains of corporate IT conformity.

That works out fine for them but if you go to work in a cubicle decorated with pictures of places you'd rather be don't expect the revolution any time soon. 

Mac's by their very design are non-conformist.  From the ambivalence of the file system organization to its lack of support for common enterprise applications Macs are meant to accommodate the user not vice versa.  That's the way Steve Jobs wanted it so don't expect it to change.

With the advent of cloud services, Google docs and online meeting options , it's possible that someday we may not have to waste years of our lives in pointless commutes to some dreary office building.  This is where Macs can become a viable option.  To make a Mac work for business you have to get it out of the office and give it an Icloud account. 

Apple is all about creativity and connectivity.  Everything from the sandbox is meant to work with everything else with an Apple logo.  Online experiences are supposed to be ABOUT the content not the process of getting TO the content. 

Enterprise IT doesn't work that way.  Enterprise IT has to control all the channels if for no other reason than to protect its information assets.  It's not about WANTING to control everything it's about HAVING to.  IT departments don't have a choice in the matter.  If given the choice without repercussion most IT guys would let the free for all happen if for no other reason than to be hated a little less. 

But we all know the corporate network would be in flames in 20 minutes.  It's human nature to be freeform which flies in the face of any IT organization trying to secure and provide reliable resources. 

So it is, so shall it be.

Macs are to Enterprise as Smartphone  is to Blackberry. 

Similar function, different methodology. 

There's nothing wrong with using a Mac if it fits your style of work but it's very design is guided by the premise to NOT be like a PC.  That's why they never seem to fit well into enterprise IT architectures. 

I'm not anti-Apple, I just know it doesn't work well in the prevailing IT construct. 

If the world decides to throw away the construct and do it Apples way, however, then it's conceivable that Apple could become a catalyst for finally abandoning an outdated work methodology that says work only happens in an office.

Article first published as Are Macs Invading the Enterprise? on Technorati.

IT and Steve Jobs

As most of you know by now Steve Jobs passed away yesterday 10/5/2011 after a long battle with health problems. The tech industry may have seen it coming but it's a blow felt no less sharply.

I will say this. No Technology CEO, including Bill Gates, has ever been a more visible leader in any technology company. He was a marketing genius and had a public persona that inspired an almost cult following.

Here's where I lose the Cult of Mac....

His passion was undeniable and his vision unquestionable. Still his most valuable trait was that he was a brilliant opportunist.

Consider the following observation.

I've often said to colleagues over the past twenty years that IBM created nothing. IBM Chose instead to obtain innovation and mold it to their vision. Steve Jobs at Apple was not so different in method but his motivation couldn't be more different.

In jobs we had a conquering hero beating back the stagnation and rigidity of faceless corporations concerned more with quarterly profits than usability. He could not only mold someone else's idea to his vision but convince you it was in your best interest to come along for the ride. He knew how to speak to the consumer and convince him that his offerings were superior simply because he'd offered what you wanted before you knew you wanted it.

As far as IT goes, however, I can't be as upbeat about Apple in the enterprise. Apple products are designed from the outset to be consumer devices. That makes sense. Under Jobs' direction that was what technology was meant to be. Computing devices were meant to be enablers of a creative process not some turbocharged calculator.

I've worked with Apple products in organizations and it's blatantly obvious that they were never meant to be part of a typical IT enterprise. Most of the time I find Macs running Parallels just to properly interoperate with other network applications and resources. That's a good thing since replicating that functionality is difficult and in some cases impossible without such software.

I hear the wailing now but when you get past the fanboy devotion you find the real argument is that Mac folks believe Steve got it right and everyone else got it wrong. You'll never convince anyone on either side of the argument of the other's view so don't bother to try. In a way it speaks to how similar Apple's "Different" argument really is to the other guys.

In fact it would go against the core belief of "Think Different" if you believed that in spite of its failings, your way was the only way. In that case you're no better than the evil empires which you spurn.

If Jobs weren't the brilliant marketer that he was, Apple would have had no hope of survival. Over most of its history, Apple products have carried a price premium over and above what was considered tolerable by the market. Jobs was able to combat that by convincing the consumer that he offered a premium experience not offered by his competition. Whether it was worth it was entirely subjective.

Under Jobs Apple undoubtedly had great triumphs but also great missteps. One of the greatest in my view is the closed sandbox that remains central to Apple to this day. To promote change you must get your product into the hands of the masses. From a strictly business standpoint that's a difficult proposition if you're the only one manufacturing it.

Back in 2006 when Windows Vista was released it disappointed a lot of people. So much so that Microsoft finally admitted after a year of denials that it was indeed a poor replacement for the now stable Windows XP and virtually all press turned from Vista to an upcoming release that we now know as Windows 7.

In my view, it was during this time that Apple missed a golden opportunity. At that time Mac OS was at version 10.4 and capable of running on Power PC or Intel platforms. A handful of companies sprang up offering "Hackintosh" computers which were basically PC architectures running Apple's OS. Since MAC OS X 10.4 was less than $100 it was an opportunity for thousands of users to get the Apple experience for far less than the 30 to 40 percent price premium for the same hardware in an Apple branded case.

It was a missed opportunity because millions of dissatisfied Windows users were looking for alternatives to Vista. Many explored Linux, some jumped into Macs with both feet while most were forced to stand pat with Windows XP until Microsoft came up with a better option.

It's my belief that Apple could have grabbed at least another 15% of the market had they allowed OSX to run on non-Apple hardware. It would have allowed a lower cost of entry into the realm of Apple and accelerated the entry of Apple into the enterprise. It would have also, finally, offered a viable alternative to Windows.

Instead, at the direction of Jobs the Hackintosh movement was crushed and an opportunity lost. The message being, "Buy it all from us or go away".

I understand the advantages of operating in a sandbox. Your support costs are lowered since you have only have to support one platform. You minimize your vulnerability to the ills of the Windows platform by offering a smaller attack surface for malware. Finally you can exercise complete control over anything associated with the brand.

It's this last point that has Jobs written all over it. Jobs was fearful of Apple suffering the same fate that befell IBM with the PC and the clones that followed.
What was missed is that while IBM allowed for clones to use their architecture, the premium PC always had an IBM brand on it. If you wanted innovation on the platform you first looked toward IBM. Especially true for business customers who wanted and would pay dearly to have the support of IBM's vast resources.

But then, IBM was the evil empire and Apple was going to be different. Even if it meant being the same in the end. I think Steve misread his customer base. Sure you may have had a whole lot of new Mac users without an Apple logo on their case but you would have also had a lot of peer pressure.

I have no doubt that the Mac forums would have been filled with flaming statements like, " When are you going to get a real mac?" or "Apple hardware doesn't have that kind of issue." and eventually the "MacHacks" would have come fully into the fold.

In the meantime the Apple OS could have matured to become more business friendly without losing its identity. After all I'm talking about an alternative not an emulation.

Such are the failings of our heroes. There's no doubt that Apple owes its existence to the vision of Steve Jobs. I'm hoping that it is his spirit of innovation and not his execution that lives after him.