In Windows 8, Windows-X or right clicking the START corner will get you directly to a menu to open up the control panel, computer management etc. If people could get used to doing this, they would never have to leave the desktop.
The biggest mistake with Microsoft is not explaining why they went with Metro. The biggest problem is waiting so long to talk about Surface with the general public and just how Windows 8 runs the same apps that the Surface will run. If they could drill this idea into people's heads and make them understand that its like "Running your iPhone Apps on your Desktop" they could have avoided all this unnecessary FUD flying around.
For me, I like Windows 8. There has been very little change as all my games and applications still run on it. [clipped] ... Unfortunately getting the cynics out there to believe me seems impossible.
Distinguishing Product from Service No, it's not impossible. I accept the system changes as they are now and realize its part of an on-going effort by Microsoft to create its own cloud-based ecosystem like Google and Apple (bringing phones, tablets, and computers together under one logon). I had theorized about this a long time ago... about Microsoft hosting a "domain controller" in the cloud. Of course, I knew that would never be possible, but something a long those lines would eventually evolve. For many people, their first experience with this has been with either Google or Apple and not Microsoft - so adoption may take a long time.
A Critical Room for More I think it is crucial that Microsoft does not fail in this effort - and it is not simply because I am a fan of their products, services, or company. I am not big on favoritism. I think that competition in the marketplace will spur innovation between these three companies further, and there is still room for more large scale players that can reach most of the world, globally.
Transition from Singular Points of Operation to Node-based Computing / Cloud Ecosystem We saw the Internet literally begin client-server based transactions worldwide using standard Internet protocols. Now there are protocols that are trade secrets built into software. Eventually, if we start looking at a cloud ecosystem that most of the people in the world use some part of - whether it is Google, Apple or Microsoft, then we get into what is fair for consumers. For example, I have a Google tablet that I primarily bought for reading books, but obviously performing other functions. I made my first purchase using Near Field Communication (NFC) with Google Wallet at a McDonalds about 3 months ago. I would say about 90% of the world has no idea this technology exists yet - that you can actually buy stuff using a cellphone or a tablet and use it as a wallet securely. How do other companies get into that specific area, instead of Google monopolizing the NFC arena? This transaction effected me because I realized immediately that in something like 10-20 years from now everyone will use this type of technology to make purchases and nothing else. With this one "app", Google made the wallet itself obsolete. In the future, every book, every official document, health records, everything paper will be transmittable and authentified using these types of new wireless protocols. A breakthrough in this research could allow energy to be conducted wirelessly without a severe loss. Because all mass is made out of energy and vice versa, we are literally talking about the possibility of teleportation.. so when you go from A to B to C... you can occasionally jump to E and say "What if?"
I identify several major innovations that are game changers:
Tethering: The end result of "wireless tethering" is no different from turning your phone into a wireless router. When the number of smart phones manufactured exceeds that of human beings on the planet, this should, if companies do not continue to strangle and limit the technology, unrestrict traditional telephony and transfer it completely to VoIP.
Obsoletion of desktop/workstations: Ideally, we can now see a chance, albeit small, of desktops and workstations becoming completely obsolete. I identify two reasons: cost and capability. Desktops should not be needed, once the cost of miniaturization of all notebook components is cheaper or the same price as that of desktop/workstation components, the capability to upgrade and expand components becomes just as modular as the ATX form factor, and processors/GPUs/all components become indistinguishable from laptops/notebooks. Once this happens, we should see full miniaturization accepted by most retail consumers. Even people who use computer systems to produce things.
Obsoletion of non-touchscreen monitors: The market is moving to render non-touchscreen monitors obsolete. This change will take place if demand for high quality, large, touch screen monitors exceed the demand for non-touch screen devices and if the monitors produce a similar high quality rating. I would use 1920x1080 (1080P) HD, slim form factor, and at least 70,000:1 contrast ratio, 2-4ms response time, and a 120Hz refresh rate as requirement. I observe 60Hz is the requirement for most non-3D monitors but 120Hz will be needed for touch screens.
I'm looking for more. This became another long post
I have to go. Windows Key + X is something most people did not know about and is extremely useful. Thanks for the tip, as we continue to address the issues.
