Following the money, losing the way
People follow personal philosophies all the time, and many companies have corporate philosophies as well. Holding true to a core set of beliefs that inform and guide your decisions is a sure way to not only infuse your life or company with a sense of purpose, but also to attract those who agree with your philosophy.
This is why so many Mac and Linux users are rabidly fanatical about their operating system choices: they’ve found their ideal philosophical computing environments. Those who cherish digital freedom and love to tinker and build literally have a paradise in Linux, while the ones who appreciate the elegance of a well-designed whole and want maximum efficiency find their own heaven with Mac OS X.
Windows, on the other hand, has nothing of the sort. It’s a purposeless, directionless blob of features bound to the corporate aspiration to remain top dog forever.
The original mac had a goal: bring computing to the masses with brilliant interfaces that matched the way people thought. Linux too began with an idea: that computer users should be free to alter, modify, improve, and redistribute any and all of their software free of charge in order to further computing for all. These ideas didn’t exist in the tech world before their pioneers brought them into existence through technical skill and sheer force of will.
Windows began with none of this. Its birth was a reaction to the Macintosh; an attempt to duplicate Apple’s success for Microsoft’s own profit once it saw that graphical computing was the future. Still, it took Microsoft a full 6 years after the Macintosh was released in 1984 to deliver a version of Windows (3.1) that anyone could use without retching. Five years later, despite the fact that Windows 95 was still playing catch-up to the Macintosh, it skyrocketed into dominance as a result of Microsoft’s shady deals with computer manufacturers and brilliant FUD-based marketing.
Windows became popular not because it was consciously selected over its competitors, but because Microsoft managed to position it as the only operating system available to PC manufacturers. When people bought PCs (typically because they were cheaper than Macs, not because they were measurably superior), they automatically got Windows and learned how to use it, unaware of superior alternatives. For those aware of noted alternatives, Windows was “good enough” or considered a small price to pay for customizable hardware, a larger software library, and good legacy support.
But what happens as “good enough” no longer is? What about when the bases are all covered and people start to realize that Mac OS X or Linux offer faster runners? Once people begin to become aware of alternatives, the ones who enjoy tinkering will gradually peel away towards Linux, and the ones who prefer great visual design and maximum efficiency will gravitate towards the Mac. Once the geeky, the practical, the creative, and the efficiency-conscious are gone, who does that leave for Windows?
I firmly believe that there is no place in the future for Windows. Architecturally, Windows is purposeless; it’s utterly devoid of any sort of comprehensive philosophy that might excite or attract choosy computer users. That will basically leave the technological luddites, people for whom Windows is dramatically unsuited due to viruses, malware, and endless driver conflicts and blue screens of death. A platform that caters to the lowest common denominator—especially one created by a company noted time and time again for its shoddy workmanship and draconian practices—is a platform doomed to mediocrity. With escalating security woes, over-complicated technology, ever-increasing restrictions, and a stagnant user base, the Windows ecosystem will begin to rot from the inside out. As users inevitably become more technically proficient and more informed about the choices and alternatives, are any of them really going to stick with Windows?