I really hope this "Metro Look" doesn't catch on

[lxskllr]

But you know what really puts my underwear in a bind? Ubuntu and the location of the "start menu/taskbar" - it's at the top of the screen!! What darned fool decided to go against the consumer industry standard? It's WRONG and it needs to DEFAULT to the bottom of the screen just like MS and Apple products!

A big reason why I left Ubuntu was their aping of Apple ui elements. Add to that they can't be easily changed, and I don't see the point. Sure, I could hack around them, and did for a little while, but why should I use an O/S or interface that's hostile to my wishes. That's a never ending fight I shouldn't have to deal with.

 

[Nothinman]

Your thinking IMO is as wrongheaded as Ballmer and his legion of clueless executives on this. It's not a question of capitulating- it's a question of innovating.

Windows 8's Metro UI is not innovation. It's not essential to anyone's computing experience. There's a lot about it that's poorly conceived, poorly executed, breaks established usability guidelines, ,many users DO find it annoying to downright invasive, and so it must either have a lot more thought actually put into it, or dumped in favor of more modern and innovate ideas.

I'm betting they made some of the base decisions on avoiding a lawsuit from Apple and Google, otherwise they probably would've just stuck with the same icon-esque look they did. But I think some of what metro does is innovative with the live tiles and such, it's sort of like a combination of widgets and icons and has the potential to be hugely useful.

MS breaks their own usability guidelines all of the time, there's nothing new about that. Just look at WMP, VS, Office, etc for the most egregious examples.

So if MS thinks they can just shove whatever crap down everyone's throat and everyone will just take it, they're mistaken. They'll eventually destroy the trust of the user base, become obsolete and drive more and more people away in favor of those who are willing to step up and offer innovation. Their mistake is in thinking they'll own the bully position forever, and though they are a long way from falling right now, it's not a guarantee that they'll forever be able to bully their way onto a majority of desktops regardless of what crap they put out.

History disagrees with you. Despite all of the whining and gnashing of teeth the majority of their users put up with it despite the number and progress of alternatives because they feel they need Windows.

You're also wrong that they haven't backtracked on many of their dreadful decisions over the years. The market has spoken loud and clear with other dumb or badly executed ideas of theirs: BoB, The Kin, their various failed mobile OS attempts, ME, etc. Despite some people's attempts to rewrite the history of it, Vista was a failure and prompted a return to much better design decisions with Windows 7 which is probably their biggest success.

How did MS backtrack on WinME? Last I checked they left all of the bad pieces in place and just did normal updates and security patches. MS didn't backtrack on any of the others either except for maybe Bob, the rest they just left die and moved on to something new. WinMo 6.x was later replaced with what we have now with Windows Phone, but there was no backtracking in an attempt to fix it, they just replaced it years later after the smartphone market got better defined by Apple and then Google.

It's the history of tech. There were huge computer corporations that dominated their industries when Microsoft and Apple were mere startups with 3 and 4 employees. Today most people couldn't tell you who any of those giants even were because the startups that were more innovative took over. The same fate will happen to Microsoft if it thinks it can always get by shoving poorly executed ideas in consumer's faces that are designed first to meet some corporate hoop-dream, and the needs of actual users a distant last. No, not overnight, but eventually such an attitude will catch up with them as it has many, many, many others before them who thought they were 'too big to fail'. There's really no such thing in business, and MS is no different despite any hype otherwise.

MS has enough recurring revenue and cash to keep them afloat amidst failed products for decades. They're not going away any time soon despite where Balmer's failed leadership may take them. If someone with such a cult following as Apple hasn't made a significant dent in their marketshare after dominating several auxiliary markets for this long it's not going to happen any time soon.

 

[Kirel_Redhand]

The company I work for has abandoned it's win7 upgrade and is starting a win8 upgrade. My team manages tools and we've been having to run tests on win8, using our current toolset.

My opinion after several weeks of testing various development tools on a win8 machine?

I hate it. MS is forcing their vision of "surface" type tablet/touchscreen interaction onto the desktop and it and it kills multitasking and productivity on normal desktops.

 

[Zaap]

I'm betting they made some of the base decisions on avoiding a lawsuit from Apple and Google

If so, that's pathetic and stupid on multiple levels. (On MS's part). It's not like MS never made an OS before. Neither Apple nor Google own the right to dictate all UI design. It would also be part of a lame-brained corporate mentality that's projecting a hoop-dream of wanting to be a leader in the mobile OS space, onto a desktop OS as if they were the same thing. (IE: in REALITY, Windows does not compete directly with iOS or Android, nor should it ever be dumbed down to the point where it does.)

otherwise they probably would've just stuck with the same icon-esque look they did.

If they're incapable of hiring developers and designers that can't think beyond: "We've either got to copy this over here and do a shoddy half-assed 'me too' version of it... OR.. stick with what's going to be outdated... then again, they will eventually fail. Like I said, not overnight, but eventually. I reject this attitude of "the only possible options are one form of suck or another" because it's just laziness. MS isn't some little mom and pop operation. They CAN afford to pay for actual skill that's capable of keeping up with the modern world. If not... step aside.

MS breaks their own usability guidelines all of the time, there's nothing new about that. Just look at WMP, VS, Office, etc for the most egregious examples.

This was addressed directly in the video someone posted earlier. Their own guidelines aren't the problem- it's established industry wide guidelines, and for NO GOOD REASON. Guidelines can be broken effectively when you're doing something that people can easily see is an improvement on the old. MS hasn't done that. Frankly, the team that came up with Metro isn't capable of that. It's just breaking guidelines for the sake of breaking guidelines and hoping that it'll be seen as 'innovative'. Doesn't fly with everyone.

History disagrees with you. Despite all of the whining and gnashing of teeth the majority of their users put up with it despite the number and progress of alternatives because they feel they need Windows.

The majority put up with Windows because they need to use Windows APPLICATIONS. Windows itself doesn't mean that much to most people.

Record numbers of people DID NOT put up with Vista and ME and demanded better OS's like XP and 7. The progress of 'alternatives' means bumkiss to a lot of people if there's no way to run the apps people need. (IE: Adobe not some Kcrap, or Autodesk, not Gcrud.)

If another option came along with widespread (native) commercial application support and that option was better than Windows or OSX, then it could easily become a player. I for one, hope it does happen, because more options is better.

How did MS backtrack on WinME? Last I checked they left all of the bad pieces in place and just did normal updates and security patches.

You totally missed the point on this. By backtrack- it means they didn't -as you're claiming- just stick with their failed ideas and keep forcing them on people in the next versions they did. The poor sales (and yes, those OSes did have poor sales compared to the ones that were better) and rejection by business users and others forced them to go back to the drawing board and put out a better product, not just go "You'll use Windows ME 2 and LIKE IT, and here's VISTA 2, suck on it!" They absolutely didn't do that. Making Windows 9 into Windows 8 Part 2 won't work either.

MS has enough recurring revenue and cash to keep them afloat amidst failed products for decades.

Sorry, but the history of corporations of littered with the corpses of giants that believed this. I don't predict MS's total destruction should they continue on a path of "screw the consumer, we'll do what we want and you'll like it" but I see them marginalizing themselves and becoming more like IBM (a shell of what it once was as far as being a power player in the industry) HP, or any number of companies that were once dominant and now are "Just another bit player." It can happen to MS as well. Hopefully before it ever gets to that that point, it'll just lead to what needs desperately to happen: Ballmer's ouster, and some fresh leadership taking the helm, bringing in a higher calibre of talent and setting a better course for the company.

 

[lakedude]

The majority put up with Windows because they need to use Windows APPLICATIONS. Windows itself doesn't mean that much to most people.

Exactly correct.

That and the learning curve it takes to switch over to an alternate OS.

Linux has an incredible number of apps and if people would just take the time to get over the learning curve they would never go back to Windows (especially W8) for normal usages.

Specialized apps, games and compatibility are really the only reasons to use Windows.

Metro should be an option on first boot. The end user should be able to pick between the normal desktop and Metro without needing a 3rd party application. Edge Swipe should be easily disabled or automatically disabled for touch-pad users.

 

[nerp]

People bitched about no more MS-DOS versions after 6.22 and that they'd always prefer commandline DOS. We see how that shook out. Enjoy your 4MB ram.

 

[ControlD]

Exactly correct.

That and the learning curve it takes to switch over to an alternate OS.

Linux has an incredible number of apps and if people would just take the time to get over the learning curve they would never go back to Windows (especially W8) for normal usages.

Specialized apps, games and compatibility are really the only reasons to use Windows.

Metro should be an option on first boot. The end user should be able to pick between the normal desktop and Metro without needing a 3rd party application. Edge Swipe should be easily disabled or automatically disabled for touch-pad users.

True, Linux is a wonderful operating system (I am hapilly typing this on my Linux machine right now). However, the ace in the hole that MS has is that nearly all of the business world runs on Windows. MS can piss off all of the home users it wants to and it isn't going to change the fact that business needs Windows. Perhaps if businesses are reticent to adopt Windows 8 (or more likely some successor to it, most businesses are just getting around to Windows 7) then Microsoft will be forced to make some UI changes. I see that as the only way that a forced change back to the traditional UI is going to happen. Right now home users are the guinea pigs for MS. By the time the business world needs to upgrade I imagine a lot of the rough edges will have been ironed out.

 

[darkewaffle]

Used Win8 for the first time this weekend. The faux outrage over "modern" is silly. Took me all of a few minutes to get accustomed to how things are organized and what the corners do/how to find what I want; it's different, but all the same it's still fairly logical imo. The system booting to modern is the equivalent of starting Windows desktop with the start menu opened.

All the same I still just use it in desktop, but I don't consider it a nuisance at all. Actually I find the "search" capability to be really well executed and fast, which is essentially the only thing I ever use the Start menu for anymore anyway. To me it's just a 'library' of 'stuff' on the PC, used to access the things I rarely need but still want around (alternative browsers, codec settings). Everything regular gets a shortcut (or a tile).

I wish you could get some more control over the modern UI, I haven't played with it extensively but it seems like you can only make tiles be a 1x1 or 2x1.

I think "apps" themselves are more of an issue than anything else. I dislike how they tend to ignore not only user interface conventions but interfaces altogether because they're intended to be 'single tasked', and (I think) managed by the system instead of the user.

 

[cboath]

I agree with pretty much all of that. Especially the apps part.

The only reason I can come up with for the apps working as they do is that they're soley designed for tablet use. On a tablet, I can see some merit it limiting apps to two on the screen at once. Developers have to be able to target a set amount of screen/resolution, andif you tile 2 max, you've got a reasonable min to work with. Tile 4 or 8, and the amount of space becomes too little to do anything. A bigger question is why can the apps not float instead of tile only? Resources? Complexity? Appearance? I don't have that answer.

On a tablet or phone, this isn't that big of an issue. On a desktop - it is. The only rationale I can come up with is that they want it to work the same on all devices (worthy goal). If you want to use your desktop as an internet device only, sure it'll work fine, gaming too. For real production work it fails because frequently you need many things open and accessible at once for what you're doing. I suppose their answer is you can tile 1 app at 20% of your screen and give the desktop 80%. I tried it and it doesn't work for me. However, like you, i don't deal with metro/modern too often on a desktop. I stay in the desktop. The one thing i'd like to add and just haven't gotten around to figuring out how to do it is to add an icon to the taskbar that launches the run box. I don't need icons for things like notepad, calculator, regedit, etc. They're aren't used enough. Even in W7, i just used the search box and typed them in as it was the fastest route.

Back to the main point, though, the modern UI stuff is on the desktop to present a unified presence among all devices. I get that. I don't mind it on the desktop, but I can state it works loads better on a tablet.

I got a surface for xmas. Right out of the box I noticed the syncing with the internet based login worked really really well. My login wallpaper, start screen wallpaper,and desktop wallpaper all matched my desktop, and they few internet explorer shortcuts i had (and history too i think) were all right there after the intial setup. The touch stuff works very well. I don't like the metro IE on the desktop, but it's great on the tablet. The thing that threw me though was that the gestures are sort of backwards to the mouse ones on the desktop. On the desktop, I move my cursor to the bottom right corner and the charms bar comes out. On the tablet, i have to start outside the screen on the bottom right and move inwards to get the bar. The one that was the hardest to figure out was closing an app. You move your cursor (in either) to the top center of the app and you get the hand that you're supposed to click and drag to the bottom to close the app. In the tablet, you still get the hand but you can't click and drag it. You have to start on the top frame and drag down. Once you get those down, it's a very easy touch setup to use. It's even integrated into the desktop rather well, too.

People said this was designed for tablets and phones and that appears to be dead on. I think it works very well there. I dont' have a problem with how it works on the desktop mind you. But i think a few simple tweaks could make it much better on the desktop.

 

[Nothinman]

On a tablet, I can see some merit it limiting apps to two on the screen at once. Developers have to be able to target a set amount of screen/resolution, andif you tile 2 max, you've got a reasonable min to work with. Tile 4 or 8, and the amount of space becomes too little to do anything. A bigger question is why can the apps not float instead of tile only? Resources? Complexity? Appearance? I don't have that answer.

Developers have dealt with various resolutions, dpi, etc and completely arbitrary window sizes for the past 3 decades or so, why must they only have to target a few specified ones now? If I have the resolution and screen real estate why shouldn't I have the option to view as many tiles/windows as I want? The only reason it was like that before was because phones weren't powerful enough to multitask (and the ones that were had artificial limitations placed on them by Apple to not allow it) but that hasn't been the case for several years now.

On a small screen like a 7" tablet I don't think I would want any more than 2, but I still don't see the point in arbitrarily limiting people that may have good enough eyes to want a 4-way or more split.

But that's something MS probably won't be addressing until the next major release of Windows.

People said this was designed for tablets and phones and that appears to be dead on. I think it works very well there. I dont' have a problem with how it works on the desktop mind you. But i think a few simple tweaks could make it much better on the desktop.

I think this is where most rational people will settle. It works well enough for a first release, but it needs a decent amount of work if MS expects it to stick around long term.

 

[ultimatebob]

/agree

Its even worse than when vista came out, at least you knew vistas problems would be fixed eventually, metro is crap by design.

At least Vista had the ability to turn off all of the irritating eye candy and go back to a Windows XP like interface if you wanted to.

Windows 8 is forcing users to install third-party software to do this, and you know damn well that they'll break those software hacks when the service pack comes out.

 

[ultimatebob]

People bitched about no more MS-DOS versions after 6.22 and that they'd always prefer commandline DOS. We see how that shook out. Enjoy your 4MB ram.

Microsoft has a hell of a lot more competition in the operating system space than it did in 1995. Even so, I'll bet that at least a few thousand of those hard core DOS command line people are Linux users now.

Honestly, I'm surprised that Apple, Google, and Canonical aren't exploiting this "Windows 8 rage" more than they are.

 

[Nothinman]

Microsoft has a hell of a lot more competition in the operating system space than it did in 1995. Even so, I'll bet that at least a few thousand of those hard core DOS command line people are Linux users now.

Honestly, I'm surprised that Apple, Google, and Canonical aren't exploiting this "Windows 8 rage" more than they are.

More how? Google is heavily pushing tablets and the Chromebook, Canonical is working on Ubuntu for phones that docs and becomes a full Linux workstation and Apple is just Apple.

The main thing keeping people on Windows is simply the fact that it's Windows, there's nothing any other company can do about that. Change is scary and as long as people have a single reason to choose Windows (e.g. games and Office) they'll keep doing so regardless of how MS changes up the UI.

 

[Mem]

At least Vista had the ability to turn off all of the irritating eye candy and go back to a Windows XP like interface if you wanted to.

Windows 8 is forcing users to install third-party software to do this, and you know damn well that they'll break those software hacks when the service pack comes out.

The old style Start button menu has been around since Win95 so almost 20 years old,personally I don't miss it or even think you need it.

Looks like even Microsoft agree and are not going to bring it back even in next the Windows OS.

For those upset about the lack of a start button in Windows 8, prepare yourself for another disappointment -- "Windows Blue", an upcoming short-cycle successor to Windows 8, is not expected to bring the feature back.

The source of this supposed leak is CNBeta, a site with close insider ties at Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), which gained respect by accurately leaking a number of early Windows 8 details.

Other info from the site includes suggests that Microsoft will further flatten the UI on the desktop (think the Metro/Windows 8 UI style), the taskbar/desktop will get tweaks, the price will be low (or free), and the new kernel version number will be v6.3 (corroborated by other independent reports). The final remnants of the Aero UI, which was a staple of Windows Vista and Windows 7 is also being bid adieu, like the Start button before it.

http://www.dailytech.com/Quick+Note+Start+Button+to+Stay+Dead+in+Windows+Blue/article29511.htm

I'm glad Metro is going to get improvements which is what I expected from their next OS,I'm not surprised the old style start button is going way of the dodo.


End of the day you have plenty of choices ie try and use Windows like Microsoft want you too or use a different OS,you can also use a third party mod so not hard really.

 

[Scooby Doo]

[Warning -sarcastic humor ahead]

Eh - it's there...but I don't have to use it. It does look pretty organized though.... just like my iphone / android phones... [they don't have start menus - curses!]

I can push the windows key on me keyboard, click on the "metro icon" that looks like a smaller version of the desktop and I'm back to computing like it's Win7 with an upgraded hyper drive [minus the start button which was mainly used for "Start -> Sleep"]. Heck - if I want to go "full retard" - I'll install Classicshell just so I can have my precious little start button back...

But you know what really puts my underwear in a bind? Ubuntu and the location of the "start menu/taskbar" - it's at the top of the screen!! What darned fool decided to go against the consumer industry standard? It's WRONG and it needs to DEFAULT to the bottom of the screen just like MS and Apple products!

LOL... That's where my taskbar is... :biggrin:

 

[debian0001]

Just wait til Windows 9 comes out.

 

[cboath]

Developers have dealt with various resolutions, dpi, etc and completely arbitrary window sizes for the past 3 decades or so, why must they only have to target a few specified ones now? If I have the resolution and screen real estate why shouldn't I have the option to view as many tiles/windows as I want? The only reason it was like that before was because phones weren't powerful enough to multitask (and the ones that were had artificial limitations placed on them by Apple to not allow it) but that hasn't been the case for several years now.

On a small screen like a 7" tablet I don't think I would want any more than 2, but I still don't see the point in arbitrarily limiting people that may have good enough eyes to want a 4-way or more split.

But that's something MS probably won't be addressing until the next major release of Windows.



I think this is where most rational people will settle. It works well enough for a first release, but it needs a decent amount of work if MS expects it to stick around long term.

As someone who was formerly in support, one of the issues with using whatever resolution you want is that invariably, some one will design an app or dialog or whatever that doesn't play well. When that happens the OS makers takes flack for something completely not their fault. There were programs we dealt with that required 800 vertical resolution. Doesn't seem that bad until you realize that even today, many laptops come standard with 768. 32 pixels doesnt' seem like a lot, but it tended to put all the buttons (OK, NEXT, BACK, CANCEL, etc) below the screen where they weren't visible or accessible. It's amazing how many people have no clue what resolution they're running, or for that matter, what resolution even is.

The minimum resolution two tiled apps in metro is what? 1368x768? 20% of that is 342x768. I'd imagine it's hard to be usable below that. I think one of the issues that Microsoft has here isn't so much that the limit is 2, but rather that like most things with Win8, all we're told is 'this is what it is'. For instance, we're told the max number of apps on screen is 2, but nowhere do they explain why it's two. I think those answers would go a long way towards understanding. It may not be the way we're used to switching between apps, but you can still swap between open, active, and running apps using the dock bar or whatever they call it on the left side of the screen. I may work with 5-6 open windows on my screen, but 99% of the time only one app is totally visible and the othes are edges of windows i can easily click on to bring to the front when necessary. In that regard, the metro solution isn't really any different really. Again, though, we're not being told their rationale behind much.

The only thing they've explained is that they ditched the start button because research showed it wasn't used very much. Whether you believe it or not is another question, but i know that i rarely use it. I only miss the run/search box really.

 

[yinan]

I am never, ever using any OS newer than Windows 7 it looks like. All of the new UI changes just make it ugly, hard to use, and not productive.

I actually thought about switching to Linux last night. I might actually do it.

 

[Zaap]

I actually thought about switching to Linux last night. I might actually do it.

If there's no specific applications you need for your work that limit you to Windows, then really, why wouldn't you give it a shot?
Personally, I find Linux can break at the drop of a hat and has far too many limitations to be effective as a desktop OS (no support for apps I need being the #1, buggy arcaneness #2), but that's just for my needs. Probably a lot of people can get by with it that otherwise put up with MS's crap for no other reason than it's what they know.

Plus Linux is easy to try pain free; boot it from a USB key, or live CD, or just install it alongside Windows or an extra hard drive.

 

[dighn]

If there's no specific applications you need for your work that limit you to Windows, then really, why wouldn't you give it a shot?
Personally, I find Linux can break at the drop of a hat and has far too many limitations to be effective as a desktop OS (no support for apps I need being the #1, buggy arcaneness #2), but that's just for my needs. Probably a lot of people can get by with it that otherwise put up with MS's crap for no other reason than it's what they know.

Plus Linux is easy to try pain free; boot it from a USB key, or live CD, or just install it alongside Windows or an extra hard drive.

I've tried Linux a few times but have come back to Windows every time due to superior application and game support. But if MS continues on this path of pushing reduced functionality Metro apps and marginalizing the Desktop "mode", I'll be trying very hard to get used to the Linux alternatives.

 

[Nothinman]

As someone who was formerly in support, one of the issues with using whatever resolution you want is that invariably, some one will design an app or dialog or whatever that doesn't play well. When that happens the OS makers takes flack for something completely not their fault. There were programs we dealt with that required 800 vertical resolution. Doesn't seem that bad until you realize that even today, many laptops come standard with 768. 32 pixels doesnt' seem like a lot, but it tended to put all the buttons (OK, NEXT, BACK, CANCEL, etc) below the screen where they weren't visible or accessible. It's amazing how many people have no clue what resolution they're running, or for that matter, what resolution even is.

I've seen my share of apps that don't deal well with really low resolutions or non-standard DPI settings, but they are the exception and we shouldn't let the worst developers set the rules. Good developers should be allowed that flexibility and the bad ones should learn from those mistakes.

I've tried Linux a few times but have come back to Windows every time due to superior application and game support. But if MS continues on this path of pushing reduced functionality Metro apps and marginalizing the Desktop "mode", I'll be trying very hard to get used to the Linux alternatives.

I've generally found the free apps that come with Linux distributions to be much higher quality than the stuff available for Windows, except in the cases where the free app was ported to Windows. Most of the time it's just a case of getting used to the slightly different way of looking at things like app installation, updates, filesystem hierarchy, etc. Games are another story though, if you want PC games you're stuck with Windows regardless. You can use WINE to run some of them, but it's pretty hit or miss.

 

[Zaap]

I haven't found free Linux apps to be of any higher quality than the best of Windows shareware/freeware. Usually at best it's about the same quality.

And of course if all one had to use was free apps, then sure, Linux is fine. High quality commercial software on the other hand...

 

[Nothinman]

I haven't found free Linux apps to be of any higher quality than the best of Windows shareware/freeware. Usually at best it's about the same quality.

And of course if all one had to use was free apps, then sure, Linux is fine. High quality commercial software on the other hand...

I've been using Linux on my personal desktop for over a decade and things like gkrellm, screen, guake, etc are indispensable to me now and I don't believe there's any real equivalents to them on Windows. Even apps that have ports like pidgin, vim, etc just don't feel right on Windows because GTK is a second-class citizen on Windows.

Commercial software is a whole other arena and I would say there's very few commercial apps that I would consider high quality all around. I do use VMware Workstation on Linux because it's better than the alternatives right now, but I expect to be able to get by with KVM at some point. But most commercial software is just plain crap, even more so if they tack on buzzwords like enterprise.

I'm sure I'm biased, but after being spoiled by the package management on Linux I just hate dealing with software on Windows. From shitty installers that try to sneak extra software onto your machine to uninstallers that just plain don't work it's a crap experience from end to end.

But if you're happy with it, that's what matters. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[SandEagle]

can't believe that metro crap made it to Server 2012 and SP 2013. :hmm:

 

[Zaap]

I've been using Linux on my personal desktop for over a decade and things like gkrellm, screen, guake, etc are indispensable to me now and I don't believe there's any real equivalents to them on Windows. Even apps that have ports like pidgin, vim, etc just don't feel right on Windows because GTK is a second-class citizen on Windows.

Total difference of outlook. None of your examples are important application types to me. My outlook on computing (and many other people) is that a computer is a tool for creating other things that will exist out in the real world, NOT just something I need tools for just for the computer itself. So system monitors, command lines, etc... those are mostly just things for dickering with the computer itself. To me that's a distraction, not a task in and of itself. So my focus isn't on freebies for dickering around with the computer itself (although I like those things at times, because I do love computers and tech) but on tools to do work, that pays me a nice living IE: commercial software.

But most commercial software is just plain crap,

This is just such a silly blanket statement. It's like me saying, "I ride a bike, so all automobiles are just plain crap." No. That's not even remotely true. There are amazing software developers who make awesome programs, and there are crap ones, but a blanket statement declaring an entire field as crap is just pure fallacy.

What commercial software have you actually used? Show me some freebie Gcrud equivalent to Toon Boom Storyboard or Animate. Or for Maya (which actually has a Linux version) or SketchBook Pro. For AfterFX or Illustrator or even Flash. No, Gimp can't hold a candle to Photoshop, not on any day of the week, and there's no reputable studio, business or even relevant freelancer that would try to permanently substitute the two to any great effect. Show me the Kcrap equivalent to Lightroom or Aperture.

Final Cut Pro is such great software it's paid for my house, my cars, my entire life for the past 10 years. There absolutely is NOT any freebie POS that comes anywhere close, and those that think so don't actually work in a professional setting, dealing with projects and files created by other professionals. Even Premiere and Vegas are far superior to any wanna-be freebie garbage that can't even come close.

Any of course my focus is just on graphics and video applications which is what I do. Pick any industry/profession that uses commercial software and you'll find plenty of it that's stellar and that people that use it swear by.

even more so if they tack on buzzwords like enterprise.

Examples? I don't even know of any 'enterprise' versions of any of the commercial software I use. Sounds like a buzz word that gets under your skin, but how about some examples of how this makes anything suck?

I'm sure I'm biased, but after being spoiled by the package management on Linux I just hate dealing with software on Windows. From shitty installers that try to sneak extra software onto your machine to uninstallers that just plain don't work it's a crap experience from end to end.

But if you're happy with it, that's what matters. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's true that Windows could handle software install/uninstall better. These are the types of things that MS should have focused on -actual useful, practical stuff- rather than their wanna-be iPad already-behind-the-curve hoop-dream.

Linux does have a nice package management system, but let's not kid ourselves, it also still has way too many outdated dependency issues. Many's the time when I've gone to install something on Linux and it gives me a list of dependancies it needs to update at the same time- which would be fine, except for I've had those things then break something else on the system. I put up with Linux long enough before I realized life is just too short. If my focus was mostly on dickering with the computer itself with my goal being "use a computer just to be using a computer" then I'd probably continue to put up with Linux. But since my focus is: "Use applications that do work that pays my bills and provides for my family" I've commuted my own sentence with Linux and freed myself to use better more polished stuff that gets my work done.

Although I do admire Linux's kind of seat-of-the-pants approach, and I've said before, I wish it would get more commercial support and be an actual alternative to Windows and OSX, which in turn would drive those two to progress faster. To some extent it's happening, such as with major software like Maya having a Linux version, but all too often the big-guns of the industry are Windows and Mac only. (Often just Windows only)

No need for any disagreement, it's just different computing needs.