Thanks for some intelligent responses. Hopefully mine are somewhat cogent as well:
This is something that depends on your perspective. While I comment Apple on their dedication to consistency, I hate the draconian stranglehold they use to enforce it. And it's funny how MS is probably he worst offender on their own platform. I always found it hypocritical how they tout their UI guidelines and then apps like VS, WMP, Office, etc all get a non-standard look and dialogs. But given a choice between the two I'll take Windows' flexibility over Apple's death grip any day.
You're right, this is definitely personal preference all the way. I imagine that most of the folks here would side with you on this one -- most techies like to have more control rather than less. It's just a personal peeve to me. (And I definitely agree with you about MS being a huge offender on their own platform.)
The lobby of our office building has a touchscreen with various menus about the building and it's tenants running XP. And as mobile devices get faster MS may be able to merge the core of their mobile and desktop OSes like Apple and Linux. You really think you've exhausted all of the possibilities in your head just now?
I suppose I'm just "offended" by the idea of packing more and more stuff into the core of an operating system even when it will be used on a very small number of devices.* I think that there is a use for multitouch in things like atrium computers, but I really don't ever see it coming into massive use on a desktop computer (at least one that someone actually sits on a desk to use). My reading of the presentation was that MS was going to try to encourage users to use multitouch while sitting at a desk -- but obviously I may be mistaken. However, I don't think that MS has implemented past versions of new input devices very well. For instance, the Stickies in Windows 7 are great, but are really designed primarily for stylus interaction. In this case, I think MS was so concerned about getting this "feature" in that they really ignored the whole user experience. I'm afraid that they'll do something similar with multitouch.
*Admittedly, I don't know much technically about how multitouch would need to be implemented at a "core" level -- I suppose it would mean implementing APIs that would be able to deal with multitouch input (e.g. we can't just pass the fact that the mouse double-clicked on the window to maximize it, we might need to pass the fact that two touches occurred on the edges of the window, and the movement of those touches to get a window being resized.) Am I right about that?
Windows already uses AES which is virtually unbreakable. Yes, people have lost data because they didn't realize that, but you can't deny the rest of us the capability because some people out there don't understand how their computer works.
True. My concern was just increasing awareness of it/promoting the feature. Sure, more people should use it -- definitely in a work setting or with regard to personal data (.PDFs of brokerage statements, etc.), but now, most of the folks who do use encryption know enough to remember the password. But if Mom/Dad/Aunt Sally are encouraged to use the new feature (especially on a Desktop, which doesn't really face the same risks as a laptop) and they then forget the password (again, made more likely by facial-recognition log-in), it's going to be hard to tell them that they aren't getting their data back. Should they have made backups/a restore key disk/USB key. Absolutely. What are the odds (especially if you're not administering the computer for them?)
I think a LOT of people see computer security as something akin to a traditional lock. If I forget the password, I can always call a locksmith (a/k/a one of us). That's when we have to explain that encryption (if done right) is slightly stronger than a deadbolt.
So you just won't sync your work computer, how hard is that? MS is plenty of stupid, but you don't think they've considered that?
Oh, sure, they've considered it, but in some ways, there goes a lot of the benefit right there (e.g., I can't automatically sync an article that I came across while browsing the web at work to look at at home). Or, why should a game that requires a killer system (Crysis, that's resource-intensive, right?) appear as available on a netbook machine? Will mom/dad get confused if one of them changes the wallpaper on one computer and it automagically changes on their other one as well (and yes, I know they should be using multiple accounts, but it's harder to enforce in practice!) What if a different color scheme is better for a home-office computer (lots of Photoshop work, needs neutral colors) and a netbook (very dark, use it to read in bed.) And I would still suggest that people run different types of programs on their desktops than they do on their media centers or their laptops.
These seem to be the type of small user-interaction that (IMHO) Apple is much better at than Microsoft, and I just imagine that they'll find a way to screw up. I'd rather then first work on things like easy universal access of files before they go into "wouldn't it be cool if the screen saver on all of your computers were synchronized." That sort of seems like one of the worst tendencies on Linux-programmers -- creating the crazy beautiful UI feature before making sure that the boring parts, you know, actually work.
However, I admit that I may just be (mis)reading between the lines here. Anyway, just my $0.02.
