BTW - The reason for the Win 8 train wreck was Microsoft only had a bazillion companies as customers and even more trained users on their product and mobile computing was "The Next Big Thing" so of course they put a UI optimized for handhelds on EVERYTHING!!! (I bet whoever pushed that idea through the committees for approval got a promotion and a big bonus!)

Let's be very clear: Boring (and just plain works) is good. If you change something without a very clear idea how it is going to accomplish more work, save money, or solve more tasks YOU ARE VERY WRONG AND STUPID!

The reason is human nature. Something has to be "New! Improved!" and programmers ALWAYS want to update their skills so it has to be coded in a new "current and relevant" programming language to keep their resume current, plus they need to keep working with an updated UI with a trendy "look and feel" for the same reason.

You can't increase your income by more than single digit percentages staying at the same job so the only way to really keep a programming career progressing is to change jobs every few years and every programmer worth their salt will keep switching jobs like that so obviously they will always push for updated things for their resume. (Unless they have great stock options...)

Like most software companies Microsoft is in love with changing the UI without any improvement in usability. (And in the case of Win 8 a huge loss in usability!) They literally have more than a billion users that know how to use some version of the Windows UI and they feel that it is a good idea to make happy customers have to learn a new UI. The weird thing is there isn't any reason for them to do this.

As the Open Shell project shows any version of Windows works fine with any previous version of the UI. Why don't they offer an number of UIs that you can easily switch back and forth between? And how can they possibly justify why they don't do this?
(I like to call the Win 8 and later UIs the "Let's hide controls and put as much wasted white space on the screen as possible" interface!)

The biggest reason that no one wants the newer OS versions is Microsoft wants to majorly up their game in surveillance marketing after watching Google, Facebook, and other online companies make huge money sucking up all of our personal info. They are endlessly talking to us about increasing security while at the same time trying to increase how much info the OS can suck up and send home to them. Those two goals are completely in conflict with each other. Telling any big internet connected company all your personal info is the exact opposite of any version of "security"!

So Microsoft, Want me to be interested in your newest OS? Don't try to force me to log into a "Microsoft account". An online account to use a local computer is just another security risk that offers me nothing. Stop trying to make the OS require (or even need) an internet connection. I am perfectly capable of personally accessing the Internet when I want to access the internet. Stop having the OS force me to do things on my computer. You don't know how I am using it and your forced changes aren't helping. AND STOP ROLLING UP SECURITY FIXES WITH "FEATURE UPDATES". We can decide if we want "features". Security updates should just fix security issues.

A correctly laid out AI would be a great upgrade . . .
But any AI reporting back to Microsoft or any other organization is an obscenely hard "HELL NO!"

I DO NOT want to log into a Microsoft account to use the computer. They don't have any of my personal interests at heart. I want to log into a secure completely locally controlled account and that won't change.
And while they are at it: There is no reason to change features in the middle of a version. And there is no reason they need to force a billion+ people to use a new interface. OpenShell shows us they can easily allow people to choose which interface they want to use. So why can't Microsoft do that?

If you can't operate it without looking away from what's outside the windscreen it is dangerous.

"I'll only glance at it for a second." But if your honest with yourself looking at anything is 2 seconds. At 60 miles an hour you just traveled 176 feet.
Add the standard reaction time to get on the brakes (quoted in most studies as 1 second). You've now traveled 264 feet.

Anything that demands that you have to look away from the road is dangerous. Everyone knows that they have been surprised by something as they go down the road. "It's only a ridiculously small chance it could happen right now." And if you repeat an "incredibly small chance" over and over and over it becomes inevitable.
-> It Is Dangerous.

BzzzztThankYouForPlaying...
You pay capitol gains on your primary residence for any gain over $250,000 (or $500,000 if you are married).
It is pretty amazing that the government gives less, protects less, and yet still ever needs more.

(And all these laws are brought to you by career politicians who have somehow become millionaires while working in public office with an income and lifestyle that wouldn't make you a millionaire.)

Maybe they could just think about spending 3 TRILLION LESS over the next 10 years!

___________________________________________
(What the hell am I thinking. That could never happen.)

And then Tim Cook demonstrates "C level" stupidity . . .

If you want to take over a market setting up a 'walled garden' is a great path to failure.

Just make your product work seamlessly so the users don't ever notice and then you have a chance to dominate a market.

Their big problem is that in a huge percentage of these projects they haven't STARTED the construction process. They took the money from the mortgages and used it to lease more land for more projects leaving them without the money to construct what they already got paid for.

Russia has charged down the road of "We can build our own" before. And the whole time they did it they didn't realize that their were marching backwards on a high speed treadmill. The keys they are missing is completely chaotic and free innovation, and massive economies of scale from a huge consumer economy.

This video pretty much lays it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Microwave pulse ignition from back in 2019 . . .

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/...

We used to tease people with "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me".

Now we seem to be having a world wide contest to see who can be offended by the smallest possible imagined slight. (If you spend all your time trying to frame your position in terms of victim hood don't be surprised when you end up as a victim of life.)

Seriously though. Offense is something that you TAKE not GIVE. Stop taking offense and suddenly you are impervious to it all.
(Duh!!!)

Gee, I wonder if there are situations where systems aren't attached to just a person with a phone but instead are used by a wider audience?

Once again we see the phrase "Lose your phone and use your life".

- - -
Did anyone notice that on a computer this would require that the device to have some sort of account with Microsoft/Apple/etc that ties the user to the device? "We need to do surveillance marketing on your devices to keep them safe!!!"

Can anyone think of a company that they would trust less running their voice assistant?

Seriously

I'm kind of guessing the Zuckerberg watched "Ready Player One" too may times and decided he wanted to "Own the Oasis". Even if it was possible he has the mistaken idea that he would become Halliday but he doesn't realize that he can only become Sorrento.

Seriously though... The whole "Meta 3D online universe" thing is far from around the corner. 3D technology has been pushed repeatedly and then dries up because there just isn't a demand for it. Getting to the 3D environment isn't convenient. You can't just whip it out of your pocket. 3D TVs were such a hugely hyped "new thing" and they died even though you didn't need to clear out a safe area so users wouldn't crash into their surroundings. VR headsets are lots of fun for most people but VR games are an extremely limited market compared to the huge social media/marketing companies. (If my 3D LG ever dies I'm going to be pissed because there are a few older games that really rock in 3D.)

Currently the best niche usage of VR is to make YouTube videos of people freaking out and running headlong into walls or smashing their flatscreen TVs.