> It changed the world economy by being all things to all people.
...
> That said: Windows is the Superbowl Halftime Show of operating systems. Given what everyone got paid, and how many people were involved, you’d think it would be a lot more memorable.
What more did the author want? Getting pretty damn close to being all things to all people is quite an impressive feat. I'm reminded of the classic blog post "How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?" by Eric Lippert:
> Getting software right -- by, among other things, ensuring that a legally blind Catalan-speaking Spaniard can easily use the feature without worrying about introducing a new security vulnerability -- is rather expensive!
Things like internationalization and accessibility really matter.
And this brings me to the real head-scratcher from the OP:
> You can no longer be all things to all people when it comes to computers, but Microsoft keeps trying.
Presumably this is a dig at the poorly executed attempt to target both desktops and tablets in Windows 8. But Microsoft might actually pull it off in Windows 10. More worrisome to me, though, is the implication that the level of universality achieved by Windows is no longer worth pursuing in software development. If that attitude prevails among developers of software that is used in business or education, then pity the aforementioned hypothetical legally blind Catalan-speaking Spaniard who needs to use a particular application to do her job or complete some coursework.
It may not literally be possible to be all things to all people. But Windows has shown us that a piece of software can get pretty close. And I say it's still a worthy goal.
> It changed the world economy by being all things to all people.
...
> That said: Windows is the Superbowl Halftime Show of operating systems. Given what everyone got paid, and how many people were involved, you’d think it would be a lot more memorable.
What more did the author want? Getting pretty damn close to being all things to all people is quite an impressive feat. I'm reminded of the classic blog post "How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?" by Eric Lippert:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2003/10/28/how-m...
In particular, this summary:
> Getting software right -- by, among other things, ensuring that a legally blind Catalan-speaking Spaniard can easily use the feature without worrying about introducing a new security vulnerability -- is rather expensive!
Things like internationalization and accessibility really matter.
And this brings me to the real head-scratcher from the OP:
> You can no longer be all things to all people when it comes to computers, but Microsoft keeps trying.
Presumably this is a dig at the poorly executed attempt to target both desktops and tablets in Windows 8. But Microsoft might actually pull it off in Windows 10. More worrisome to me, though, is the implication that the level of universality achieved by Windows is no longer worth pursuing in software development. If that attitude prevails among developers of software that is used in business or education, then pity the aforementioned hypothetical legally blind Catalan-speaking Spaniard who needs to use a particular application to do her job or complete some coursework.
It may not literally be possible to be all things to all people. But Windows has shown us that a piece of software can get pretty close. And I say it's still a worthy goal.