I had a chance yesterday to fix a friend’s computer. It was an HP, complete with the software they enclose to make it easier to use. What a nightmare.
First, their system restore was destructive and gave the user almost no clue what was going on. Next, their system insisted on installing tons of software, including some monitoring stuff that did nothing positive. Finally, when you did get it up and running, there were files all over the place and many processes running, giving any rogue apps plenty of places to hide. When a user sees 112 entries in their task manager, looking up each one is out of the question, so they’ll blow it off.
Even more, I was reminded of one thing I did like about the Macintosh. On the old Macintosh operating systems, there was a single system folder, with every type of system piece sorted neatly into a subfolder. It was easy to find what you needed.
On Windows, and even on Linux, pathnames are a mess. Stuff is strewn everywhere for historical reasons, which makes it impossible for a user to say “this is the one folder I need to grab.” The same anarchistic spirit that makes Windows popular with developers means that every driver manufacturer is free to install a useless little “monitoring” application that tells you when your printer is out of ink, essentially free advertising, but does nothing else. Every application can drop whatever it wants in My Documents and put other essential files in any number of places.
Windows needs to be reorganized. The modern computer user populace is divided into semi-experts and those who want it to Just WorkTM and really don’t care. The former are going to use Linux and/or Windows and customize it heavily, but the latter want a simple OS that’s easy to maintain and has a clear division of functions. They want to be able to backup their hard drive by dragging one folder to Nero and clicking burn, and I think that’s a fair request.
Microsoft is burdened with so much bureaucracy that people view even small changes as near impossible, and each level is terrified that it will be the one axed if something goes wrong. Result: not only is risk not taken, but people are loathe to fix the ten thousand little problems Windows has and make it a better experience.
Right now, Windows XP has the market by the balls because, for the cycle of technology from which we have just come, it offered the easiest Just WorksTM experience. That’s not going to be so in the future. HP has it easy because people buy their computers from Best Buy or Office Depot, but they are actually non-competitive. This process of giving the user a mess to work with and hoping they don’t notice will only go so far, but as competition emerges, it’s going to become more and more clear that manufacturers like HP and Dell are dragging Windows down by offering machines that run at half-speed because they’re bloated with useless software, configured badly, and wide open for any parasite or moronic application to dump all over them.
To contrast this experience, I configured a white box machine from scratch with Windows XP, and while the process demanded finding drivers for parts that should have been generic, when the system was up and running it was a refreshing alternative. There were few processes. No windows popped up trying to sell me things or warn me of problems that they couldn’t fix. The system was responsive, fast and easily navigated.
True, the Windows directory was still a mess, and files were scattered in random order between three major directories. The Windows directory itself is a disorganized mess, as if every division of a major company just dumped its stuff in and expects others to clean up after it. But compared to the HP experience, it was a joy.