As I see it this part is senseless not because it is in anyway "wrong"
, but because it is essentially an "act of faith" (without having any real world signs that what would be a good move actually is
The desktop must die. And it must take all of the bad stuff that comes along with the good—the malware and viruses, sure, but also the complexities, reliability issues, and so on—with it. These types of technology changes are difficult, and often time consuming. But with each new generation change, some old, out of date technology is lopped off too. And the move to Metro/Windows RT will be the biggest exorcism of technological deadwood yet."
Let's see in detail:
The desktop must die.
this is a wish
, and a good one IMHO, in the sense that when
someoine will provide us with something that is actually better
than the desktop, I am pretty sure everyone will embrace the new technology.
But untill the thing that should replace it is a monkey training toy, or
, this is unlikely to happen.
The logic fallacy is evident, the syllogism "new=better" has been proved right many times, but as many times it has been proved wrong.
The further implied "if you don't embrace this new technology then you are senselessly conservative" is of course m00t, the actual senceful sentence being "if you don't embrace this new technology, that is evidently and proven to be far superior to the preceding one,
then you are senselessly conservative" may have of course it's merits, but the actual evidence of the pretended superiority is far from being clear and surely not proved.
Next sentence is even worse, another good wish
And it must take all of the bad stuff that comes along with the good—the malware and viruses, sure, but also the complexities, reliability issues, and so on—with it."
It is more along the lines of "I have a dream....", there are AFAIK not any particualr improvements regarding malware or viruses (and even if there are they will be worked around in no time) nor in anything that by sheer magic will make complexities vanish or make the thingy in any way "more reliable".
Now if the proposal was to throw away what essentially is a NT system with a design going back to the early 90's with an entirely new archtecture/codebase, let's say a Real TIme OS like (example) QNX:http://www.qnx.com/
and/or tools like (other example) ERLANG:http://www.erlang.org/
that would be something we could actually talk about, but applying a (crappy) interface to (actually forcing it onto) a substantially "traditional" OS and call it "new" (I mean from the point of security/complexity/reliability) it's evidently a false statement or, in the best case an idealistic wish.
This is instead (while still being a "wish") pure "bull§h**":
These types of technology changes are difficult, and often time consuming. But with each new generation change, some old, out of date technology is lopped off too. And the move to Metro/Windows RT will be the biggest exorcism of technological deadwood yet."
Noone (here or elsewhere) is afraid of changes, but of course if the change is "for the better".
Our own lives were revolutionized by the Facsimile, by the PC, by Internet, by the Mobile Phones, and we glided across these large
technology shifts without a hitch
(just like our grandfathers or grand-grandfathers glided across the changes connected to inventions like the Telegraph, then Radio, Cars, Telephone, Airplanes, Television and what not), adapting and learning new ways.
It won't be difficult at all for us to learn how to use a "designed for 5 years old" interface, we learned from thin air how to deal with BASIC, and then with DOS and UNIX, do you really think that this change will be a problem for us?
There is nothing "revolutionary":http://www.merriam-w...y/revolutionary
in Windows 8, nor in it's new crappy interface, no "technology change" at all.
It reminds me of motorbikes (mopeds), a modern 50 cc engine can have without an issue 8 HP's or more (please read - for politically correctness - 5.968 kW or more
) and a bike made with it can easily have a max speed of 60 or 70 km/h, but in order to be registered as "moped" (in Italy) and thus allowed to be driven by 14 year old kids, they must:
- have at max 4 kW
- have a max speed of 45 km/h
what the industry does is simply to "dumb down" (usually by "capping" the intake) a bike (by itself capable of much better performances) in order to comply with the Laws and fulfill the requests of this market.
Now, it makes a lot of sense for a moped you give to a kid, the fact that the "original" bike was designed for higher speeds means indirectly that it will have better brakes and handling and thus it will be safer at lower speeds when compared to a "strictly designed as moped" competitor, and it is senceful that the kids will have some time learning to drive at a "forced" lower speed.
But usually, you don't look at mopeds as the source for innovation....
and I have seen very few people getting one of these
and have it "capped" because it goes too d@mn fast....
(or have an automatic gearbox fitted to it because it thus becomes easier to drive)