1) runs smoothly on every make of computer, with every printer, every monitor.
2) runs every program currently on the market, each having varying demands (particularly in the graphics department with games).
3) runs all the programs that previous versions could support. That is, people expect their old Windows 3.1 games to function perfectly, meaning that the programmers of Windows can't change anything that might affect that program aversely.
First, though: Innovation?
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.shtml speaks for itself. Innovative? Bollocks.
1. He makes the operating system. Therefore he should be supporting the hardware; not making hardware vendors whip up the drivers and pass a test which allows them to slap a MS logo on the box (which is VERY expensive and everybody has the logo yet not everybody's driver WORKS. The logo is nothing more than profiteering for Microsoft and does nothing to truly ensure the product you buy is going to be sufficiently compatible.)
2a. Again, how much of this effort should be on the part of the graphics card maker?
2b. Particularly with games. There were gaming standards before Mircosoft created bloatX, er DirectX. Namely OpenGL, which was faster than DirectX. Of course, Microsoft wants its own name for control sake, even if its product is slow and bloaty - screw the consumer, MS needs money. (I'm questioning society's desire of having one platform only. Makes hacking easier to do as well. )
3a. People want the ability to move forward while having the ability to use older programs as needed. Period. Some people can't afford to upgrade and are stuck with older programs. Should they be left to rot? Hardware can cost much less than software, especially if it's custom-tailored software. Are we now supposed to all buy the same shrink-wrap slop, like a bunch of tin-pot robots?
3b. EMULATION. Linux using Win4Lin v5 runs most apps as fast or faster than native Windows on the same hardware. This also fits in with 2a. Using Windows emulation under Linux has helped me a lot, and hopefully I can ditch the emulation as Windows software itself is bloated, inefficient, and slow (confirmed by benchmarking 3d first person shooter games made for both Windows and Linux, Linux is blazing by comparison...)...
Security features. You mean security HOLES. Everybody makes them and everybody corrects them, but Microsoft makes them more readily and easily, it seems. It's an embarrassment. And since Microsoft ain't open source, we have to wait for them to see if they'll bother to fix their problem. And if you're using a discontinued platform (Win95/98/Me/NT 4) you're SOL, go spend $300 for a new OS and $800 for new hardware to run it on.
Yes, programming is difficult. Problem is, if a bunch of anonymous people from a round the world can make a hack'em'up like Linux be more stable and faster than Windows... that's an embarrassment. I'll include Apple solely because of OS X. Any prior OS version they made made Windows look rock solid by comparison, I'll grant you that...
Also, C and C+ were meant to be portable between platforms. Same code, with a few modifications or tweaks if needed, could easily be recompiled for any platform. It works, often.
Then Sun made Java, proclaiming portability - but relying on a truckload of sloooooooooooow JVM software (Java Virtual Machine) to run within a browser and to run apps within it. This is stupid if you want to run anything that crunches numbers or renders graphics (two examples of CPU intensive tasks...) It works, to a point, but WTF happened to C/C+ and a bunch of competing platforms? People became indolent...