Microsoft had the right idea when they split home computing and Corporate with Nt 4 and Win 98. Two worlds, two products. Then Win 2000 for Corporate and Win XP home.
Why they abandoned that approach baffles me. Corporate world has entirely different needs. I play and edit video at home. Games are important at home. Work means spreadsheets, word processing, and payroll applications.
this is nonsense. win9x had absolutely no security whatsoever, was only marginally more stable than classic Mac OS, and was only strung along as far as it was because NT wasn’t ready for consumer duty. I really honestly want to know why you think having two completely distinct operating systems for consumer and corporate use is a good thing.
Oh, and when XP was released Windows 2000 ceased to be the corporate thing. that’s why there was XP Home and XP Professional.
they abandoned it because Win9x was a festering pile of shit that Microsoft couldn’t run away from fast enough.
So what? This doesn’t mean enterprise and consumers need entirely different operating systems which is what you’re proposing.
You work for Microsoft, right? 
It sure sounds like it. 
I don’t see whats so hard about creating a simple no frills Corporate version of Windows. All they have to do is remove the consumer components. The basic Windows OS would be identical for all users.
BTW Win 7 did break our Payroll & Accounting software. We have to run it under Virtual XP Mode. Our vendor is promising their next release will run directly under Win 7.
While looking for some info about excel at work today I stumbled across a Windows 8 review. I don’t get it, why would you build a version of windows with touch screens in mind? Are there any stats out there to show what % of pcs use touch screens? I ask because I’d be surprised if even as high as 20% of pcs used touch screens, and that’s including tablets.
To make money.
Following MS thing of copying Apple. See DOS to Windows.
People thing it looks like an Iphone and want it.
In a business environment, I don’t want MS to create a new OS. I don’t want Adobe to shove out a reader that doesn’t work with software we use.
But everyone wants to make money.
For the desktop I’m not sold on Windows 8 but some of our more geeky guys seem like they’re gonna go into spasmic fits of ecstasy when they start talking about Windows Server 8.
Apparently they’ve been playing with it for a while now and it’s one big love fest over there. They even deliver some client apps to our desktops now with Windows Server 8 and I thought it wasn’t even officially out.
But I don’t understand how this will make enough money to justify a whole new OS build when it’s aimed at such a niche market.
I just don’t understand why I can’t get a version of Windows without all the bells and whistles. I don’t want zoomy browser windows, or big happy buttons, or Extreme! widgets taking up my desktop. I just want:
Windows 2000 was great, until hard drives got too big to be supported and I had to upgrade 
This is pretty goddamn insulting, seeing how I don’t even work in the software field.
I hear you brother and Amen. 
I’ve been saying the same thing for years. Why can’t we get a basic windows desktop like NT or Win 2000 that has full networking capabilities. Something that can be used at home or connect at the office through Active Directory. All I care about is Spreadsheets, Word Processing, and at work we need to run our Payroll, Accounting, Student Registration software.
Linux is one option. Install Wine and many Window programs will run flawlessly. My biggest complaint with Linux is it still isn’t fully consumer ready. The last version I installed still required tweaking and editing a few files at the command level. You need to know a Linux guy or spend the time learning yourself. I’ve tried different flavors of Linux over the years, Red Hat and openSUSE are the two I recall right off. It’s been about three years and I need to install it again. See if its fully consumer ready yet.
I don’t think Windows 8 will be a huge corporate success - many places are only just migrating to Windows 7- but that’s not going to be a problem for MS. Lately they seem to have been operating a two-step, rough diamond / polished diamond philosophy. Remember Vista? That’s where they cut their 64-bit teeth and was actually a good product; the successor, Windows 7, is a darn fine OS. Similarly with Windows XP and Windows XP SP2.
So I’ll be waiting for Windows 9 as the next corporate OS.
Unfortunately, the most popular Linux, Ubuntu, is going the exact wrong direction, i.e., the same direction as Microsoft. The UI that’s worked for years has been overhauled completely. They decided they needed to be completely different from any of the other OSes out there. And this is supposed to somehow make it easier for people to switch.
Fortunately, you can get the old stuff back, but you don’t sound like the type of person who wants to twiddle enough to get it back. Once you do, though, there’s nothing else you have to mess with for the type of stuff you want to do. And at least none of the twiddling involves the command line.
Ubuntu is my main OS at home, but I think you’re being a bit generous/optimistic. He specified “full network capabilities” - and (as an example) getting network shares to mount automatically in Ubuntu still requires a level of fiddling which is asking a lot of the average user.