Windows 10 is a well-meaning effort by Microsoft to mollify Windows 8 haters and coax Windows 7 loyalists to upgrade — all while stubbornly sticking to its goal of a single OS for every possible platform. And by framing the problem that way, Microsoft has given itself a nearly impossible task.
To the company’s credit, each new build lurches closer to being usable, although with new bugs every time, it is difficult to evaluate how smooth the final release version will be. Best case: It may earn the grudging acceptance of Windows 7 users who refuse to move to Windows 8. And part of that acceptance will come not from sudden enthusiasm for a new way of interacting with the desktop, but from a desire to take advantage of the clear core benefits Windows 10 provides in performance, security, administration, and memory usage over Windows 7 and even Windows 8.
So why is it so hard to convince users to move to a brand-new, free, feature-packed, more efficient OS? Apple does it all the time. Simply put, because Microsoft didn’t build Windows 8 or Windows 10 for Windows users. It built them to further its own business strategy of using the power of the once-ubiquitous Windows platform to extend its dominance into the rapidly growing mobile space. The result is an OS whose features are now flipping and flopping with each new build — as Microsoft tries to fix problems of its own creation.

Imagine how good a desktop OS Windows 10 could have been

What if instead, after realizing what a terrible mistake Windows 8 was, Microsoft had made the truly brave decision to come clean and change its strategy? If Windows 10 had been designed from the beginning to be the best possible desktop OS, and the thousands of developer years spent trying to make it everything to everyone were instead spent providing services and applications for the mobile OS platforms people actually want? If in tandem Microsoft was willing to let go of its sub-3% market share in mobile, it could also have spent the cash it used to buy Nokia to build out its cross-platform services offerings instead. We could have had a really excellent desktop OS — worth paying for — and great integration with the leading mobile platforms.
Certainly Microsoft has woken up to providing competitive versions of its applications on Android and iOS. But imagine how much further along it would have been if it had put real work into the effort starting years ago. Perhaps we wouldn’t have to use third-party utilities to sync our information between Google and Outlook, for example. Or OneNote might have supported syncing on Android during the first several years it was available, instead of only recently. Pick any Microsoft desktop technology you access from your iOS or Android device and you can come up with a list of features that would make it much more useful.

It’s not like there isn’t anything to fix in Windows

Anyone who thinks Microsoft didn’t focus on desktop users as it evolved Windows 8 and 10 because its desktop OS has “no need for improvement” hasn’t spent enough time wrestling with the inscrutable hex error codes from Windows Update, or debugging driver version mismatches, or finding information they’re sure is somewhere on their disk. While Windows 10 isn’t final, judging by the builds so far, all of those problems are still there. Even support for high-resolution displays is still spotty. Windows 10 adds some new Zoom options, but there is still no serious scalable-font solution that works across the full range of possible displays.
As a good example of how this alternate direction would have worked, let’s look at the Control Panel. No one doubts that it is an old, crufty system for managing a computer. A desktop-focused OS project would have overhauled it completely while preserving its functionality. Instead, Microsoft seems determined to replace it in bits and pieces with new “touch-friendly” settings that aren’t much more intuitive, and that become even more frustrating when you need to go back to the old system for pieces that are still missing. Windows 10 is supposed to address this problem, but we’re less than two months from shipment and Settings are still far from being either intuitive or finished.
Tablet mode and Continuum are also inventions seeking to solve a problem Microsoft has invented for itself. For the few of us who actually own and use a Surface Tablet mode, it’s sort of a good thing. (I love that I can both taken written notes and run Outlook on my SP3, but with the addition of desktop apps to Android, I’m not sure how many others will see the need to spend that kind of money for basic productivity.) It’s good because it is better than Windows 8, where often the touch keyboard wouldn’t pop up when needed, and icons could be hard to finger.
It’s still only sort of good, though, because it’s confusing and forces the user to have one more thing to think about. Somehow iPads and Android tablets seem to easily survive the addition of a keyboard without the need for an entire special OS mode. Like many of the other new features in Windows 10, it seems like a “throw it against the wall and hope it sticks” attempt to solve a user pain point — not a from-the-ground-up technology architected to support the broad range of devices that can now run Windows.

Windows 10 internals are actually pretty impressive

There is a lot to like about Windows 10 — in addition to having the best kernel Windows has ever had. Edge (aka Spartan) is promising (although it too is only a prototype version, and certainly could have been shipped separately). Cortana might be useful, but is so limited and buggy in the current builds that it is hard to tell. If it doesn’t get sorted out by July, Microsoft risks taking yet another step backwards in desktop search functionality, which would be a shame. Virtual desktops are a nice feature, although hardly groundbreaking.
The included apps are certainly way ahead of the ones Microsoft shipped with Windows 8, but Microsoft has had many excellent desktop apps over the years — including the now-dead Windows Media Center, LiveWriter, and MovieMaker. It is the company’s own fault that it feels the need to start over time and again. On the tablet side, if Microsoft is serious about usability, it should be providing a better touch keyboard — one that includes swipe-through typing, for example. I also wish the company had finally fixed Windows Update. Mobile users won’t put up with the way it works now — they are spoiled by seamless OTAs from Apple and even many Android vendors.
Perhaps the ultimate warning sign about Windows 10 for me is that for many, its positioning is summed up as being “no worse than the six-year-old Windows 7, while adding support for tablets and phones.” That sounds pretty silly, but maybe not far from the truth. I run a Windows 7 desktop for some of my business-critical applications right next to a couple of Windows 8.1 machines and a couple of Windows 10 machines. I don’t really feel any less productive when I’m on the Windows 7 machine, and I can’t imagine that I’ll upgrade it to Windows 10 and risk something breaking.
Tablets are certainly a different story. I’ve already put Windows 10 on almost all my Windows tablets, and suspect most of the small number of Windows tablet users will also. Unfortunately for Microsoft, Windows tablets are a relatively small market, and may never become mainstream.
Laptops are the most interesting case. While each version of Windows adds new power management features, that may not be enough to get laptop users to upgrade. For example, Microsoft keeps changing the WiFi settings interface, and for many of us, the new version is lame compared to the more powerful one that preceded it. Engineering laptops still ship primarily with Windows 7, and I don’t see anything about Windows 10 changing that. Mainstream laptops will get dragged along onto Windows 10 because of the Microsoft marketing machine, but I don’t know how many current laptop users will bother to take advantage of the free upgrade. No doubt that is part of why Microsoft is inflicting its Windows 10 adware on the already confusing Windows Update process.

First, do you want a watch?
Second, do you want a digital wearable device you can use to transform your life, pay for coffee, live healthier, and make the rest of the world think you're actually paying more attention than you really are?
If the second question is more important to you, then you're probably going to be disappointed with the Apple Watch.
Unless you're an extreme Apple-focused tech geek, that is -- willing to bend your life and expectations to what the Apple Watch does, and then to get really good at appreciating the Apple Watch for what it is, rather than swearing at it in public for what it clearly is not.

Phase 1: Frustration

Confused yet? Don't worry. If you're like me -- a guy who waited in line for the first Apple iPhone and has used Apple products for his entire adult life -- you're going to be scratching your head a few times during your first week with the Apple Watch. And once you buy one, you'll need to plan on spending some quality time learning how to use it.
Here's one simple example. At least a few times per day, I tend to expect and look for a particular email message -- it's just part of my job. I find it quite handy to be able to look at incoming mail messages on my Apple Watch. Yet when I want this ability, I'm often using my hands to do something else, like making a sandwich or walking down the street carrying something in one hand. So pressing the Digital Crown then tapping the Mail icon is not an option. Instead, I'll use Siri, saying, "Hey Siri, show me my mail."
Which gives me a maddening response: "I can search your mail on your iPhone... just use Handoff." There's a button that tells you what Handoff is, which lets you start a task on one device and continue with it on the iPhone. So if I use the phrase above, if I want to see my mail, I have to pull out my iPhone and use Handoff to let Siri show me a list of new mail on my iPhone. That works pretty well, but the point was not pulling out my iPhone!
What I really want to do is ask Siri to "launch mail." If you ask Siri to launch mail, Siri does the intended thing and launches Mail. Perfect. Except when there is some background noise and Siri thinks you said, "launch map," in which case the Map app will launch, slowly loading to show you where you are in the world. At this point in your Apple Watch education, passersby will look at you and wonder why you're suddenly swearing at your wrist.
There are dozens of little nuances to using your Apple Watch that are similar to this -- figuring out what causes a particular chime or type of vibration... and when and why. Fortunately, there are hundreds or thousands of articles online about all of these things, plus a lot of Apple's own documentation and video. The point is, pretty much everyone who has not already purchased an Apple Watch will find themselves confused at some point.
Don't let that confusion -- and a feeling of buyer's remorse -- win the day. Why? On the other side, if you're like me, you'll slowly begin to appreciate your Apple Watch... for being a watch.

Learning to Love the Apple Watch

First and foremost, before you buy an Apple Watch, you need to be damn sure that you're ready to wear a watch again. I hadn't worn a watch for any serious amount of time in the last eight years. At first, I was annoyed at how it banged on the counter, on my MacBook, on the insides of the coffee pot while cleaning it. You'll have this problem with any watch, and you'll get over it.
Next, you've probably already spent far too many brain cycles trying to figure out which model you want with which band. If the Apple Watch is really about looks to you -- really all about having a fashion accessory -- then by all means, pick the model you want and get on with it. You can't really go wrong, because the Apple Watch is seriously well-made. The precision for a US$400 smartwatch is truly great.
On the flip side, my 42mm Apple Watch Sport with the space gray aluminum case and black sport band flies under the radar. It's not flashy, and most people don't notice it or pay any attention to it when I'm out and about in public.
You can buy other bands for the Apple Watch, of course, to change the look and feel to make it more appropriate for different occasions if you so desire. As for Apple's Sport Band, I must say, the fluoroelastomer band is astoundingly comfortable. Apple went to great lengths to create a watch system that is customizable through bands and materials in order to let us make it more personal. Plus, we'll be able to buy new third-party bands to make it even better and more versatile.
For me, though, the Apple Watch look is just OK. I don't find my Apple Watch particularly inspiring or see it as a reflection or modifier of my personality. For starters, 42mm is too small. I'd much prefer a larger watch face with a form factor that was slightly thicker to accommodate a bigger battery.
And round. I'd rather have a round watch, something that looks far more robust and masculine. Just saying. But Apple builds for the masses, not necessarily for guys like me. Plus, for outdoor activities, I'm going to need some sort of bumper case to protect the rounded glass edges. No way I'll trust the Apple Watch's edges as I'm scrambling around rocks.
Then there are the watch faces, which you can configure by adding additional details, like the date, weather, battery life, or your activity data. Unfortunately, to conserve battery, the watch faces are not lit up unless you activate your Apple Watch. So most of the time your Apple Watch face is a flat black and shiny rectangle. At first I was irritated that I could not just glance at my Apple Watch and see the glorious watch face and note the time -- but I got over that. Instead, I raise my wrist and the face lights up.
How well does that work? Surprisingly well. It's pretty smart, actually, but not foolproof. For instance, I can whip my wrists into a frenzy while tying my shoes and the face won't light up. It's not confused. But when I drive with my left hand on top of the steering wheel and make a right turn, boom, the watch face lights up.

Usability for Different Kinds of People

The problem with the Apple Watch is that it's mostly good for most people for most things -- but diehard Apple fans tend to want Apple to produce a product that's right for them. Here's one example: If you're a swimmer, for instance, you're not going to be able to track your workouts because the Apple Watch isn't waterproof enough to handle it. You would need a different watch, like say, the Garmin Swim. Trouble is, the Garmin Swim doesn't have all the other Apple goodness you want. So no lap counting with your Apple Watch for you.
For me, the Workout and Activity apps will be forever only marginally useful. Why? My major workouts come from playing pickup basketball games where I don't wear a watch. I could secure the Apple Watch with athletic tape or cover it with a wrist band, but that's not going to happen.
I can still use the activity tracking to figure out my non-workout activity... and maybe use the Apple Watch as a catalyst to be a bit more active. If you're mostly sedentary, the Apple Watch could certainly help you become more active.
I was irritated by my positive reaction to receiving an alert that told me I had achieved my stand goal for the day -- wahoo! Are you kidding me? I'm a grown man who experienced a slight sense of satisfaction at being praised by a damn watch. That experience leads me to believe that the Apple Watch could be effective for health apps and workouts for people who really need the assistance -- positive reminders and workout tracking.

Connecting to Others

One of the coolest features of the Apple Watch is the ability to communicate in new ways. For instance, you can draw a picture on your Apple Watch and send it to a contact. Or send your heartbeat to a contact. The trouble is, you can only do this with people who also have Apple Watches. Why can't I send a heartbeat to an iPhone owner? That's a natural question. I hope Apple creates that ability or lets other apps do it.
So for now, the Apple Watch is a closed community for one of its most innovative features. That's mildly disappointing.
On the other hand, the Apple Watch lets me text message others super easily -- since "OK" is one of my most common text responses, I'm far less likely to ignore incoming texts and get back to people more quickly.
Which brings me to what I like best about my Apple Watch: I can use it to filter out not-so important messages and calls... but I know when something truly important comes through that I need to answer or address. That is handy. Now, a natural question arises -- is it $400 worth of handy?
I'm not so sure using your Apple Watch as a filter is worth $400 -- at least, not for me personally.

But Wait, There Is So Much More!

Of course, there are many more apps on an Apple Watch. For instance, Maps. It's handy for keeping track of where you are in a city, but is it game changing? I don't know. How often will you need turn-by-turn directions on your wrist? A tap to go left or right? I'm guessing not often for most people -- but it could be amazing for some.
One app I like is Remote, which lets me swipe to control my Apple TV. Nice. I'm guessing the navigation is a bit of a preview for a new remote for the rumored next Apple TV. Either way, as I sat down on the couch -- with a sandwich -- and realized that the tiny Apple TV remote had disappeared, I didn't have to go hunting for it. I could use my Apple Watch!
But again, is that feature worth $400?
The point is, the Apple Watch is first and foremost just a fancy digital watch. Do you want something like that? Do you want a watch that's handy, sometimes cool, and occasionally downright pleasing?
If you do, great. The Apple Watch might be for you. If you're banking on the Apple Watch to change your life, though, to make it better in any significant, critically important way, odds are, it's not going to do that.
Instead, the Apple Watch has the potential to make dozens of tiny little improvements here or there, none of which will likely change your life in ways that you couldn't accomplish with an iPhone or a bit of willpower or a habit-building technique.
So unless you're buying for fashion, I believe that for most people, buying the Apple Watch is more about a willingness to wear a watch once again -- and maybe improve your life in small ways. Just remember that the Apple Watch is not about what you need. None of the features are so critically important that they can justify a purchase. This what people do -- how careful thinkers and fence sitters buy. They consider the features, try to figure out the benefits, try to imagine their future with the purchase, and divine whether the benefits will outweigh the costs.

Gaming

 

Display

 

Shield Wireless Controller

DirectStylus 2

Battery Life

Ever since Intel launched its high-performance Thunderbolt interface, it’s been fighting to win market share away from USB devices. There’s never been any question of which standard was faster — first-generation Thunderbolt blew USB 3.0 out of the water — but higher device costs, expensive cables, and limited OEM uptake have limited Thunderbolt’s market penetration. Today, with the announcement of Intel’s Alpine Ridge, that schism is effectively over. Third-generation Thunderbolt won’t just be faster than USB 3.0 or USB 3.1, it’ll offer all of its performance over a reversible USB-C plug.
Thunderbolt 3, aka Alpine Ridge, accomplishes this by integrating a USB 3.1 controller directly on-platform, neatly bypassing the entire “Should I use Thunderbolt 3 or USB” argument altogether.

Here’s what this means, in aggregate: You can now run DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, USB 3, and PCI-Express over a single Thunderbolt port. Even better, the USB 3.1 port in question is USB 3.1 Gen 2, as opposed to the USB 3.1 Gen 1 (aka USB 3.0), port that Apple uses for its new MacBook’s USB-C port. Unlike Thunderbolt 2, which kept total bandwidth the same as Thunderbolt 1.0, but allowed for more flexible bandwidth sharing options to improve performance, Thunderbolt doubles real bandwidth to up to 40Gbps.

Intel doesn’t include PCI-Express on its list of interfaces, but at this point, it could. 40Gbps works out to 5GB/s worth of bandwidth — which means Thunderbolt 3 can provide roughly a bit less bandwidth than an older PCI-Express 2.0 connection. The new standard offers support for up to two 4K 60Hz panels or a single 5K 60Hz display (this makes sense, as a 5K 60Hz panel is roughly 1.8x as many pixels as a 4K panel). This works out to an x4 PCI-E 3.0 connection. While not exactly suited for multi-GPU configurations, it should be enough bandwidth to run a single card at near-full speed in the vast majority of cases.
The combined Thunderbolt 3 / USB 3.1 standard will offer up to 100W for laptop charging if the manufacturer certifies the port to draw that much power and 15W of power for standard, bus-powered devices. 15W is significant because that’s more than enough energy to run most hard drive docks or external peripherals, including low-power portable displays.

The new configurations are also supposed to be flexible. Second device ports offer all the same functionality as the computer port, meaning you can plug a USB device into a monitor, which then connects to the computer via a Thunderbolt cable. Up to six devices can be daisy chained. Intel is also pushing the entire concept of a Thunderbolt external graphics dock for mobile gaming, and even the use of Thunderbolt for networking purposes.
One of the problems with Thunderbolt has been its reliance on expensive cabling. While the standard has never required the optical cables that were originally meant to debut alongside it, the available copper cables have often been expensive. Intel has improved the situation somewhat: Thunderbolt 3 will support passive cabling up to two meters with bandwidth of up to 20Gbps, 40Gbps active copper cables for full 40Gbps connectivity (again, up to two meters long), and 40Gbps optical cables arriving in 2016, with lengths of up to 60 meters.

Could Thunderbolt 3 finally catch on?

I’ve always been dubious about Thunderbolt’s chances of finding wide acceptance, but this latest announcement makes me think claims of Thunderbolt’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. FireWire may have lost its fight with USB, but FireWire never took the step of integrating a USB controller into the same package.
The two major questions remaining are how much Thunderbolt chips will cost and when they’ll ship. Intel has said it expects to begin shipping devices by the end of this year, which implies the new technology will show up on Skylake. If the licensing fees are reasonable, high-end devices with combined Thunderbolt / USB 3 ports could quickly become commonplace.