I really hope there is a new, light and fast operating system being worked on in Microsoft Labs. Something with a Linux core for developers with a brand new desktop environment could compete with MacBooks.
For many years Microsoft Research worked on an entirely new OS, codename Midori (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori_(operating_system)), and it actually went into the incubation phase (which is Microsoft speak for "This is no longer a research project. We are turning it into a product") Then it got cancel around 2 or 3 years ago … just before it otherwise would have become a beta.
Today, they are not working on a new OS AFAIK. They are working on something called Andromeda. They have been working on that for, I don't know, 4-5 years or something like that. It is not a new OS. It is windows 10, but they have turned it very very very modular. It has a new adaptive shell named cshell as its party trick. Andromeda is really about that shell. Not so much about the modularity.
The new shell, they are working on, can adapt to any screen size or form factor on the fly and enable Microsoft's wet dream: Turning a phone size device into a tablet sized device.
You know from sci-fi movies "stretchable screens". you have a small phone size device, you stretch it and suddenly you have a book/newspaper/something-with-a-bigger-screen devices. Then you squeeze it back into phone size and put it into the pocket.
Windows need a new shell for when those types of monitors become available and it is the redmonds wet dream to be the ones that comes with those devices.
You might have stumbled across articles lately that Microsoft is about to launch (or have cancelled launching) a new device with 2 screens that you can turn in to 1 screen and there by turning a phone size device into a tablet).
That is andromeda and apparently is has been delayed (or maybe cancelled. Who knows) because the software is not ready. The "not ready part" is this adaptable shell.
(https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-andromeda-everythin...)
That platform is limited in ways that are difficult to describe succinctly, and even with those limitations, it is a useful platform for lightweight touch interfaces. Probably not as light as Linux can be made to be, but pretty freakin' lightweight, nonetheless.
The only graphical apps that run on IoT Core are UWP apps (except for browser applications) and UWP applications handle resizing and spontaneous display resizing and changes in orientation very well. Web browsers handle this fine also, of course.
I would bet that a motivated developer could create most of what you are describing relatively easily.
I've been wanting this for years. With .Net Core, PowerShell for Linux, MS SQL for Linux, and WSL, I feel like (hope) that that is where they are headed, and if so, it's going to be awesome. A Linux OS with Windows on top and full compatibility for DirectX, games, Office, etc.
Ugh, one can dream...
I think that competing with MacBooks is first a matter of build quality. It's the hardware much more than the software that absolutely stands in my way of switching.
Also, Windows 10 is a really great operating system and they keep dominating the OS market share. The majority of enterprise users use and prefer Windows.
I think most of the times we are not being honest about the real impact of productivity between different solutions. Is a proficient developer on Windows less productive than a proficient developer on macOS/Linux?
Probably there are some differences; but is it really significant?
What about build quality? I know Macs have god-tier touchpads, but if I'm at a desk I carry my mouse around and get by just fine. If I forget my mouse; I'm stuck with the clitoris of my old Lenovo, which I hate but I do my job just fine and don't stress over it.
I know we like to nerd out on our choices; but the general market doesn't really care that much and that's why Windows keeps owning.
I think the enterprise CIOs use Windows because switching isn't a consideration; they've made an enormous investment in it, and cost of switching also is astronomical - consider hiring / training an all-new IT staff, development team, etc for the new platform, then recreating/repurchasing and redeploying all software running natively, then retraining every user. Whether or not they like Windows is a non-issue.
And the fact that CIO/CTOs are not willing to migrate to a new OS may indicate that those "efficiency and productivity gains" macOS users brag about may not be significant :)
I really understand the difference between different UIs and hardware, I'm an Linux with i3wm user myself; but I'm not blinded to the fact that even though I may think I'm more productive on a given software/hardware environment; those are not the factors that really weigh in (without going to extremes of course).
IMHO, the users' opinion of the OS is meaningless and even a signal of problems. Users should only have to deal with applications (beyond clicking an icon to start the app); the OS is IT department's job. If users have to think about the OS, the IT department isn't doing its job an users are being distracted from doing their jobs (of course, that is a big generalization). Windows has much that IT staff like, such as Active Directory and Group Policy.
I’d fare better with some flavor of Linux but I’d need time to tweak my setup to be just right.
A big part of my attraction to macOS is that most things are set up as I prefer right out of the box, with the extent of tweaks necessary being little more than spending 5 minutes in system preferences and downloading Alfred.
(And the TouchBar fiasco.) I would love to think they're just on a temporary excursion that will be corrected, but it sure seems like Apple doesn't care about the PC experience any more and are just moving rather than innovating. I really want to switch, enough that I tried switching to an X220 a while back, but the hardware of even the best just doesn't seem on par.