mcneely - 2:30 pm on Apr 14, 2009 (gmt 0)

I think MS should do the splits.

By that I mean, that MS should do two OS builds for two different types of PC users, namely the ones that work, and the ones that don't.

Sure, Vista is "all of that" when it comes to anything you'll want to do, and in most respects, this is fine. But why bother having "all" of the childlike media/gaming quirks written into a system that will only be used for "work"? and vise versa?

Though most of our operating has been shifted to Linux over the past few years, we'll still maintain a version or two of the XP, until third party's can catch up on the writes for Linux.

Still, over the years, we've often found ourselves turning off, or just outright eliminating certain OS features that came with the Windows OS simply because they weren't needed/desired. A lighter, more efficient, stable and much faster OS was the end result for us ... we always ended up with a more "linux like" system.

I think MS should pull their heads out and understand the difference between those who play and those who pay.

One size fits all used to work, way back in the stone aged 90's ... but the PC users of today have evolved and become much more refined in their usage of the OS.

Diversity can win the day. Separating the OS itself into two different camps can, on the Home PC front, be the way to go for Microsoft in the future ... much like how Windows Server is separate from the Home PC, in many respects.

There are always going to be those who play, and those who pay ... There's a big difference between "tools & toys", and it might serve MS well to realise this and act upon it accordingly.