Gartner Analysts Warn That Windows Is Collapsing 868
spacefiddle writes "Computerworld has an article about a presentation from Gartner analysts in Las Vegas claiming that Windows is 'collapsing', and that Microsoft 'must make radical changes to the operating system or risk becoming a has-been.' Michael Silver and Neil MacDonald provided an analysis of what went wrong with Vista, and what they feel Microsoft can and must do to correct its problems. Larry Dignan of ZDNet has his own take, and while he agrees, he suggests that the downfall of Windows will be slow and drawn-out. As an interesting tangent to this, there's also a story from a few days prior about Ubuntu replacing Windows for a school's library kiosks, getting good performance out of older hardware. '[Network administrator Daniel] Stefyn said he was "pleasantly surprised" to discover that the Kubuntu desktops ran some applications faster with Linux than when they ran on Windows. An additional benefit of Windows' departure from student library terminals saw the students cease 'hacking the setup to install and play games or trash the operating system.'"
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, Apple didn't have to customize OS X to run on the iPhone, it was perfect the way it was?
Wait, it's easier for people to develop and distrubte applications for the iPhone, even though the ability isn't avaiable yet?
Are these guys supposed to be taken seriously?
Hacking the setup (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, well just wait until he realizes what they have moved onto hacking....!!!
Here we go again, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
For how many years have slashdot 'experts' been predicting the 'downfall' of windows? For 23 years they have not just controlled, the word is 'dominated' the desktop environment. For the majority of computer users, the words 'Windows' and 'Computer' are borderline synonymous.
And you're proof? Because some users believe that 'Vista sucks' blah blah blah. How many people started ringing the bells for Microsoft after Windows ME? We saw how that worked out...
No more hacking, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Whose to say that if you can't secure a Windows install you can secure a Linux system. Maybe this is just an example of security through obscurity rather than an actual enhancement.
students will hack *anything* (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that'll last. I'll give it a week before someone finds a manual and migrates their "expertise" to their new operating system.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
At home perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see this happening rather quickly at home. It hasn't been hard to convince my family members to get away from Windows. While my wife is probably more computer savvy than most, she hasn't had any problems switching from Windows to Linux, and actually likes it more. It's been more difficult for others I've gotten to switch, but in general the result has been positive.
The corporate world is a completely different story, though. Many large, medium, and small companies have committed vast resources to development in .Net. And while a good chunk of that can be run on Mono in a non-Windows environment, it's not entirely the same, and transitioning to something else, from a OS or software perspective, is going to take even more time and money in an economy where money isn't readily available.
Additionally, while you can probably count on your IT staff to have a reasonably easy transition to something other than Windows, your non-tech employee base is almost certainly going to have a great deal of difficulty. Add in the fact that lots of small and mid-size businesses use "friendly" accounting software that runs solely on Windows, and I think Microsoft has a much larger buffer for error than most people think.
Will it happen? God I hope so... but I'm not optimistic it will happen even in the next 5-10 years.
He's not all anti-Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.gartner.com/Search?op=16&f=2&keywords=&bop=0&op=16&sort=73&archived=0&simple1=0&n=8332&authorId=8332&resultsPerSearch=0&dir=70&sort=73&dir=70 [gartner.com]
The problem, as I see it, is not Vista itself. Rather, it is the slow but steady migration from PCs being central to computing tasks to reliance on servers for processing power and storage. Although Outlook client may run on your PC, the real work managing your company's mail is handled in the backrooms on server hardware. They aren't running client Windows back there.
So on the front end, as McNealy and Ellison have been saying for a decade, computers require less and less individual computing power, and backend servers need more and more. This is the problem for Windows because the growing requirements of the OS to do all the cool things that users like is outstripping the pace at which the needs of the users are growing. Translation: Vista does too much unnecessary stuff (however cool and flashy it might be.)
Apple does this too, but their hardware requirements are automatically met by virtue of them selling the hardware themselves. Linux, OTOH, is both a low-end client and a high-end server. It fills the roles needed by users without bringing with it a hefty cost per unit.
The upshot is that the PC as a computing platform is ailing. It will always have its place, and it will hang on for quite a while longer. However, the general trend towards less necessary functionality on the client end and more stability and power on the server side means that alternative systems now have a lower hurdle to gain a foothold in the upcoming paradigm shift.
We have already seen a huge shift away from laptops as the mobile computer towards dedicated devices like the Blackberry and smartphone. As we progress, many of the roles that the PC plays now will move closer to the user so that the usage scenario no longer is sitting in front of a glowing monitor but rather sitting back and doing the same job faster and more easily than currently performed. I, for one, welcome our new embedded overlords.
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft had the entire Windows NT branch practically ready and waiting in the wings to replace it with.
With XP coming to the end of its life for desktop machines, what can they move to this time?
Seriously folks... (Score:4, Insightful)
Statements like "Users want a smaller Windows that can run on low-priced -- and low-powered -- hardware..." make me wonder if these guys graduated at the top of their class at Captain Obvious University.
Additionally they state "...increasingly, users work with "OS-agnostic applications..." - is there a reason for them to not just say "web apps"? And how about the fact that most large organizations have so much legacy code that even if Windows development stopped entirely today, you wouldn't get rid of all of that desktop apps for many, many, many years.
""Apple introduced its iPhone running OS X," no, it's a variant, which is a code-word for sub-set.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not aware of the detailed structure of Vista's kernel, but my guess would be it is unlikely to be easily scaled down - it is an OS that requires higher specifications than XP to do mundane tasks like file copying. That doesn't suggest efficiency and portability.
Are these the same Gartner analysts (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Learn from history, no it's not dying (Score:3, Insightful)
And the IMF says we're in recession ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Windows is going to decline.
The International Monetary Fund [telegraph.co.uk] just announced that the sub-prime crisis has tipped the USA into the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. During recessions, the first thing to get cut back on is unnecessary infrastructure replacement -- and PCs have been marketed on the basis of planned obsolescence [wikipedia.org] for around a decade now. So the PC replacement cycle will be hit, hard.
Vista is a resource hog, Ubuntu is just about coming up to mass market usability, and a lot of places are going to stop replacing their PCs annually or bi-annually in the next couple of years. Unless Windows 7 is as comparatively lightweight as XP, it's going to crash in the "upgrade your OS" market -- only new PCs will ship with it. So Microsoft will have two poor sellers in a row -- which is enough, in the mind of the fickle public, to establish a trend, and with Apple chowing down on 25% of the high-end laptop market already, they're in danger of being squeezed between a high-end competitor and a low-end one.
But.
Windows is so big, with such a huge established base, that its decline will resemble that of the old IBM mainframe environment -- which is still doing fine, decades after the death of the mainframe was predicted. This ain't going to happen overnight.
Re:Hacking the setup (Score:2, Insightful)
1) The kids don't know Ubuntu/Gnome like they do Windows. Once they figure it out, they'll continue trashing them and installing games.
2) The morons should properly secure the computers in the first place. If user rights were properly limited in the first place, they wouldn't have had any issues with the Windows machines. And if they don't limit them properly on the Linux ones, they'll have the same problem.
Re:Here we go again, eh? (Score:1, Insightful)
All of these seem highly improbable. There is no "American Empire" to crumble. While American democracy may not be the perfect solution (or even the best solution in the world currently), it is a very stable one. I can only see its destabilization by some cataclysmic event. You made that statement as if it is an obvious fact, and that anybody like me is just naive. But stating things like that does not actually make them true, it is just really annoying. So, can you explain what you meant?
Why I'm still with Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Apple is even more expensive and just as proprietary as Windows, won't let me build my own system, and is poorly supported by software developers. If Apple dominated the market, there is every reason to believe they would be just as heavy-handed as MS, if not much worse.
Because doing anything in Linux ends up with me banging my head against my computer screen. Even Ubuntu, the most user-friendly distro so far, is an endless series of frustrations. "Why can't I just download a piece of software and double-click on it to install?!?!" "What is the difference between KDE and Gnome and why should it matter?!?!" "Why do I have to go to the command line interface to do even basic stuff?" Hell, until the latest release, Ubuntu wouldn't even let me attach a projector without a complicated edit to the Xorg config file. ARGHHHHH!!!
Windows may die one day, but it's going to take a *lot* more work before anyone else is going to slay that dragon.
no (Score:3, Insightful)
If you infer any more from that statement than that the kids stopped hacking to install games or trash the os, that's about you and whatever you're bringing to your reading of the article.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that is the point. 5 years of development and one service pack later MS is still struggling to get Vista to run on the machines it was designed for.
Rubbish. Vista runs fine on the modern-day machines it was "designed for".
Heck, you can run Vista usably on hardware up to about 8 years old, with minor upgrades.
I am not aware of the detailed structure of Vista's kernel, but my guess would be it is unlikely to be easily scaled down - it is an OS that requires higher specifications than XP to do mundane tasks like file copying. That doesn't suggest efficiency and portability.
The "bloat" in Vista isn't the kernel, it's all the stuff that goes on top like the GUI.
Gartner is the Jeane Dixon of Computers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Was this a pro-linux/unix comment or a pro-windows comment? Its much too ambiguous.
Getting linux running smoothly can be just as trying as windows if not more trying.
Most are now in a position to ask the professionals "Is this as good as it gets?" and being told - no, there IS another way.
A different way, with its own slew of canyon-wide pitfalls. Like... nearly all your software won't work, including your accounting software won't run on it at all, period. Or the minefield of setting up dual screens or wifi, or getting your shiny new blackberry or iphone to sync contacts with outlook... oh wait... no outlook...
Sure ubuntu etc have reached the point where you can build a basic web&email machine very quickly and its pretty simple, but go much beyond that and Linux throws plenty of obstacles into your path. Some can be overcome, some can't.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, working with your statement, i think it's fair to say we can infer that non-windows systems are harder to hack than windows systems by your average high school student. Which, while more qualified a statement than yours, is still not something for Microsoft to brag about, right..?
Incidentally, if as some have predicted the result of this is that the kids start learning how to get around in non-windows systems, i say GOOD. Then they'll be learning more than how to evade the "proxy settings" in explorer and playing stupid flash games online. They might actually have a concept of file systems and how computers operate 'n' stuff.
Re:At home perhaps (Score:3, Insightful)
You've alluded to the biggest issue.
Businesses depend on a whole bunch of software which isn't fun to write, requires enormous amounts of maintenance (you try telling your local taxman that your tax return is innaccurate because nobody's bothered to update your software for the recent changes in legislation!) and for which no sane Linux alternative exists.
Here there is a chicken and egg scenario. The likes of Sage aren't going to port their product unless they've got serious numbers of customers lining up to say "We're putting Linux on the desktop. Port it or lose the contract.", and no customer can seriously make such a threat because right now, Sage can easily turn around and say "OK then. Let us know how you get on running a desktop platform which doesn't have any serious accounting packages."
Re:Collapsing? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know people who were used to Windows XP and managed to use a Macintosh running Leopard without any assistance (including figuring out how to use the touchpad with two fingers), but had real problems using Vista.
Given the UI differences between Vista and Windows _95_ (let alone XP) are almost all cosmetic, whereas the UI differences between any version of Windows and any version of MacOS [X] are most fundamental, I'm going to have to call bullshit.
Anyone having trouble going XP to Vista is going to have substantially more trouble going XP to OS X. Unless, of course, they've got someone whispering in their ear about how much Vista sux0rs and how much OSX rawks.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft bellyaches how "hard" software is to make, and constantly delays (and they don't make computers or phones and sell them) Apple makes it look very easy and investors are starting to see Microsoft isn't really that good at their CORE job.
Re:Hacking the setup (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is they can't trash Linux since they only have write access to /home/user. Neither can they install games except to /home/user. It's trivial to simply reset /home/user to a default state with every login. Like most changes on Linux, this does not require a reboot.
Rights are properly configured on Linux by default. Your hypothetical kids in the library won't be able to touch anything system related, or anything not owned by the user. There is no configuration required to enforce this.
That is not how it works in Windows. Yes, you can enforce user levels in XP but some apps will not work, and it is pretty easy to bypass anyway. Maybe Vista is better, but I certainly don't expect to see Vista on a public terminal anytime soon.
Going forward... (Score:1, Insightful)
An example, if you will: I recently wanted to set up a mailing/scheduling system at home because I have way too many computers to manually add all my appointments and contacts to. My order of preference for these kinds of projects is usally Linux first, and then MS, so I tried setting up Zimbra (thanks for acting like MS and locking features down, asshats!), then Scalix (holy hell, I've never seen such a complicated management interface) and finally Kolab (feature incomplete). I spent a total of about 40 hours getting all of these things to run.
I was left with no choice other than an MS solution. I had all the bits and pieces lying around the house, and in the end, it took less than two hours to put together an AD domain controller with Exchange running on it. And that includes the time it took to set up each of my seven computers to talk to the system.
Really, I don't mean to come off as an MS shill. When I'm working for myself, Linux is my first port of call. But OSS is far behind MS on the usability front, and until it catches up, the (bulk) business customers that drive the IT industry won't abandon MS.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. That's why Microsoft is fighting a class-action suit against customers who disagree withe your assessment.
Re:Hacking the setup (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never seen a well-run Windows lab that didn't have Norton Ghost (or equivalent) installed to re-image the machines on a regular basis. While the newer versions of Windows are much better than the previous ones in this regard, it's much easier to secure a system that was designed from the ground-up for multi-user functionality. The NT code-base was designed that way, but a lot of bad habits migrated over from the DOS-based Windows's.
I prefer to have a platform with less features but a stable design at its base (*nix) than a platform with lots of features but an unstable and unsecure foundation (Win32).
To use a real-world analogy (I've been involved in a lot of construction stuff recently): adding new trim, or even remodeling a room, is much easier than replacing the foundation.
Re:Here we go again, eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
And after Windows ME, Microsoft was smart enough to release XP and distance themselves from ME as quick as possible. They're going to do the same with Vista when they release Windows 7.
A couple billion in losses from a crap product will hopefully be enough to motivate them to code something that's not as big a heap of crap as Vista is.
Re:Hacking the setup (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite. Vista was designed to run on high end machines, however Vista was marketed to be able to run on not-so high end machines.
Re:Gartner is the Jeane Dixon of Computers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are these the same Gartner analysts (Score:1, Insightful)
Here's what you guys need to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow, there needs to be some form of interface consistency across the board that is logical, useful and attractive to even the least intelligent of users.
Take the 3D application "Blender" for example. Most of us know that Blender itself is fairly powerful when used correctly by the right person. Yet despite the fact that Blender is both power and free, your typical consumer level user is far more likely to gravitate toward products like Carrara Studio, based almost entirely on it's presentation and interface design. People don't like it when their software intimidates them and they are more than willing to pay good money to avoid it whenever possible.
You also have to consider that time is a major factor as well. While anyone could "learn" to use Blender effectively and efficiently, the time invested in overcoming the learning curve is too much for many of us. If you were to compare Blender's interface directly against Carrara Studio's interface. Most users would again gravitate toward Carrara since they perceive a much lower investment of time involved in trying to "get it". The reality though, is that the core learning curve on either of these apps for most functions is probably identical.
Overall though, it's likely going to be a lot more difficult than it sounds to put a new face on Linux to make it pretty, useful and non-threatening to the average user. Hell, Apple's been trying for nearly 10 years with Mac OS X, and they've only just barely got it right. (Despite the numerous flaws...) It can be done, but it'll take a lot of effort to really pull it off.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
But isn't the GUI built-in to the kernel in Windows?
For what it's worth, Vista ran like utter crap on my friends brand-new laptop until we upgraded the memory from 500MB (stock) to 2GB. This despite having turned off all of the eye-candy, making it look just like Windows 2000. Windows 2000 would have run all snappy-like on much less memory.
It's not a bad OS once your system is beefed up to run it, though it has been quite the re-training experience. A few things still annoy me about it, but it's not the steaming pile of crap that the slashdotters would lead you to believe. I think that you are a bit loopy trying to run it on 8-year-old hardware though!
I have heard this before... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why I'm still with Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Linux user I have the opposite frustrations when I come to use Windows. "Why do I have to search the web to find a piece of software to download? Why can't I just go to 'Add/Remove Programs', type in the name (or a keyword) and click install?", "Why can't I chose a different desktop environment when I log in?", "Why can't I use the command line to do even basic stuff?"
Different strokes for different folks.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm actually quite pleased to see the reported direction that Windows 7 is taking. As I have stated earlier, I don't plan to run to Windows 7 and leave Linux behind. Linux is home now and I'm comfortable in it. Apple's MacOSX is interesting and I can make good use of it as well, but it's not home either... I have pondered the idea of moving to a Macbook pro or the like but so far it's hard to imagine leaving home where I'm quite comfortable and I'm sure you can identify with the sentiment if you're a Windows user.
But that said, I also recognize that Windows is what's used in business and here at work. Windows is also used by just about everyone on the planet... a planet that, incidentally, is connected by this internet thing which I have to coexist in... this same internet that is over-run with Windows computers that have been compromised and are hosting bot services for people to do all manner of terrible things. If Windows 7 represents the "clean slate" that I hope it does, we might see a serious reduction in the amount of that sort of trouble which will make my life better. What I'm saying is that even non-Windows users will benefit from a new Windows OS on every desktop if only because it may serve to clear away a lot of the crap that is polluting the public internet.
I disapprove of your attempt to disassociate the "bloated GUI" from OS. While it's technically correct, it's practically incorrect. In just the same way that most users think "The Web" is the internet, most people see the GUI as the OS. And since the GUI and the kernel are always together as a virtually inseparable set, they are pretty much one in the same. If you're trying to say that Microsoft could write a new, more simple, GUI for the "Vista kernel" and make it run on lower-end hardware? You're probably right, but not without also modifying the kernel to pull out ALL that backward compatibility stuff. It's really hard to know if they can actually do that or not. Microsoft has testified in court that the GUI, and more specifically, Microsoft Internet Explorer, cannot be removed from the OS because it would break too many things. We know that Microsoft wouldn't lie in court, so it must be true... and so Microsoft would probably also disapprove of your attempt the disassociate the "bloated GUI" from the OS.
Re:Why I'm still with Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
99% of most home user's software needs can be installed via the synaptic gui and the repositories (which you don't have to understand to use) are growing rapidly all the time.; this is argueably simpler than a windows install, because you don't have to locate a trustworthy download site; just search, select, apply and you're done. This is really noticeably quicker when installing multiple programs at once.
Oh, and also, you CAN download and click to install just like windows if you really want to. I haven't tried it on Ubuntu, but on Fedora you could just download a
"What is the difference between KDE and Gnome and why should it matter?!?!"
If you don't care and don't want to care, you just run Ubunutu; you don't even have to know that it uses Gnome by default or at all. Also, I might well ask how a user wanting to buy a Vista PC is supposed to know what the difference is between Home Basic, Premium, Ultimate etc. and which one they really need?
"Why do I have to go to the command line interface to do even basic stuff?"
If you'd given a prime example or two someone *might* have been able to give a gui alternative.
Hell, until the latest release, Ubuntu wouldn't even let me attach a projector without a complicated edit to the Xorg config file. ARGHHHHH!!!
So it's improving with each release then?
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple made it easy (If you were using their compiler) to release for 4 different platforms. It's just a check box to make a 32/64bit X86/PPC program where as, from what I've heard, everything for XP/Vista 64 bit is a 'different program'. You have to make sure you download the right one, etc. When Microsoft bought Virtual PC they had an easy out. They could have made Vista scratch up (like OS X sort of was) and left all the old XP bits behind. Instead they decided to kludge it together and screw that up.
OS X is pretty modular, I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a different ".config" when they compiled the iPhone. And why was OS X 'not suited to run on ARM'? Heck 3 years ago it wasn't suited to run on X86 and EVERYONE knew that apple going to Intel would kill them. Turns out they've had it the whole time. I wouldn't be surpised if in some vault somewhere Apple has OS X running on an Power6, Iridium, and SUN.
Re:Collapsing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gartner analysts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Gartner just wants to appear to be a "leader", so now that its obvious to anyone with more than 3 brain cells still funcitoning that Windows has nowhere to go but down, they're running really fast to get in front of where those in the know have been heading, and make it look like they somehow have a clue.
They don't.
But anyone who needs these "analysts" to help them form an opinion doesn't have a clue to begin with.
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
No.
Yes. I know, because I've done it.
Not without using a tool such as vLite to essentially strip Vista down to bare bones. And even then it runs like a dog. 8 year old hardware would be hardware from 2000. We are talking MAYBE a 1Ghz processor, (more likely 800Mgz) and probably either 128 or 256 Mb of RAM. That setup runs XP slowly. Vista, with all the extra overhead the larger kernel is running BARELY FUNCTIONS on a machine such as that.
In fact, my 2000-era PC was a 933Mhz P3 with 1G RAM. Fairly high-end for its day. The only upgrade I put into it was a newer video card and a bigger hard disk.
It's certainly no speed demon, but it does run Vista quite well enough for web browsing, email, and the like.
Now, with some extra RAM, that might have been sped up a bit.
In fact, the performance would increase nearly linearly with RAM up to 768Mb and see significant improvements even beyond that (much as, say, OS X does).
But in no way would it ever be able to run Vista in a manner that anyone would consider usable.
With a gig of RAM, a machine like that is quite usable for basic tasks.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
But isn't the GUI built-in to the kernel in Windows?
No.
For what it's worth, Vista ran like utter crap on my friends brand-new laptop until we upgraded the memory from 500MB (stock) to 2GB. This despite having turned off all of the eye-candy, making it look just like Windows 2000. Windows 2000 would have run all snappy-like on much less memory.
Windows 2000 would also have been doing a lot less.
It amazes me that, today, people still skimp on RAM when it is probably the single most important factor in overall system performance. 2G of RAM is not a lot, these days. Heck, it hasn't been for years - I got my first PC with 1G RAM nearly a decade ago.
Re:legacy code (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems to me that on every project of any significant duration, the engineers itch for a rewrite. Even on green fields applications, by the time they're done they think it needs replacing. In most circumstances, managers do well to ignore their pleadings, as rewrites come at great expense. Very frequently they do not improve the situation significantly either, since they don't address the fundamental problem: a team the puts out shit on the first iteration is likely to do so on the second as well. There are better ways to get a crufty code base into shape. Michael Feathers has written an entire book on the subject, "Working Effectively with Legacy Code". I highly recommend reading it if you are in this situation -- and I expect most of us are. In any case, the decision to rewrite is fundamentally a technical one.
On the other hand, a policy of maintaining backward compatibility, while it has implications for the development team, is purely a business decision. Yes, it can put a great burden on a development team and seriously hamper the delivery of new features, but any manager would be aware of this and of the potential cost in new customer accounts. At the same time, it minimizes disruption for existing customers -- customers who might be driven into your competitors' arms if you are too quick to put out compatibility breaking changes. Anybody who thinks this is an easy call should read Clayton Christensen's book, "The Innovator's Dilemma".
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that current products are fast enough to cover their poor design is another matter.
Since we tested it on dozens of machines with higher spec and it wasn't acceptable, I am dubious of your claim that it will run on that machine with all the features in an acceptable way.
That aside, what exactly does Vista bring to the table? Nothing. All the features that would have made this OS an actual improved new OS were stripped out. SO know we have a bloated OS that has no value add and can't justify the expense of a roll out.
Failure.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple just "does" it, they don't pre-announce years in advance.
That's very true. The reasons are more to do with where each company is in the market though. Apple doesn't have much to lose if some applications don't maintain backward compatibility. Microsoft has a hell of a lot to lose. Shit, Apple just announced they were ditching Carbon for the fully 64 bit version of OSX. That means a lot of re-development, and incompatibility of apps. For Microsoft when you're at the front of the race you've got a LOT more to lose than anyone else.
The other major difference is Apple doesn't have this horrid codebase that Microsoft does. They went through their transition pretty recently having ditched all their legacy code long ago. Essentially OSX and Linux are light on their feet, modular, and can turn on a dime. Windows is the hulking giant dinosaur that takes years to realize it-ain't-gonna-work.
Re:Here we go again, eh? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Here's what you guys need to do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some issues I have with his comments (Score:2, Insightful)
To all those people who tout linux as being the best they are quite ignorant. The best is whatever operating system suits your needs. If all you do is email and web surf then any operating system will do. If you are a developer then maybe Linux/Unix is better suited for you. If you are a gamer then Windows is better for you due to it being both DirectX and OpenGL Compatible.
Did Gartner catch MS in Bed with someone else? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, after some Googling I see that they yanked it out in Vista. Thanks.
No, the GUI has never been part of the Windows NT kernel.
But that's besides the point. Whatever makes Vista eat so much resources has nothing to do with the eye-candy, which you can turn off and still get a dog-slow machine. The same amount of memory would run MacOS or Ubuntu with aplomb.
OS X in 512MB RAM is _at least_ as painful as Vista (more, IMHO - OS X on my 1Ghz iBook was noticably slower than Vista on my 933Mhz PC). Ubuntu is marginally less so, but still slow, especially once you start to load it up with equivalent functionality (to the degree that you can).
4G of RAM today costs less than a hundred bucks. Given the significant and noticable performance benefits, having less than 2G is just silly, regardless of what your OS is.
Especially, compared to OS X, Vista's hardware requirements are not at all "high". You need similar amounts of hardware to get similar amounts of performance out of both of them.
It's really the manufacturer's fault. They should sell a no-RAM option for people like me, or enough RAM to run the OS it is loaded with. None of this "Vista with half a gig" crap. Though to be fair, Dell now seems to include 1GB standard, which may very well be enough to run Vista for most Web/Email folks.
The biggest problem is that manufacturers prefer to spec higher speed CPUs and beefier video cards, when by far the biggest improvement for most people will come from increasing RAM.
Re:students will hack *anything* (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, it's about raising barriers. Sure, if you're a determined hacker, you can probably break the system. But we're talking about a friggin' library, here, not the NSA.
Re:Here we go again, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can tell me that Linux is a competitor when a significant percentage of 'must have' PC software runs natively on a Linux installation without jumping through hoops.
Will AutoCad run on Linux? Will Photoshop run on Linux? Is desktop media creation simple and streamlined on Linux? Will my 25$ generic webcam from Wal-Mart work on Linux? If I call Comcast because I can't connect to the internet, will they troubleshoot for Linux? Can I connect my Xbox 360 to Linux? Can I play Crysis on Linux? How about the Sims?
Come back with your 'viable competitor' talk when you can answer half of those basic usage questions with a 'yes'.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
> should they even try to make the iPhone OS X run on such a device?
Why? Because the original OS that OS X is based on would be quite happy
running on something as fast as a 133Mhz and a whole 16MB of RAM.
This includes Mach, FreeBSD and NeXTstep.
The same is also true of any other Unix.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing but shamless pandering (Score:4, Insightful)
Any software developer knows that 'radical changes' to working (however imperfectly) code is a bad idea. The only thing really wrong with Vista (other than the necessity of all those graphics in the first place, which boils down to a matter of opinion) is the video drivers, which can be blamed on Nvidia and ATI, not Microsoft. I get similar problems using the proprietary binary drivers on Linux from time to time as well though. It usually only crashes Xwindows rather than requiring a reboot, but you probably shouldn't be running a 3d graphics on a machine with uptime requirements in the first place.
Mr. Silver and Mr. MacDonald are either:
a) Complete morons
b) Covert Linux enthusiasts frustrated by Linux's slow advances in the desktop space
c) Very knowledgeable about the direct relationship between sensationalism and ratings and lack thereof between intelligent analysis and ratings
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why I'm still with Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a pity, really, because the other benefits of Linux you mention (adding and removing software as well as the benefits that OSS brings) are quite remarkable.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
The NT/XP/Vista series of kernels is seriously bloated: it has all sorts of crap that gives operating system "designers" a woody but ends up being useless in practice. The Vista kernel is probably the most bloated kernel ever written.
Rubbish. Vista runs fine on the modern-day machines it was "designed for".
Then Microsoft screwed up and designed for the wrong kind of machine, because really "modern day" machines are the $200 fanless book PC, the iPhone-like UMPC, and the $300 Eee PC. Fewer and fewer people want noisy, expensive behemoths just to get eye candy (and Linux manages to deliver the eye candy on the $200 PC anyway).
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here's what you guys need to do... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are some excellent open source tools out there, but the fact of the matter is, people are shallow. (Oh, I know...you're not...but everybody else is.) They will generally look at an interface first and what the product does second. That's not to say that a crap product will be used if the interface is beautiful, but a pretty interface makes someone like that thing a lot more. (The same is true with people.)
So, you can say, "Too f'ing bad" all you want. Go for it. But as long as that attitude prevails, and FOSS product don't focus on their presentation, then they will not draw the crowds that they hope to draw.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
You must not do anything interesting in IT.
Those are just toys, I am talking about the real good stuff that was scrapped. I mean really, calling stuff that other systems have had for years, or was available through other programs in windows 'new features' is a bit rich.
I am talking about the three pillars.
Normally I don't like waving the 'I've been doing X for this long' dick waving, but since you bring it up.
I wrote my first Program in 81. I have been following what is not called Vista pre-longhorn. I remember in 99 when they where talking about it's development progress in the Microsoft paper. I worked at a company that had a MS partnership agreement for pre-beta Vista and pre-beta office. I have been up to my elbows in the bits of vista for a while.
"Suckered by Intel"? no, they weren't they knew what they where doing and they knew they where being deceitful.
Not being able to run all the features of a product means the product doesn't work.
Shit, I could write an OS, Again, that won't be able to use all it's capabilities for 4 years from release and I would not call it ready or done. Creating something that can't be used in a practicable manner is bad, and stupid, and deceitful.
SO you enjoy your toys, Microsoft's lies, and the nice blinders you have bolted onto your brain, but Vista was not ready, and brings nothing new or useful to the corporate world. In fact it introduces a risk, as would any new OS.
Good OS's mature, bad ones age. Interesting that about the time a MS OS begins to hit the mature stage it's phased out. Yes, it takes years for an OS to mature.
Re:Here we go again, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
None of these questions matter to someone who just wants to surf the Internet, write papers, etc. There are huge numbers of people who never need to do any of those things above.
Why would a non-tech-savvy user call Comcast due to a technical problem? Most likely the first person they call will be their tech-savvy friend, probably the same one who hooked them up with Ubuntu.
There are lots of programmers out there who use Linux at home. They are the ones putting pressure at work on the bosses to give serious thought to Linux support. The base of Linux users is growing every day. As more people use it, it looks more viable every day to port applications to it.
It's only a matter of time.
Re:Here we go again, eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
What you write is still true for the kind of person who spends $2k and up on a system. But for those spending hundreds rather than thousands, they generally are perfectly happy to play Internet games, use Internet media programs, and Internet office suites. Or to use their free Linux equivalents. If they even notice a difference.
Even Microsoft knows that a long-term bet on Windows is not a great idea, which is why they're willing to pay $45 bn for a tattered-looking Yahoo.
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have some issues with The Steve, but I have to give him credit for the ability to think bold thoughts. Ballmer mistakes bullying for bravery.
Re:Why I'm still with Linux (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this argument is incorrect. MS doesn't spend a lot of time making their OS work on every hardware combination, rather because of their monopoly position they can just release whatever they have knowing that hardware makers will write their own drivers and do whatever else is needed to make it work with Windows, since otherwise they aren't going to make any sales. Heck, Vista has removed hardware support for some motherboards and even things like TCP/IP over Firewire. MS isn't the one doing the work to make Vista work on all hardware and hardware makers will even change their hardware designs in order to make them work with Windows.
Apple, on the other hand, targets a subset of hardware themselves and works with the hardware vendors to make it work, and deals with extremely large problems getting drivers for and third-party add on hardware like video card upgrades, web cams, external drives, etc. A lot more of that work does require Apple to intervene and make things really easy for hardware makers, because they usually can afford to walk away from providing mac support if it is problematic.
Apple makes whole computers and won't license their OS to OEMs (who do most of the work making hardware run with an OS) because the market is destroyed at this point. They even tried going that route back in the 90s and had to cancel it not because of hardware support problems, but because they were damaging their brand because a lot of the OEMs were using really cheap and crappy hardware that often failed and at the same time had the same bullet points as Apple's hardware but at a lower price. Basically, when the desktop OS market is monopolized, try to compete therr is a doomed venture and Apple and several other vendors discovered.
Apple ties their hardware and OS because it allows them to sell systems based upon the features of the OS, while at the same time competing in the computer system market which is still relatively healthy (against Dell, Sony, etc.) instead of trying to compete against MS in the desktop OS market, which has been completely undermined by MS's monopoly.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you forget about how quickly Apple shifted from PPC to x86? Or, more recently, how Apple shafted Adobe by dropping 64-bit Carbon at the last minute? That does affect purchases of desktops/laptops.
Sigh. Switching platforms did not affect us at all since, we obviously waited a year or so after the switch for things to stabilize. They had announced it in advance so we had plenty of notice and our reseller had no problem supplying PPC systems to us. As for 64-bit Carbon support, why would that affect us at all? It just mean Adobe used a work around for people that needed huge amounts of RAM in Photoshop. Sure some of us used photoshop, but it was no problem at all. It was not any more of a bother than IBM selling out to Lenovo... which is to say none at all.
...I work on a Windows machine because the UI is cleaner and the applications I want run better on it (and yes, Visual Studio is far better than XCode), which, along with the horrible interface of OS X...
So I actually have done significant UI design, including going back to school for it a bit and going to numerous conferences and training session over the last 5 years or so. Your opinion about OS X's UI is well, let's just say somewhat different than that of the professional UI design community, especially compared to Windows.
...the fact that I enjoy playing PC games, ensure I use a Windows desktop...
Wait are we talking about work or home use here? I stick with one laptop for both mostly. I could boot it into Windows to play a game or run the game in Windows in a VM. I don't bother. I, like most gamers are what you call a casual gamer. I buy a couple of games a year and play when I'm not busy with something else. I don't buy special hardware for gaming or devote a lot of time or money to it. I certainly don't buy a dedicated gaming box. So usually, I just buy Mac versions of games. Of the top selling 10 PC titles of 2007, 9 have a native OS X version. I've never had a problem finding a few games to buy.
Trying to pigeonhole me into being some kind of Microsoft fanboy is kind of funny, and a little sad. About the only bias I have is that I don't like Apple.
Admitting a bias doesn't make it rational. Besides I said you enthusiasm for Microsoft was nuts, especially in areas where they are terrible, like UI design.
I can't run Active Directory or effectively support Windows clients via Linux servers.
Ahh, yes, I believe MS lost an antitrust lawsuit about that just recently, huh? Linux is inferior in areas where MS has committed crimes to keep it so. Still, practicality and all if you need Active Directory you do... and I'd argue you're probably already screwed.
In a "small business", I strongly doubt you need 100 people connected to a server at the same time (because CALs can be used by multiple users, just not concurrently).
Umm, small business is generally 10-500 employees in my book. You could easily need 100 connections to the server.
And in fact there's Small Business Server on the Windows side, though 2008 hasn't been released yet;
Not much of an option then is it?
If you think you need 100 CALs, you probably need to rethink your business model. If you really do need 100 CALs for Windows Server, it'll run you about $9000.
Umm, in my business a growing head count is a good thing and generally a sign of success. Anyway, the $16,000 was an estimate from Microsoft's Web site. Go take a look yourself.
But with OS X Server, you simply get less functionality, especially if you aren't using OS X desktops.
Actually, I find that OS X is more functional in general in mixed environments. That is to say, If you have clients that are Linux and OS X and Windows and possibly other platforms, it works much better t