Why Microsoft Should Fear Bandwidth

Mike writes "Microsoft should fear increasing bandwidth to the consumer more than any other single factor as a threat to their monopoly. The average user has no desire to be the sysadmin of their machine(s), and telcos and cable companies would be glad to take this task from them -- for a nominal fee, of course, as application service providers. The PC as we know it probably only has a decade or so left."

Comments

Not the only reason

[SouperIan]

For those who didn't read the article, the reason why Microsoft should fear bandwidth is that control of the computers will be turned over from the home user to a remote company. That is a good enough reason in its own right, but there are other reasons for MS to fear high-bandwidth connections. People stuck on a dial-up are less likely to be able to download Linux and other OSS. The propogation(sp?) rate of viruses, worms and other malware greatly increases because always-on connections spread them constantly - and quicker, which helps to highlight weaknesses in Windows.

Re:Ho hum.

[dilbertspace]

I'm the author the article. The "network is the computer" was a false start because the bandwidth was not there. Now, it is getting to be there -- and with spam, spyware, adware, phishing schemes, increasing viruses, the average user is way out of his league in dealing with the challenges of modern computing. Long past are the days where one could leave a Windows 98 machine (or Windows 2000, or XP, take your pick) connected to the Internet for days at a time, unpatched. My point, which I should have made clearer, is that the "network-is-the-computer" approach didn't work because the bandwidth simply was not there. Now it is getting to be. With spyware, adware, malware of all stripes dominating the news, and the average user's computer, people will be much more inclined now and in the near future to use an ASP model. I hope that clarifies my arguments a bit.

Re:I'll believe it....

[JPriest]

Exactly, people complain about XP's startup time as it is, now they want to host all their apps and the OS on a network drive at the ISP's head end? Why does this make more sense? Users can simply still run a virus that will just fsck their files over the network drive.

Re:pay up sucka

[JPriest]

As a matter of fact, Microsoft is already leading this market with Windows terminal services. Basically the client systems are diskless, they look like a cable modem with a vid card. I have seen them used in hospitals etc. Sun has a similar system with the Sun Ray, but they seem to be losing popularity.

Re:I can't wait

[TheGratefulNet]

short: my whole world is vnc. I live in it. it works.

longer: I have a freebsd server that is up 7x24. it holds my 'state'. my desktop and all the windows (xterms, browsers, debug windows, whatever). its in my 'server room' which I allow to be a bit noisier and I can close the door off, etc.

in the living areas, I can use 'floating' laptops or a desktop in the living room. that one usually runs XP since XP talks well enough to its connected hardware (ethernet cards, video cards, .11g cards, etc). and vncviewer sitting on top of XP on top of gig-ethernet - its QUITE a good 'thin client'. really, its extremely fast - faster than vncviewer sitting on top of X11 on top of any unix. the vnc client-over-XP is fast enough that with a point to switched gig-e or even fastEther connection between the client (xp) and server (freebsd) - when I move windows opaquely around on my 'desktop' its damned near as fast as a local move.

other advantage: I can have multiple viewers (even with write access) on at the same time. the laptop in the bedroom on wireless can see the same persistent desktop that the living room XP/gig-e client sees. I can enable power-saving on the desktops and laptops (works well in XP) and have the clients auto shutdown or hibernate after a timeout. I simply press the power switch and come back from hiber (very fast) and re-run vncviewer and bingo - my old (year old) desktop is back again. (I think most people have never ever had this experience of a persistent computer desktop that lasts in the months and even years).

I've been doing it that way for over 2 yrs now. works very very well. I get uptimes in the years for my 'desktop'. vncserver on freebsd is a GREAT server combo and is stable as it gets.

don't tell me vnc isn't the answer. everything I see and type is via a vnc connection (currently on a wireless xp laptop and having NO interface speed or lag issues at all. you wouldn't know you weren't actually local.)