Slashdot Mirror
The Relevance of Windows
Josh Fink writes "ZDNet has up an article exploring whether of not Windows is still relevant. In the age of 'Web 2.0' both older folks who remember the days before Windows and younger folks who have never known anything else are beginning to see Microsoft's offering as old news. From the article: 'Before closing the books on the Age of Windows, however, let's not get too caught up in the fashion of the moment. The water-cooler crowd may take a dim view of "Win-doze" for all the right reasons. Still, Microsoft's archrivals continue to view it as a product with a potentially make-or-break impact on their businesses. In fact, two of them--Adobe Systems and Symantec--are lobbying European regulators to get tough on Microsoft. The European Union already has an unresolved antitrust dispute with Microsoft, and Adobe and Symantec would be silly not to play that card for all it's worth. So this is what they're doing.'"
I read an interesting article about the operating system being dead and it contained the choice between a machine with your favorite operating system or a machine with your most hated current OS but with access to the internet.
And, you know what? I must admit that I would take the machine that had the connection to the internet regardless of what current OS it had on it.
So, not only is Windows no longer relevant, but the functionality of the operating system itself may have been trumped by our ability to communicate with other people. This doesn't invalidate operating system arguments but it does cause one to wonder about what is really important when you're getting a machine to work & play on.
My work here is dung.
For my friends and family Windows are relevant, because Office is relevant. It's sad, because otherwise many of them would strongly consider buying a Mac. (Which would be a huge win both for them and for me, for I would no longer have to fix the broken Windows XP boxes...)
The sky is falling, pigs are flying, and the market leader is irrelevant?
Who writes this shit? Or worse, posts it as news.
Every computer still needs an operating system. Microsoft has huge amounts of mindshare and vendor lock-in going on with plenty of companies, and that's where the real money is.
that doesn't mean that i want to have to use it for anything. it's ms' right to include whatever they want in their os, in my opinion. it's also my right to prefer os x or linux (or my old vic 20) to using windows.
i think the software companies involved in the whining are just trying to save an obsolete business model, kind of like the music companies complaining about itunes selling music too cheap or the movie studios trying to keep anyone from hacking the encryption on their dvds.
as far as the security thing goes, i don't really have any sympathy for the av companies, but at the same time i'm not sure ms' track record gives me any reason to believe they can handle the security of my computer. of course, my only windows machine is my company issue dell laptop, and it's probably going to die of an exploding battery or me chucking it out the window when i get frustrated trying to use it before it gets a virus anyway.
This space intentionally left blank
Symantec!?! These guys have a business that depend entirely on Microsoft continuing to deliver a horribly insecure OS. They're not arguing that Microsoft is unfairly competing with Symantec's "market" - they're really complaining that Microsoft is finally fixing bugs that never should have existed to begin with. They should have known that their "patches until Microsoft fixes it" (which is what AV software really is) product wouldn't be a big-money business after Microsoft (eventually) fixed things. And Adobe - it seems like formating a text document hasn't been innovative since TeX - and if Microsoft makes that easier, I say more power to them.
Don't get me wrong - I don't love Microsoft - but I'd hate to see Adobe make pretty-printing proprietary in Linux or Windows - and I'd hate to see Symantec claim that patches are proprietary for Linux or Windows.
to the following groups:
- gamers, who have specific games which exist on specific platforms
- programmers, who have code, and tools, and toolkits, some of which may be platform specific
- Anyone who has been "around awhile" and has invested dollars in software. For example, software I still use on a regular basis under Windows predates 2000 and I don't see a Linux offering worth giving it up for.
... is misleading. It should read "The Relevance of History" Since all TFA discusses is Microsoft's willingness to "Embrace, Extend, and Extenguish" competition. Recounting the demise of Netscape, and the decline of 3rd party memory managers, disk defragmenters, and other utilities, that are now a part of Windows, it seems that Adobe and the security comunity (PDF, AV, AntiSpyware, ect.) are now in the same boat.
The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
Maybe I'm getting my history wrong, but weren't analysts saying the same thing during the age of "Web 1.0"?
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
In exactly the same way a bad rash is relevant.
Thinking outside my Head
it was written..
c ase
"The European Union already has an unresolved antitrust dispute with Microsoft, and Adobe and Symantec would be silly not to play that card for all it's worth."
When was the US antitrust suit settled?
Last I really knew about it, they managed to get it all tossed out except the monopoly ruling, then
George Bush came to be.... and they got a 'get out of jail, free' card, so to speak.
So, when was this all settled?
According to the Wikipedia article on this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_antitrust_
It has not been finalized... so.. Perhaps they should be lobbying here in the states too.
(In Europe they are more likely to DO something about it, however.)
Words about Windows relevance or irrelevance are easily thrown out in the plublic without thinking of what they really mean.
I imagine a world where Windows is banned and replaced with Ubuntu (for the sake of argument). Imagine your family installing and updating software from CLI or giving up your favorite software or games.
Imagine relearning all they know about their desktop in a Linux environment.
Windows also has a lot of software not offered on other platforms, such as Photoshop, Flash (the IDE), Dreamweaver, 3DSMax and so on.
The Linux alternatives for a designer are mostly jokes (like Gimp, where you can't even draw a rounded rectangle without installing specially crafted Script-Fu commands).
The Mac platform is a lot worse than Windows where I'm locked not only into proprietary OS (which is outdated every year and you have to re-buy it), but also proprietary hardware which you can't upgrade any better than a laptop (add some RAM, a DVD.. and that's it.. wanna faster processor on your iMac? throw away the whole machine and buy a new one).
If adobe was serious about fending off Microsoft they would offer a linux and bsd binary version of their creative suite. along with providing official support for use with at least one common disto.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I'd say the answer to that 'either/or' question is, as always, it depends.
It depends on what you need to do.
For everyday browsing/email/word processing, yes, internet is more important than underlying OS. For other things, it is not.
"Blah blah blah." - [citation needed]
Adobe and Symantec are perfect examples of why Windows isrelevant. Software companies are not properly supporting other operating systems. Although Adobe still builds graphics apps for the Mac, they support for Linux is, at best, tepid; they rarely even bother supporting Mac on non-graphics applications, such as Audition (formerly Cool Edit Pro, which they acquired years ago). Symantec's support for non-Windows operating sytems is anything but legendary (ex. management console for corporate AV is all Windows).
1) People who drag lawyers into a tech contest are already on the losing end. (Like you, SCO.)
2) If many people feel the need to get a whole continent's regulatory arm fired up about X, then yes, X is relevant.
A million dollar Luger, or this, with bullets?
I'm here all week...
I come here for the love
We are the borg, lower your ICF and power down your IDS, you will be assimilated. Your buggy code and bloated features will be added to our own, windows is futile.
This argument reminds me of the Ford attitude twards the public when it came to the Model T. They didn't see any need to change with the times and in fact kept producing the same model for about three years after the public and most other car manufacturers of the time had moved on. They had to play catch up. Admittedly this brought about the Model A, but the point is that they (Microsoft) can lead or scramble to get with the rest of the world. Relevance changes very quicly.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
First, this idea of a web-only network computer type world is great for the readers of Slashdot and ZDNet where complaints of my 6Mb pipe getting enough throughput. People tend to forget that broadband is not universal in this country even for businesses. 70% percent of all US businesses are less than 10 people which equates to 1 Trillion dollars in revenues, this is the foundation of our environement. Only about half of these small business have broadband access, so you expect them to dial up to use a AJAX version of QuickBooks? Go out side the US and it gets worse, there are major manufacturing firms in Asia and India who power is still an issue let alone bandwidth. ASP, SaaS, and Web 2.0 is not an option for a large segment of businesses worldwide and will not be for years to come. Local OSes will be needed for the decade to come for most businesses. Businesses drive the majority of software revenue.
First of all, as everybody else is pointing out, Microsoft Office works on the Mac.
But, perhaps more importantly, so does NeoOffice, which is a more than adequate replacement for most users. I have MS Office on my Mac and I still use NeoOffice anyway because it interoperates better with Linux and because I prefer the UI.
And for most people, Pages+Keynote is probably a better choice than either MS Office or NeoOffice anyway: less bloated and easier to learn.
I don't know if people on Windows only use word processing and spreadsheet programs, but I really don't see programs such as iMovie or iDVD running in a "Web 2.0" environment (or even a higher "version number"). Especially if Microsoft keeps dragging its feet with web standards support in their browser.
The faster our computers get, the more relevant Java might become. Or even Flash (shudder).
He reiterated the basic difference in philosophy between Sun and MS take on what your computer is. He did a demo of his JavaCard and walked up to a random workstation what became his within a few seconds. he went on to explain that MS believes the physical computer you hold is all your informatio, Sun believes the network is the computer. His analogy was that you don't carry all your money around in a briefcase, you put it in a bank and then access it when you need some of it. But we're perfectly happy carrying all our information around in a box, typically with little or no safety net. It looks like it may not be Sun who points us towards the information appliance with their name on it, but maybe Web 2.0 services that make it so that I can have my info (where-ever) and get it where I need to. I have to say with NeoOffice and Google Writely and Spreadsheets available, not to mention possible links to new Mac apps and .mac services, I can't imagine why I'll be paying full price for Office 2007 Now With Ribbons. And I'd love to see my Java Ring gain all that functionality.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Why is that relevent to Windows?
Is someone suggesting that Web 2.0 will replace Windows? Are they saying the web will be the OS?
Web 2.0 is nothing if you have a emphasis disconnected computer. Web 2.0 apps are nothing if any number of things go wrong with a connected system. Web 2.0 is slower than snot, even with broadband, hell, just look at PageFlakes, one of the top W2.0 portals, it's buggy as Hell if there's a hiccup in any of the connected systems.
Web 2.0 is not relevent to a discussion about OS. It's a pretty buzz word that authors use to show they are hip to the new trend. Toss it in, throw it away.
Windows will continue to be relevent as long as it has at least the same market share in desktop and server deployments that Linux and Apple have.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
I find that most people can barely tell the difference between Windows, OS X, and Linux for day-to-day usage. Some of the applications are identical (OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbid, Gaim), and others are pretty similar (web browsers, chat programs, etc.). The biggest difference is in system management and software installation. Windows loses in that regard hands-down. Mac and Linux are comparable, with each having their own strengths and weaknesses.
With VMWare giving away their Player, the game has changed. OS bigotry is a tired game played by people who have too much time on their hands.
The reality is that Windows supports more hardware out of the box than any flavor of *nix does because there's an enconomic incentive to support the hardware. Why did we have to wait YEARS for any flavor of *nix to support 802.11 let alone WPA without jumping through hoops and *gasp* loading a Windows NDIS driver via a wrapper and *still* having to hack config files manually?
I have a RAID controler that I'm still waiting for a *nix driver.
I'm done.
Now I boot with Windows (which license came with the machine) to run Fedora in a VM -- ALL my hardware is supported and when I want to upgrade my hardware, my VM config does not change one iota. Clean.
Thank you VMWare for bringing sanity to this petty flame war.
In the age of "web 2.0", I still do not want to use a web browser as a runtime for:
- Word processing
- Spreadsheets
- Gaming
- Email
- Photo/Video editing
- Pretty much any application that needs a rich UI
While DHTML/AJAX are nice technologies for web applications, there are far too many applications in which I do not what to use a web browser for. I even post to blogs via a smart client, and I wish you could reply to forums to do the same. Sure, I can use a Mac or Linux for these things, but for now at least I prefer Windows.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
It's too popular.
The ______ Agenda
If you find the differences between Mac Word and Windows Word to be that "scary," God help you when you switch to Vista and the new version of Office...
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It's clearly not a matter of if, but when and how it will happen. I read an interesting article about how Software as a Service and Open Source software could play a role here beyond the LAMP stack.
This is why windows will still be relevant, I just ordered my mom a dell system with a monitor for $500. It comes with windows, I unpack the computer hook it up, install office, subscribe to anti-virus subscription, and make sure windows updates are set to automatically download and install. After this I bet I will never have to touch this computer for her again until she is ready to buy a new one. She will be able to telecommute to work, she will be able to surf the internet, get email, do her taxes, edit he pictures from her camera and do it quickly, reliably, and with no hassle at all. For most people this is the reality of windows, it isn't this unstable, BSOD throwing, pile of crap everyone makes it out to be. With a little caution towards security on the users part there is nothing it cant do for the average computer user.
You would never have to make that choice. The point is, the web browser needs *some* sort of OS to run on. And what are the servers that host these web applications running on? An OS, of course.
I remember all of this going around during DotCom boom 1.0 right before Win ME and 2000 came out.
Then the dotcom crash happened and people quit asking the question, as Microsoft was one of the few stable pillars of the IT industry for a year or so.
I predict pretty much the same thing this time around.
You say you want a revolution....
Yes.
...I got nothing.
With a 95+% share of the overall market and a nearly 100% share of the corporate (250+ employees) windows remains very relevant. There is a whole "ecosystem" of windows that will keep it around for a long time.
./'er argue about the relevancy of (pick one) Mac OS X, desktop Linux, Amigas, etc. The real question is should anyone care about the Mac? Will that be around for the next 5 years?
./.
Yet with less than 5% share and almost 0% of the corporate market, the
There seems to be a "distortion effect" on
Imagine relearning all they know about their desktop in a Linux environment.
Sorry ??? Who makes me re-learn everything for each upgrade ? Windows does ! All tools change their names, there's no consistency in the programs naming scheme, and you're on your own to discover what those pesky radio buttons do in each and every config panel. On the other hand, when you face any linux flavour, you know that at least your CLI works the same, and basic things like an editor and a handful of other utilities will work just the same as everywhere else. All my linux learning has always been additive, I've never had to trash any previously hard acquired knowledge. Can't say that about windows.
I'd be happy to change to a non-Microsoft operating system right now. I'd even spend some money to do it, but I've got a handful of programs that I just can't run on anything but Windows, and that's a stopper for me.
If I can't load Adobe Premiere, or Sonar or Eve-Online in Linux or OSX, it's no good to me. I'd even be happy to switch from Sonar back to Logic Audio Platinum and I can run Premiere on a Mac, but still there's Eve-Online.
If I even have to WORRY about whether I can run my favorite apps, I'm not going to change to a different OS, even if there are lots of reasons for me to do so.
I know from experience that I can work longer, with less fatigue, on a Mac than on Windows or Linux. I prefer the look and feel of OSX. I love the idea of open source operating systems, and I like the way Linux can be made bulletproof without sacrificing all sorts of performance and resources. But still... I can't run my favorite apps.
So who's got to change, me or the manufacturers? Am I supposed to switch to Linux with the hope that if enough of us do so the software manufacturers will start to port their apps over to Linux? I don't have time for that.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This is, quite frankly, a pretty trivial comment.
If there was a huge requirement for Linux that was "grandma friendly," Linux distributions that were even easier to use than they are today would be created. Nonwithstanding that I have serious doubts that you've ever used Ubuntu or any of the other current 'easy' distros (where you never need to use the CLI to install software), the approach that they take towards ease-of-use is a reflection of the people who are interested in them: computer enthuasiasts and ex-Windows refugees who are willing to experiment with stuff. Given that this is their market, they're dead simple.
While Windows is basically a take-it-or-leave-it proposition -- if you don't like the way Windows does something, unless you have an in with somebody at Microsoft, you are shit outta luck -- any significant user demand for something in Linux usually produces a version or fork of the software that caters to it. Hence there are far more distributions of Linux than there are versions of Windows.
If God decreed next Monday that Windows was no more, you can bet that by Tuesday, people would be working on making a version of Linux that catered to people who needed something with about five icons on the entire desktop. (And somebody else would probably make one that simulated a Windows XP desktop as closely as possible, etc.) That such things either don't exist today, or (more likely) exist but aren't popular, is less a reflection of Linux per se, than of the people who currently choose to use Linux.
If Linux isn't "grandma friendly" (and I'm not saying that it's necessarily not, as I'm sure other people will attest to, but if it's not), then it's probably because there's perceived to be insufficent demand for a truly dead-easy-to-use (and hence probably somewhat inflexible) distribution. Software gets written for the userbase that the programmers believe exist, both on the commercial and OSS side.
Not dissimilarly, 3DSMax and Photoshop don't exist for Linux, because their respective owners think that the demand for the application on the platform is insufficient to warrant the effort to port it. If everyone was using Linux, doubtless both would exist.
What drives Windows is inertia; it has 90+% marketshare, therefore people use it, developers develop for it, and there's very little public demand for an alternative. It has no technical or usability superiority that couldn't be replicated elsewhere, if there was a reason to. But Microsoft bundles it in with new hardware and sells it at a price-point that's sufficiently below the "point of pain" so that most people just don't mind using it that much.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
How can it not be relevant when it is sat on 90%+ of PCs and laptops? As much as we'd all love to see Windows gone, the fact is for the majority of the population "Internet" or word processing means M$. Outside of IT most people have never heard of Linux/Unix or other alternative OSs. For those that think the OS is irrelevant here, just remember that IT has been through this cycle before with the old thin client debate. Sure we're in a better position now than before, but browsers/webservices have a long way to go before coming close to the the functionality supplied by software running on top of a local OS installation. And by the time browser as platform becomes reality it would also mean Linux as a desktop OS becomes irrelevant as well. I'll also bet a lot of software companies will be fighting tooth and nail for M$ as their businesses have been built around windows software for PCs.
If you think today is "Web 2.0" then wait until vista launches. The Avalon, XAML, WinFX, .NET 3.0, Messenger, Live Anywhere and other frameworks being designed & implemented on this platform will blow you away and make the "web 2.0" look like web 1.1.
I'm not sure what vision you see, but the one i see unfolding in front of me seems rather healthy, visionary and exciting to be a part of.
I see it for linux as well, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking this "Web 2.0" is a new paradigm when we haven't even scratched the surface of what the web is about - yet alone how vista can "Extend and embrace" or "extend and assimilate" as slashdotters like to put it.
The OS is an enabler - not just an access point. Don't limit your limited views and opinions of vista just off a pretty gui and then say it doesn't match the future of computing while you blatently ignore the groundwork and foundations built within that will blow you away.
Just do a quick google/yahoo/live/a9 search for the above frameworks and see what is already coming about. Games that are lightweight, fast and visually appealing, applications that feel more native than flash/ajax could ever feel and integration and security tied in better then most people care to recognize. (application zones, phishing filters, signed applications). Sure there are tons of other technologies that can piecemill stuff together but Vista is an enabler for everything microsoft has tried to snap in and finally will be able to.
Please elaborate. I would like to know specifically what you can do on the Windows version that you can't do on the Mac version. These must be functionality difference, so you can't say "keyboard shortcut XYZ doesn't work on the Mac," since the Mac version likely uses a different keyboard shortcut. Also, your calling it a "scary application" indicates your tolerance for difference.
For most things I have to do I can usually map the suggestions in HowTo articles aimed at the Windows version of MS Office more or less directly to the MS Office 2004 programs on my MacBook Pro but there are still some differences in functionality and number of features between Word/Excel/Powerpoint for Mac and the Windows versions. From what I have been told by MS Office power-users the Mac version usually limps behind the Windows version in terms of features. Personally I am plenty happy with Office for Mac, even when I am writing illustrated manuals or books up to 150 pages long, but for power users the lack of support for some advanced features in Windows and Excel in particular is a deal breaker. Another major gripe that people have with Office for Mac is that they just bought a new Intel Mac and although every other application just races ahead on the new machine, MS Office for Mac is dog slow. This is of course because Office is running on top of Apple's Rosetta but most regular users don't stop to think about the implications of that fact, all they care about is that Office for Mac is dog slow. I'll be interested in seeing how the next version of MS Office runs on the Intel Macs because MS Office 2004 pretty much sucked on my old G4 Powerbook but that wasn't Microsoft's fault. The G4 processor was simply in dire need of replacement. Then there is also the Aqua port of Open Office which seems to be coming along fine but they need developers.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Of course symantec would think windows is a make-or-break for them! I beg of you - what other operating system even *needs* an antivirus?
This article is as fine an example of journalism as it was when I first read it in 1995. Every so often some bean counter or techie who hasn't ventured into the real world in years likes to trumpet the arriving end of the "Win-doze" era. Many articles proclaimed it when IBM beat MS to market with Warp. Gartner trumpeted the arrival of true network computing with the "Thin Client" model and Citrix in 96. The actual result was simply an easier way to serve a Windows desktop or program. Today many people carry the banner for for JAVA and all of the promise it holds, factually .NET programing tools currently account for 60% of the developement market and java development is on the decline http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1995497,00.as p?kc=EWNAVEMNL072806EOAD. The rest of the world keeps moving forward realizing that a computer is just a another tool to accomplish the variety of tasks they need to complete eveyday and the Windows box offers the greatest range of off the shelf software, the most extensive range of development tools, and the greatest compatibility with new hardware. The greatest threat to MS is not that it's OS becomes irrelevant but rather the next idea in sharing information (perhaps cell phone \ PDA \ MP3 players). Those who continue to try to re-invent or duplicate the PC with Linux are not offering anything new but rather a retread of current technology that while not perfect, already exists. Microsoft says "Where do you want to go today?" but the world is saying "Take me where I've never been before".
I swear I didn't know it was loaded...
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Netscape and Java reduced Windows to a collection of buggy device drivers about nine years ago. Oh, wait, that didn't happen? Hmm...
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
When mini's came along they said mainframes were irrelevant.
When PC's came along they said mini's were irrelevant.
The irrelevance of UNIX based OSes is repeated often.
M$ claims Linux is an irrelevant fad, and everyone is waiting for M$ to become irrelevant. During the dot-com boom, they said the web would rule, and PC's were irrelevant.
Will Windows become irrelevant? Not likely, although some versions (like Windows 2.x, etc.) may become a foot note in history.
The Mac platform is a lot worse than Windows where I'm locked not only into proprietary OS (which is outdated every year and you have to re-buy it),
I don't know what "outdated" means (does software grow mold?), but you don't have to "re-buy" anything. I'd claim it's more accurate to say "Mac OS a couple years ago, is where Vista is next year". Most people I know don't upgrade every year. Even upgrading every 2 or 3 versions and you'll do really well feature/performance-wise. And most people replace their computers in 3-5 years, anyway, and the new one comes with a new Mac OS.
but also proprietary hardware which you can't upgrade any better than a laptop (add some RAM, a DVD.. and that's it.. wanna faster processor on your iMac? throw away the whole machine and buy a new one).
Now you're just making things up. Since iMacs use Intel processors these days, they have to have standard sockets, so you can upgrade your CPU just as you would in any other PC. (People have done this, though Apple puts nice enough processors in their computers, generally, that it's not cost-adventageous to do so, yet.)
Ironically, even Apple's laptops can be upgraded more than your list of laptop upgrades: the hard disks in MacBooks are *really* easy to swap out.
Come to think of it, I don't know of *anything* in a Mac that's really "proprietary" any more. There are some cases where it's a bit harder to get Windows XP booting on them because they're not what everybody else is doing, but that's largely because they've picked such new standards to use, like EFI instead of BIOS.
Its a shame we can't mark entire articles as flamebait.
-- pupkick
If this question is being asked, Windows is the new mainframe - the irrelevancy of the mainframe has been predicted as long as I can remember, and it just gets bigger and bigger.
I still keep an xp box so I can play games and troubleshoot problems with my clients who all run windows. My normal websurfing and daily use pc is running Ubuntu. I have already decided that XP will be my last MS Operating System, I am just not very interested in Vista. I think MS is severely underestimating the need and interest in Vista. I have already had one client ask me about alternatives, I am now "evaluating" desktopBSD as a possible solution for them. Another expressed concern about Microsoft requiring hardware upgrades so they can use Vista but felt the need to upgrade anyway. I explained that they can run it stripped down and it would work just like XP to which he responded "If its just like XP then why do we need it?" I didnt have an answer. The next couple of years can be a real time of opportunity for the Linux community, the question is can the community step up to the plate and put aside l33tness for the common good or will we squander it.
This is always the thing that I wonder about. So Windows pricing has been more or less reasonable up to now (in large part because of the pre-installs from every OEM), but what if a new generation of folks were to take over Microsoft, realize that their monopoly position makes it almost impossible for anyone to come out with a viable competitor in any reasonable timeframe and then raise the price by some interesting factor say to something like $500 for every OEM install and $2000 for corporate desktops.
Sure, there'd be some installs of Linspire and some people running MacOS (and maybe Apple would see this as a good time to make MacOS install on lots of machines), but for hard core gamers and especially for corporate IT departments, it would be next to impossible to switch quickly and they'd end up paying quite a premium. Larger corporations with direct contracts with MS would not see the effect for a while, but smaller companies would pretty much have to grin and bear it.
I suspect there'd be quite a bit of piracy, but a few lawsuits from Redmond would take care of that quickly enough (I suspect there'd be a whole mini-ecology of lawyers getting rich on both sides). We already know how well anti-monopoly laws work here.
Unreal Tournament works on Win 95 and Linux. I have no idea if it works on Mac OS, though.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
Symantec has an extremely hefty investment in the windows platform. Symantec has put out fud here and there about open source security precisely because the software is too secure. If an alternative to windows were to gain substantial market share that would mean lost marketshare for Symantec since their AV products wouldn't be needed, used, or even available on that platform.
At the same time Symantec wants all that juicy system internal information that microsoft won't share or charges them out the arse for now.
Lets be real the cost of windows should not be as high as it is, you buy a mac the os is included and everyone gets the same Os other then some are 32-bit some 64-bit os but all on the same DVD
Microsoft guts home then offers pro or Windows media center 2005 which Media center 2002 could join a domain but 2005 can't
one can't justify the pricing for these versions look at what it cost to buy the Mac Os upgrade
Just my view
Lowolf
Good point.
Although, if I ever walk outside my house and see a tool palette hanging in the air above my garage, I think I'd go back inside and lock the door, too.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
As others wrote and as recent Microsoft effort at testing and signing drivers indicates, a lot of instability problems of Windows comes from poor drivers. Drivers written by HW manufacturers.
I also assume that Microsoft and other parties are required to spend a lot of effort to maintain backward compatibility with old drivers while improving the kernel (speed, security, features, ...).
That demonstrates, that even if you do give HW vendors something to ease their work on drivers, you are not always rewarded by excelent drivers from them.
That being said, I agree with you that it is hard for people/companies to provide binary only drivers for Linux kernel.
But those "kernel folks" are trying to save themselves a lot of time by not maintaining a log of backward compatibility layers so that HW manufacturers can spend less time maintaining theirs drivers.
And as those HW companies are "bitching" about "kernel folks", they are "bitching" about Microsoft certifying and signing the drivers too. Why? More effort, thus costs to them.
But.
You (I suppose) as a Windows user (and thus customer of Microsoft) do enjoy benefits from recent Microsoft's efforts even if it hinders your ability to get right away decent (or any) drivers for the HW you purchased. Even if it makes harder for HW vendor to produce drivers.
Same for me, I do enjoy benefits from the efforts of those "kernel folks".
But I do not "purchase" the Linux from those "kernel folks" so they are not obliged to provide drivers for my HW. They ussualy do, and I'm happy for that (even if it is "later"), but I have no right to force them.
On the other hand, I'm giving money to HW manufacturers. That's the reason to get from them not just HW itself, but also drivers.
If the drivers are not provided (and not on my terms, which are essentialy same as those of "kernel folks" - I'm not running Linux because its cheap), then there is no purchase or the purchase goes to other, more willing HW vendor.
Of course, given Linux "market share" my bargaining position is not that strong as those purchasing HW for Windows system, but I have to say that it is getting better (even if there are some temporary hindrances, like with graphics cards or WiFi).
But, IMO, such improvement do not comes thaks to people whose opinions on drivers is similar to yours. To the contrary - I do get good drivers for the Linux from people and companies who do realize at least some points of Open Source and Free Software.
hany
For better or for worse, Windows will remain a software market force to be reckoned with for many years to come.
While the Digerati have long decried the shortcomings of the ubiquitous Microswine, the fact remains that the vast majority of computer users are content with (read:don't care about) the Windows OS and couldn't distinguish between a Linux kernel and Captain Crunch in a police line-up.
As soon as i read "Web 2.0" on the article my mind immediately went into "white noise" mode with intermitent messages of "buzzword filled overhyped crap" and i couldn't read any further.
Could you people please stop feeding the traders trying to re-enact the Internet boom.
Thanks in advance.
Sig link points to domain parking page packed with google adwords spam.
Could somebody make a driver that offers a consistent interface to other drivers?
Small and medium size businesses will adopt web-centric applications because they're more cost effective. The efficiency gains will create a market advantage as staff and management are freed from the office. Once a critical mass is achieved, businesses will be forced to move to the net for lack of competent staff. All the innovative employees will seek employers with the most nimble computing infrastructure.
There's at least two main things I see wrong with your argument. First of all, your percentages sound off. The main reason I'd imagine this is the case is that you're speaking of only the desktop market. But, there's a lot more to computers than desktops. Depending on how you slice it, embedded OSs far outstrip the number of Windows installs available. Yet, at the same time, one can hardly say it's the case that people are somehow tied into supporting those embedded OSs for years to come.
And that leads into the second main point, the relevance of Windows could just as well be questioning the relevance of Mac OS X or Linux or Amiga. The whole point of Web 2.0 and similar technology is to produce platform agnostic applications that remove any sort of vendor lock-in that might exist. If this is actually achieved, then the only real motivation to continue to use Windows is the amount of driver support that already exists. But, it's not hard to imagine that BSD variants could be created by OEMs with new drivers for new hardware that rather mitigates the point for most people.
So, I wouldn't say it's a reality distortion field. I just think you've misunderstood the question, as the article was pointing out that even that which we might find most relevant today might not be at all tomorrow. What better example than Windows?
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Yet with less than 5% share and almost 0% of the corporate market, the ./'er argue about the relevancy of (pick one) Mac OS X, desktop Linux, Amigas, etc. The real question is should anyone care about the Mac? Will that be around for the next 5 years?
Well, I think the main issue is that people HAVE said that about the Mac. Virtually every year from 1984 to the present. And Apple's doing better than ever. Now I can't speak about desktop Linux, and Amiga is dead by any measure, but the reason people don't post "Mac is irrelevant!" is because the other 40,000 people who posted that over the last 20 years all look like idiots.
Comment of the year
Or maybe Adobe and Symantec are irrelevant, too.
OK, Adobe makes some good software, and some not so good software (*cough*Acrobat Reader*cough*). For most uses, free PDF viewers are already better than what Adobe has. Even for Adobe's good software (Photoshop, Illustrator) the free clones are here, and yes they suck, but they're getting better every version. (Remember Linux 0.0.1? It sucked, too.) Linux isn't going away, and Adobe is ignoring Linux. Sorry, Adobe, but you're on the losing end of this proposition.
And Symantec? Are they still around? I remember using them for Mac utilities back when Mac OS didn't really have a lot of features. I don't know any Mac users who use Symantec anything, nor do they seem to be missing it. (Corporate antivirus -- are you serious? Does any platform other than Windows *have* a virus problem that requires a "Corporate AV"?)
If those are the "perfect examples" of why Windows is still relevant, then Windows is well and truly doomed. Huzzah!
This is probably not a popular viewpoint, but having used windows, linux, mac, IRIX and other systems, I prefer linux on my own system but I think Windows is currently the best option we have in the workplace.
For years I have used Linux at home and more recently switched to Mac OS X. A month ago I started a job looking after computers for a small company and my views have rapidly changed. The company I work for uses IT extensively and has several windows servers, SQL server, Exchange, and desktops have Windows XP, MS Office, Great Plains and Biztrack. The system fits together well and allows versatility and management options that just aren't available on Linux and are harder on a Mac.
Users can log on to any desktop to work and get their desktop, documents and application settings loaded seamlessly over a DFS share from their nearest server, authentication for email and for web applications is covered by the Active Directory, their computer is configured by the Group Policy, updates are downloaded on my say so from WSUS without downloading everything multiple times, and I can manage everything from one place with MMC. (Microsoft Management Console.) I have been using Linux at home and work since kernel version 0.92 but it would take a long time to set up a system that well integrated with Linux.
Yes, there are many things that irritate me about the setup I have to use especially as a fanatical Linux user but I am very impressed by the current Microsoft offerings.
A latent existence
BTW, can we get rid of the 'tagging (beta)'? Or at least filter out FUD and NOTFUD? It appears to have become a simple tool in the battle between opposing camps. Those that disagree with the article add a FUD tag and those that disagree add the NOTFUD tag.
I got my start in computers because of my love of gaming. Almost everything I learned that got me started in computers I learned because I needed it for gaming. In every job I've ever had working in anything related to computers every helpdesk phone jocky, network admin, network engineer, infrastructure and deployment specialist as well as about 90% of programmers were also gamers. Sure lots of them liked to do other things too, but we all loved to play games.
We are the ones who influence the decision making and purchase choice. We are the ones who have moved up from phone jockies to department heads. What do you think explains what expansion and growth that has occurred in Open Source deployments? We are all dealing with the legacy of MS marketing to our predecessors who based their decision not on technical choices but marketing and the theoretical ROI studies they used to justify those decisions.
Unfortunately game publishers have very little incentive to develop for any OS other than Windows at this point. They are in it to make a buck and they want the biggest market they can find - for now the easy and clear choice is Windows.
What we need is a reason for some big game developers and publishers to get behind a cross platform environment for their games. Imagine if there was a way for Blizzard to develop World of Warcraft so that you could pop it into any computer and have it run, regardless of the OS? Now imagine being able to do that with your 10 favorite programs regardless of their purpose. I'd bet my life that if that happened you'd see the same technology in business use in a matter of weeks.
People say the same thing different ways all the time but the fact is this: I can find a program to do just about anything I want on just about any OS I choose without MS. The one thing I can't do is make it easy to run most of my games on anything other than Windows.
Politicians are like diapers - they should be changed frequently and for the same reasons.
... users are running Windows on their desktops, and people like me are making a decent living writing code for it.
(Not that I care about the platform, actually. Before Windows I wrote code for other things, and if it were to disappear I would write code for other things. Really really really not a big deal either way.)
If you live in the 21st century. If you're living in a tent in the woods subsisting on rocks and twigs, it probably doesn't matter to you. For the rest of us the economy is powered by people using computers (the vast majority of which are running a Windows operating system).
Sorry, but how is Web 2.0 supposed to make Windows (or any operating system) irrelevant? All the great web apps we're seeing sprout up are new applications (wikis, social networking, etc). There aren't any web apps that replace traditional applications. For all the hype, toys like Writely are not even close to replacing rich client apps like OpenOffice.org, and nobody's even suggested using browser technology to replace Photoshop, or running Half-Life 3 in a browser.
Heck, I still use a separate email client, because webmail just doesn't seem to provide anything valuable, and the interfaces all suck (GMail sucks less, but I still can't imagine wanting to use it).
Web 2.0? Great for Wikipedia and YouTube, but it augments the desktop rather than replacing it. Wake me up when we reach Web 3.0 and browser-based apps can actually replace traditional desktop apps. Oh, wait, that still won't make operating systems irrelevant... it'll just mean that the browser has replaced the old GUI toolkit and that JavaScript has replaced C++ as the standard language for the same old rich-client desktop applications.
Duh... it keeps it the AC inside.
I use Windows XP on my laptop every day. It never BSOD's on me, or gives me much bullshit. It's nowhere near perfect, but nowhere near unusable for me either. I use Firefox, not IE, FYI. Can someone link me a site that lists just how broken Windows really is, because I don't see it.
Slashdot Classic
It still runs about 95% of the world's desktops and laptops that are used to access all the "web 2.0" stuff we all love so much and which is currently being hailed as "the end of the operating system"...
So long as web servers, web clients, etc. have the dependency of requiring an OS to run on, OSs will remain relevant -- just as the hardware on which the OS runs remains relevant. Like hardware, OSs just aren't "hot" or "trendy" anymore among us software people, that's all...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
"With the resource overhead I've seen in the beta version of Vista "hardcore gamers" would have to be retarded to make the switch. It'll only decrease the performance of your games, and all games for the next 3-4 years at least will keep running on XP."
Well, if you buy into the hype, the new video driver architecture and Direct X 10 will increase performance, particularly with shaders. Direct X 10 will be Vista only. So your games may not require DX10, but some features are sure to be DX10 only (same as games that currently have multiple render paths for DX7, 8 and 9).
Of course we'll have to see DX10 vid cards and DX 10 support in games first, but I don't think you are looking at 3-4 years, more like 1-2 before it's commonplace.
The hardcore gamers are the ones likely to upgrade to get these benefits. I'm sure there are plenty of more casual gamers with DX8 level video cards that couldn't care less about DX9 features.
We'll have to wait until Vista is out and DX 10 cards hit the market before we can pass judgement on whether it lives up to the hype.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
I've been able to almost completely dump the PC (my daughter still has one, and I play on that now and again) thanks to the PS2, and later this month the XBox 360. Forget upgrading every year for $200-300. The console plays everything perfectly, there's no install step, and the games are great. Now I can use OS X for everything else and life is grand.
By the way, I had a friend ask me the other day, "What about the wait times?" Wait times?!? Yeah, less than I waited between levels of Far Cry and Doom 3, thank you very much. Every game has wait times. Why do I have to spend install an hour installing a game and updates only to have wait times?