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.
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.
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!
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).
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.
Yay! you've supported your point by the 1 in 5000 users here that don't know Office has been avaiable for Macs for years. Does this make MACs more relevant? Or just support the Microsoft platform, and feed the monster.
Mac User 1: "Coke sucks! Screw them!"
Mac User 2: "Yeah I only buy iCoke! That will show them!"
Bill Gates: [Grins]
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.
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....
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.
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.
Thing is, why would they need to "switch quickly"? 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. Meanwhile it makes no sense for corporate IT departments to switch immediately - any decent admin would wait until at least SP1 before switching. So you've got a good 2-3 year buffer there before anyone would really NEED to switch, which leaves plenty of opportunity for a viable alternative to gain popularity. The only thing MS could do to encourage people to upgrade sooner is stop releasing patches for Windows XP....but that'd set up an excellent opportunity for a class action lawsuit. Therefore, no matter how you look at it, it makes no sense for MS to "raise the price by some interesting factor".