Slashdot Mirror
Vista the End of An Era?
mikesd81 writes "The Times Online has an article about the uncertain future of Windows. Even Microsoft, it seems is admitting that Vista will be the last OS of its kind. With the push towards a constant presence on the internet, and the churn that entails, the company has admitted that even with a two year delay 'it is not really ready'." From the article: "Security experts are acknowledging that Vista is the most secure of Windows to date. However, 'The bad guys will always target the most popular systems,' Mikko Hypponen, of F-Secure, the security group, said. 'Vista's vulnerability to phishing attacks, hackers, viruses and other malicious software will increase quickly.' But the current fear is that the Internet will kill Windows, with Google being Public Enemy No. 1: 'Microsoft is way behind Google when it comes to the internet,' Rupert Godwins, the technology editor at ZDNet, the industry website, said. 'Building Vista, Microsoft is still doing things the old way at the same time as it undergoes a big shift to catch up.'"
All of this "The Net IS the OS" stuff is just ridiculous. This kind of thing doesn't even have a chance until broadband is as ubiquitous and as reliable as electricity. I think that we're still a good 10 years out from this even beginning to happen.
If by that they mean software-as-a-service, well, good luck to them. I have no desire whatsoever to be forced into downloading their product whenever I need it, or authenticating myself to Redmond when I want to open a spreadsheet.
Dog is my co-pilot.
wasn't a story by that exact title and pretty much identical posted a couple months ago? Anyway, all they have to do is design good security then design fancy features around it instead of the other way around where their marketing or possibly just "the dumbass department" desides to add in a features and just tells the security people to make it work. Either that or just stick with Vista and patch it until it works even if it takes a decade.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Their profitable OS and office software is now replacable with zero price commodity product. What else is there?
If the DOJ had split the company in 2001, they wouldn't have a warchest of billions to continue damaging the industry as they fight their way into irrelevance. Now that the Democrats have the house, they should be asking why MS was let off so lightly by the Bush regime.
I have a really hard time believing any claims like this. As far as I can remember everyone (on both sides) has claimed that this one will be different. That it will either be the greatest windows release ever or the worst. And everytime it's somewhere in the middle. Every release of windows since windows 95 has been marginally better. Tack on service packs and updates. Release next version that's marginally better and different than the last service pack of the previous release. The next version of windows probably will be more modular, but I don't think it will be radically different than the final service pack of Vista.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Yeah, the internet is cool. Yadda Yadda. Standalone computers/OSes are a thing of the past and dumb-terminals/browsers/web services are going to kill them. I've heard that back in '95. At the end of the day I still prefer desktop apps for anything I do even remotely often. Graphics intensive games will always run on the desktop. If PC games get killed in favour of game consoles, then we've just switched to a different kind of desktop. Wake me up when it happens; I suspect I'll be long dead.
its the begining of the end
Vista's 50 million lines of code have cost an estimated $7.5 billion to assemble. I think that this is getting to a point where as the number of lines grow, there's a limit to the manpower that can be applied to make it secure, or even write it in the first place that is still profitable to the company.
There's a lot that Microsoft can learn from Google, but I just don't see Google competing with Microsoft at the OS level, especially with an OS based off the internet. Ulimately you need code executing on a local processor and here there are already several established competitors. Even if most applications are pulled from the network, there still are issues of performance, latency, and security. Plus not every system is always connected to a network. I can see Google possibly competing sucessfully with MS Office products, but not as an OS.
Ok, they're pushing "software as a service" now everywhere. They already call upon the "end of operating systems", but I'm asking myself: if they say, the internet IS the OS, what will the internet run on? I don't think Microsoft will switch over to Linux. Or they could build an "OS" that is solely a web browser. IE-OS, anyone?
If this software-as-a-service thing is going to be big in the future, what would they say if anyone would dig up an old machine from this era and find out, that it runs all of it's software without a net connection... Hell, it even BOOTS UP without internet! Awesome stuff, not?
"If by that they mean software-as-a-service, well, good luck to them. I have no desire whatsoever to be forced into downloading their product whenever I need it, or authenticating myself to Redmond when I want to open a spreadsheet."
Steam.
---
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment."
Which logged in people don't have to observe, so who are you fooling Taco?
Not even Microsoft has the resources to continue the desktop Windows line. The costs are ballooning.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
And if the Net is the platform of the future for applications (and that's a very big IF I wouldn't put my money on, but hey, for the sake of the discussion, let's assume that what Google is offering is going to replace Office and whatever), you'll still need something to run your browser on. And your games. And store you stuff. Linux? Yeah right, I think I've read that Linux has been ready for primetime (meaning the desktop) like 5 years in a row now on Slashdot and it still isn't. Windows is going to be here for a while.
The same was said about Windows XP. And Windows 2000. And Windows 98.
We're also hearing the same tired old crap about users not having a compelling reason to upgrade to Vista, and that nobody will. Just as we heard the same about all previous MS OS.
I predict that within a couple of months of its release, Vista will become the new OS standard. Just as the previous versions did the same.
Vista cannot be the last major OS of its type from microsoft. While it is likely that they might want to produce something significantly different, a major shift would take years to produce. A company that needs such a large team just to work on the shutdown menu isn't ready to innovate in the way they claim. Innovation is nothing more then a word they use to sound cool, they haven't managed it for years, all they do is patent minutiae
Sure, microsoft *say* it would take les time to make the next windows iteration, the plain fact is that they are no longer working from the position of having no competition. Therefore they have to do a whole lot better then just improve security, they've got to move a long way forward beyond the competition, improving everything and introducing things people can't get elsewhere. Right now Gnome is catching up with the XP interface, I think it's better in fact, and that's free. KDE I don't know about, I barely use it.
GNU/Linux, good though it is, is nowhere near ready to take on microsoft for home users. The simple reason being that in spite of its wealth of applications, it has shitbar games when compared to windows. Game producers aren't building their products in linux for a first iteration. That will be the big problem for linux for a fair few years.
Once games creators switch, or rather, produce for linux too, hardware manufacturers will start working in linux more, and mmicrosoft will see a real challenge.
Then there's Office. OpenOffice is good, but not as good as MsOffice. Well it does compare in many ways, but OpenOffice doesn't have salesmen ready to cajole existing customers and offer vast discounts. We're still at the stage were companies will mention thinking about switching just to get those discounts.
Games are the only thing that keeps windows installed on my machine, I use linux for all serious stuff, but I won't give up my games, and I'm not alone. I gave up Office a long time ago. For simple docs I use Vim, and for complex docs I use Tex.
when we use somebody else's face for the BillyBorg Slashdot Icon.
Jonathanjk.com
Windows is dying.
So the future is the web, we will in the future all pay a monthly fee and access our documents and media on-line (where consequently it easier to control what we have access to). Then 10-20 years down the line the on-line model will be seen as legacy and we will all jump out and buy a new fangled computer that lets you keep your content locally again, without paying an access fee, all by just buying a software license of an OS and some applications...
Or we could just not bother going with the latest fad designed to keep us spending, and preventing us from actually owning anything. As long as the good folks at Debian continue to produce a great distribution, and as long as people are willing to write software, I think I'll stick to what I know (and what I don't have to pay through the nose for.)
"'Microsoft is way behind Google when it comes to the internet."
What does this even mean?
The hard drive is not the expensive part of a computer. They don't even use much power nowadays. The operating system, or at least the one I'm typing this on, is free. Moving from fat to thin clients doesn't make economic sense, even if many apps can be more conveniently delivered as web pages.
If by that they mean software-as-a-service, well, good luck to them.
Vista IS the last great Windows release, but it's not because of Google or software-as-a-service. It's about getting rid of that idiot Alchin. Alchin didn't understand how to keep a project under control and ship what customers actually want/need. Going forward, the core OS division will be more about delivering what customers want/need in the next ~2 years. Releases will be more predictable from a feature and timeline standpoint. You won't see the type of delays that have plagued Windows for years.
Or at least that's the plan. It seems like a good idea from a businees perspective, but I think it will keep us from delivering the "next big thing".
I think the point of TFA is that a complete rollout of a new version of Vista will be unlikely in the future, simply because there is a limited desire by consumers to re-familiarise themselves with a new OS every couple of years, not to mention the prohibitive costs involved. As far as heralding in a new era, companies like Microsoft are likely, in future, to copy the update process of Linux vendors, opting to offer a more modular update process for specific functionality than the current wholesale update procedure being witnessed with Vista. As such MS will not be able to rely on the same quadrannual windfall to support their business.
How come Microsoft is trying to reinvent the wheel? Why doesn't Microsoft do what Apple did and just retool some free/GNU operating system? I mean the GNU license does allow commerce and profit!
Is this a matter of pride? Does Microsoft believe they are truly producing something new and innovative rather than something crufty that does the job 1/3 as well as existing apps?
WTF are these people smoking? Google? I can't get Google... OR anything on the internet... without a computer attached to the internet. So how exactly is Google a threat... to Windows? Google is NOT an operating system, last I checked.
Oh wait... I'm forgetting where I'm at. Slashdot has been predicting the demise of Windows and the rise of Lunix on the desktop for what, over ten years already? News flash: Lunix is no closer to being "ready for the desktop" than it was ten years ago. Even less, if you take modern expectations of what an OS can do into account. How many years did it take for Lunix to even get USB capability?
Windows will continue to be the #1 operating system for at LEAST 20 more years. First, they have no competition: no OS can do what Windows can do. OSX is a joke, especially regarding it's so-called security. If OSX were the primary desktop... the world would be one or two well-made viruses away from total meltdown.
And second... MS is just too good a company, especially compared to their "competition".
Have fun getting to Google without an operating system.
The only way is down.
The only way to stay on top is to defend all of the mountain. That is incredibly time consuming, maintaining and upgrading the fortifications.
Warren Buffet said he would not invest in Microsoft, because he couldn't understand the long term future.
Prediction: Microsoft will break itself up.
I understand that it is customary, when someone claims that popularity breeds insecurity, to respond, "right - that's why apache is such a broken piece of crap"
Glad we got that over with.
God dammit it's true - I saw it on the Internet !
(just something to keep in mind)
Back in the '80s MS built it's success by making computers accessible and usable by the masses. Prior to the 80s useful computers were usually leased mini or mainframes. Often they were timeshared services that were paid by monthly subscription. They were pushed aside by a model led by Microsoft: I own my computer and can use it how I see fit. Recently, they seem to feel because others build web service driven models, that they should too.
Microsoft is now vulnerable because they believe things have went full circle. They see people building new ideas and new markets that don't include them - or need their software. What MS misses is that people don't want their software when it doesn't do something of great value. The days of people marveling at the convenience of a multitasking GUI or amazing their boss with a pivot table are over. Problem is that Microsoft's current innovation isn't being driven by customers or users, but by a bad combination of developer arrogance and greed. The result: you get products that people just don't want like Zune. You get a company selling out it's users for a buck they may never get from the music business. You get ideas like Live Update and Genuine Advantage that hurt legitimate users because your bean counters want to squeeze every dime out of their market. You get ideas like threatening patent litigation for ideas that are almost as old as most college grads instead of inventing something worth patenting.
For MS to come back all they have to do is recognize reality: people actually do like and use their software. Focus on what you can add (or remove) that will make it better. And remember that USERS not the music, movie, media or any other industry makes the buying decision. When you add a feature to the OS, make it a benefit to the USER. Everyone is in love with the idea of being a landlord. MS would be wise to remember that they made their way to success by putting the landlords out of business.
-- $G
"Security experts are acknowledging that Vista is the most secure of Windows to date."
I realize this isn't a thought original to me, but - this would appear to be a ridiculous statement on its face. Only time will determine whether Vista is "the most secure Windows". We heard these sorts of statements at the release of XP as well; those were obviously incorrect until SP2 came around (after how many years?).
Steve Gibson (I know, I know, right there people turn off) pointed out the problems Vista's rewritten stack encountered during Vista's beta testing. We really have no idea how good of a job Microsoft did right there - again, only time will tell. But the initial experiences don't appear to be encouraging.
#DeleteChrome
That's $150 per line of code! I reckon the Microsoft devs have been playing WoW on company time
Our company did last year, cities of Vienna and Munich did, it should work out very nicely for you too. Our former XP users love KDE.
No need to put yourself through pains when you can improve security, save money and achieve a good deal of vendor independence all at the same time. Why support the Microsoft monopoly by paying ridiculous prices for bug ridden software with DRM restrictions, when you can run Free software on the industry standard (and thus inexpensive) hardware?
Knowing everything I know now, I only regret that we did not migrate to GNU/Linux sooner.
If I had mod points, i'd certainly give you a +1 insightful for that comment. That's a very valid and interesting way to look at the situation.
I don't see this as a debate over whether we will have local operating systems, or will we have an 'internet operating system', but more a question of how important local operating systems will be compared to the user applications sprouting up all over the internet. And by importance, I mean money making potential. If new applications and developments arrive continuously by way of URL, why go to the bother of (waiting years and years before) rebuilding your operating system to get transparent windows and other *major innovations*? Even if you like trouble, do you like paying for it too? Don't all of the new and hip websites work the same on Windows 2000 (or a Mac)?
where "the company" is implied to be Microsoft. However, from the article:
I think that's a rather important distinction.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
Whenever I hear or read someone saying that the latest version of Windows is 'the most secure to date' I am reminded of the Groucho Marx line from 'Animal Crackers' - "Why, you're one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen, and that's not saying much for you".
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Anyone who has been paying attention to the tech industry has heard this same argument in different forms since just about forever. Larry Ellison was going to sell us all network computers to replace our Windows 95 boxes, because Windows was obsolete. Sun seems to pull out this idea once a year to spit polish it, toss it out there, and hope somebody will pay some attention to them, etc. Even if there may be some truth to the argument behind this, after hearing it for so long and having all previous claims be proven completely wrong, you just can't help but filter it out, ala the boy crying wolf story... I look forward to reading about how Windows Vista 2010 Special Edition will be the last version of Windows when the time comes.
I'm not convinced that the article was right, but things are rapidly moving toward Mark Andreessen's prediction that the browser will be the desktop. As I look at the wealth of Internet apps, and envision the possibility of httpd being built into every NIC, with kernel functionality (microcode, anyone?) in every motherboard, and I see the traditional OS as being irrelevant. Y'know, LEGO could make a number of computer components about the size of a Linksys 5-port switch, and we could just stack our computers together at the corner of our desk...
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
I agree with the sentiment here--OSes will never be completely irrelevant. However, the profitability of making them soon will. It's only a matter of time until a Dell or an HP starts selling Linux boxes, fully supported, because they're sick of paying the MS Tax. Once MS is in an environment where it actually has to compete for its OS sales, they'll no longer have the luxury of blowing $7.5 billion over 5 years for their next version. The average consumer doesn't believe in paying for an OS. It came "free" with their computer.
You simply cannot spend 2 years cranking out a dot level upgrade to an OS and expect thundering success. Because in the final analysis there isn't much new to Vista
And as long as MS dominates in the browser field with their products, the web isn't anything serious yet. Perhaps with web 7.0 or something.
"I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
Google doesn't make Windows irrelevant. Windows is here to stay.
It's here to stay because no matter how little their operating system changes or improves, it will always be at least a little bit better than the previous version, and as such it will always be the default on new machines.
Microsoft is saved by the fact that PC's are now a commodity, and people don't mind throwing old ones away every couple of years for minor performance improvements. The newest version of Windows will always succeed, because it's the default. All Microsoft has to do is maintain backward compatibility.
The only way Windows will ever be displaced is if another competitor offers something significantly better, which is unlikely. Operating systems are now a commodity, so the possibility that one could be significantly better than another on the same hardware is remote.
Another possibility is that a new hardware platform could displace Intel, but that is so unlikely because the economies of scale almost guarantee that the Intel architecture will always dominate desktop computing.
That is, until we hit a threshold where the hardware can't be made much faster. Then we might see some real innovation in hardware and software.
But until then, learn to love Windows.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
...the beast is too big, heavy and slow for keeping up with this lightspeed innovation, due to what has become reliant upon it. They are the "IBM" of operating system software, AND THEIR GIANT ROBOT HEART BEATS TO SLOWLY!!!
Microsoft(r) has been on fire for a while, I don't think they're going to crash but I do think that some reorganization needs to take place or these swift, small and much more elite groups of talented individuals such as it was with Google(tm), will continue to stay focused and move products through the market much more efficiently, with respect to their development process and organizational structure while their products expand and user base grows along with that.
I think the last rock solid thing to come from Microsoft(r) was Server 2003.
Not that I'm ANY kind of business tycoon to say the least, I just use their products and I can tell when their attitude began to affect their product quality directly. They lost focus on what makes a good piece of software, and much like AOL, it plagues them with every release of software they produce.
Vista has been nothing but a corporate sponsored spawn of monopolistic evil with a ridiculous amount of YOUR system resources being used to keep ridiculously idiotic counter-piracy measures. Microsoft is dancing to the tune of the media giants and the OWNERS OF THE COOKIE JARS they have their hands in, they're using their user base as advertising 'meat'.
I think most of us can admit that the windows 2000 line was an amazing upshot in stability as far as a Microsoft product was concerned, yes previous NT was solid as well. Some will say that windows 98 was an incredible upshot, and yes it was, but perhaps we can consider the spot-light of this to be on networking configuration and accessibility.
The Microsoft(r) today, doesn't innovate; it regurgitates.
Godwinized before it even began. When God wins, humans lose.
... and then they built the supercollider.
So if the shift occurs does that mean that hackers will prefer to target Google?
I don't know where you live, but where I live, broadband is pretty much "as ubiquitous and as reliable as electricity." It's also cheaper than electricity. I'd say you're about 10 years behind the times, and I'm betting my business on it.
Deleted
Wow- since when has /. become the MS fanboy site? Funny how trends are on this site.
The reason MS needs a change is because of the security flaws. They should embrace a Linux or OS X-like sudo/root admin system. There should not be web browser exploits that can go down to the kernel level. They should make a tight kernel, and some kind of *nix-like permission system, where the user is not the admin at all times.
YOU slashdot readers don't deal with this. But look at your average Joe windows user: They are playing flash pop-up games (which are actually running spyware in the background), avoiding the stupid windows update icon that keeps bugging them, downloading all kinds of crap from who knows where, etc. Clicking on everything that pops up in front of them left and right.
THIS is the problem of Windows. It is nothing about ram, vista, hardware, blah, fanboys, etc. That is NOT the issue. The issue is security problems, viruses, and malware. Many of which Vista is already NOT secured against, as the stories that have already come out confirm. Sad. THAT is why MS must change drastically.
Windows is not insecure due to it's popularity. It is due to it's design. A secure system can withstand what comes at it because in it's design, these anomalies were accounted for. Stop pimping that excuse.
Does this mean Mac OS X is doomed as well? Where then is Apple going with the Apple system? Some say Apple is going to be a consumer electronics company and not a OS company.....You can't say Windows (or desktop OS's) are dead and then expect Apple to exist in the same way. So is Apple's OS in it's final days as well? This line of thinking makes no sense to me.
Remember that people don't like risks that they don't control? I hereby predict that as soon as someone in a company like Google abuses the power of having and controlling documents then there will be an enormous backlash against it.
Currently that's why I don't use Google's doc and spreadsheet programs. I can't stand not having control of my own documents.
7.5 billion dollars for 50 million lines?
That's $150 per line of code.
How do the figures come to that? That is some expensive code.
Oh, you mean the way it used to be done, until that pesky PC came about.
We are coming full circle, but for different reasons.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The web is a huge network, a network of networks, mostly accessed by lower powered "terminals" connecting to higher powered servers to "do stuff". Now we can quibble over the precise exact definition of what a terminal is, what constitutes a terminal or not hardware-wise, but the fact remains this is how they are used, as net-terminals, so let's call them that. The number one use of computers by joe and josephine six pack, directly, is to access the internet, and once there, what is online on the remote servers is then the most important thing to them. The look at web pages, use email and chat/IM primarily. You need the network to do that stuff. The internet browser is by far the "killer app" for those net-terminal computers. Games run entirely on the local machine are probably a distant number 2.
I'd say they are a lot more right than wrong on what they saw in 96.
is the big problem. It inherits all of the sludge of every Windows nightmare from 3.1.
Even reducing the code base from Win3x and NT => Windows 2000/XP didn't do the job. It wasn't designed well, and doesn't hold up. Linux would have been a curiousity if Windows wasn't so inherently and poorly designed. The whole dot-Net debacle (like uh, what is it?) just pointed out how aimless Microsoft was, putting hold-cards in all kinds of places that they didn't have code or direction, just markers in case some one wanted a piece of their turf, which was the entire computing software business. This greed caused them enormous problems, and cost them veracity-- the truth. Now they're as easily trusted as the government. They've been sued successfully across the planet. The emporer Bill had no clothes then, and is naked to this day-- with Vista the crowning pinnacle of it.
Mod me troll. But the 'targeting' thing is their egotistical propaganda and poor excuse for bad code and business practices.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Go look at the releases from each and every release of Windows since '95(a). 1. "Companies slow to embrace it" then 2."Problems abound, world ending" then 3. 101 tricks for the new OS"
Seriously, guys, is this the first Windows release you've seen? Why do we have time for this?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
/. search for "Vista the Last of Its Kind?"
:wq
On August 26th, 2006 with 337 comments
An anonymous reader wrote to mention a TechWorld story about Windows Vista. According to the Gartner Group, Windows Vista is likely to be the last of its kind....
It's not true until you edit wikipedia to say it is! GET MOVING!
www.isoHunt.com
where I live Vista will still cost me less than a dollar :)
"but the Google Docs & Spreadsheets product does much of what Microsoft's second-most important product, the Office suite of software, does."
I'm glad the articles we're reading are written by well informed, competent journalists.
It sounds like everyone thinks they're going to abandon their desktop operating systems and just use set top boxes from now on. If you're worried about network security, it doesn't look like DLNA, Playsforsure, and UPnP are even working for the things they're supposed to let alone resisting attacks. Then again, someone with enough foresight would say these standards are going to become more reliable and replace the modern desktop in a few years.
this whole net centric thing is ridiculous. The vast majority of USA still can not get more then dial up speeds with out paying for T1 and so forth. Each year they promise DSL or some form of wireless for the non urban USA but it never happens.
I'm cruel. ... Windows and BeOS to 2010. ====> BeOS is the winner!
BeOS is better than XP and Vista, what's cruel about that? Is there any GUI that's not as good or better than Microsoft?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
'Old OSes never die, they just fade away.'
GNU/Linux, good though it is, is nowhere near ready to take on microsoft for home users. The simple reason being that in spite of its wealth of applications, it has shitbar games when compared to windows.
First, most computer users don't care about games in the way that you care about games; second, Linux has the games that a vast majority of users care about; third, even if Linux had the sort of games that you care about, it won't see widespread adoption on home desktops in rich countries.
Most computer users don't care about big budget games. They're too complex. They take too long to learn. They're too expensive. I know multitudes of computer users. None of them play big budget games like Half Life, Neverwinter Nights, WoW, or even the Sims. I don't play any of them either.
When eliminating the big budget games that appeal to a small subset of users, Linux has great games. KDE and GNOME both come with the sorts of little puzzle games that people whittle away at for a few minutes each day. They are the analog to Solitare, probably the most popular Windows app of all time. My dad had never used Linux before in his life, but he sat down at my Gentoo box and within minutes had discovered one of the GNOME games on his own. Furthermore, lots of people pass the time at online games at places like Yahoo Games. These run just fine on Linux right inside Firefox.
But, let's set aside the fact that Linux is an excellent gaming platform for the majority of people who just like a simple game every now and again. Even if Linux had a perfect port of every single bloated, big-budget, proprietary computer game out there, we still won't see widespread desktop Linux adoption on home desktops in rich countries. People in rich countries can afford Windows, and they see no compelling reason to switch away. Linux won't provide a compelling reason for most users to switch. They'll switch to Mac before they switch to Linux.
In short, the lack of Linux desktop adoption has absolutely nothing to do with game availability.
Penny - plain text accounting
I look forward to reading about how Windows Vista 2010 Special Edition will be the last version of Windows when the time comes.
It's taken them six years to get Vista out the door. You might want to push the next planned release back to at least 2013. Do you think that people are going to be satisfied with Vista's rather limited feature set that long?
Vista is doomed. For most people, it's going to be a big step backward, doing less for them but requiring more hardware. They are tired of the upgrade train trashing their hardware without feature gain. This time, it's DOA.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Perhaps Microsoft's online offerings (eg. Office Live) don't have the marketshare of Google's Calender, Spreadsheet, and GMail, but think about how those users get to Google's services. A vast majority of the online population is surfing under some flavor of Windows and some version of the Internet Explorer browser. Sure, Firefox is increasingly popular [and so is Linux], but virtually all personal computers these days come with Windows XP and IE, and most users do not take the trouble to change that. The same will be true for Vista and MS's future offerings.
If their codebase is growing too large to effectively maintain, they will do the wise thing and stabilize the interface while re-writing the underlying OS. It's not impossible to imagine MS going the Apple route and re-building their operating system on OSS, just adding some kind of compatability layer to provide a minimal amount of backwards compatibility.
So, perhaps it will be the last Windows of based on that codebase, but certainly not the last of it's kind. Microsoft's various OS's play a key role as a brigde to the internet for a majority of users, and the company has enough pull with PC manafacturers to keep its position on the desktop for some time. Of course, the comments made by a number of other Slashdotters make sense, too. An online-OS (OOS?) relies too much on the persistence of the connection, and reduces productivity to zero when the link to the net goes down. This is something Microsoft's business and education customers are not going to go for.
For a lot of people, Work means Documents. Businesses are not going to rent their documents. IF some silly service decides to charge you for access to your cover letters to bids, ... then businesses will grumble a little, then turn back to non-cash options. Open Office if they prefer the full suite approach, or simply hacked together in WordPad.
I firmly believe that Net apps are a complete trap. "But what if you want to work remotely", you ask. Work... on what? You have your laptop with you, right? Your laptop would have a synched copy of your work. And at *worst* you can remote in to your desk box.
On the security side, I would never trust my document on someone else's server. The security problems with *that* would shake Alcatraz.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
"Games are important to the average slashdotter. They are not important to the average corporation in fact they are considered harmful."
Oh I wouldn't say that.
Remember WindowsME? No one actually used it. I predict that very few people will be using Vista over XP. They just will not want to waste their computer's horsepower on Vista when they can get the same functionality from XP. Furthermore, I predict some 3rd party addons to XP that gives the Vista look and feel (if they don't already exist) and some will be far better. (I use FC6 mainly and support XP at work. AIGLX was pretty cool eye-candy and from what I head Aero doesn't even get that close.)
Believe you me, Microsoft makes money on support. Maybe not consumer releases when covered by warranty, but corporate customers pay dearly for support, as do shops that run older versions of Windows and are willing to pay for it. Custom development is a source of income as well as those stupid microsoft branded hardware devices (keyboards, mice, personal castration devices, etc...)
The old OS doesn't die, it just continues to draw support revenue. Just because Microsoft announces end-of-life status on a product, doesn't mean they're not willing to take money to support the people still running it (and that have pockets deep enough to pay for that support)
"Lame" - Galaxar
A Microsoft/Vista story that isn't a shameless M$-bashing exercise?
And, even more impressively, someone has already managed to tag this as fud!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
What's keeping MS products installed on many machines is gaming, i HAVE to keep a windows PC if i want to be assured that i can play any game that comes out in the market. so far vista and especially DX10 is failing to impress me, the biggest weakness being that there is no backwards compatiblity, an astoundingly stupid move that assures that coders will focus on DX9 for the next few years unless they want a segment their market even more. depending on how DX10 pans out and whether hardware makers and more importantly software makers support it vista could be a flop even for gamers, that windows 2000/XP CD may be usefull for the next 5-10 years.
I think the concept is that people don't use the computer to run local applications these days. Most folks use apps to access services, like email, web browsing, shopping on-line, etc. Since we need one thing to use our computer effectively (a modern web browser), the OS isn't nearly as important as it used to be.
I believe that's one of the reasons it's important for Microsoft to lock up various digital formats. If you can only download your music and movies in a Microsoft-approved format, you will only be able to use Microsoft-approved products to access those files. I believe the reason Microsoft is in bed with the MPAA and the RIAA is simple: they need to be the gateway to accessing pop culture. Otherwise, the only thing you need an operating system for is to display purty pictures, and to run your web browser. Linux and *BSD and the others do that very well, thank you very much.
So I think the idea is that competition has moved out into a space Microsoft does not control. Whether this is true or not is debatable. But that seems to be the gist of TFA.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
"Through Google's focus they've gained a tremendously strong position," he said. "[Microsoft] must respond quickly and decisively . . . It's clear that if we fail to do so, our business as we know it is at risk."
Respond "decisively?" And there you have the embodiment of Microsoft's narcissistic need to utterly destroy any competition.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Hey Apple --- Stevie-boy --- get off your ass and push compatibility testing. NOW.
I understand that bundling the OS and the hardware together eliminates a whole category of problems. Supporting the wide variety of existing PC hardware will certainly not be a breeze, but it's a finite problem and it's do-able. And jeez, just think of the payoff.
Suppose that, oh, for the sake of argument, folks aren't going to like Vista. Now, what if you gave them an OS X install disk for their new Dell? C'mon, you know this is the Right Thing for Apple to do. You may be closer than you think. Take that extra step.
Incidentally, game developers (I speak for myself and all others I know) HATE DirectX and LOVE OpenGL. Putting aside DirectX entrenchment for a moment, and that a game company should have invested in properly abstracting the rendering subsystem in the first place, it is widely (universally?) true that developers prefer OpenGL.
End of an era, end of a monopoly, end of highly over-inflated prices, end of dictatorial control of my content and how my computer works.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Yeah I said it. there. It's bloated crap, I don't care how many whizbang features it has, it's just too damn big and a resource hog. It's something like 240% more resource intensive than XP, and for what? All I know is that everyone I talk to who has used vista, and who knows dick about computers just knows it's crap. It's bloated crap because they keep adding on and adding on and eventually if you keep building up too high the tower is going to fall right? Some of my friends are even considering switching to a mac for their next system. Personally, I'm sticking with XP for as long as I can and then moving to linux or OSX afterwords.
So anyway, a bright person a century ago would probably have believed, given sufficient explanations, most of the technology we have today. Cellphones are just radios plus telephones; televisions just small movie screens; automobiles are significantly faster but still easily recognizable for what they are. It is only when you start to drill down into the underlying technology and infrastructure that enables modern devices that they truly would astound someone living a century ago.
The "futurists" of the late 19th and early 20th century predicted many of the technological developments of the past 100 years remarkably well (obviously not in detail, but conceptually in many cases they were right on). You would have to go back further than that, to eras when people were not used to continuous change -- where it was not expected that the world one grew up in would be different than the world one's children would inherit -- in order to find people who would be unable to conceive of our current state.
To be perfectly honest, I think many a person from the early 20th century would be a little disappointed if they were suddenly transported forward to the current day. Although many things have changed, a great many other things have not or are at least recognizable equivalents of devices or activities present 100 years ago. Someone who expected the rate of progress seen during the period from 1800 to 1900 to continue and increase, might find life in 2000 startlingly familiar (and sadly devoid of flying cars).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The opening sentence contains an improper double-negative. It should read: "I think maybe you're not giving those folks back in centuries past enough credit."
(Why is it I never notice these things in Preview?)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I predict that Microsoft will soon rely on Linux existence to change their economic model. They will sell their productivity applications (eg: office) as net services, and people will use cheap boxes with cheap OS to access them. Microsoft will then put money in one Linux distro to help it package the light client as they want, then later will give money to a major web browser to stop maintaining its own for free, and will buy a few games editors to still make revenues from per-seat licenses.
With this, they will not need anymore to care about the hardware compatibility problems, software piracy nor any of their current problems. They will simply provide online services to customers. And they will possibly provide some server versions of their applications to run in large enterprises who want their users to work locally.
In ten years, when PC will boot linux from a linuxbios, to run games, firefox, and microsoft's MSN and free document viewers, people will think it was stupid to embed such a large and complicated thing such as windows on every user's PC.
Willy
Darn, I guess I saw what I WNATED to see...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Don't compare one OS with one game when there are only ~3 OSes and 3000 games.
Compare desktop sales with game sales. I wonder which one of those figures is higher...
DATABASE WOW WOW
But, let's set aside the fact that Linux is an excellent gaming platform for the majority of people who just like a simple game every now and again. Even if Linux had a perfect port of every single bloated, big-budget, proprietary computer game out there, we still won't see widespread desktop Linux adoption on home desktops in rich countries. People in rich countries can afford Windows, and they see no compelling reason to switch away. Linux won't provide a compelling reason for most users to switch. They'll switch to Mac before they switch to Linux.
Ding ding ding! Seriously, you should get a prize or something.
You can't replace Windows with Linux, when a lot of Linux development seems to be centered around making Linux as much like Windows as possible. As bloated and generally inelegant as Windows is, most people just don't have a very compelling reason to switch away from it. And cost isn't a big factor, since most people don't 'see' the cost of Windows in any direct fashion anyway. (And the people who do see the cost directly -- principally barebones builders -- can just pirate it and always will.)
As long as Linux is trying to 'catch up' to Windows, it can't ever surpass it and provide any convincing reasons for people to switch.
Apple, over the past 5+ years, has done a good job of giving users reasons to switch to their platform, and they didn't do it by trying to emulate the market leader. They picked a few things that they thought they could do better (multimedia, "digital hub" functions, ease of use) and concentrated their effort there. When you use a Mac, you know you're using a Mac -- they don't attempt to 'out-Windows' Windows, and that's what I see a lot of Linux distros trying to do. (Look at KDE's default skin and tell me that's not the out-of-wedlock child of Windows 98 and XP.) The Mac OS, love it or hate it, makes a stand and seems proud to not be Windows-y; many Linux distros seem embarrassed and suffering an identity crisis by comparison.
I'll end with one small anecdote: the most consistently impressive way I've found to show Linux to Windows diehards, is to show them a MythTV/Knoppmyth box. Why is it so impressive? Because it's something that their Windows PC just can't do (admittedly, I suppose MCE+SnapStream is close, but most people have never heard of it). You're not going to win admiration and envy by showing a Linux machine running OpenOffice and editing a spreadsheet; acting proud of that just makes Linux look like a joke. (Again, it's somewhat cool that it's all free, but not that impressive to most people.) But when you show a Linux machine doing something that most people's Windows desktops are just never going to do, and suddenly it looks a lot more interesting. And at that point, you can just drop in "oh yeah, it does all that Office-type stuff, too."
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
You say this like there's something wrong with it. Am I missing something?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This "cell-phone" contraption you are foretelling sounds to be the tool of the devil. Next thing you will be telling me that the US Library of Congress that was just founded will have all its books stored in something the size of a horse stable!
Honestly, I see them as being more likely to rent it out to you. That is, keep paying us or we deactivate your Vista XP 2010 install... I suppose they might offer "services" too, but I really expect them to be more likely to sell you the service of not crippling your computer for a fee.
Still, I'm interested to see how some of these activation features will work out in Vista. How long before worms evolve to hold computers for ransom, too? Microsoft has apparently built that in as a "feature" already, and there's the BitLocker scheme, too... when Microsoft builds in all the tools to hold the user for ransom, what's to stop a greedy worm-making bastard from doing the same thing by hacking those tools?
Hell, it should be easy enough to fool Vista into thinking someone's version is pirated when it's not, and offer to sell them a crack of some kind for half of what Microsoft would charge to reactivate you...
I find it funny what is happening here. I think we are forgetting that the internet is just a medium to exchange data, not an application.
The web browser is not the internet. The web browser is an application which read html and javascript instead of byte code to execute. Google's new spreadsheet thing is just a big javascript app that happens to save it's data on a server.
MS is behind in that SharePoint is a piece of crap. They have not figured out how to replace the save dialog with one that works well. MS need Excel Server 2007. I don't have care if I have to install Office 2007 in order to access it, it has nothing to do with the client. In fact I'd prefer a thick client with some sort of caching so I could work on it from home.
I've been Web developing for a while, and quite frankly the best internet enabled apps are still C++ apps that talk to the internet via HTTP or some other protocol. I wouldn't mind a google that was full bonified install this app.
In the long run Ajax can only go so far. C++ is just a much more robust language then javascript will ever be. What I think we will see if Firefox as a module that you can manipulate with C++ code. DHTML is proving to be a great layout language...minus forms. I really don't think javascript is scaling...it works, but it only seems hacky to me.
Saskatchewan is dealing with the last-mile problem for rural areas, but the major (and even minor) towns are wired. It's rumoured to be the best coverage in North America.
Most of the Bell and cable affiliates in Canada have been dealing with the smaller towns, not just the big cities where ROI is maximized. China, India, and some other districts are going with high-speed wireless solutions.
If you don't have high-speed and you're not at least 5-10 miles out of town, maybe you should talk to your local government to find out why you aren't getting service. At worst, you should be able to get an ISDN link of some kind without having to pay per-minute connect charges.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The industry website???
An industry website, yes. A lame industry website, also yes. But the industry website? Oh my, no.
Unless of course the author actually meant "an" and this just a case of poor editing.
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
I think this is just pure BS, maybe some stupid people are willing to put up with Internet applications, but I (and I know a lot of people who feel the same) won't be using an online office kind of product. I still think the online products just plainly suck compared to their offline counterparts. I just don't want companies like Google to go through my things (like they do now with g-mail and their toolbar).. And what about using an online program when your connection is down? Maybe in 10 years or more it will be better, but the comming 5 years it certainly won't.. But then again, there are more then enough morons who are dumb enough to be persuaded by companies as google..
Does anybody else find it amusing that on the same day we have a news article:
Complaining about how slow boot times are.
and
Recommending a Net centric OS philosophy.
If my boot times are bad from a highspeed disc array, I don't even want to imagine what it would be like to "boot" online.
Speaking of which. What happens to your computer when the inevitable ISP crash happens? Whoops, no more computer. In my business, the internet is a funny little thing you play around with when you're not working, or when you're trying to find a problem. Any application that is more complex than Microsoft Word needs to be run from a local hard disk. Forever. Yes I said forever. Why? Because it will always be cheaper and faster. As the internet speeds up, so will Hard Drives. I need top of the line, just came out tommarow hardware and software, and that means some funky "universal" executable isn't going to cut it. It needs to be optimized and it needs to be fast. The internet won't deliver that.
Should the title not read "Vista, the end of an error?"?
Blazing Spiders
Phew, praise Allah that it's nearly over!
http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
So long as there must exist an interface between the user's hardware and their applications, and so long as both of those must be managed in a transparent, reliable way, there is a need for an OS.
Saying "we don't need an OS!" is like saying we don't need TCP/IP to use the Internet. It's completely ignorant.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The more leeway you give to ideas when comparing them to cultures of the past, the farther back you can find a match. Check out the roots of the word "automaton", and you'll find a vision of robotics long before any of the current technology was feasible. "Science fiction" and "fantasy" have laid the foundations for centuries, if not millenia, pointing the creative thinkers of their times to ideas that seem plausible.
Once someone tenacious latches on to a plausible idea and grasps the potential, it's a matter of time and sweat equity; a matter of "when", not "if".
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
We are the first species in the history of the planet with any technical ability.
If we go away, there could be 200 or 300 million years without the reappearence of an intelligent creature, if at all....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Who drives IT adoption are companies, big ones mostly.
Gamers are a pitiful nice market. Now that Linux is starting to be installed in government offices and as thin clients in big coroporations people are going to get used to it and many will take the jump at home.
The immense majority of computer users play games in their consoles, not in their home computers.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Let me give you a clue. Most of it does not cost anything to the end user.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
MS knows that the constant merry-go-round of operating systems is not, in the long run, sustainable. However, MS has no choice but to develop constant upgrades to bring in the dollars for the stockholders. This is also why so many applications are bloatware now. Add endless features to keep the users upgrading. A web based OS & Applcation suite with an always on broadband and "net device" would be a popular solution to casual home users who have small requirements. This would also offload most (not all) of the support problems MS faces. Be honest. How many of you have had to help relatives after the holidays because they accidently mucked up their computers with new softwar or upgrades. How many of them would be happier with a web device with no configuration needed. The concept of web based os and an application suite would also give MS the much needed option of charging monthly fee's for service. This would give MS the sustainable cash flow they so much desire without the massive overhead of continuous software upgrades. WebTV had the concept right, but lagged horribly (pun intended) in technical implementation. Google simply picked up on the idea of K.I.S.S. which is what the majority of casual users are looking for. Businesses on the other hand would be a hard sell for this, unless MS licensed the backend to the Web OS. Still, in the long run, how many of the slashdottians here see a time when they would abandon their existing computers for a web os? So in the future will we have to pay: A broadband fee, An OS fee, Applications fees, Printing fee's, and Storage fee's? That may not be your dream, but as a sustainable cash flow deam it certainly is Microsoft's.
That's the idea! Your business "as you know it" is SUPPOSED to be at risk. If in a dynamic field like computing and internet, your business "as you know it" is NOT at risk, you're holding everyone back. This stuff is still in a disruptive phase, and that means threatening existing business models.
Look at the ??AA, for instance. Their whole beef is that "...our business as we know it is at risk." What has really happened is that the ??AA has 5 roles:
1: Talent discovery and management
2: Studio facilities and management
3: Editorial
4: Promotion
5: Distribution
In one fell swoop, the internet has made #5 almost completely obsolete, and has the easy potential to remove big chunks out of #4. Modern electronics makes #2 largely obsolete for the RIAA, and is starting to encroach on that for the MPAA.
If the ??AA were thoughtful and wise, they would embrace this change and start learning to make lemonade out of the lemons. For instance, the disappearance of #5 means the ability to shed a lot of physical infrastucture and the attendant costs. It could completely change the face of a music store and its HUGE inventory.
Instead, through legislation and judicial coercion they're trying to preserve "...our business as we know it" at the expense of innovation.
Microsoft has classically behaved the same way, "managing innovation." What they really mean is that they're holding the pace of innovation back in check, so that they can remain on top.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It's interesting that you bring up the laser.
I once got into an argument with a theoretical physicist (who I really had no place arguing with, but he was kind enough to indulge me) over the relative utility of abstract theoretical investigation versus experimentalism. He brought up the laser as an example of a device which could have been invented much earlier, but wasn't because nobody would have predicted that it worked before the theory had been developed.
It would not have been impossible to construct a simple gas laser in the late 19th century -- Tesla was working with neon lamps in 1893 or so, helium had been isolated a decade before that, and it's not a terribly hard jump from there to a laser assuming you can make a semi-silvered mirror (not hard assuming you have a vacuum system) -- but nobody ever did. All the parts were there, ready to be put together, but it took more than a half-century for anyone to combine them with the requisite theory and actually produce a usable apparatus. And of course, the now far-more-common diode lasers are a completely different story.
So anyway, you are quite right that there are things around today which were in no way predictable 100 years ago. However, in order to appreciate the complexity of these devices, you have to know something about them. Where they are most amazing is in their subtlety; a 19th century person might look at a laser pointer and think they understand it (battery, light bulb, red lens, focusing lenses, right?) without realizing that the semiconductor laser inside represents more than 60 years of painstaking physics research. Not to mention the presence of the laser in such a mundane and inexpensive device; implying as it does the economies of scale and mass production that make it affordable.
Again though, you can't really blame someone from the past for this attitude; we have enough people from our own time who fail to appreciate things that they use every day, because to truly appreciate them requires a deeper understanding of their workings than most people have.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
... Microsoft will select the Darwin Kernel as the foundation for its next* OS ;D
* not even any pun intended with the word 'next' this time..*g*
For end users I suspect the last OS that any body will pay for was XP. It's too costly to create a new OS and no-one is interested anyway. Can you name any advantages of this new OS?
If every computer becomes the same
All you really need is a browser on every public machine. An efficient modular array of drivers downloaded from the net for your hardware will hopefully enable games etc to run at near native speeds. The hardware and capablities of each computer will vary but the software they run will be the same and will come from the net. Who then cares if you're running GTA on a PC, a tablet, a game boy or a mainframe.
Advantages for developers
You reach 100% market all the time, all machines / all OS, everyone. People can try your software out with just a click and no one can copy it. Users would pick a payment method:
Advantages for end users
Do you really care if you're editing via word or some new web based editor with the same interface and speed The only changes you notice is that
- everything is now backed up with a history of changes
- your stuff is available from any machine
- upgrades will be automatic
- and, if you want to spell check in Greek (OK I'm pushing it), then it's just a click away
You be able to try any software before buying it You won't need to log in every time if you're using your own machine - it will recognise your ip address and cached id. You just switch a machine on (any machine) and see:- your latest docs in front of you - just click one and start editing
- the games you like playing - click and play
- the information it thinks you'll be interested in - feeds or web pages
- media you might want to watch or listen to
Virus's will be a thing of the past for end users Asking your neighbours 10 year old to come round and sort out your computer will be a thing of the past - it will just work.The future
Obviously there will be problems but that's the fun of new directions. 3 years ago I was using a modem at home and now I have an 8Mb line and listen to internet radio on my stereo. If I was Microsoft I'd be very worried.
Then why do they need to sell us One Care?
Have you even used Vista?
People worried about their horsepower?
Windows ME has come and gone with the problems of System Restore and bad drivers; people have moved on with their lives and that doesn't come up as an argument with common users as it was a different time in technology and came pre loaded on a lot of the hype of buying a new desktop.
Vista actually runs a lot faster than XP when navigating and doing network activity; been running RC1, RC2 and now running Vista Ultimate RTM perfectly fine on all my old HP, Gateway and other customt built old computers. I loaded up all my extra computers with RC2 and backing up(Windows.old) has been very simple with Vista.
Personally I am sick of having a million little icons in my quick launch for every little thing I need to do; don't mind having an all-in-one feature with Vista that runs seamlessly and as a tech user I am competent enough to maintain my OS securely. No DRM crap or anything getting in my way when I want to burn an episode of a show to my DVD burner like I did in XP except now it does it all automatically on Vista and adds chapters to it. Drag- Drop and press Burn thats it and it works perfectly on my DVD player; every media file I have works like it did on XP, Red Hat, Ubuntu with Media Player Classic and every other Open Source program I have that worked before.
Read HG Wells War in the Air.
He did predict all those things you mentioned, and he believed it would be the end of Civilization. Just like lots of people believed in the 1960's.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
It lets me do what I want with fewer clicks. Get out of the way is a great way to improve the desktop.
Apple seems to be doing the same sort of thing, but I don't have one of those.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
The Debian figure at '230 Million Lines of Code' is for the operating system plus around 20,000 applications. The Windows figure is for just the base operating system (plus solitare). Add in the code lines for Office, Photoshop, and around 100 or so games and other applications software to get a real Apples to Apples comparison. Also, each application is maintained separatly in Debian, so the huge undertaking is so spread out so much that in most cases one person can do it. Not usually so in Windows land.
On the other hand, the Linux mantra of 'we'll release it when ready' is seen as a virtue for themselves. (Debian has a long history of this.) Why then is it a horrible thing when Microsoft does the same thing? (AKA Visa delays)? Personally, I hope that the system actually works when I get it on my next computer.
Lots to think about there.
P.S. You might like to look at the history. XP is built on a base derived from VMS (I think). so, if Apple is on Unix, Windows is on VMS. You don't have to change to go with VMS.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
MS seem to be the only ones making the ergonomic keyboards I like to use. And they are high quality.
That everybody hates MS for other reasons doesn't mean their hardware is bad.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
That is not really exaxt..."
The answer you are looking for is '42'
You're welcome