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.
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.
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
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?
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
1. Compare XP and KDE on Linux circa 2001.
2. Compare XP and KDE on Linux in 2006.
3. Compare expectations for Vista and KDE 4 on Linux in late 2007.
4. Extrapolate the relative improvements in Windows and KDE and Linux to 2010.
I don't care what resources Redmond has. They simply cannot compete with a bunch of determined individuals. No one can. It's just a matter of time.
KDE 4 running on Windows will probably speed things up, but even without it, Windows' days are truly numbered. The people at MS aren't stupid. They know this, which is why they've started fighting Linux more coherently this past year. They must be very, very worried about what Microsoft is going to look like 10 years from now. Any sensible person in their position would be.
"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.
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.
Every release of windows since windows 95 has been marginally better.
What about Windows ME?
I think you'd find a lot of people disagreeing with you on that one.
Life is too short to proofread.
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.
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.
I'll accept your analogy when the company that owns all the source to KDE goes under and takes the source with it.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that's somewhat unlikely.
(Don't debate with analogies. A single relevant difference is enough to invalidate your argument. And this single relevant difference was a doozie. Also, it was obvious.)
I'm not a MS fan, or really anti-MS - (read my other posts) but Microsoft are stuck here, they cant simply adopt a radical new operating system (even with virtualisation) and throw out all legacy support. They have gone as far as they can with Vista (which really isn't a re-write, its a mash up and an attempt to address some of their major problems). With legacy support they will continue to have the same security problems that have plagued them since the inception of windows.
The reasoning is simple, if Microsoft adopted a *nix like kernel and re-wrote everything then they would have an OS with little or no software support, little or no Hardware support, and they would find themselves competing directly with Linux / Solaris / BSD etc...without the benefit of already having a huge installed user base with a clear upgrade path. There would be one additional exception, their offering would not be free (unless they would simultaneously go down the software as a service route and make their OS free.. which throws up even more issues see My other post)
.Microsoft wont change their core OS not because they cant, but because if they do they are committing suicide. Even with coercion of hardware and software vendors, there will be a point when the Hardware and software vendors will simply have to decide whether it is cheaper for them to try and port / support the new Microsoft OS (which would be completely new, untested and unproven) or put the effort of supporting Microsoft's new offering into supporting a *nix, which already has all the features of this new Microsoft OS, and much longer pedigree and larger user base (assuming the initial Microsoft user base as 0 after all).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
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."
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."
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.