Slashdot Mirror
Gartner Analysts Warn That Windows Is Collapsing
spacefiddle writes "Computerworld has an article about a presentation from Gartner analysts in Las Vegas claiming that Windows is 'collapsing', and that Microsoft 'must make radical changes to the operating system or risk becoming a has-been.' Michael Silver and Neil MacDonald provided an analysis of what went wrong with Vista, and what they feel Microsoft can and must do to correct its problems. Larry Dignan of ZDNet has his own take, and while he agrees, he suggests that the downfall of Windows will be slow and drawn-out. As an interesting tangent to this, there's also a story from a few days prior about Ubuntu replacing Windows for a school's library kiosks, getting good performance out of older hardware. '[Network administrator Daniel] Stefyn said he was "pleasantly surprised" to discover that the Kubuntu desktops ran some applications faster with Linux than when they ran on Windows. An additional benefit of Windows' departure from student library terminals saw the students cease 'hacking the setup to install and play games or trash the operating system.'"
Windows NT was developed by Dave Cuttler (of DEC VMS team) based on a operating system specification developed by IBM. (It was supposed to be released under the name OS/2 version 3).
Microsoft implemented the Windowing API on top of that operating system.
The fact is that Microsoft has never developed a commercial operating system from scratch!!!
They have only incremented the original Windows NT (a.k.a. OS/2 v3.0) code base, for example by:
- replacing the OS/2 file system delivered in Windows NT with the more modern NTFS
- re-writing the OS/2 deveice driver layer of Windows NT with a new, 32-bit and C-based API [the original NT device driver model was 16-bit and assembler-based]
- moving the implementation of the graphics API into the ring-0 kernel [big mistake!]
- replacing the OS/2 multitaskin DOS compatibility (i.e. the text window of Windows) with a less DOS-compatible one, which was supposed to run on multiple processor architectures.
The effort to create a new operating system core for Vista failed because of lack of in-house knowlege.
The task of writing a new core OS (under the Windows API) seems to be too difficult for a company run by marketing people and lawyers.
They'd be able to install software with apt or Synaptic if they had the root account's password, were in the sudoers file, or found a privilege escalation exploit.
Presumably the first two options are disallowed by policy and machine setup. The latter is a hazard of running computers. That's not security through obscurity, that's security through proper setup and patching the OS to make sure exploits are eliminated as they're discovered.
Microsoft got all corporate and forgot their customer were the *end users*.
They seemed to get it in their head their customers were the people asking for DRM throughout the OS.
They seemed to believe the end users (the ones who have to pay for, and use their product) don't matter. They thought people just wanted some fancy need interface tweaks, and they'll accept whatever is forced on them.
It turned out they were wrong.
Microsoft need to strip it down, make the next version wicked fast, make it open to people who want to use their platform and media the way they want, and encourage developers. Backward compatibility? Only to the extent of running the top 500 well-behaved applications.
Give the next version away. Use the slogan "We're showing Windows the door".
1) Is solved by disabling anything except the C drive as a boot device and setting a BIOS and a grub password. The case may need to be physically secured as well depending on how enthusiastic the students are at wanting to subvert the security.
2) Many apps don't run well or at all on a properly secured Windows. Ubuntu's Unix like base means apps are designed to expect a rights restricted environment so it's much less painful.
#2 Is actually Vista's largest problem. Vista is trying to force good application software design that runs against years of experience in the Windows world and it's going to take a long time for app makers to adjust to the new reality.
This confusion is very common. There is the core OS and the MacOS X product you can buy in boxes. The core OS does not include Finder or Aqua. Just by getting rid of the superfluous components, Apple was able to shrink OSX to a bare minimum and then, just by selectively compiling the parts that made sense to include in the phone and iPod products, they achieved the desired footprint. It's like compiling a minimal kernel on Linux or BSD - really simple.
There could have been some problems with ARM-incompatible stuff, but those problems did not prevent the product launch.
As for developing, doing it for the iPhone OS is very close to developing for MacOS. Not everything is present, but it is a lot easier than to transition from desktop Windows to Windows CE.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple did shrink it even further for smaller devices. The iPhone/iPod Touch have proven it can be done and getting rid of OpenGL ES, CoreAnimation and Cocoa Touch would end up in a very, very small OS.
Yes. Microsoft painted itself into a corner. They will, eventually, figure a way to get out, but I am not sure they will do it in time.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
However, if you read on, you realize this is just a bit of journalistic bluster since the WEO is predicting the US economy to grow this year (just grow slowly). Growing slowly isn't a recession at all - I believe the most commonly accepted definition of a recession is two consecutive shrinking quarters. We technically haven't even had one quarter like that yet.
Admittedly, we could still have a recession and grow this year (if the economy came back strong enough in the last quarter), but this wouldn't be the steepest recession since the GD. In fact, it might not even be the steepest of this decade.
I'm not saying things aren't looking gloomy right now (my portfolio sure does), but I doubt it's quite as bad as some sensationalist would have you believe.
No.
Not without using a tool such as vLite to essentially strip Vista down to bare bones. And even then it runs like a dog. 8 year old hardware would be hardware from 2000. We are talking MAYBE a 1Ghz processor, (more likely 800Mgz) and probably either 128 or 256 Mb of RAM. That setup runs XP slowly. Vista, with all the extra overhead the larger kernel is running BARELY FUNCTIONS on a machine such as that.
How do I know? I'VE TRIED IT. Used an old 1Ghz Pentium laptop with 256 MB of RAM, and a vLite'd version of Vista Business with basically NOTHING left in it. Stripped down to basic functionality. It booted, but only JUST. It took no less than 15 minutes to get to the logon screen, and another 5 minutes after that to get to the desktop. Using it was like running an RDP session over a phone line with a large download going at the same time. Slloooooooooooow.
Now, with some extra RAM, that might have been sped up a bit. But in no way would it ever be able to run Vista in a manner that anyone would consider usable. Vista is too big, too bloated, and too damn slow for older hardware. Thankfully, it is on older hardware that Linux really shines. And with fantastic distros like Ubuntu and it's derivatives, there isn't any more reason to fight with Windows if you don't have the cash to upgrade your hardware.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
I guess this post must be a figment of my imagination, then, since there's no way I could possibly be writing from a laptop that's been happily running Ubuntu with Intel wireless since 6.06. ...Seriously, can we please stop spreading this "Linux systems can't use 802.11x" FUD? It stopped being true for the vast majority of users several major distributions ago.
First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
Last time you checked, you failed.
iPhone runs on a down-clocked 112mghz processor. (before the 1.1.2 firmware, it ran at 100mghz). Yes, the processor is capable of 620mghz but the battery would last something like 1 hour so it's been down-clocked.
Plus the iPhone doesn't have to carry the bazillion drivers that the regular Mac OS X carries, nor the bazillion software in embarks. It is, otherwise, the same Mach kernel.
For 23 years they have not just controlled, the word is 'dominated' the desktop environment.
Check your numbers. Windows 1.0 may have come out in 1985, but it was pretty much a joke, a slightly prettier version of DOSSHELL.EXE. Windows 2.x was hardly any better.
It wasn't until 1992, with version 3.1, that the Windows monoculture really began to take hold, and not until Win95 that 'domination' could be rightly claimed.
Funny, because in 2000 AMD was the first to break the GHz barrier, which prompted the introduction of the Pentium 4 in 2001. I think the P4 2.8GHz was introduced in 2004, but I could be off by a year (in both directions). In 2001 Ati introed the Radeon 9700 and more than a year later the 9800. So, because you are clearly making stuff up, I'll post this reply here to warn others not to believe your doubletrollish post
There's no real class system here. The comments about low UIDs are a JOKE, okay? It's really more of a meritocracy. If you are tactful, humble, erudite, and most of all, well informed on the subject you are posting about, you will be respected and modded up, even if the view is unpopular and you have a seven digit UID. If you are an asshole or an idiot, you will be modded down. As a general rule. There are exceptions.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Not at all. You are assuming that the design of Windows makes sense, or that it is designed with the end user in mind. Stop making that mistake.
For one thing, the DRM code is still there in many (loaded) DLL's, thus using memory (even if it may not be actively in use in the absence of DRM-encumbered media). The increased costs for hardware and driver development to make all this stuff even work, are paid for by you, the end user. Decreased driver stability due to the entirely new driver model (necessary to support DRM)? Guess who can deal with the problems it causes...yup...that would be you. Laptop battery draining faster because drivers are checking all the time whether protected media is present and whether the system is uncompromised (also happening while no DRM'ed media is actually present)?
I guess you can spot the trend by now.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
Photoshop CS1, CS2 both work in Wine. CS3 is installable.
^_^ Google is paying Wine to works specifically on Photoshop, so yeah!
Yes, your $25 Generic webcam will work on Linux thanks to that one guy who added all those drivers in one go ( http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/30/209201 )
Desktop Media creation is kind of vague, but you can edit audio, make movies, etc. It is also REALLY easy to turn almost all video into a format that plays in dvd players (Try devede, it works great)
Yes you can connect your 360 to linux, and you can use the controler in linux, and you can stream to the PS3 in linux, and you can use the ps3 controller in linux, and you can use the wii controller in linux.
Google is a better resource than Comcast. Comcast can't trouble shoot WINDOWS much less linux. 'Restart' does not count as troubleshooting.
Crysis can be played on Linux at the bronze level, which is better than it can run on my computer anywho: http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=5880 , but this seems like an unfair requirement.
Sims City 4 runs like a champ: http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=4088 But Sims in general is a huge category of games...
Let me ask you a question.
Can you run Windows for a year without restarting, slowing down, or crashing? How about 3 months?
Can you install 50 programs while uninstalling 32, while also installing/uninstalling all dependencies at the same time?
Can you (^_^ With pulse audio) plug in as many sound cards as you want, have them auto detected and added, and stream your audio to all computers in the house with indivdual volume controls for each item using it (Browser plugins, vlc, etc)
Can you quickly and easily change your wallpaper, window edges, icons, mouse, and all animations with little effort, in such a way that all applications reflect those changes?
Can you backup all your settings by copying one folder?
Can you share it legally with your friends/family?
Come back with "Yes" and I will reconsider Windows. And if you keep using windows, try out PowerMenu ( http://www.majorgeeks.com/PowerMenu_d87.html ), which allows window's to minimize to try, keep always on top, and other stuff.
I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
This is probably true for the server market, but not so much for the desktop/laptop market. At my last job Lenovo and Apple were our two pre-approved vendors for laptops and desktops. It's not like we wait to purchase a new laptop until we know a system with some given specs is coming out. We just bought whatever they had on the market at the time we needed a new machine. Hire a new employee... put in an order for a machine for them. Your system reaches a certain age... you get an upgrade to whatever they have out at that time. I mean who pre-plans desktop and laptop purchases based upon roadmaps that may or may not be accurate? The only time this matters if there is a major architecture change, and in such a case businesses usually wait for the software and third party hardware industry to stabilize on the new platform for a year or two.
Also, an amusing addendum, going to Apple.com right now will show you a giant graphic with a huge font that reads "iPhone Software Roadmap".
Apple makes it look "easy" by restricting their problem set. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury.I disagree. Apple works to support a subset of hardware they will sell and then tries to convince third party hardware makers to write drivers and support OS X. Microsoft, on the other hand, can release whatever the hell they want and OEMs and hardware manufacturers will do whatever it takes, including changing hardware design, to make it work with Windows. What choice do they have? They will make it work no matter how hard it is or they won't sell anything because it doesn't work with the only OS people use.
As for not being good at their "CORE job", there's nothing wrong with Vista, it's just not some gigantic leap forward. Post-SP1 it works fine.There is plenty wrong with Vista, but I agree that those problems are sometimes overblown by users and the media. Vista has problems, but so does everything else. In another year it will be as stable as XP for normal uses.
And Apple still can't really compete with Office (iWork is terrible)These aren't even aimed at the same market, and as someone who uses both, Keynote blows away Powerpoint, Pages wins for users looking to do some home publishing (not just word processing) especially on price, and Numbers is fine for home spreadsheet uses. None of them are ideal for corporate use, which is MS Office's primary target market.
Visual Studio (XCode is terrible)Wow, I'm not even going near that turd.
...or, really a server infrastructure (because say what you will about Vista, Server 2008 is awesome).Apple is behind in the server space, although your enthusiasm for all things Microsoft is, well nuts. Linux still crushes Windows as a server, especially if you remove all the antitrust abuses that artificially broken compatibility with Windows desktops. As for some small business use, OS X server is nearly free in comparison to Windows server, if you're trying to support 100 people or so. OS X runs you $1000 while Windows Server 2008 costs $16,000. The OS X version has unlimited users while you'll still have to pay MS another $3000 for each additional 20 users. So at 1/16th the price for a small business, I'm willing to forgive a lot in OS X server. Is Windows server 16 times as awesome as OS X server?