Slashdot Mirror
Five Ways Microsoft Could Change After Gates
Might Squirrel noted a perfectly mediocre story to chat about on a boring post-holiday weekend Monday. This one is a look at 5 ways Microsoft could change after Gates. From accepting Open Source to serious interoperability work, there are definitely 5 things on that list there. Nothing about my solid gold rocket car.
They could design a whole new OS from the ground up, abandoning much of the legacy code in Windows that makes it a bit flaky and adopting the "Ã la carte" modular design. They could even make it more secure. But that would risk alienating a huge chunk of traditional Windows users (who still want their old stuff to work, will be confused by a modular design, and who *hate* security popups asking for a password every time they install something). It would be a major risk to the dominance of one of their two big cash cows and could open the door for Apple to swoop in for some market share.
They could fully embrace open source. But that means risking the dominance of Office--their other cash cow. And they're not going to do that.
Basically, I don't expect them to change much at all in the post-Gates era. They may embark on some new initiatives and head in some new directions. And I do expect they will be a LOT more internet-oriented in the future. But they're not going to change their fundamental business model, or abandon their core apps to some radical new ideology.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
... is to rename themselves TriOptimum.
1. It could get much worse
2. It could get worse
3. It could stay the same
4. It could get better
5. It could get much better
We all know that this is not in line with M$. It's more likely that they'll try to find new ways of fighting it. Unfortunately they will probably succeed quite well too.
From Microsoft's attempts at documenting their file formats and interfaces I can say that Microsoft does not work to specifications or standards. They make the code work then make the working code the standard. That is bad practice and leads to, as all can see, bloated, undocumented and overly large interfaces.
I believe the biggest change for Microsoft, whether or not they embrace openness, is to work to a specification driven development rather than a code driven development system. Spend the timing working on the specification and interfaces, get a workable interface and security model then implement it.
So Slashdot is now posting 'perfectly mediocre' stories? Come back Roland, all is forgiven.
Without Gates Microsoft runs the risk of becoming a faceless super-corporation focusing on sales rather than developing the tech that could give the company an edge.
Runs the risk? Isn't this what Microsoft is now?
And kill linux and OSX at the same time...
Yeah, it seems Taco is having a bit of an identity crisis. Either that, or he's just grumpy about having to work at such an ungodly early hour.
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
#1:
Yes, Gates has been an opponent of Free Software ever since his famous first letter. However, he's not been as vocal regarding Open Source Software, and that's where it's our loss that we forgot about the difference between them. MS has made some early attempts with "shared source", and like other stuff, they'll refine it.
#2:
Nonsense. That's got absolutely nothing to do with Gates, and everything with the fact that MS simply can't write another windos. After the entire NT team packed up and left, it's been going downhill, and one of the reasons Vista sucks so much is that they shipped something that nobody in the company understood how it worked. If you thought Vista was a trainwreck, wait for Win7.
#3:
What this shows even more is how MS works. Despite their total lack of experience and ability, they enter the game like they own it, and get a bloody nose. But they come back - and get another beating. Just that they keep coming back. You can see that modus operandi in almost every area. Hardware, consoles, much of their non-core software. Usually, it doesn't matter much because they don't learn and keep on sucking, but sometimes along the way they get some wits, or acquire another company, and suddenly they matter (e.g. hardware) or the market is just so small that by sheer power they force their way in (e.g. consoles).
#4:
Pfft. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 20 years or so, you know that MS announcement regarding ODF is simply the opening stage of EEE. MS has replaced the "then you win" step of the "first they laugh at you..." thing with "then they embrace you, extend you, extinguish you", and fairly successfully at that. With MS as you enemy you don't win when they give up the fight. That's just their way of saying "ok, the cheap and easy way didn't work, we'll have to take you down the old way".
#5:
Yes, maybe. The only point that holds some merit, and even includes both sides of the story. Personally, I think MS will break apart. It'll be a long time, but a disorganized, never-grown-up company like MS simply needs a strong man to hold it together, and for all I know, the ape simply won't do.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
1,2,4: Wishful thinking
3,5: yes, of course
"are you sure you want to change Microsoft?" (confirm) (cancel)
"are you really sure you want to change Microsoft? Like sure, sure?"
(confirm) (cancel)
"performing this action can be dangerous, are you sure?"
(confirm) (cancel)
"ok really this time...
Maybe Microsoft will change for the better after Ballmer leaves. But not while he's in charge. At least, that's what I think.
There's a fair amount of information on MS protocols and standards on MSDN - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc216514.aspx
and their source-code is available for review at least @ http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx ... which 10 years ago would've been unthinkable; but yeah, although it's a far cry from the GPL, is still hugely better than it was.
throw new NoSignatureException();
Would be for microsoft to simply go away.
Really? And what would you replace them with? An Apple Monopoly? an IBM one? Linux?
Notice how many Linux distro's are being sponsored by big companies these days? Ok, this is a good thing as part of an active OS ecosystem, but name one you'd happily hand a majority share of the OS market to.
Microsoft can't be excised from the IT world. If they, for the sake of argument, collapsed next week, there would be a worldwide IT company crash of epic proportions. We would all suffer.
Like it or not, we need them to stick around. In order to survive they will have to evolve as a company, just like IBM did. I hope they do, as much as I like Linux (and I do, a lot), I wouldn't like it if that was all there was aside from Apple's OS.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
I hope that nothing changes. That way, people will continue to pour over to Ubuntu. More people using Ubuntu will mean more apps written for Linux. Everybody (for values of everybody outside Redmond) wins.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
and as we know from history of extinct species, those who could not adapt and change died out and made way for the ones that could.
And the reason Microsoft can't change is because they are catering now to huge bureaucratic corporations (think insurance companies, banks, etc, some of whom are still running Windows NT 4.0), and these are not exactly at the forefront of technological adoption let alone innovation. I.e. they cater to a market that doesn't like change.
If Microsoft decided to do an "apple" and ditch Win32 for solid proven UNIX kernel and build their own APIs around that, these businesses would be creaming bloody murder and literary make Microsoft support their old crud.
Now this could be done through VM these days (but then again most of businesses don't have powerful machines for their users), or perhaps MS could split consumer and business OS further, since consumers are more likely to follow latest trends.
But all this seems to iffy and risky decision for Microsoft to make. So I don't expect any change from them.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
I wouldn't replace them with anything, I think there are more than enough alternatives out there.
MS's behaviour during the standardization process of the document format has left me firmly in the camp of people that want to see microsoft gone.
The fact that they were bailed out of their conviction seems to have given them the impression that they can do anything they please and that they can buy everybody. It should not be that way. No other software company (that I'm aware of) is currently playing this crooked.
MP3 Search Engine
The business model required to purchase a Windows machine is broken.
There are no retailers who sell, out of the box, any kind of optimally adapted PC, configured correctly and free of junkware.
Because margins are so low, they stoop to ludicrous scams like putting junk components next to good ones, or (as Dell is famous for doing) buying everything on the cheap for a computer that crashes -- and the users blame Windows.
Microsoft's #1 challenge is to overcome this deficiency.
I would suggest they do as Apple did and open a chain of stores to sell preferred machines, configured well, or find someone who can.
The consumer faces a series of bad options when buying a Windows machine, and most won't understand how to build their own, even though it's simple even for the layman at this point.
Selling desktop software, including the OS, is Microsoft's biggest business. They need to tackle this gaping crack in their armor before they move on to any fancier but less necessary visions.
Anti-Globalism, Traditionalism, and FreeBSD.
I guess the approach to this depends on your medium-term strategy. If you are concerned that Linux and OS X market share is likely to increase significantly based on current trends, and you acknowledge that Vista has been a failure in the market but there is still a lot of demand for XP today, then this indicates a need to move in a different direction where you can compete effectively with Linux and OS X a few years down the line but no desperate need to shift dramatically in the near future.
If you assume that the thing most holding back Linux and OS X today is application (including driver) support, and you acknowledge that this is the major technical reason people are still using Windows, then from the previous assumptions you must expect software companies to focus more on portability and use of cross-platform libraries in future as the target markets using alternative operating systems grow. However, you can use this to your advantage, because it means if your new direction plays nicely, it will continue to be at least as attractive for software developers to support your platform as any of your rivals when they go cross-platform.
If you look at the major competition in Linux and OS X, both are based on decades-old concepts that are tried and tested, but also aren't particularly well suited to current trends in networked access, mobile devices, and the like. This creates an opportunity for your new direction to provide genuine improvements for the users while learning from the successful ideas that have gone before, and thus to make your new platform the more attractive one.
And here's the kicker. If you're Microsoft, you are one of the few companies on the planet that has sufficient development resources, financial reserves and attention from software developers to have a credible shot at this. But you need to be honest about the situation, and make a few hard choices about who you're going to put in charge, since your problem is not your generally very smart technical people or your generally very effective marketing people, it's your generally missing the point management people.
I don't really expect them to do this, because I don't think they have the guts to bet the house on such a big move. But I honestly believe their best strategy in the market today is to sit in a holding pattern on the XP/Vista line for the near future (when neither Linux nor OS X is a serious threat to their dominance), aim to have a serious alternative a few years down the line that can compete on merit in a market where one-OS software is increasingly rare and the threats from alternative platforms like Linux, OS X, and whatever new trends emerge in web-based and mobile computing are growing. Along the way, they could move towards open standards and continue their strategy of basically giving away powerful development tools that support their platform, which would undermine some of the key selling points of the opposition, and continue to support the company via sales and incremental improvements to XP and Office for the immediate future.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Huh?
(They might even host on themselves on a stripped down core Windows server 2008. Given their preocupation with DRM I'm guessing that's their future direction).
Andy
The only big change I can see for now is whenever anything bad happens with a Microsoft product I can just say 'this damn thing is driving me balmy!' in lieu of Mr. Ballmer taking over.
I see two problems. First, Gates remains even in retirement the driving force behind Microsoft. With his marginalization, the usual parasitism of bureaucracy, empire building, backstabbing, office supply theft, etc is going to grow. Second, the company has yet to come up with alternate revenue streams to replace Office, Windows, and the MS upgrade cycle that made so much money for them in the past couple of decades.
Given that, here's my take what will happen:
There have been a number of open source projects over the years that have been kept under the control of a single source (by dual licensing, for example), and others that have ignored, ridden down, and flagrantly broken standards. There's been at least two high profile projects that have deliberately used embrace-end-extend to knock competing software (including other open source projects) out of the ring. Open source is not the same as open standards... hell, the software that really started the whole open systems movement in the '70s didn't have a good open source implementation until the '90s.
Both open source and open standards are important, vitally important, but they are not the same thing and mixing up the two just muddies the water and hurts both movements.
Microsoft can't be excised from the IT world. If they, for the sake of argument, collapsed next week, there would be a worldwide IT company crash of epic proportions. We would all suffer.
Actually, I'd wager that every economy in the world would crash. The amount of money that MS generates effects every single person on the planet, and their technology effects all but the most primitive cultures.
I don't respond to AC's.
Without Gates Microsoft runs the risk of becoming a faceless super-corporation focusing on sales rather than developing the tech that could give the company an edge.
But, Doctor Evil, that already happened.
Microsoft has not made any fundamental improvements to Windows since Windows 2000, and I'd have to look back even further than that to find any major improvements to Office.
No, that is ridiculous. MacOSX kept a lot of compatibility with its BSD base and emulated MacOS9. The transition period was huge, and it was starting from scratch. Microsoft will not have the same opportunity, and it will lose a lot of market share.
The best Microsoft could do is something similar, rebasing on BSD and making a compatibility layer, but with almost every non-trivial Windows application hooking itself into the kernel and services and everywhere, that will NOT work for most of what ties people to Windows anyway.
Sam ty sig.
Change won't come until Steve Ballmer is gone. Seriously, the behavior of Microsoft can traced directly to him. Get that dinosaur out of the way and change can truly begin.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Microsoft is a big company, and there's no way they would have promoted a bunch of free-software (or even interoperability) zealots to a senior management role.
Gates would have employed people who were broadly-speaking like minded to senior roles. Once the company became big enough that he didn't really need to be involved in every senior person the company employed, the job would have been delegated - to others who Gates employed in the first place.
The only way we'll see major changes is if there's enough demand (probably from shareholders) for a major change - which I would expect to see culminate in new people with radically different ideas installed at board level. Think Lou Gerstner and IBM. Unless Bill Gates has single-handedly been sailing the ship on a course which most of his staff disagreed with (which I doubt), it certainly won't come from within.
But if Microsoft breaks backward compatibility they can support it (probably as well as they do now) using virtualization for essentially free, as opposed to Linux or OS X, which can do the same but not for free.
That would be because they are not stupid.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
#2 New approach to releases? Oh yes, but then going to a subscription based software infrastructure only compounds the current problems of being tethered to the M$ name brand. Microsoft will invent many new ways to deactivate "their" software whenever you forget to pay tribute.
#3 Secure revenue by buying out? Whats new about this? Microsoft has always bought out or simply crushed their financially for years.
#4 Interoperability? What? Microsoft? Get real! Microsoft's only use for "standards" is so they have a way to be incompatible. If everybody follows the standard they are guaranteed not to interoperate with MS software.
#5 More Microsoft than Gates? What is that about? Who cares who is shown as running the show? I don't buy software because of who markets it, I would only buy it because it solves a problem. Lately they have only created problems to be solved, so I generally look elsewhere for my solutions unless the 800 lb gorilla gets in my way and I am forced to buy something in order to "interoperate" differently than any other software that is available.
There are another issue that I think is being overlooked is the 64-bit issue. This also adds to be backwards compatibility issues. Here's the way I understand it: The LP64 model (used by Linux and Unix) redefines long (32-bit) to 64-bit. The model MS chose is the LLP64 model which introduces a new integer type called long long which is 64bit. The effect of this is that a 32bit MS program will work in a 64bit Windows, but a 64bit MS program will not work in 32bit Windows. So companies who want to take advantage of 64bit Windows will have to develop 2 different versions of the same software. This hinders some companies from moving forward to 64 bit. In the LP64 model, a company would have to compile 32bit and 64bit versions but their code can be the same.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I have a serious question -- this isn't supposed to be flae-inciting Microsoft or Ballmer bashing:
I keep thinking that, in the last 5 years, Ballmer has done nothing to extend the profits or grow Microsoft. The company seems trapped like an animal in the headlights of a car. The XBox is a cash-eater; the Zune, too. Office may have become elegant in the 2007 edition, but only if you have a huge computer to run it on. Vista's developmental delays (pun intended) were very costly. None of these have improved the share price value in real terms or in plain dollar value. There's been no dividends. The kindest thing you could say is that it's underperforming -- a state borne from a lack of direction and leadership. I am genuinely surprised that Ballmer and others have not been ousted.
(Perhaps you can't write letters to the Microsoft Board and Shareholders in Word any more -- Clippy's evil DRM twin steps in and says "I see you want to have Ballmer sacked. Reporting your location to the Orbiting Chair-Dropper...")
That's your logic, not his.
Here's my logic, which is probably a good deal closer to his than yours is.
First, moving to OSX and an Intel platform for Apple/Mac is not the same thing at all. Apple computers come bundled with the OS. It's a complete package. In fact, it's more practical to compare a Mac with OSX to a car and its ECU than a PC with Windows. It only needs to be compatible with the hardware it ships with. And the end user doesn't really care how it works under the hood. As long as the UI is similar to the old one they're familiar with, they love it.
Secondly, OSX was built on proven OS technology. I find myself very skeptical that MS would bend over and build a *nix OS as well. Most likely any kind of "clean break" move they made would be something completely new from the ground up, and completely unproven.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Most of you seem to be saying no, but I think you've forgotten about Singularity. Sure, it's a research OS, but rumor has long had it that it's more stable than Windows. All the Windows apps could be run via virtualization -- since they have the original code, they should be able to make it work better than even the Wine project, right? (Cue the MS incompetence jokes....) The only real problem is legacy hardware but a lot of that could be abandoned; some Mac-users were pissed off when old apps and hardware didn't work with OS X, but they got over it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that some of the initial negative reactions would really hurt them in the long run. Lots of people would buy new hardware after a while rather than be left behind (with an appropriate amount of grumbling, of course).
Security? At first glance it well seems that Vista hurt more than it helped, but I think maybe it did help. A lot of Vista users did gain a little awareness of security. What they really need to do is introduce some consistency there, something a lot closer to Unix-style permissions instead of constant pop-ups. Make it a little easier to deal with -- BSD and Linux did. Contrary to popular belief among Vista-users, most forms of Linux and BSD do not nag you constantly for the root password, actually a bit less than Vista. Yes, I have used both Linux and Vista recently. And that brings me to another point: Vista's memory usage, even with SP 1, still sucks in comparison to XP. XP on my other computer is using 619 MB of RAM right now and it has a explorer window open, Jet Audio running, plus a small host of other apps running in the background. The Vista computer I was using Saturday was using 820 MB of RAM while idle! And it was a fresh install. Sure, I expect that memory-usage is going to go up as the OS itself advances, but Vista isn't advanced enough in comparison to XP to justify that. I've heard Server 2008 is better even though it also has Aero. If that's true, MS needs to figure out how to do that with Vista.
I suppose the real problem is that management dictates what is supposed to be done and doesn't make good decisions. Security? Meh, who cares, we want features! We want to continue supporting old, unstable code! We want a shiny new interface! Give users choices? Ha! We're qualified to make the choices, not them! So, if MS were to become a decent company, I think it would have to be not after the departure of Gates, but after the departure of Ballmer and other powerful individuals in management. In short, what MS really needs is for the biggest part of their management to be replaced with people who know about writing software and some from among their "dogfood-eaters" who use the software on a daily basis.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
I always wondered what would have happened if Bill Gates was driven by a different set of priorities. History would be very different if Microsoft followed the example of companies like 3M that expect employees to spend a modest percentage of their time on explorative projects (this is where post-it notes came from). Of course, Microsoft follows its own mode of development. Regardless, I'm inclined to argue that we have a healthy OS ecosystem out there. .
MS only has one - Office
Their OS marketing is all about market share.
OEM's (big ones) pay mere pennies on the dollar for licenses to ship windows on new pc's.
MS started that strategy long ago, along with really loose protections on piracy.
The whole goal has been to maximize the wintel boxes in the workplace by subsidizing the OS, then supplying the productivity software at a hefty profit.
Why hasn't anyone else developed an Office killer?
Because it's difficult, costly, and most likely to fail in the marketplace due to MS huge head start.
There is a huge user base for whom just turning on the pc is a challenge.
If most corps announced that they would be migrating to OpenOffice, complete with retraining and hand-holding techs, the legions of the dull would rise en masse and slay them.
[Apologies to Lewis Black]
Maybe they will finally pay up on all the email tracking they promised a long time ago.
I bet Gates is the reason behind the failure to pay up.
Apple switched from an in-house kernel to an in-house version of UNIX. They did this when NeXT acquired Apple (some people claim it was the other way around :-) and Steve wanted to merge the Apple GUI into NeXTStep, which was then Mach-UNIX. I recall they Apple basically built an Apple emulator into NeXTStep (Carbon?). Of course it wasnt perfect, but did more or less run old software.
There are several Windows emulators out there running on Linux and Apple-OS. These suggest a migration path to something else.
MicroSoft is where IBM was 25 years ago - the creaky old behemoth. Its still pretty much on top of the pack, but more in computer services rather than hardware and software. The transistion was pretty painful to employees too, shedding generous pension and other benefits of the old IBM to what most companies offer today.
Microsoft can't be excised from the IT world. If they, for the sake of argument, collapsed next week, there would be a worldwide IT company crash of epic proportions. We would all suffer.
The hell we would. The Eee PC has shown that a non-Windows alternative is quite viable. On the high-end, Apple has been showing for a long time that a non-Windows alternative is quite viable.
The world does not need Microsoft. That's bollocks that MS would love all to believe, but the truth really is, if MS collapsed today, we would NOT suffer - at all! Proof? People try to keep clear of Vista, they try to hold on to Windows XP IN SPITE of Microsoft's attempts! MS is fighting their own customers now, and you know how people like *that*. Many have switched to Linux (or just kept the Linux on the Eee PC) because they are fed up of Microsoft's quite frankly violent tactics in forcing their hand. And now, Linux is just about good enough for almost all tasks and many games will run in Wine (though I admit there's some way to go still in the gaming space, for Linux).
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Take Gates, remove his vision and innovation, you get Ballmer.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
If Taco is that pissed off about doing Slashdot these days then why doesn't he step down so he can go run his multi-billion dollar charity organization?
hilarious, I really hope you're not majoring in economy :)
The money that has been spent on microsoft products has already been spent. Microsoft is now in the luxurious position of having a portion of it, Bill Gates & other shareholders have some of it (dividends).
The money will flow back in to the market one day (maybe), but for now it is already spent. Any FUTURE money that consumers can still spend on microsoft or competing products is still up for grabs, and it will not affect the economy one little bit if that money is spent on microsoft products or products by different manufacturers.
For instance, I just bought a Varicad license, simply because their product runs on Linux and I needed a 3d cad system. It's affordable and it allows me my choice of os, a windows version is also available.
If someone chooses open office instead of MS Office XXXX then that also does not affect the economy in a negative way.
So, I'll take your wager. Nothing will crash, nobody will be effected other than microsoft shareholders and employees. The tech that is already out there will continue way past its projected service life anyway, witness the number of win 2k, 98 and even older boxes.
MP3 Search Engine
if MS collapsed today, we would NOT suffer - at all! Proof? Proof? People try to keep clear of Vista, they try to hold on to Windows XP IN SPITE of Microsoft's attempts!
Um, you just used a Microsoft product as proof that we don't need Microsoft...
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
Now that Bill Gates is retired, do you think Slashdot could replace the little Bill/Borg icon that it uses to denote a Micro$oft-related article. Personally, I think a little icon of Steve Ballmer throwing a chair would be appropriate,... ;-)
Linux and the Mac OS aren't even remotely your only choices. It's very desktop-centric to think that they are, because there are literally hundreds of alternatives, many of which function just fine (often better) for many tasks, and as desktop operating systems as well. What many of them can't do, and as far as I can tell, this is your only objection, is run Windows software. Big deal. If Microsoft disappeared today, it would be painful for some people for a few years, but I'm sure we'd make it through just fine.
I don't understand why people think we need a software monoculture anymore. When people walked into a store and bought a shrinkwrapped box of software, it was convenient. Now a large number of applications are developed using platform-independent toolkits (with, I might add, extremely liberal licenses) or with web technologies. Arguably, platform matters even less nowadays than it did one or two decades ago.
...then they should make their main page a search box ala Google.
It's not that there aren't alternatives, it's the support contracts that very large companies have with Microsoft. They depend on Microsoft for their day-to-day operations. That's probably not a good thing, but if Microsoft disappeared overnight these large companies would have very big problems the moment anything went wrong.
OK, so all of a sudden, nobody can buy the OS that runs 95% of the world's computers, and nothing will happen? Uuuh, OK. It doesn't take an economics degree to realize that that would deeply impact the entire planet. On top of that, but all of that revenue that isn't flowing into MS would end up not going anywhere would be massive. 80,000 well-paid employees, all suddenly out of work. Thousands of companies making MS products. $51,000,000,000 in sales suddenly gone. I'd have to shut my business at least temporarily to find replacement software, along with millions of others. You're on crack if you think that people would just switch to something like Red Hat and the world would keep turning. That's laughable.
I don't respond to AC's.
Microsoft doesn't trust that their development base will follow them if they radically redefine what it is to create applications under Windows. And now Vista has just confirmed their worst fears - developer loyalty at MS has crumbled. To get them back, they need to do what they hate the most: focus on interop and start to accept that the new hotness is Not Invented Here.
You seem to think all the computers running Microsoft operating systems would instantaneously disappear if Microsoft disappeared? That every company selling software to work on those systems would suddenly stop being able to sell anything?
You have a seriously twisted view on how the world works.
Here is what would really happen if Microsoft went bankrupt:
1. Sales by companies that make software that works on Windows would *increase* as everybody would stop waiting for Microsoft to produce the product and would be willing to pay to keep their existing systems working.
2. Windows/Vista/etc would not magically stop working. People needing compatability would continue to install it for a long, long time.
3. An alternative, probably a clone written by some of those 80,000 former employees, would appear in *weeks*. It would likely use stolen IP but there would be nobody who would care. It might use a Linux or BSD kernel but there is no need to make any technical predictions. This company would get a massive influx of money as computer manufacturers would need them to supply their machines.
3. Whoever produced that clone would become filthy rich and would turn into an evil monopoly.
Why would you have to switch ? The stuff you've got should continue to run just fine.
The upgrade treadmill would simply stop turning.
I think your suggestion that we are that dependent on a single company is a fantastic reason to get rid of it today.
MP3 Search Engine
Instant spelling error detection was a big deal in Word *BEFORE* Windows. I know as I was working at another company and we were competing with it.
Personally, I think there must be some recent real improvements to Word but Belial6's attempt to come up with one is a hilariously massive failure.
I don't rely on that company, but that's the only company making a product that is a good value. Nobody else is doing it.
I don't respond to AC's.
sorry, but that's just plain false. Operating system wise Apple makes a good product, so does Sun microsystems, there's HP/UX, we've got open office and google docs in the 'office document processing' arena, and for both these groups there are countless others besides the ones listed.
Which 'product that is good value' is it that you are referring to ?
MP3 Search Engine
A decent point-of-sale system. There's nothing that runs on Linux that's either A. not absolute crap or B. enterprise level. Nothing even remotely affordable on HPUX or Sun, and nothing serious on OSX. So sorry, but as far as low and mid level point-of-sale systems, Windows is the only logical way to go.
I don't respond to AC's.
Well, point of sale systems are not exactly my specialty so I'll concede that to you.
MP3 Search Engine
I reckon a big road block to writing completely new kernel + OS for Microsoft is the need to support the huge backlog of hardware, a thing which XP does, and Vista is not perfect at. I would guess that this is something that stops Apple from allowing OSX to be installed on a wide range of hardware. This also is where Linux excels, as anything which is supported by Linux works out of the box. Most other things which aren't supported out of the box can usually be installed with a bit of forum browsing. In fact I find it easier to install Ubuntu on my old desktop than XP, even though I know well what hardware I have in the box and have a copy of all required drivers and softwares for hardware, for both Ubuntu and XP.
like phosphorescent desert buttons singing one familiar song
so you can have a windows XP disk with the drivers and you will not need a floppy disk.
http://driverpacks.net/DriverPacks/
4. Mac OSX for all pc will come out.
No, that is ridiculous. MacOSX kept a lot of compatibility with its BSD base and emulated MacOS9. The transition period was huge, and it was starting from scratch. Microsoft will not have the same opportunity, and it will lose a lot of market share.
The transition period was incredibly brief. OS X was released in 2001. The last PPC Mac (and thus the end of "emulated OS9") was sold in 2006, only 5 years later. It will not be surprising if the next version of OS X doesn't support PPC *at all*.
Fat bald guys running around screaming developers at the top of their lungs.
Visual Basic (VB) and Basic are completely different languages. VB is object oriented, has memory management and uses code block type structures, rather than line numbers. In fact I don't see a real difference* between VB .Net and C# .Net. I often just refer to both languages as the same thing: .Net.
I can't see python or perl becoming a standard in windows, no matter how much I'd like to see it, although I agree with you it would be fantastic to see.
If anything killing VB 6 was the first nail in the coffin for Vista.
* One difference: C# has the "super extra spicy just like C -only crunchy danger mode" that people generally don't use
We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
I'm not saying there are *no* alternatives. But for many businesses/applications, there really aren't any good alternatives. Every small/medium sized retail store would be *screwed* because there really isn't anything else out there (and believe me, I've looked).
I don't respond to AC's.
Sometimes evolution requires a mass extinction in order for something better to come along. Sure MS suddenly dying off would be a hit to the PC industry that could set it back about ten to twenty years. But it would give us a fresh restart and the ability to look at all the good and bad and redo things right from the start.
With MS gone, the spotlight will be on Apple and Linux. Apple will crumble under the weight due to their "Steve's way or no way" attitude with hardware. Linux could falter due to the community that codes it not being able to keep up with consumer demands. How many consumers are going to load an OS that cannot legally play DVDs in some areas? How many consumers are willing to learn how to go through the hoops required to install the latest graphics drivers so that they can play the new game they just bought?
Windows is as solid as quicksand.
Eventually Microsoft will need to be excised (Exercised) from the IT world. They are acting like a virus, feeding off the host and growing in number. Some viruses live in harmony with the host MS will grow beyond the capacity of the IT industry to support it, my prediction is that this will happen within 5 to 10 years.
I called this the Microsoft crash, it will happen and it will be devastating. The Microsoft crash will kill some but not all, many will survive just not those companies that are completely dependent upon Microsoft. The Microsoft crash is something that needs to happen, the IT industry is already struggling under the weight of Microsoft, technologies are being held back (by patents and the inability of Microsoft to innovate as much as by the lack of competition caused by MS vendor lock in), the upgrade cycle is a huge financial burden upon companies as they are having to buy new hardware to perform exactly the same task as the old hardware because the old OS isn't supported any more (see, docx and planned obsolescence). The Microsoft crash will not happen overnight, it may take years so there will be plenty of time for companies to move out of the way of the falling giant, except of course for those who are so far in bed with MS that no amount of running will save them.
The Microsoft crash will not be the end of IT (or the end of the world as some people have predicted) but it will cost a lot as it will force change very quickly. It will change IT for the better, software developers (those who survive, software development will be the hardest hit) will have a greater emphasis of cross platform development, certificate techie's will mostly disappear, Malware and Viruses will slowly decrease, they will never be eliminated but it will make it more difficult for an end user to become infected as most infections it will require their consent.
This really is a poor argument, Lets keep the current monopoly because there could be another monopoly? An Apple monopoly will never take place, they place too many restrictions on Hardware and Software for businesses to be comfortable. This why Apple has no real corporate clients, its not because of cost (business would and do wear an additional overheard for hardware and software in order to be given peace of mind so paying Apples additional 20% would be meaningless when it equates to 4 hours of lost productivity). IBM has pretty much stopped developing AIX. How exactly do you envision a Linux monopoly? Even if Linux was installed on 100% of computers it would not be a monopoly in the traditional sense of the word due to 1) there are differing versions of Linux. 2) there are no restrictions on which version you can install and the GPL doesn't restrict you from modifying the OS (it only forces you to share that modification). 3) No single entity controls Linux, its like saying there's a monopoly on Iron because it all comes from the same source (the ground) which no single entity controls.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
They are CONVICTED MONOPOLIST felons, and thanks to money even justice could not do anything when it came time to punish them. Hopefully these robber barons will continue to allow their own greed to be their own worst enemy and eventual undoing. All the fawning by so called "news" outlets caused by the recent retirement of a liar and one of the worst offenders - who has the personality of the most insecure creep your likely meet, is getting old.
None of the software development is happening in the "vacuum", but is constrained by economics.
There is considerable cost associated with supporting even the previous releases (service packs, hot fixes etc) let alone a completely different code base with people who need to have completely different skill set needed for the old code base.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
This really is a poor argument, Lets keep the current monopoly because there could be another monopoly?
Nope, reduce Microsoft importance until it no longer holds a monopoly. Removing Microsoft entirely would spark a series of events in which all the competing companies would rush to fill the void, and yes, that would result in a new monopoly.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
This is exactly what will happen in the Microsoft crash. The crash will happen when competition against MS reaches critical mass, there are only two ways to reduce the amount of power MS has, 1) through law, government/legal scrutiny and regulation (breaking up the company would be most effective, weather it does any good or not is another question). 2) competition by other products.
No it wouldn't, I've gotten the "natural monopoly" argument from many Microsoft pundits (not a reflection upon yourself, this is just where this argument comes from in my experience). No other single company is in a position to completely take over a MS monopoly. By sheer virtue of the fact that so many companies will rush to fill the void (the void will happen slowly over a number of months, so there will be no rushing but a steady chipping away from MS's monopoly from all sides) means that there will be increased competition, MS gained it's monopoly because there was no meaningful competition, Apple was busy destroying itself, proprietary Unix's were cost prohibitive and FOSS like Linux did not exist. The market today minus Microsoft is highly competitive, the problem is that Microsoft drowns out 90% of the market.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Very much agree. I saw nothing in that comment that could even remotely be considered flamebait; it was a simple, honest expression of an opinion that offered a perfectly valid, reasonable possibility of what could have happened had Microsoft never become a monopoly. I've seen far too much of this kind of senseless moderation lately, too. It also seems to me that this kind of behavior violates the guidelines.
Microsoft can't be excised from the IT world. If they, for the sake of argument, collapsed next week, there would be a worldwide IT company crash of epic proportions. We would all suffer.
Not us. We'd simply move the rest of our Windows servers over to Linux and use projects like Mono/WINE to ease the pain of migration. Same thing for the desktops, switch everyone over to Linux or OS X and move on.
A few years ago - that would not have been a possible choice. But WINE & Mono and the maturation of distros like Ubuntu are really coming close to being "good enough". Good enough in that we wouldn't have to replace ALL of our applications, just the ones that don't work properly.
Are we ready to make the move yet? Hell no. We just finished upgrading everyone to WinXP and plan on staying on WinXP for another 5 years or so. Our next O/S upgrade will not happen before 2011-2012. Vista will not be used at our workplace until at least 2010.
But if push came to shove, Linux + WINE would be the direction we'd move in.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?