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.

Comments

Don't expect any radical shift

[elrous0]

Most of the best ways that MS could change would be way too risky for all but the most gutsy (and possibly most reckless) leadership to embrace.

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.

Re:Don't expect any radical shift

[setagllib]

They're boned as far as operating systems go. They can't break backwards compatibility, but that same backwards compatibility is killing them as they try to improve the system.

Think about it - if you're making a clean break from Windows, would you choose a mature, well established alternative like Linux or MacOSX, or would you choose a completely new, unproven and completely incompatible and unstandardised operating system from Microsoft? Even if the new Microsoft OS is cleaner, being incompatible with EVERY operating system out there would absolutely kill it.

So they can't keep going with the Windows they have, and they can't start over without losing the only asset Windows has, its backwards compatibility. The superior technology of Linux and MacOSX will keep them alive long after Windows' architecture crumbles, and Vista is the first huge sign that's happening.

The drop dead obvious confirmation of this is that Windows 7 was meant to be modularised and cleaned up, and all of that has been cancelled already.

Re:Don't expect any radical shift

[raddan]

but the fact that they *still* haven't supplanted Windows in any meaningful way means that it must not be as good a solution as advocates have made it out to be.

This reminds me of something Eric Raymond talked about in The Art of UNIX Programming

[T]he most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough.

I think that's what you're seeing here in the Windows world. Because the cost of the operating system is hidden (bundled with PC), most people don't really feel the impact of having to pay for it-- i.e., they don't need to evaluate it against the alternatives. And, as long as it works for them, there are no issues. Raymond's quote specifically refers to the Plan 9 operating system vs UNIX. But the same thing applies to Windows vs Linux.

I think what you're starting to see, and the reason why this topic is coming up with more and more frequency, is that for a lot of people, Windows is not "good enough" anymore. Obviously, the "good enough" threshold is much higher if you're a technical user, and I think that's why a lot of technical users have made the switch to Linux-- the added cost of switching, mainly in terms of retraining time, is worth the effort. But for most people, who simply need a web browser, an email client, and a text editor, Windows works fine for them-- most of the time.

5 ways

[tom17]

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

Re:5 ways

[L4t3r4lu5]

6. CowboyNeal.

Working to standards rather than making the code

[RichMan]

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.

Slashdot in 'not as good as it used to be' shock

[Harold Halloway]

So Slashdot is now posting 'perfectly mediocre' stories? Come back Roland, all is forgiven.

ok, let's chat

[Tom]

#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.

Re:my personal preference

[thermian]

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.