InfoWorld's Crystal Ball Predicts the Future of Microsoft

museumpeace writes "InfoWorld executive editor Galen Gruman has brainstormed five different scenarios for Microsoft in the coming decade and solicits the reader's vote on which is more likely. Does it tank? Does it go open source? Does it out-Google Google? Does Ballmer really fill Gates' shoes?"

Comments

more importantly:

[larry bagina]

does it blend?

Re:more importantly:

[jag7720]

Or does it really matter?

Microsoft is becoming more and more irrelevant in the computer world... and yes, even though they have 90% market share they are becoming irrelevant.

Forcing people to buy your product doesn't make you the best.

Ballmer doesn't fit and will leave MS... but MS will try to keep their MS tax by making their products available only online and a pay as you go.

Re:more importantly:

[Anonymous Coward]

Larry do you have a CITATION for that you bastard? I think maybe one is NEEDED. Bracket [ bracket ].

Re:more importantly:

[plague3106]

Hmm... you think they are becoming irrelevent, but that doesn't seem to be the case. FWIW, MS Research is one of the largest research companies in the world. We heard the same thing by the way years ago; MS is late to the internet party (with IE, IIS, etc) and it will spell their doom. It didn't happen; they don't turn on a dime, but they do turn. They'll figure out how to make money on netbooks, and they'll figure out a compelling reason for people to WANT to purchase their software.

Nobody buys MS that doesn't want to.

Re:more importantly:

[poetmatt]

"Nobody buys MS that doesn't want to"? Say that to about every user that's had a problem with something with MS.

Meanwhile, just because they're the biggest company doesn't mean they're relevant. It just means they WERE relevant. Past tense.

Re:more importantly:

[plague3106]

Oh please. There's a difference between someone having a "problem" with something MS and that person abandoning MS. My Honda has had it's problems too, but they were insignficant or properly handled by the vendor. If it got to the point were someone didn't want MS anymore, they go find something else. Simple as that.

And I never said they were relevent because they were big; they're relevent because they actually DO give customers what they want. I know, you can't possibly fathom it's true. But people aren't flocking to Linux; they know it's out there, but MS fits their needs better. I know apple has gained some marketshare. Personally, I don't think that will continue as people continue to realize that Apple has it's own problems as well... just like I learned the hard way that Linux isn't perfect either.

Re:more importantly:

[truthsearch]

Nobody buys MS that doesn't want to.

There have been many times when people complained to me about their Windows problems. I've often mentioned they should look at the alternatives. Almost always I get the same response: "What alternatives? Isn't every computer Windows?"

Most people still think Apple computers are completely foreign and are unaware of any other options. So to most people the options are a Windows computer or no computer.

Re:more importantly:

[MrMr]

Nobody buys MS that doesn't want to.
That's a ridiculous statement. I have bought and wiped clean close to a hundred MS pre-installations because getting either another os or applying for a refund was more expensive.

Re:more importantly:

[truthsearch]

If it got to the point were someone didn't want MS anymore, they go find something else. Simple as that.

Many companies have invested millions of dollars in Microsoft software as a core part of their computing infrastructure. That's not something that can be replaced quickly, easily, or cheaply.

Re:more importantly:

[RightSaidFred99]

Haha. You are truly Captain Wishful Thinking. You people that think if you come on a board with a bunch of like minded "thinkers" and say something, that makes it true. "Microsoft is irrelevant!" "See how I've made my hatred known by saying something nonsensical and dismissive of an entity I hate!?". You just did the equivelent of a 13 year old girl's "wha-EVA!"

If you hate MS that much, a better tact would be to not underestimate the enemy in your little nerd battle. They're not irrelevant, to say they are is laughable and shows how provincial and limited your experience in the computing industry is.

Re:more importantly:

[RSKennan]

Actually, "Does it run linux" is more pressing.

Re:more importantly:

[Opportunist]

I doubt too many people care. Just as long as someone tries it!

Re:more importantly:

[poetmatt]

see response below, people are locked in right now and have to make significant investments to get out. My workplace is a multibillion dollar company and they hate using MS products due to unnecessary fees but recognize it's even more expensive just to make the transition and so have been doing so little by little.

Nobody said Linux is perfect. However, at this stage both apple and windows are worse for many corporate needs among other things (for non-graphic design related where mac and linux are equal).

Oh, and people have been finding something else.

Re:more importantly:

[ubrgeek]

Frankly, people said the same thing about IBM during their "decline" in the '80s. IBM was "the one" - the old saying was "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" and only with the rise of MS did the word "IBM" get swapped for "Microsoft." And yet IBM is still a player in the research and sales areas. Last year they held the record for most U.S. patents earned in one year. They seem to meet or beat projected profit each year. And, most importantly, they still have continuous revenue from annual maintenance, etc. from overseas governments and NGOs. As one of the posters below states, MS spends a ton on research and like IBM will find ways to capitalize on that research, even the OS goes away...

Re:more importantly:

[Malevolyn]

They could always hire a bunch of high school script kiddies to install their random preferred Linux distros on every machine in the company, and they could do it for pennies on the dollar. But then they'd end up with something like... 50% Gentoo, 10% Slackware, 5% Ubuntu (lol n00b u use failbuntu), 20% Red Hat/CentOS, 14.8% pure backdoor scripts, and 0.2% traces of Solaris, Windows, and various alternative operating systems.

It sounds like some sort of perverted technoecosystem that might be interesting to see...

Re:more importantly:

[Malevolyn]

Most people still believe Apples are only capable of using one-button mice (mouses?) as well.

Re:more importantly:

[Malevolyn]

I'd say that's a different case entirely. You're not necessarily choosing to pay for Windows, but instead choosing not to be hassled with corporate runaround to get a refund. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

Re:more importantly:

[Malevolyn]

I'm sure you could Google "linux on (random electronic device)" and find at least one person trying to make it happen. Case in point, albeit not the best example.

Re:more importantly:

[peragrin]

actually that is where you are wrong. For every million dollars ms spends on R&D they get something like $100 back. MS resarch while doing cool things seldom make it to the market. Nearly every other division of MSFT is losing money with the exception of windows and office. If you marginalize either one of those products MSFt goes bankrupt in less than 10years.

IBM had many successful product lines to make money on. They also overhauled their entire operations and became a team player.
Can Ballme ever be a team player or will it be MSFT's way only. Even today they would rather bully and buy(see ISO vote) rather than play fair.

Re:more importantly:

[erroneus]

Something that prompts the user to move to a different OS (or effectively, a different computer) is on the same order of magnitude as something that prompts someone to move to another country. "No one is forcing anyone to stay in the U.S. They can leave at any time." It's not about whether or not someone is free to leave. It is about whether someone has any place they feel comfortable leaving TO. Mac OS is getting more users this way and Linux is gaining ground. Things ARE changing. But so too is computing in general. Some say we will not use general purpose PCs in the future... as a techy, that is really hard to imagine, but one never knows.

But just as Bush's approval rating has been at ridiculously low levels, no one has moved to oust him from office... instead, people are waiting for him to leave before things get better. Not sure why that is exactly. But I suspect the same is true of Microsoft and Windows.

But the more Microsoft pushes for software as a subscription service, the more people will take notice and start to make changes in the way they spend their IT dollars. OpenOffice is starting to look pretty good to many businesses right now.

Re:more importantly:

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything Slashvertised was blended ;)

Re:more importantly:

[RightSaidFred99]

Guh? Non sequitur much? When did I say Linux was irrelevant or that I hate it? In fact, I work in a group which supports largely Linux compute servers and workstations, as it's far and away the dominant OS in EDA computing.

Re:more importantly:

[postbigbang]

Hey-- what is perfect? There are millions of answers because there are millions of people, all with different needs and skills sets.

Microsoft may give customers what they want, but they're insular and incestuous, and ride roughshod over anyone in their paths. Their convictions and settlements across the planet are a matter of fact. In giving customers what they want, they may have cornered the market illegally, or simply stolen what they gave to their customers.

Linux is only now becoming civilian friendly. Apple's done a reasonable job but portends as much proprietary hubris as Microsoft does. Apple gets great points for having dogmatic and high quality standards, but they're imperfect, too. They all are.

Were I to predict a final outcome, the 'Windows Franchise' becomes worth less and less, as Microsoft's infractructure slowly falls out of sync. Ask Oracle what happens then-- it nearly killed them.

Re:more importantly:

[Endo13]

Some people even believe apples are things you eat!

Re:more importantly:

[Malevolyn]

It's Apple Macintosh, not macintosh apple!

Re:more importantly:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean "Does it run Linux?"

Re:more importantly:

[Anonymous Coward]

So... it's something you wear?

Re:more importantly:

[plague3106]

True.. but business also don't continue to throw good money after bad. I never said it was simple or easy or cheap, but it can be done, especially if they're convienced it will be cheaper in the long run.

Re:more importantly:

[plague3106]

If they're locked in, how is your company transitioning? And it sounds like your company decided MS isn't worth it for them, and thus is moving away. Which proves my point.. people aren't buying Windows that don't want to be.

I disagree on your assement on Linux though; MS or Apple are better than Linux would be. Cost of software isn't everything, and over the life of a machine isn't really relevent... unless your company also falsely believes they need to have the latest version of everything.

Re:more importantly:

[poetmatt]

How would my company not have been locked in? They've spent millions and have to spend millions more just to get away. That is the lock-in part.

Most companies appropriately believe they need the latest version of everything. It's pretty critical in a majority of industries, actually. Or are you saying that we should all be using windows 3.1 still?

It's kinda like patching IE: you're using it on a closed off network it's fine but when you get to reality you need it to be as up to date as possible to deal with the retards who go to bad sites.

I question your view on linux. Apple is better than linux? How exactly? You mean how it "just works" like how they blackboxed a whole set of apples with a patch recently? I'm not saying Linux is perfect, but anyone can put in the effort to do what they want similar to BSD. From a development standpoint it's kinda hard to not want that instead of having to cry to a proprietary company to do what you want based off their own interests.

Re:more importantly:

[Penguinisto]

OTOH, at least all of those distros would still use common and open protocols (real LDAP, NFS, etc) to interconnect, instead of a locked-down/munged/proprietary set, which means that you either buy from one vendor alone, or you get screwed.

Re:more importantly:

[PCM2]

My workplace is a multibillion dollar company and they hate using MS products due to unnecessary fees

That doesn't mean your workplace hates Microsoft software. It just means your workplace hates paying for Microsoft software, which isn't the same thing.

Remember: Free "as in beer" is not really a leading reason why enterprises switch to Linux or other open source software. Most end up paying Red Hat, Novell, or some other company for support contracts.

Re:more importantly:

[poetmatt]

Uh, way to nitpick a single line of what I said into something that is not even related?

I'm not even going to bother replying because you're just flat out incorrect here.

Re:more importantly:

[Alex Belits]

For all practical purposes, IBM (and AT&T) actually did die -- the companies that now have their names and money, have little to no resemblance of IBM of 60's-80's. The most significant difference is the amount of control IBM had -- while originally it was able to determine the technology pretty much everyone was using, now most of the company acts merely as an umbrella for contractors working with whatever technology those push -- be it Windows, Linux, AIX or Solaris.

Re:more importantly:

[dpilot]

As you say, my daughter's Ubuntu machine plays perfectly nicely with my Gentoo infrastructure, and my son's WinXP machine does too, for that matter. I'll presume that my daughter's boyfriend's Mac will plug into my network and run just fine, whenever that becomes necessary.

It all runs on standards - real, open, cross-platform, public standards.

Re:more importantly:

[ChatHuant]

actually that is where you are wrong. For every million dollars ms spends on R&D they get something like $100 back.

And do you have any numbers actually supporting this?

Nearly every other division of MSFT is losing money with the exception of windows and office

You know, it may help to look things up before posting: it's so easy to Google for "Microsoft financial report", and it would really make you sound less stupid. Have a look here. MSFT has 5 divisions; 3 are big money makers (Client, makers of Windows, Business - owners of Office, and Server and Tools, mainly selling SQL Server), Entertainment and devices (mostly known around here for the XBox), made less money (only 178 millions in the 3 month ending Sept 30), but was still in the black, and only one division, Online Services, actually lost money (no surprise there).

If you marginalize either one of those products MSFt goes bankrupt in less than 10years.

You're so wrong it's not even funny. Look at the numbers again; in the 3 months ending September 30, the consolidated income for MSFT was $5999 million. The biggest earner was the Business division, with an operating income of $3311 million. Even if you completely remove all revenue from Office while still keeping all the related expenses (research, development, sales and so on), MSFT still ends up with an income of more than 2 billion in the three months, or 8+ billion anually. You're so far removed from reality I have to ask: doesn't it hurt to pull so much weird stuff from your nether regions?

Re:more importantly:

[Anonymous Coward]

a better tact would be ...

That word... I don't think it means what you think it means.

Tact: "a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense"

Possibly what you meant: Tack: "...the alignment of a sailing vessel with respect to the wind when moving upwind." Commonly used as a synonym for "strategy," as choosing the right tack at the right time can win or lose a race.

Re:more importantly:

[Qrlx]

Just as a point of reference, in the past 10 years, IBM is down 15%, MSFT is down 47%. The S&P 500 splits the difference, down 30%.

http://finance.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1230564720000&chddm=1002586&cmpto=NASDAQ:MSFT;INDEXSP:.INX&cmptzos=-18000;-18000&q=NYSE:IBM&ntsp=0

Re:more importantly:

[peragrin]

And Dell is doing 2 billion annually and for a while was about to fall apart at the seams as it took them 15 billion to earn that 2.

Also MSFT reorganizes every other year(at least for the past 6. Keeping track of exactly what is in each division and where that money comes from is a full time job unto itself. Does the business division include MSFT office for home users?

It doesn't matter how much you earn, it is how much you are losing. looking at 3 months means nothing. Looking at a year is okay, Looking at everything is s start. MSFT doubled the price of Windows when Vista came out yet their income only partially increased. That mean less overall sales. Slower sales mans that they are losing leverage.

From the math it sounds like you are going to the US government or Wall Street school of economics. it doesn't matter how much you lose as long as you are using big numbers.

Re:more importantly:

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Apple is better than linux? How exactly?

It runs Photoshop natively. Pretty important if the one thing you admit is that OSX is equal to Linux for graphic design work

From a development standpoint it's kinda hard to not want that instead of having to cry to a proprietary company to do what you want based off their own interests.

Actually, I kind of like abdicating some responsibility. That way, I have to work fewer nights.

Re:more importantly:

[aweraw]

Of course there's something wrong with that... he shouldn't have to "not be hassled". If he didn't want the software, but was put into a position where not buying it was more inconvenient than just buying it, there's only one entity that benefits from the transaction - the one who made it inconvenient to not buy their software; he essentially paid money to "not be hassled". That wreaks of a protection racket, and is pretty fucked up IMO.

Re:more importantly:

[Malevolyn]

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100% and wouldn't be surprised to see a class action lawsuit over how big of a pain in the ass it is to get refunds for Windows from most vendors.

Re:more importantly:

[lsatenstein]

Microsoft is moving into many other business areas, so as to not have all its eggs with two or three products. Major moves are with dynamics AX, with search engines, with cloud computing and so much more.

Re:more importantly:

[Anonymous Coward]

my daughter's boyfriend's Mac

Sir, I think your daughter's boyfriend might be gay.

Re:more importantly:

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they have been relevant. non-future tense...

Re:more importantly:

[ChatHuant]

MSFT reorganizes every other year(at least for the past 6. Keeping track of exactly what is in each division and where that money comes from is a full time job unto itself.

Full time job? It takes all of five minutes to find the financial report on the net and read 5 numbers. Now, understanding them may indeed take longer

It doesn't matter how much you earn, it is how much you are losing.

You're confused here: the numbers I was quoting were *net* income, that is revenue minus expenses. To make it really easy for you: MSFT is *not* losing money. 4 out of 5 divisions are profitable, and the company is very profitable overall. Understand now?

looking at 3 months means nothing. Looking at a year is okay, Looking at everything is s start. MSFT doubled the price of Windows when Vista came out yet their income only partially increased. That mean less overall sales. Slower sales mans that they are losing leverage.

Geeze, you can't get it right even when you make things up, can you? First, MSFT didn't "double the price of Windows"; second, even if they did, their income would indeed only "partially increase", because their income isn't all coming from Windows. They make lots of income from Office, SQL Server and others, and you didn't hallucinate the price for *those* doubling.

From the math it sounds like you are going to the US government or Wall Street school of economics. it doesn't matter how much you lose as long as you are using big numbers.

 
At least I know the difference between income and loss, which seems to be a big mystery to you.

Re:more importantly:

[Daengbo]

Since there is a steady stream of "first ever MS Windows refund in $COUNTRY" stories, I'd say the barrier is high enough (economic or otherwise -- reread the GP) to make it beyond "a hassle."

Re:more importantly:

[Daengbo]

You need to look at how the MS teams are broken up, not so much how the accountants break down sales in divisions. I'm not in MS, so I may have some of my facts wrong here, but you need to look for team names like Live Meeting (supposedly being dissolved on Jan 15th in the massive RIFs going on then), STP (also hit hard with RIFs), UA, MSD, and devdiv. Other names are Services, Office, and Windows, all of which are claimed by MS insiders to be "bloated" and in need of cutting. I wouldn't want to be in Search right now with almost ten years of failure to bear.

Each team is going to be savagely judged in the next two weeks, but a lot of people inside MS say this is too long coming and may be too late to turn the company around.

Re:more importantly:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Were relevant"? Here are some reasons MS is still going to be around:

1) Best developer tools out there.

2) The OS is the de-facto platform for development, so MS controls the standards and gets to create them in a way that is beneficial to the future of MS. It's a cycle.

3) The business cycle is ~5 years and business leaders are often technologically inept. They may innovate in their own field, but they don't want to think about software, so they stick with what they know.

4) The entire ecosystem feeds of MS. How are Value Added Partners going to profit from selling open source systems? They can't, so they won't push it.

5) It's hard to make lots of money developing a free unix-based OS. That's why good developers often don't go there - they can make much more money applying their skills at the so-called "evil empire".

Re:more importantly:

[drsmithy]

OTOH, at least all of those distros would still use common and open protocols (real LDAP, NFS, etc) to interconnect, instead of a locked-down/munged/proprietary set, which means that you either buy from one vendor alone, or you get screwed.

Once your infrastructure reaches a non-trivial size, you pretty much have to be "buying from a single vendor" anyway, regardless of whether they're Microsoft or Red Hat.

In the real world, interoperability involves a hell of a lot more than just how the data gets shuffled over the wire.

Re:more importantly:

[drsmithy]

Nearly every other division of MSFT is losing money with the exception of windows and office. If you marginalize either one of those products MSFt goes bankrupt in less than 10years.

Because, of course, in the blink of an eye that is a decade in the computer world, nothing about Microsoft would change if that happened.

Re:more importantly:

[Elektroschock]

Search engines, you mean "live search"?

Re:more importantly:

[poetmatt]

so running photoshop via wine is not good enough for you to do the same thing?

Lastly, your comment about abdicating responsibility is completely nonseqitur; if you don't have to work to much on X task in a corporation then they're going to add something else for you to do, obviously.

Re:more importantly:

[plague3106]

How would my company not have been locked in? They've spent millions and have to spend millions more just to get away. That is the lock-in part.

Seriously, that's your definition of lockin? I hate to break this news to you, but if your company had started on Linux, they would have invested millions in Linux (time administering [using more expensive Unix / Linux admins], setup, hardward costs), and they would have to spend millions more to switch to MS. So by your definition, they are trading one platform lockin for another.

Most companies appropriately believe they need the latest version of everything. It's pretty critical in a majority of industries, actually. Or are you saying that we should all be using windows 3.1 still?

It depends. Does the Windows 3.1 computer still fulfill its tasks? If it does, and there's no productivity gain to upgading, then yes, that workstation shouldn't be upgraded. I find your statement odd, because you pull out of your ass what "most" companies do, with nothing to back it up. Your logic is totally flawed, because you believe that since Win3.1 isn't really used much anymore, companies upgraded for no real reason. Since you're throwing out anecdote, my company is still using Office 2000. Why? It does wha we need it to. Only now are they considering upgradnig to a newer Outlook, mainly to help with spam.

It's kinda like patching IE: you're using it on a closed off network it's fine but when you get to reality you need it to be as up to date as possible to deal with the retards who go to bad sites.

Patching an OS is quite different than upgrading to a newer version of one. Also, there are other ways to manager bad users; one is to deny them access to the internet at all, since its likely there are some who don't need the internet to do their job. Your logic is suprisingly bad..

I question your view on linux. Apple is better than linux? How exactly? You mean how it "just works" like how they blackboxed a whole set of apples with a patch recently?

Yup, exactly. It just works, most of the time. Unlike Linux, where you spend more time trying to manage the damn thing than actually using it. As far as your graphics statement goes in your previous post.. last I checked Photoshop still ruled, and it doesn't run natively on Linux.

I'm not saying Linux is perfect, but anyone can put in the effort to do what they want similar to BSD. From a development standpoint it's kinda hard to not want that instead of having to cry to a proprietary company to do what you want based off their own interests.

From a development standpoint I'd rather a robust modern language like C# or Java. Yes, I know Java works on Linux. Unfortunately, most Linux developers STILL uses the beast that is C / C++. I guess because they feel it make them l33t or some nonsense. I also like the direction MS is going with .Net; it's meant to replace the Win32 API. Good riddence, because developing in C# is so much quicker than Win32.

Oh, and every company having their own internal software team to write an OS specific to them... well, lets just say its mostly a huge waste of time. Most companies want it to "just work." Linux doesn't offer that. MS or even Apple are much better at "just working" than Linux.

Re:more importantly:

[poetmatt]

Had you replied to this thread anywhere other than obscurely you'd be flamed to oblivion.

"if my company had started on linux". Yeah, well if x cause/thing/whatever wasn't Y, guess what? It wouldn't be the same. Since that isn't the situation, your point (and entire nitpicking) is moot.

Re:more importantly:

[Actually, I do RTFA]

so running photoshop via wine is not good enough for you to do the same thing?

Congratulations, Linux is almost as good at running Photoshop as Windows (Photoshop bugs on top of WINE bugs/incomplete implementations! yay!). Read what I responded to, he said that Linux was better for everything than Mac OSX, except maybe they were equal with respect to graphic design. Mac OSX is just better for graphic design. It has Photoshop as a native app. Not only that, but the original app was always Mac based, so WINE runs an imperfect version of a port. Or you can run the original.

Besides that, most artists are happier on a Mac then Linux. It matters less what technically works than how productive it makes someone (which means if it does not work, it's still worthless.)

if you don't have to work to much on X task in a corporation then they're going to add something else for you to do, obviously.

You misunderstand my point. I'm not trying to say that I abdicate responsibility so I don't have to worry about it during my work week. I just want to avoid being in a position of being able to debug it, as that can mean all-nighters.

Also, I don't believe that your counterargument's premise is accurate, but since it wasn't central to the point it is irrelevent.

Re:more importantly:

[Elektroschock]

Oh, where is Altavista gone?

Re:more importantly:

[RazorSharp]

Oh please. Most people don't know that there is an alternative to Windows, except for Apple (but you know, they only make stuff for rich fags and morons and you can't play games on them /sarcasm). And Linux. . .perhaps if people who ran businesses actually took the time to learn about the products which run their business, then suits wouldn't feel that Microsoft is their only option.

Here's MY prediction: Windows, Office - they will steadily lose clout and as they do Microsoft will have trouble keeping stockholders. Their one saving grace is the XBox and they know it, that's why they've thrown so much money and attention at it. The internet is too free and open so they want to replace it with XBox Live.

Windows server, .Net, and all that crap: it's gonna get taken out by Linux. American business men might be morons who can't detach themselves from Microsoft's tit but America is losing its #1 position to the EU and China and since their executives aren't massive failures like ours (example of American incompetence: our current economic crisis) the will support Linux. Open source and IBM will crush their B2B ambitions.

The only question is, how will the XBox do? I see it becoming the T.V. of Ray Bradbury's imagination in Fahrenheit 451. It seems to be the console of choice even for Slashdotters (and considering the alternative is a Linux, geek-friendly, hardware beast this choice thoroughly disgusts me) and if it's Microsoft's saving grace then I damn you all.

I kind of got off topic, so here is my final retort: Does it matter that Microsoft gives consumers what they want? Wal-Mart sells the shit I buy at lower prices but I don't buy from them because there is a greater evil in giving them money and supporting the economic destruction they cause. The same is true with Microsoft. We've allowed them to integrate themselves into our education system so well that being a "tech guy" and "Microsoft certified" are the same way. As a result, the tech industry is moving to Europe, China, India, Israel, and other places which actually provide their citizens with education. Call me paranoid, call me a troll, but I believe there are issues more important than what a company can do for me. If the means are corrupt or disgraceful I want nothing to do with them.

Re:more importantly:

[RazorSharp]

So why is it their stock has been flat going on nine years?

Re:more importantly:

[Risen888]

Nobody buys MS that doesn't want to.

That's asinine. Every time a Linux user buys a computer with Windows with the express intent of blowing it away, they are buying MS without wanting to. I mean seriously, wtf do you even mean by that?

Re:more importantly:

[Risen888]

Okay, I replied to your initial "nobody buys MS that doesn't want to" post, but now I'm pretty convinced you're just a troll.

business also don't continue to throw good money after bad

Are you aware of the subprime mortgage crisis? The auto industry crisis? The bank bailout? Have you read a newspaper this year?

Re:more importantly:

[Risen888]

Unlike Linux, where you spend more time trying to manage the damn thing than actually using it.

Maybe you do, buddy. Read a book on it or something, it's not hard.

last I checked Photoshop still ruled, and it doesn't run natively on Linux.

You are uninformed. It runs faster in Crossover Office than it does on Windows. I wouldn't know about Macs, as spending $1200 to get $500 worth of computer is just not my thing.

Re:more importantly:

[Risen888]

But just as Bush's approval rating has been at ridiculously low levels

Neat metaphor, I wish I had mod points. I'm gonna use this in the future.

Re:more importantly:

[ConceptJunkie]

And the fact that MacBookPros still come with only one mouse button is as arrogant and stupid as anything Microsoft has ever done. Perhaps if they admitted that "one mouse button" was an idea that outlived its usefulness in the 1980's people wouldn't have that perception.

I used a MBP for a year. Overall: Great hardware. Great software. However, the keyboard kinda sucked and only having one mouse button was so retarded I couldn't believe it.

Re:more importantly:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry guys, like it or not the alternatives are still limited. Irrelevant some day maybe, but for now I'm still posting this from XP (firefox). Also, the niche Microsoft occupies has always existed. There's always one bully. Then the bully dies, chaos briefly ensues, then another bully emerges to bring oppression and order.

Re:more importantly:

[Weedlekin]

"And the fact that MacBookPros still come with only one mouse button..."

The current ones haven't got any mouse buttons.

Re:more importantly:

[Anonymous Coward]

And that would be great if they were interested in taking sides on the issue - but like most businesses they probably have goals, budgets, timelines and are willing to pay for the tool that gets the job done. Sometimes it's Linux. Very often it's Windows.

Re:more importantly:

[darkpixel2k]

My Honda has had it's problems too, but they were insignficant or properly handled by the vendor. If it got to the point were someone didn't want MS anymore, they go find something else. Simple as that.

Good think every car dealership in the US doesn't only sell Honda, forcing you to buy a much faster, more secure, and safer Finnish-made car built by a bunch of geeky looking mechanics in a garage down the street.

Re:more importantly:

[plague3106]

You're a moron. Changing from one OS to another isn't trivial, and you claiming "it's not the same!" shows how ignorant you are. Grow up, and move out of your mom's basement.

Re:more importantly:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're nothing but a troll, and the many comments that have replied to you have refuted every single you said but you just continued to ignore it. Appropriately, you were downmodded as such.

How did I say changing an OS is trivial? Did you even read what you responded to? I know the answer, it's: no, you didn't.

Remember what they say, the guilty dog barks loudest. I'm enjoying living on my own, but how's the basement thing working out for you?

Magic 8 Ball had this...

[Spazztastic]

The Magic 8 Ball has been on top of this for years... Outlook not good.

Re:Magic 8 Ball had this...

[Spazztastic]

Crap, I fumbled over the quote in a hurry for a frist proast. The line is actually Outlook not so good. You get the point, though.

Re:Magic 8 Ball had this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, getting high leads to speculative predictions. What else is new?

Re:Magic 8 Ball had this...

[edalytical]

Reply hazy, try again. Just kidding without a doubt we get your point. I mean all signs point to yes, most likely the average /.er can get the point. Yes - definitely, it is certain and it is decidedly so. You may rely on it. At least, as I see it, yes.

Re:Magic 8 Ball had this...

[Anonymous Coward]

off topic:
Back when I was in Gulf War I, I had a magic 8 ball with my gear that I used to confirm or refute the crapflood generated by the rumor mill. At first I did it just as a joke, but it was uncanny in its accuracy, and much faster than waiting for word through chain of command. A few guys in my squad would borrow it for reassurance about situations back home.
I still have that 8 ball, but over the years the fluid level dropped about 1/8 inch, rendering it useless. I wonder, is there an easy way to refill it, and having refilled it would that destroy its karma?

Yes I realize it was all subjective validation and selective memory, but it was a comfort in trying times.

Re:Magic 8 Ball had this...

[Malevolyn]

No.

Re:Magic 8 Ball had this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder, is there an easy way to refill it, and having refilled it would that destroy its karma?

Ask and ye shall recieve: Instructions for refilling your Magic 8 ball.

Re:Magic 8 Ball had this...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need a Magic 8 Ball to know that Outlook isn't good.

Re:Magic 8 Ball had this...

[lordSaurontheGreat]

I know Outlook 2003 was a load of crapware, I haven't tried it since.

I think Google Apps (GMail, Calendar) more or less invaded Outlook's primary sphere of use for home users.

Oh! I know! I know!

[Anonymous Coward]

It turns into a giant Transformers style robot, but is eventually stopped by the Google/Firefox Transformer style robots. As you may have noticed, Firefox has already designed their robot.

Re:Oh! I know! I know!

[Malevolyn]

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[AltGrendel]

Why no, not really.

Why do you ask?

Re: Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[Spazztastic]

Why no, not really.

Why do you ask?

His hands fit rather well on the legs of that chair though... *ducks*

Re: Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[UnknowingFool]

I, for one, am really glad there wasn't a "Death by snu-snu" option.

*Looks at Ballmer and Gates*

I will near complain about not having options again.

*shudders*

Re: Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[rvw]

His hands fit rather well on the legs of that chair though... *ducks*

I wonder where you'll end up when you duck while Ballmer is bending over a chair. I don't like the outlook to be clear. But word is he excels when it comes to chairs.

Re: Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[LearnToSpell]

Who's Gate?

Re: Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[Ixitar]

I have heard a rumor that Microsoft is going to replace Windows with a new operating system code named Chair. I have not heard much in the ways of details, except that the new os has legs.

Re: Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[Sinning]

I believe the correct spelling would be: Whose Gate? /troll

Re: Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[Doctor Jimmy]

The betas don't really seem to stand up to the average user's demands, however

Re: Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[Malevolyn]

:D
D:
:D
D:

Re: Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[MBGMorden]

I'm guessing that Chair will totally destroy Windows in most tasks too.

Re: Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[Anonymous Coward]

And - unlike windows - it flies. And not many things with four legs can fly.

Re: Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[iphayd]

Only if Steve Ballmer is running it, otherwise they coexist peacefully.

Re: Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me just gaze into my crystal ballmer ... Hopefully saurons flaming vagina doesn't blind me

Re: Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[Anonymous Coward]

and does it breaks windows?

Re: Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?

[Nybble's Byte]

Yeah, some people at MS have seen Chair and say it really flies but crashes a lot.

Crystal ball

[Anonymous Coward]

My cock and non-crystal balls predict the future of Micro$haft. Specifically, they predict that the cock will get hard and fuck beta testers I mean customers up the ass with no lubrication, meanwhile the non-crystal balls will be slapping against the customer's perineum due to this fucking motion. The customers won't like this, especially the no-lube part, but feel too committed to Micro$haft to switch and besides, all of these problems will be fixed Real Soon Now because the next version of Windoze is going to take care of EVERYTHING, they swear! While they're getting fucked up the ass, the Micro$haft customers will go on message boards and forums like this one and defend Micro$haft against any and all criticism, for free, since you know that'd be horrible if people on the Internet said bad things about them.

I can say with confidence

[not already in use]

2009 will be the year of the Windows desktop.

Re:I can say with confidence

[4D6963]

Interesting. By commenting on this, it seems you transferred the Redundant moderation onto this new comment. I wonder if the same will happen with this comment..

Re:I can say with confidence

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean windows 2008 Server? I use it, it is an excellent desktop when you have to use windows.

Given the state of things

[Whuffo]

I'd say that the shark has been jumped already.

Re:Given the state of things

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the option of being taken out behind the shed and put down.

also, ever since I got a system pwned by a nasty virus from ebaumsworld.com, I am very leary of add cookie heavy sites like infoworld.com

Re:Given the state of things

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the wishes of consumers they've taken a pretty aggressive stance on shaving the XP beard.

My Crystal Ball Predicts...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that the coming decade will be filled with as many crystal balls predicting the doom of Microsoft as there were in the previous decade and that super-intelligent crystal balls powered by Microsoft's new embedded OS for planatirs will enslave the human race before Linux wins the desktop.

Re:My Crystal Ball Predicts...

[RiotingPacifist]

You mean I've only got 12 months to live? 2010 is the real year of the linux desktop as predicted by the Mayan calendar!

Re:My Crystal Ball Predicts...

[mysticgoat]

The real year of the linux desktop began in October, 2007, ushered in by Gutsy Gibbon and followed by a multitude of variants.

Don't feel too bad that you missed it. A lot of people did.

What they should do:

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.

Bollocks

[Tom]

What a bundle of bollocks. I've read better in /. comments.

My vote? None of these. They're all in the "dumb and dumber" category.

Re:Bollocks

[Ender_Stonebender]

Did you click through to the descriptions of each? Two of them actually make some sort of sense. (The rest don't.) I can see MS going into a slow decline, or surviving without adapting much. Of course, that assumes that Windows 7 doesn't suck anywhere near as much Vista when it comes out - if it does suck, Microsoft might as well find themselves a black hole to go jump in, because Linux is becoming a viable alternative even for Joe Six-pack.

On another note, every time I see the phrase "cloud computing" I mentally replace it with "The network is the computer". I'm pretty sure that they'll both be equally forgotten in ten years. Like thin clients before them. They've all got their place, but it's not as the primary computing method for everyone.

Re:Bollocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. More wishful tinking by Microsoft bashers. What a silly waste of time.

Re:Bollocks

[Hognoxious]

Did you click through to the descriptions of each?

Does anybody?

I intended to print the article to read on the train, but I wasn't going to do it six separate times, no wai!

Re:Bollocks

[dave562]

because Linux is becoming a viable alternative even for Joe Six-pack.

Linux is becoming viable for people who just want to surf the web or write term papers. Microsoft is sufficiently entrenched in the enterprise and SMB market, and will continue to do just fine. Linux might be good enough for stand alone home desktops, but it lacks polished tools to ease enterprise deployment. I understand that they are there, but they aren't mature. Linux needs a Group Policy equivalent that is as polished and easy to use as Group Policy. Linux needs an Exchange server equivalent that integrates with an LDAP directory. Once those two are up and running, then maybe people can start talking about Microsoft coming tumbling down.

Re:Bollocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the stuff people do with computers happens on the network:
- web mail
- instant messaging (might as well be web-based)
- youtube / myspace / facebook
- online games

Pretty much all that's left for joe sixpack is word and excel, and both of those are quickly being replaced by online office apps.

AFAIK, cloud computing isn't something about to happen, it's something that has already happened.

Re:Bollocks

[poetmatt]

They're pretty well written but if there's one thing that's funny, it's infoworld. They "Magically" forgot the option of 6: everything becomes mac/linux.

to me the significance here is that infoworld usually writes nothing but praise for MS. So for them to be willing to write a "there are ways for MS to fail" article speaks a lot in its own way.

Re:Bollocks

[MrNaz]

You know, 5 years ago the argument was that Linux had the technical stability to be used in enterprise scenarios, but lacked the polish to be used on the desktop.

Now you're saying that it's too oriented towards basic desktop use and can't be used in the enterprise?

Seriously, wtf is going on with Microsoft shills. With the cash they spend on marketing, I'd have thought they could hire astroturfers with more than one brain cell.

Re:Bollocks

[Dan Ost]

I find it interesting that you say this. There isn't a single large company that I'm aware of that isn't playing with the idea of pushing Linux on at least some of their desktops.

Exchange is a curious nut to crack (especially for blackberry users), but having an Exchange server does not necessitate that the rest of your infrastructure and desktops run Windows.

Re:Bollocks

[MrNaz]

*cough*
Games.
*cough*

Re:Bollocks

[Ender_Stonebender]

What percentage of users actually buy games (ones that are more sophisticated than Mahjong/Solitaire/Texas Hold-em, ones that would actually be difficult to port to Linux/Mac OS/whatever)? I know a few guys who buy maybe one game a month, a few more who might buy one or two games a year, and a VERY large number of people who buy new computers about as often as they buy new games.

Yes, Windows will be around to play games, and yes, there are a lot of PC gamers out there. Don't confuse "lots of" with "most." (For example: A million bucks is a lot of money, right? But it's not most of Bill Gates' money.)

Re:Bollocks

[clodney]

Perhaps the fact that the relative advantages of the two platforms has changed in the last 5 years is a reflection that neither has stood still in that period.

MS has poured enormous resources into Enterprise software - Exchange, Sharepoint, WMI, SMS, unattended installs, group policies, etc.

Meanwhile, Linux has focused on attacking the consumer polish. Both platforms are much improved compared to 5 years ago.

Re:Bollocks

[Jeff Hornby]

Thaty's funny because of all of my clients, the only ones I know of who are even thinking about the Linux desktop are software companies. For other companies its not even on the radar (unless you include the junior tech support guy with no decision making power who nobody takes seriously because he write memos about Linux to the CIO with the salutation "Hey d00d")

Re:Bollocks

[MBGMorden]

I think another aspect is just what others were originally talking about too. People have always maintained that Linux makes a hell of a SERVER OS for enterprise. The bottom line is that Linux is stable, cheap, and has an abundance of free and high quality server products that get all sorts of things done well. When you combine that with the fact that users in general don't care (and can't even tell) what software is running on a server they're getting stuff from, then you have a win-win scenario in favor of Linux there.

The GGP though, when referring to Linux in the enterprise, seemed to be referring to Linux on enterprise DESKTOPS. Big difference there. While my organization uses Linux and FreeBSD pretty heavily in the server room, it's still all Windows on the desktop. Big reasons for that include a whole mess of propriety Windows-only software programs for which there are no open source alternatives (if you can find an open source Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal system, Building Permit/Planning system, or Veterans Benefits processing software, please let me know).

I think in that scenario (business desktops), there is a point to be made. There is a lot of REALLY obscure software out there for Windows that just doesn't exist for other platforms. Not to mention that from a job security standpoint, an IT Department sticking with Office rather than OO.o is a smart move. If office has a problem, then everyone blames MS. If OO.o has a problem, they're going to blame you for not using Office. Home users generally don't use the obscure programs and don't care as much about their productivity suite.

Overall though, Linux is still making headway. Once upon a time it was at best a server OS to all but the dedicated hobbyists. Now it's a server OS and rapidly becoming a valid consumer desktop OS. Not a bad combo, even if enterprise desktop still isn't conquered yet. Mac OS X hasn't really captured that market either. Still though, it's acceptance as a viable home desktop means more interest, more developers, etc. An increase in both of those can only bode well for the possibility of more enterprise class desktop apps for Linux (or just written in cross platform manners - I used to be very opposed to that idea after some sour experience with Java's AWT and Swing, but lately I've been seeing some REALLY good cross platform programs written in Python and the like that are quickly changing my mind).

Re:Bollocks

[dave562]

Thanks for responding and covering the points that I was going to cover. My initial response was to the GGP and his assertion that Linux is getting to the point where Joe Sixpack can use it. I was agreeing, if the assumption is that Joe Sixpack just needs a web browser and some basic word processing software. As you pointed out, it may be a while before we see an enterprise Linux desktop. That wait is due to Windows applications. It wouldn't suprise me if in the interim we see shops that already have Windows licenses taking those licenses and recycling them into VMs that are running on top of Linux. That way they can leverage the security and stability of Linux, and sandbox their legacy Windows apps.

Re:Bollocks

[dave562]

Of course LARGE companies are toying with the idea. They can afford to setup test environments and kick the tires. There's a difference between keeping up on the latest tech developments and making whole sale infrastructure changes. Let me know when a large company decides, "Gee, we really don't need to run Office." I would like to see. I'm tired of maintaining a Microsoft infrastructure. However until the rest of the world catches up on the application side of things, we're stuck with MS for the foreseeable future.

It wouldn't surprise me if most of Microsoft's patents are centered on the Office suite and things like "Automatically spell checking a document." Or, "The mechanism to save a file attachment from an email to a storage device." Those are the kind of patents that are going to stay in a locked drawer somewhere until a serious competitor comes along.

Re:Bollocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Face it moron, your OS is no good for nothing, you are just too dumb to see it.

Re:Bollocks

[I.M.O.G.]

Microsoft might as well find themselves a black hole to go jump in, because Linux is becoming a viable alternative even for Joe Six-pack.

Linux has been a viable alternative for Joe Sixpack that does webbrowsing, email, and word processing for a long time. Plenty of techies have dropped their family/friends into an ubuntu install and not looked back. Linux is excellent for this sort of usage.

It's business apps and enterprise support, things outside the home, where Linux faces desktop viability challenges. There are many business specific apps which don't have suitable Linux alternatives.

Answers:

[ivaldes3]

The answers: No, no, no and no. -- IV

no crystal balls required for this ailment

[Anonymous Coward]

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=MSFT

looks like fuddles isn't planning to leave broke.

Re:no crystal balls required for this ailment

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't think that Gates needs to start selling shares to fund his latest philanthropic endeavors?

Re:no crystal balls required for this ailment

[Daengbo]

I get from that graph that Gates spends about US$20M a day. Hmmm. Maybe he should ask Melinda to help pull back the budget .... J/K. ;)

6. The "same procedure as every year" scenario.

[Anonymous Coward]

MS will continue to force OEM installations on the market, non-it companies will still be afraid of FOSS and MS lobbyists will still do their part on locking down IT departments in public sectors. (In even some of the most "socialist" countries Windows is still used on 99% of desktop PCs in public (school, administration) services, where no special software is needed.

Cloud computing, Web 3.0, "web-bases OSes (!)" and whatnot buzzwords won't change that.

What we could hope for is that the Recession will create focus on cost linked to software licenses, and more focus on saving old hardware. (With software needing updating.)

The greatest thing that could happen is that MS invented some 100% waterproof way of securing Windows against piracy (of Windows itself). Ofcourse, *if* that would happen, they'd just drop the prices substansually in 3rd world contries to regain the lost marked share. (Just look at the netbook rebate. They had to loose half the market shares before slashing prices)

Re:6. The "same procedure as every year" scenario.

[Anonymous Coward]

They had to loose half the market shares before slashing prices)

I know how you lose market share. How does one loose market shares? Is that like setting loose the hounds?

Re:6. The "same procedure as every year" scenario.

[JumpDrive]

I think MS, did an excellent job of securing Vista against hackers. I haven't heard of anyone pirating Vista.

Some say Vista sucks, but it was a strategy against piracy that fueled the final product.

What "cloud?"

[Animats]

Remember "grid computing"? Remember "application service providers"? Remember how that was supposed to change everything? Right.

The current appeal of "cloud computing" is that some companies are willing to give it away to get market share. That won't last. Google is cutting back on their freebies. The day is probably coming when "Google Apps" won't be free. Gmail is already a paid service for businesses. Google runs those services mostly to cost Microsoft money.

As a business, "cloud computing" looks a lot like shared web hosting. The price competition is fierce and the service levels aren't very good.

A few niche applications have been outsourced well, like "Salesforce.com". In fact, that's the leading commercial outsourced application. But Salesforce doesn't compete with Microsoft.

None of this looks like a real threat to Microsoft.

Re:What "cloud?"

[MpVpRb]

I can imagine a niche for cloud computing, maybe even a big one. But...my crystal balls say that it will not completely dominate computing. No way, no how.

I want more control of my computer and data, not less. I want to decide if and when to change versions of software.

Imagine waking up one morning, at the peak of panic on a late project, only to find that all your cloud apps have been "improved" with a new interface that takes a week to learn.

Cloud computing is driven by software publishers, eager to gain a revenue stream and eliminate piracy. Unfortunately, the technical press drinks the Koolaid and pronounces it inevitable. Remember bubble memory? Remember pen based computing?

Re:What "cloud?"

[gbjbaanb]

remember that MS said all versions of software running on their cloud will be the latest version only. They will not support previous versions, so your nightmare world is likely to be true.

That said, they'll probably change their mind when it comes down to it.

Re:What "cloud?"

[bazorg]

But Salesforce doesn't compete with Microsoft.

oh yes they do. MS Dynamics CRM had its hosted version launched recently. http://www.microsoft.com/dynamics/crm/product/hosted.mspx

Re:What "cloud?"

[dealmaster00]

The day is probably coming when "Google Apps" won't be free.

If that day is coming, it's pretty far off in the distance. Google is primarily an advertising company. You use their apps, they make cash from the ads. I use their search and mail apps the most, I don't see them charging the individual for those for a very long time (or, worst case, there will be a free, fully functional version in addition to a paid version).

Re:What "cloud?"

[Anonymous Coward]

But Salesforce doesn't compete with Microsoft.

http://www.microsoft.com/dynamics/crm/default.mspx

Microsoft is like a very beautiful rose

[zappepcs]

You let it grow on the vine, until the rose bush is taking over the green house and killing any other plants. Then when you think you have the most beautiful flower every, cut it off, put it in a vase and let it slowly wilt until it becomes a faded memory that even Mr Science can't revive.

Vista is a view of the once venerable XP, in the same way that a wilting rose is a view of a once beautiful budding flower.

My prediction? Microsoft is a Rose will hit #1 on the billboard charts in 2009.

This is all FUD

[root777]

None of these scenarios represent the future for Microsoft. A much well thought out future was done by the now defunct Business 2.0 on Google http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/01/01/8368125/index.htm

1. Desktop Operating Systems: Granted, Microsoft's cash cow of Desktop operating systems better evolve. I don't agree with the statement on Office 12 which is much better than previous versions. The same can't be said of Windows Vista or Windows 7. They better start working on IE 9 which should be open source and standards compatible for starters. The future of desktop OS is the browser and technologies like gears, silverlight and AIR.

2. Server OS: Microsoft will probably retain the 50-50 ratio on the server side and Server 2008 is excellent with AD. However, it may have to think long and hard about Hyper-V because virtualization is going to be the future on the server OS side.

2. Gaming: With the XBOX division, they will be making their $$ of Xbox live and not by selling the console. Xbox live is very stable and provides an excellent online gaming experience. Sony's victory of Blue Ray won't be longer because for movies and all, its going to turn to a streaming model. So MS better start putting TB drives in there or make them generic for the users to swap them out.

3. Application Dev: Eclipse is a good alterative but MS Visual Studio is one of the best IDE's out there. It is not going to die anytime soon.

4. R&D: Microsoft's labs may not match Google currently but they are coming out with some cool stuff. Photosynth comes to mind. With their "surface" technology evolving it will be interesting.http://livelabs.com/projects/

Re:This is all FUD

[witherstaff]

Do we trust Business 2.0's predictions when they kinda missed seeing their own demise in the future?

Re:This is all FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Eclipse is not good, Kdevelop sucks, Anjuta sucks, <insert open-source IDE here%gt> sucks. No one has ever created anything could could even begin to rival Visual Studio.

I say this as someone to runs Linux 100% of the time as my workstation and only run Windows/VS in a VM when I have to for work. I would love a good open-source IDE. For now I stick with vim.

Microsoft put an absolute metric assload of development effort into tweaking VS for developers. It's fast, looks nice and works pretty well. Eclipse is a slow, memory hogging, buggy, piece of shit that looks like it came out of someone's ass.

Re:This is all FUD

[UnknowingFool]

2. Gaming: With the XBOX division, they will be making their $$ of Xbox live and not by selling the console. Xbox live is very stable and provides an excellent online gaming experience. Sony's victory of Blue Ray won't be longer because for movies and all, its going to turn to a streaming model. So MS better start putting TB drives in there or make them generic for the users to swap them out.

Well, MS is now finally making profit with Xbox. However, the project has cost the company $6 billion in losses over its lifetime. At the current rate of profits, it will take decades just to break even. Their online gaming is far better than Sony's. Both however lag behind Nintendo even though the Xbox 360 had a year head start on the Wii and the Wii was profitable from the beginning.

Re:This is all FUD

[Foofoobar]

2. Server OS: Microsoft will probably retain the 50-50 ratio on the server side...

Microsoft never ever had a 50-50 split on servers. Check Netcrafts top hosts and see what they are running and count how many are Windows. Then keep counting down past the top ten. They have 25% on average! And given the current economic situation, the last trend was to dump Microsoft and switch server to BSD and Linux where possible. You will see this trend continue again now that CEO's and CTO's now know that Linux is a stable and reliable alternative on the server side.

The economic crisis is open sources friend and Microsofts enemy. People who are spending money will be spending on QUALITY (ie Mac for desktop) or not spending at all (ie open source for server); they will see their profits fall tremendously unless they can get a bloated Vista onto a netbook and have it play Warcraft decently.

Re:This is all FUD

[root777]

LOL. True. But Business 2.0 made much more realistic projections and my intent was to set a benchmark there.

Re:This is all FUD

[root777]

Agree on the Wii part. When people make the comparison that the Wii should not be compared with the 360 or PS3 because it is not a next generation gaming console .. ok agreed, but at the end of the day, they are all fighting for the same $300 consumer dollars. So, it does affect Microsoft's bottom line

Re:This is all FUD

[nine-times]

The future of desktop OS is the browser and technologies like gears, silverlight and AIR.

God I hope not. Gears might be fine, but I really hope that people don't fall into letting Internet apps be held hostage by Microsoft and Adobe.

Microsoft will probably retain the 50-50 ratio on the server side and Server 2008 is excellent with AD.

I don't know how well Microsoft will retain the server-end. To me, a lot of it comes down to Exchange. If you want to use Exchange, you have to have an Exchange server and you pretty well have to run a Windows domain at that point, so you may as well let Windows dominate your network. On the other hand, if OSX and Linux come out with decent competitors to Exchange, then Microsoft is going to have to watch its back.

I think most people underestimate the importance of Exchange for Microsoft, but it's a big factor in keeping people using Windows on the server and Office on the desktop, which is in turn a big factor in keeping people using Windows on the desktop.

With the XBOX division, they will be making their $$ of Xbox live and not by selling the console.

I'd say there's a good chance XBox will survive, but you can never tell with the console market. Every new console effectively breaks compatibility anyway, so there's not a huge barrier for people to jump ship when the new generation comes along. The big advantage MS has right now (from what I understand) is that developing for the XBox and Windows PC at the same time is pretty easy, since they use a lot of similar tools. If Microsoft starts to lose its hold on the desktop gaming PC market, then they could lose that advantage.

Microsoft's labs may not match Google currently but they are coming out with some cool stuff.

I'm not sure Microsoft's R&D is the problem. Supposedly their research labs comes up with pretty cool stuff, but MS's management doesn't seem to want to turn that cool stuff into products unless they can figure out how they can use them to leverage Windows, Office, or the web presence (MSN & Live).

I think what's going to have to happen is that Microsoft will have a turn-over in management-- if not in actual management personnel, then in management philosophy. They'll have to start coming up with actual new products, or else actually improve their products in ways that are helpful to users/administrators (as opposed to ways that are useful to Microsoft and the RIAA/MPAA). Somewhere along the line, someone will figure out that it's the only way to stop the hemorrhaging.

Re:This is all FUD

[RightSaidFred99]

Eclipse is good, not great though. Just as an example of the shittiness of Eclipse in some areas - no good built-in text editor for XML? Come on now... Netbeans is better. You are correct, VS2008 is the balls, though. I'd put it 2 years ahead of Netbeans, and 3 ahead of Eclipse.

Re:This is all FUD

[UnknowingFool]

And given the current economic situation, the last trend was to dump Microsoft and switch server to BSD and Linux where possible. You will see this trend continue again now that CEO's and CTO's now know that Linux is a stable and reliable alternative on the server side. The economic crisis is open sources friend and Microsofts enemy.

Also given the fact that more people now can work with Linux. Ten years ago, Linux was far from commercial. Today, every major computer company (IBM, Sun, HP, etc) supports Linux. Getting admins is far easier.

Re:This is all FUD

[RightSaidFred99]

"Server side" doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not just web servers. Do a survey of how many fortune 500 companies use Linux for their enterprise apps. You'll be surprised. And not in a "wow, that many - that's great?!" way.

Re:This is all FUD

[TheSunborn]

Eclipse don't really have any editors build in. Not even a java editor, but why does it matter? The entire point with eclipse is that it's a platform where plugins provide the features that users need. So why does it matter if xml is provided by a bundled plugin, or a 3 party plugin?

Oh and I do think eclipse with cdt provide a better environment for c++ development then Visual studio. It seems that Microsoft have used all their time on c# and somehow forgotten their c++ compiler and env.

Re:This is all FUD

[RightSaidFred99]

It's not smart to rely on third party plugins. The eclipse out of the box experience for editing XML sucks. The eclipse out of the box experience for designing web apps sucks (compared to netbeans and VS). There _isn't_ a good free XML text editor for eclipse other than a half-assed dead, ancient one you can find if you scour the Internet enough.

Eclipse needs work, and it needs usability enhancements. Netbeans is better for most things that I've done with it - this isn't to say it's better in everything, I obviously can't speak for things I don't do (like SWT/Swing type GUI apps).

Re:This is all FUD

[UnknowingFool]

Linux on the server side is a serious threat to Unix and Windows. First, they replaced Unix because they could do the job for a fraction of the cost except in cases like Big Iron where performance and reliability were the top priorities. Second, they opened up the minds of CEOs. Except for Exchange and AD servers, Linux is a serious competitor to Windows on most server applications. With the Samba team finally getting Windows Workgroup protocol information they always wanted, that AD advantage may slip.

Re:This is all FUD

[rpgdude]

What version of Eclipse are you using? I love the XML editor that comes with the WTP plugins.

Re:This is all FUD

[Foofoobar]

I know alot of people who use the 'fortune 500' index as their only index... But it means very little when you use it as your only barometer. Fortune 500 companies typically don't understand technology and move very slowly and purchase contracts with technology companys. They used to work solely with Sun, Novell, Cisco so I wouldn't be surprised to see large Microsoft numbers in the fortune 500. The fortune 500 also makes up a very SMALL percentage of the overall market and does not reflect the market in general so using it as your ONLY barometer is incredibly skewed and unbalanced.

I work for a unnamed financial company who is most likely one of them, and guess what we are in the process of doing? Switching our IVR systems to Asterisk, moving databases to MySQL and switching Microsoft servers to Linux. I pointed the company to several vendors who provide support (Sun, Canonical/Redhat, Digium) and they are pleased in the fact that they are able to cut costs by about a HUNDRED THOUSAND A YEAR... and thats just for starters. This has given them a taste for what else they can move to open source.

So don't let the fortune 500 numbers (which as I stated are a small percentage of the actual server market) skew what the actual market uses. What they choose to use is based upon the fact that they are large behemoths and have to have lots of other companies servicing them... like lampreys cleaning the barnacles off a bloated whale. They are not agile and have to have those other companies servicing them. This is not how most companies work and as a result, they are not good reflections of the industry.

Re:This is all FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

That 25% is maybe on public crapware servers... You can bet that if your company is viable and generating serious revenue that you are running Windows servers somewhere.

In fact, I've been in the industry for 12 years and I have yet to see a medium-large corporation where I walk in and all the servers are Linux distros. Come to think of it, the only Linux I've come across in medium-large corporate environments at all has been for running stupid things like non-mission-critical web servers.

A quick google search shows MSSQL being the overwhelming choice of almost every single one of the Fortune 1000 companies. I'm just guessing here but I think MSSQL only runs on Windows.

Re:This is all FUD

[gaspyy]

Microsoft's labs may not match Google currently

Actually, to my surprise, I encountered quite a few cases lately where searching for more obscure stuff (non-English phrases, names of friends, etc.) I got significantly better results with live.com than with Google.

Re:This is all FUD

[Foofoobar]

Considering the fact that you are an anonymous coward that doesn't quote any sources and that MySQL is the number 1 database for web servers (been that way for the last couple years) I highly suspect you are spouting FUD and by 'last couple companies', you merely mean 'last couple Microsoft campuses'.

You do realize that this is a engineering website for computer scientists right? Don't you have an Xbox you should be playing with?

Re:This is all FUD

[Malevolyn]

But the point of Eclipse is to be enhanced by third party plugins.

Re:This is all FUD

[Just Some Guy]

No one has ever created anything could could even begin to rival Visual Studio.

You misspelled "Emacs". No, I'm not joking.

Re:This is all FUD

[RightSaidFred99]

That's one of its failings. It should come out of the box as a high quality IDE for whatever purpose (C++, Java, whatever "bundle" you pick). It's confusing and annoying to navigate all the Eclipse "projects" to find what you want. Netbeans does this better - highly extensible and some high quality add-ins, but still high quality out of the box and easy to pick what you want.

Navigating the Eclipse website and trying to find something is an exercise in hilarity. It's really just bad. Eclipse itself if you spend the time finding what you need and pulling together all the pieces is good (bordering on great). It's their whole outlook and the way they distribute the product that sucks.

Then again, I go back and forth. I've only recently decided I prefer Netbeans after having used Eclipse for a while. Maybe I'll change my mind again in 6 months.

Re:This is all FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

MS Visual Studio is one of the best IDE's out there.

You have GOT to be kidding me... I seriously doubt you've ever tried to use it, or any other IDE for that matter.

Re:This is all FUD

[RightSaidFred99]

To some degree. I don't disagree Linux is a threat in _any_ space. I'm just saying trotting out web server stats and claiming Linux dominates is an incorrect understanding of what "server side" means in this context.

Re:This is all FUD

[DaveV1.0]

One, considering the site, he is probably posting anonymously to save his karma. You know as well as I do that he would be modded -9472 troll for posting something that doesn't support the FLOSS party line.

Two, MySQL may be "the number 1 database for web servers", but at every major company I have worked at the database servers have been either Oracle or DB2. At my current company, we have two MySQL servers compared to over one hundred Oracle servers.

Just because some thing is number one for web servers, it does not follow that said thing is number one for all servers.

You are right that this is a website, but it is not an engineering website and it is in no way exclusive, or apparently mostly, populated by computer scientists. I would say the population is made up of mostly FLOSS zealots and college kids. Speaking of which, don't you have a class you should be getting to?

Re:This is all FUD

[johanatan]

Eclipse vs. VS is not really relevant. Platform choice determines IDE, not the other way around.

Re:This is all FUD

[Nicolay77]

MySQL????????

I would guess PostgreSQL is a lot better for enterprisey stuff.

Or is Sun your vendor??

Re:This is all FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Application Dev: Eclipse is a good alterative but MS Visual Studio is one of the best IDE's out there. It is not going to die anytime soon.

How much of their revenue does this make up?

The penetration of .net is kind of suspect too, Microsoft doesn't even use it for their own major apps.

4. R&D: Microsoft's labs may not match Google currently but they are coming out with some cool stuff. Photosynth comes to mind. With their "surface" technology evolving it will be interesting.http://livelabs.com/projects/ [livelabs.com]

Why isn't their research top notch? I can't think of a legitimate excuse for their research not rivaling Google's. If it really doesn't, then that says more to some very fundamental cultural and mission issues than anything else, they've been throwing very substantial money at it for a longer time than Google has.

Re:This is all FUD

[Foofoobar]

At my current company, we have two MySQL servers compared to over one hundred Oracle servers....

This means nothing. For one, you are obviously exaggerating (100 Oracle servers???) and two, that MySQL server could be one cluster and handling 100 terabytes of data transfers like at my old telecom vs just data storage on the Oracle machines. This would imply that the MySQL server are doing the workload of 100 Oracle servers... so I would ask what your point is of pointing out the number of servers and not their workload?

The fact that you think this is a site made up by open source zealots shows your bias (read said sig). We all use Macs, Linux and Windows here (well maybe you don't and hence you shouldn't wear that engineering title) ... we just use them where we need too. The right tool for the job. Unfortunately, Windows devs and sys admins believe their companies marketing hype and think their platform is the right tool for EVERY JOB ... as you seem to be under the delusion of.

Stop smoking the Microsoft crack pipe for a couple seconds and think for yourself. Every tool has a use and not every tool is good for everything as you are implying. Some tools just naturally are better at certain things and Linux and open source just happen to make better servers. Microsoft happens to suck as a server, Linux happens to suck as a desktop. I wouldn't deploy either for either if I didn't have to. I of course use Linux for MY desktop at work but there is no way in hell I would have a whole company deploying it. And we use Microsoft for exchange server but I have never seen a stable Microsoft server in my life in comparison to Linux server which you can 'set and forget' for months.

It's a harsh fact. Some things are just better at some things than others. Windows is great at playing games though. You should be proud of that, right?

Re:This is all FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that this is a engineering website for computer scientists right? Don't you have an Xbox you should be playing with?

I always find it amusing when people say things along the lines of, "This is Slashdot. This is where the serious people go."

Re:This is all FUD

[RKThoadan]

I agree, but's it's not so much about webservers or infrastructure servers, which can be chosen directly by the company. It's more about the servers that runs whatever software the core business runs on, which can be dozens or hundreds of different applications, usually each with their own server(s). The platform for those applications is whatever the vendor chooses to develop on, and most companies don't really care what platform the vendor uses, so long as it interfaces cleanly with whatever they already use.

I work in healthcare and we use more applications than most industries, and it seems that the trend in this area is very slowly going to *nix systems, but I've seen *nix systems replaced by Windows systems as well. The real *nix weakness here is that Microsoft really targets these vendors in a way that *nix just isn't cohesive enough to do.

Re:This is all FUD

[Foofoobar]

MySQL has alot more community support, better modules and better integration into projects plus is far easier to get support. It has this mainly because it was the first to achieve such large success as a database server for web servers. This and it's ability to use multiple engines on the backend (HEAP, MyIsam, InnoDB, etc). I'm aware of PostGreSQL but it has it's own limitations in comparison to MySQL and is lacking in number of projects and modules that support it. It is progressing but when pitching an open source DB to a company, they will always want to go with the most commonly used and most widely supported product.

Re:This is all FUD

[RightSaidFred99]

Right - that's exactly what I mean. The thing is that people tend to extrapolate some issues MS has with their desktop OS's (some fake/misperceived issues, some real) into the server domain. When it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter much what SAP runs on, or your ESB, or your HR systems, etc... Windows server 2008 is an excellent enterprise application platform, to deny this is to deny reality. In this space it's much more mature and better supported by the industry. I don't see this changing overnight, or even anytime soon. On a technical front, it doesn't matter. As you say the OS is just an application delivery platform, unlike on the Desktop where people have religious wars. It all comes down to what your application provider supports and supports well.

There are areas where Linux dominates. Web servers and scientific and engineering computing are such areas. Windows has some presence there, but these industries seems to have largely chosen Linux (and other UNIX OS's).

Re:This is all FUD

[DaveV1.0]

No, I am not exaggerating. We handle a lot of data in a lot of different apps that have to kept separate. Our licensing fees are huge, but we still make money.

No, those two MySQL servers are handling a product that has little traffic. I should know, I support the app.

Oh, and all my apps run on Solaris. My last gig had me working on AIX and Solaris. Maybe you should stop making an ass out of yourself. I use WinXP on my work desktop. I use Vista Home Premium on my laptop, WinXPPro on my media pc, and Ubuntu server on my home server.

Stop smoking the FLOSS/MS-is-evil-and-should-die crack pipe and take a good look at the hypocrite you really are.

And, this site is full of FLOSS zealots.

Re:This is all FUD

[Nicolay77]

To each its own.

I totally don't care how many blogs are written in Oracle as it is totally irrelevant for the software I write (and it's the company the ones that pay for it, not me).

Re:This is all FUD

[Foofoobar]

No, I'm afraid you are making an ass of yourself. You stated 100 Oracle servers (not 100 Oracle databases). 100 Oracle databases is understandable, but 100 Oracle servers does not redeem you as someone who knows what you are doing unless you are running the National Archives and even then, you would be running a cluster with replication and not 100 separate server instances. Your statement is an obvious exageration and/or clearly shows your lack of knowledge in database administration. If your statement is true, then you don't have a clue hat you are doing, and you should be using replication and clustering to do what you needed to be doing to scale to an enterprise level . I say this because I used to work for a telecom and we used Oracle AND MySQL side by side and never did we even come close to needing 100 Oracle servers... LOLZ! There is nobody in this world who needs to do that unless they are doing something horribly wrong. I'm actually in the process of replacing someone like you who did something similar. Tell me where you work so I can stop on by and pay them a visit next.

And this site is full of engineers; YOU zealots just come along and make us look bad.

Re:This is all FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

All in all a decent post, however with the following quote you are being way too wishful while ignoring history.

They better start working on IE 9 which should be open source and standards compatible for starters.

This will never happen. It did not happen back in the day and how many versions of I.E. need to come and go before we all admit this? Since 1995 there have been how many versions; 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 7.0, now we are looking at versions 8.0 and eventually 9.0. Thats at least four versions, probably more, up to version 4.0, what a disaster that was! At least three more versions, again probably more, to version 6.0 and now versions 7 and 8 and they are still not compatible with standards...lol, I do NOT need any more proof and you should be ashamed if you do!

The first thing an addict must do before they can seek help is admit that they have a problem. According to a Drug Rehab director friend of mine, most alcoholics MUST lose everything (job, family, friends, etc...everything) a minimum of six times before they will admit they have a problem.

Until a person admits they have a problem, you can NOT help them, only enable them.

I for one am tired of being an enabler! They should have been standards compliant years ago, enough excuses.

When are we going to admit to ourselves that not only are they NOT standards compatible, they do NOT want to be; nor will they ever be!

We are way past three strikes and your out. And this applies to any vertical that you look at: Operating Systems; Word Processors; Spreadsheets; Databases, Office environments, Graphics, eMail, Web Browsers, and now they are getting ready to provide a death neal to anti-viral third party software vendors. Enough already!

They will be just compatible enough to placate the majority and will come up with some rationalization for not being 100% compatible that they know the majority of the market will accept... so that you will not switch away from them, their OS, their browser, their media player, their office environment, etc....ad nausea.

What is it called where you keep doing the same thing and always expect a different result, yet you get the same result...next time they say the right words, you expect a different result, only to get the same result again...next time they say the right words again, with a little minor twist and you expect a different result, yet once again you are disappointed and get the same result....ad nausea.

Enough is enough. They could have been compliant with standards years ago, yet they are not, duh moment here. Wake up; they do not want to be compliant, nor will they ever be.

Specifically should be open source and standards compatible anyone who believe that Microsoft wants to be open source or standards compatible is dreaming.

Their business model dictates that they NEVER become 100% standards compatible, else they lose profit when their customers can more easily switch to other options, namely open source, FOSS, Linux, OOo, etc...

Its business as usual, nothing more.

Ah yes, Insanity, if Albert Einstein did say this, regardless it is very true.

Re:This is all FUD

[DaveV1.0]

Or, something vastly huge and requiring vast redundancy. But you are so used to working for tiny little companies with maybe two locations to know about things like that. Maybe when you work for a major multinational company you will understand these things. Until them, stay under your rock.

Yeah, you only think you are an engineer. You wouldn't know engineering if it reached up and bit you on the ass. This site is full of programmers, DBAs, wanna-be programmers, college students, high school students, and some other technical fields. The true engineers are few and far between.

Re:This is all FUD

[XMode]

LIES!!! (I just love saying that)

1) The second you said 'open source' in a discussion about microsoft I switched off. Never gonna happen. The business would go under before letting this happen. Although I pretty much agree with everything else. 5 years ago I used to see hundres of web pages that worked in IE but not the more standards complient Firefox, now I'm seeing it swing the other way.

2) (The first one). Being in the position where im about to do a server rollout using hyper-v, ive done quite a bit of research on it. It doesnt look to bad, except it needs some better tools badly, and needs a light footprint like VMware (ie, doesnt require you to install windows first). A nice lean OS to run it it would also be good..

2) (The second one). While I agree that xbox live will become MS's new cash cow, I also believe that downloaded and/or streaming movies is still a long way off. There is still to large a market that doesnt have or cant get a fast enough net connection to make it worth it. This will change, but not for a long time. (read 20+ years)

3) There are other good IDEs out there, but yes, Visual Studio will stay around for a long time yet.

4) Microsoft R&D will continue to do what Microsoft R&D does, buy other companies that have developed something really cool and combine that technology with other things they have bought that were really cool. This will do what it always has, ie, produse some really bad ideas and some really good ones. Hopefully for MS the really good ones turn out to be money makers.

Re:This is all FUD

[loonycyborg]

All IDEs suck, including Visual Studio, so I stick with vim too.

Re:This is all FUD

[JumpDrive]

Currently there is nothing that would indicate that the Samba team is looking to replace the AD server. So far what I have seen is more interoperability of Samba servers with AD.
We are currently looking at a future replacement for our Samba/LDAP PDC's and can't find an open source variant.
So if we have to replace the Samba PDC's with AD servers, we are also probably going to replace our Member servers with MS servers. Because once you get over the initial financial pain of connection licenses, there is very little point in continuing to fight against $300 per server licensees for file servers.
Once you've shelled out $10,000 dollars for AD servers and connections, You might as well shell out another $1,500 for servers licenses to reduce the heterogenous environment cost.
The rest of the cost would end up be swallowed in quarterly costs and would never show up as a cost related to working in a MS environment.

Re:This is all FUD

[Foofoobar]

Yes... a telecom is such a small little company. The entire internet only is our backbone. So I fail to hear the name of your company yet? Whats that big ass company with HUNDREDS of Oracle servers? :)

Re:This is all FUD

[lordSaurontheGreat]

I have given MS Visual Studio a good college try on many different occasions. I can say with deadly been-there-tried-that conviction that Visual Studio is the most stable, featureless text editor out there.

Perhaps I didn't find the hidden "Microsoft has already raped me, there's no point in making me suffer any further" checkbox in the preferences pane, but it didn't do half of what Eclipse or Netbeans C++ can do. I also found its basic code editing facilities lacking.

It's better than DGJPP and makefiles, but I can't really imagine anything more that it can do better.

I am excited about their surface technology. I believe it'll be buggy and totally unusable, but it'll cause other people to take notice and make things that do it better. I can't wait for the simple, intuitive computer interfaces we see in movies like Quantum of Solace. I've always thought that Apple would be the one to deliver that, but hell, I don't give a damn who does it so long as it happens!

Re:This is all FUD

[shutdown -p now]

They better start working on IE 9 which should be open source and standards compatible for starters.

What's the point of making it OSS? How will it help?

As for standards, IE8 is pretty much there. Granted, it's dated in what standards it supports (proper complete CSS2 support at last, when all other browsers are chasing CSS3 already), but it's there. They also promise some HTML5 support, too.

No, I think the goal for IE9 should be performance, particularly JS. At least that seems to be the most recent trend, and it makes sense, too, as web applications are getting more powerful and more common.

The future of desktop OS is the browser and technologies like gears, silverlight and AIR.

As I recall, the next thing MS wants to do with Silverlight is to allow Silverlight apps to run outside the browser as native desktop apps, similar to what Adobe is offering. There was a demo video somewhere where they open a page with a Silverlight embedded app in it in IE, and drag it outside into its own window - neat.

Re:This is all FUD

[drinkypoo]

Whats that big ass company with HUNDREDS of Oracle servers? :)

Doesn't Wal-Mart have multiple RDBMSes at every location? Why should they be the only ones with all the fun?

Re:This is all FUD

[Foofoobar]

I've seen Wal-mart's setup. They started off rinky dink, farmed some stuff out, tried to recover and are a half assed mess. I've had to work with their corp HQ. They're retards. And if you have anything to do with the mess they call an infrastructure then it explains alot. It alos would explain why you would throw so many Oracle server out there when you don't need them. Got more money than brains. It's why their network is constantly going down and why Amazon kicks their ass (ie my former employer and who I was an original member of from 95-97). Try dropping another name on me junior... I'm not even close to impressed.

Re:This is all FUD

[QuietObserver]

I'm responding because I feel you deserve a response for such a well written post; I'm not going to comment on your "browser technologies" comment because a) I am not particularly familiar with the technologies, and b) I'm not that interested in learning about them.

I don't know how well Microsoft will retain the server-end. To me, a lot of it comes down to Exchange.

I agree that Exchange is probably the most "attractive" server element Windows has, but unfortunately, the user front end (Outlook) is a bear to deal with. My work uses it, and I accidentally told it to archive some of my email shortly after I started (I forgot to shut archiving off) and Outlook lost my archive file, so now I have to tell Outlook not to search for the file every single day, there's no way I know of to stop it from searching, and the stupid application forces me to click on two different dialog windows before I can access my email (and in my opinion, that's a real pain in the ass).

I'd say there's a good chance XBox will survive, but you can never tell with the console market.

That's a very good point. If I recall correctly, the success of the Wii was a huge surprise to the industry as a whole, despite the small number of games targeted to gamers (all I have for the Wii specifically is Metroid, Zelda, Smash Brothers, and Wii Sports (which came with the console) though I do use my system for many of my GameCube games on occasion). Of course, I am also one of the most abnormal people I know.

I'm not sure Microsoft's R&D is the problem.

There is a point I'll totally agree with. There have been a number of ideas I've seen out of Microsoft's R&D that I thought were creative, and possibly even practical, but felt certain they would never see the light of day. Unfortunately for all of us, we have to tolerate Microsoft, and companies in other industries like them, who stifle innovation while pretending to contribute.

Re:This is all FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody gives Vista/Windows 7 enough credit for what it is. 90% of it's feature set goes completely unused on 90% of the installations. People only see the "bloat" of the OS. It remains to be seen if developers will actually embrace these features and technologies but certainly the groundwork is set for the next killer applications. The other possibility is that under the Obama administration broadband speeds and penetration skyrocket rendering the desktop irrelevant. I think it comes down to just how relevant the "personal" computer is.

Re:This is all FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

4. R&D: Microsoft's labs may not match Google currently but they are coming out with some cool stuff.

Microsoft Labs has been coming out with cool stuff for years, Microsoft just never seems to use it for anything.

Re:This is all FUD

[nine-times]

I'm responding because I feel you deserve a response for such a well written post

Thanks.

so now I have to tell Outlook not to search for the file every single day, there's no way I know of to stop it from searching

Try creating an archive (PST file) in the location it's looking. Once Outlook has successfully found it, you should be able to remove it the normal way. There are other ways to handle this, but it depends on the version of Outlook.

I have complaints about both Outlook and Exchange, but it doesn't matter because there still isn't much competition. I know, there's still Zimbra and Scalix and whatever else, but if I'm going to jump ship from Exchange, I want something either from a major vendor or something that's open source. I'm anxious to check out Apple's Snow Leopard, since no one else seems willing to bother.

If I recall correctly, the success of the Wii was a huge surprise to the industry as a whole

As was the PS3's failure. Not that the PS3 is a total failure, but it's a failure relative to what lots of people were expecting. If you read the predictions from before this generation of consoles was released, people thought that the most powerful system would destroy the competition, and it turned out to be the exact opposite. The least powerful system did best, and the most powerful is basically in last place.

But my larger point was that the console market isn't like consoles, in that backwards compatibility isn't that huge of an issue. Part of what keeps Microsoft dominant in the desktop OS market is that people have lots of old/legacy Windows applications that they want/need to run on Windows. In the console market, there aren't really "business critical" games, and being able to play your old games on your new console is a bit of a bonus.

I know some people think it's very important that they can play their PS2 games in the PS3 and that sort of thing, but I don't think it's a big deal for most people. For one thing, most people don't go back and play old games that often; when they're done with a game, they're done with it. But also, if you own a bunch of PS2 games, then you probably also own a PS2 to play them on. Being able to play them on your PS3 is mostly a convenience.

So for that reason, I think Microsoft's success in the console market (like everyone else's) is based largely on the quality/features of their latest console. If the PS4 is much better than the Xbox 3, then Microsoft won't be very successful.

Re:This is all FUD

[QuietObserver]

Try creating an archive (PST file) in the location it's looking.

Thanks for the tip, but Outlook refused to create an archive file. Do I create one manually?

Re:This is all FUD

[nine-times]

It won't make any PST file? Like go to "File>New>Outlook Data File". If it won't let you create one where the original archive was, then create it with another name, close Outlook, rename the file to the right name, and then restart Outlook.

Another option is that you might be able to go into your mail preferences and tell outlook not to try opening the file. The mail preferences should have its own icon in the Control Panel, of if Outlook appears at the top of your Start menu, then you should be able to right-click on it and select something like "Properties" (sorry I don't remember what everything is called, but I'm on a Mac right now and can't check).

So in the Mail settings, there should be some kind of subsection about "data files". You can look there to see if you can just remove your archive.

Microsoft will NOT tank

[Skapare]

It's still got 10 to 15 years of lingering life in it before it falls.

Re:Microsoft will NOT tank

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft will still be around in 30 years.

Technology doesn't change that fast. It's little improvements here and there.

Re:Microsoft will NOT tank

[Lumpy]

Exactly.

see how long SCO stuck around far after they were no longer relevant.

Re:Microsoft will NOT tank

[RightSaidFred99]

You idiots have been predicting MS's demise for a decade. It ain't gonna happen, but you can keep pretending MS is irrelevant all you want if it makes you feel better.

Re:Microsoft will NOT tank

[Opportunist]

You mean MS will end with a pointless lawsuit without merit to keep their stock afloat while Balmer tries to line his pockets as long as he can before the whole thing crashes and burns and nobody cares about it?

Re:Microsoft will NOT tank

[betterunixthanunix]

Exactly. Microsoft has essentially reached the same position that IBM reached: huge, almost a monopoly, and never really going to vanish. Microsoft will undoubtedly fall from the #1 position in some markets, just like IBM did, but they will not vanish altogether.

Re:Microsoft will NOT tank

[thetoadwarrior]

They probably will never disappear forever. It would be silly to think that. But I think it's also silly to think they'll be number one forever.

It's rare that a company remains on top in their field especially in technology so they could very well end up like Apple. Maybe they'll end up a bit better than apple. Maybe someone will come to their senses and discover a way to easily create software that runs on any platform and then the market will be divided purely based on which ever OS people like the most.

I think the only thing that is certain is that they won't retain their monopoly position. Whether or not it's because a government steps in. I think it's more likely that MS will shoot themselves in the foot.

Can Ballmer fit Gate's shoes?

[LtGordon]

The Conquistador's do run tight.

Re:Can Ballmer fit Gate's shoes?

[Malevolyn]

You know what I do? I shower with mine.

When you are that large, you need to be everywhere

[lalena]

I tried reading the article, but the crystal ball spent half the time trying to guess what the next great thing would be (cloud computing...) and then how Microsoft would fit into it.

The article accuses Microsoft of going in too many different directions at once, but when there are so many possible outcomes, how can they not. Microsoft can't affort to miss out on the next big thing, whatever it may be, so they play in every market.

Microsoft was already late to the internet (Netscape), virtualization (VMWare), Business Apps (SAP), internet search (lots of companies), and then improved search + ads (Google), Virtual Meetings (WebEx), next gen programming (Java/Eclipse), media players (IPod), video game systems (PlayStation/Nintendo), phones (IPhone)... and they can't afford to miss the next big thing. Sure, in some of these industries they were in the market, but maybe their product was inferior and it didn't take off (Zune, early revs of Windows Mobile).

So they must maintain a market presence in business apps, touch computing, mobile computing, cloud computing, game systems, video streaming, health care... just in case that is the next big thing.

What most Microsoft bashing tends to miss is that being in the market isn't enough.

Sometimes first to market is enough (Playstation 2 vs Xbox). Othertimes it is tie-ins with 3rd parties (IPod with the ITunes library). Sometimes it is price driven (Linux) and sometimes the quality of the product matters most (IPhone). I never see anyone do a full review Microsoft except as a list of bullet points for the markets that they play in.

Only the "slow decline" option seems plausible...

[ivan256]

But "slow" is *really* slow. Like... Give them 20 more years, and they may have "declined" to the size that IBM is now.

Most of these scenarios take the "cloud" for granted. Since the death of mainframes, businesses have been reluctant to adopt hosted apps, even when they are hosted in the company's own datacenters. The number of highly successful cloud app deployments for business will be countable on one hand. A single major outage will derail the cloud computing train for another 10 years or so and history will repeat itself for the 5th (6th?) time... Any scenario that predicts Microsoft's downfall based on the failure to adapt to cloud computing is flawed. #1 & #5. Same with the scenarios that predict Microsoft success based on the cloud. #3 & #4...

In the sort term, I see Microsoft having a huge hit on their hands with Windows 7. CIOs everywhere will pat themselves on the back for saving so much money by skipping a generation, and the software itself will be improved thanks to the massive open beta that was Vista. The new version of Office (running locally) will also be a hit. Internet Explorer will continue to lose marketshare, but Silverlight adoption will increase. That covers the next 4 years. Anybody who claims to have a credible idea of what's going to happen after that is simply guessing.

Slow decline it is

[gweihir]

And has been for quite some time. Yes, they still make money. But do they make anything good or desirable? No. And they have had numerous chancers by now, they blew them all. Quite frankly, the only thing the Windows is still needed for (in most cases) is gaming. Everything else you can to better and cheaoper MS free.

Re:Slow decline it is

[Joe U]

You are 100% correct, if you completely ignore corporate America using Windows.

Lets take a large corporation as an example and look at the costs you ignored:

Dozens of in house Windows apps, which would either need to be re-written or at least fully tested again in an emulation environment.
Training for the end users for a new OS.
Training for the end users for a new Office suite.
Training for the end users for any critical applications.
A new desktop management software roll-out for IT.
Any server changes for IT.
Training for IT in the new OS/Suite/Apps/Management software/servers.
Time to convert from the old systems to the new ones.
and a few dozen problems that will spring up during the transition.

Now, after the millions spent on the above, you can wait a few years for the ROI in your new MS free environment.

Re:Slow decline it is

[CannonballHead]

Like iTunes? Buying a Mac is so much cheaper, I suppose, since it's so easy to buy whatever hardware you want and put OS X on it. "Can I use my iPod?" or "Can I use iTunes?" is a common question with regard to Linux. Amarok is cool, but iPod and iTunes DRM stuff is still an issue. Unless you want to personally spend your time getting rid of the iTunes DRM on a ton of music and transferring it..

There's also Windows Server stuff? Yes, I know there are other server OS's out there, but Windows Server 2003/2008 has its perks as well.

And they do make some other things that ARE desirable. Lots of people use hotmail still. It appears to be getting better from what it used to be, too. I know people that like the xbox. MS Office is way better, still, than openoffice 3 is, even to the extent that I have never gotten OpenOffice Impress to display very well (and I personally use it, by the way, and not MS Office, due to expense).

For a lot of geeks, MS products may not be desirable; but a lot of other people actually like MS products.

Re:Slow decline it is

[Junta]

It all depends...

-In-house apps: I've seen a trend of web applications becoming the norm for many companies' custom applications. They already invest in web applications to lower maintenance/deployment costs. Not necessarily for platform flexibility, but it happens to help. That's not to say they are non-existant, but there certainly has been a push in this way.
-Training new OS. Honestly, I don't see this as big of a deal as MS would like people to believe. The reality is companies don't have to explicitly train today and if the mass market moved, then corporations would have it as moot of a point as it is today. Of course, the distinctions between platforms are not as hard to grasp, and even MS proves users can adapt to changes and shuffling, as they do it in every major Windows release.
-New office suite. Again, the amount of explicit training is small. And, frankly, Moving from Office 2k3 to 2k7 is more jarring than 2k3 to OpenOffice.org. Not saying that both are equally capable, but retraining isn't a bigger deal than MS induces all on its own. Somehow, this doesn't induce tons of panic when MS does it, wo I don't see why it would otherwise.
-Critical applications, again, most applications are similar in a task. In terms of in-house applications, corporations are already proving willingness to migrate to reduce IT costs to webapps. And again, this underestimates the ability of people to adapt to relatively mild change.

Now in in IT area, there is admittedly some concerns. IT people inherently dig beneath the surface and are more impacted. Microsoft-only IT personnel may be a deal-breaker, but a large percentage of people in the field have useful Linux experience. The rest may pose a particular challenge, as a non-trivial amount of MCSE training is indoctrination, evoking personal resistance to such change.

Re:Slow decline it is

[DaveV1.0]

Maybe I missed it, but did you forget all the new server hardware that will need to be bought because most servers can't be shutdown for a day, let alone the time it would take to install and configure a new OS and any new apps.

Re:Slow decline it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets take a large corporation as an example and look at the costs you ignored:

Except that a large corporation already incurs all of those costs

Dozens of in house Windows apps, which would either need to be re-written or at least fully tested again in an emulation environment.

Dozens of in-house apps which need to be re-written or at least fully tested every time there is a new version of Windows released.

Training for the end users for a new OS.

Training for the end users every time a new version of Windows is deployed.

Training for the end users for a new Office suite.

Training for the end users every time a new version of Microsoft Office is deployed.

Training for the end users for any critical applications.

Training for new hires for any critical applications. Training for the end users every time a critical application is updated (see first point).

A new desktop management software roll-out for IT.

IT has to rollout new management software every time a new version of Windows is deployed.

...

And so on. A large corporation incurs all of these costs continuously.

A smart corporation (which admittedly large corporations are generally not) will analyse the short- and long-term cost differentials between upgrading its current hardware/software versus changing, and will choose the most profitable course.

There have been some notable examples of companies which have successfully migrated away from Microsoft products resulting in cost savings.

Re:Slow decline it is

[Joe U]

I'm reminded of a story told to me by an admin of a large company.

Several years ago, the IT department decided to use their notification system to send a one time message "Happy Holidays from IT" (press any key to continue). The help desk phones rang off the hook by users who wanted to know what to do. There was a new window on their screen that they had never seen before and they were afraid to touch the keyboard.

Now, this was a while ago, and before the PC became as popular as it is now, so I would estimate only 25% the calls if it happened today. The point being is that people do not like to change their workflow without training.

As for rapid migration of critical apps, you should look into how many large companies still have COBOL apps running.

Re:Slow decline it is

[AnalPerfume]

Depending on how hard the credit crunch hits, and for how long. Everyone is tightening their belts, trying to cut excess drains on outgoings, limiting new investments to the absolute necessary until profits start to pick up. They will hold on as long as possible, but the clock is not infinite, corporations around the world don't have board meetings to discuss how to maximise Microsoft's profits; they discuss maximising their own.

What you've painted works fine until their IT stack is no longer updated and they have to choose to become more vulnerable by the day to exploits, or choose the painful transition to a save IT stack. If the motivation is strong enough, all of these elements are just things to work through to get to the other side.

By the time their hand has been forced to switch away from XP / Office XP will giving Microsoft billions / millions for the latest lock-in combo (depending on the size of the corporation) be seen as worth the ROI when they DO have an alternate path to choose? Even if they have growing pains to get there?

How many staff will have to be laid off to pay Microsoft's licences fees? If their competitors are choosing the migration away from Microsoft (which some definitely will, though Microsoft's army of lobbyists and lawyers will likely minimise that number), it'll put the loyal Microsoft setups a disadvantage in a tough economic climate to compete.

The bottom line is that the more the credit crunch bites, the less appealing expensive software licences appear, the more the free (as in cost) solutions will grow in user base, even if there they are chosen on cost alone. The real question is; can Microsoft lure the chumps back in when economic times are better when they've acclimatised to the free alternative? For most people it's going to be just as good......which makes the expensive Microsoft alternative a VERY hard sell. A large part of their profits come from the fact that they've gotten the non-IT savy to believe that ONLY Microsoft offers them the solutions, which will be well broken the more the credit crunch hits.

Re:Slow decline it is

[chartreuse]

You aren't required to use iTunes DRM with a iPod. We have a format called MP3 now, you should check it out. My library's got 12K of them and no DRM whatsoever.

Good thing Windows Media doesn't have DRM and plays everywhere! It would be horrible if you couldn't play it on your iPod.

Re:Slow decline it is

[I_want_information]

You are 100% correct, if you completely ignore corporate America using Windows.

Lets take a large corporation as an example and look at the costs you ignored:

Dozens of in house Windows apps, which would either need to be re-written or at least fully tested again in an emulation environment. Training for the end users for a new OS. Training for the end users for a new Office suite.

snip...

Ummm, no, these are not ignored costs; these are simply the costs of continuing to use M$ products (Am I the only person who's slogged through the Windows and Office Bataan Death March??

Re:Slow decline it is

[Joe U]

Ummm, no, these are not ignored costs; these are simply the costs of continuing to use M$ products

Which of my points do not apply for using Sun, IBM, or any other major vendor?

Re:Slow decline it is

[daver00]

Just to quickly pick a point: Web apps suffer the exact same vendor lock in that any other app does. Web does not equal LAMP. Most corporate web apps are going to be written for IIS on .net or asp, so you are going to have to port them too.

People need to accept that a good part of MS dominance is simple economics, that is to say there is an important demand side factor that geeks are too easy to dismiss. People (*gasp*) want the microsoft stuff...

Re:Slow decline it is

[JumpDrive]

You are 100% correct, if you completely ignore corporate America using Windows.

Lets take a large corporation as an example and look at the costs you ignored:

Dozens of in house Windows apps, which would either need to be re-written or at least fully tested again in an emulation environment.
This is ligitimate, but could be dealt with by using an VM environment for minimal cost in a number of cases.
Training for the end users for a new OS.
This isn't a problem. Most users don't realize I use Linux and the transition from W2K to XP gave a number of them apoplexy.
Training for the end users for a new Office suite.
Once again this is not a real problem. Many are totally confused by Office 2007, so much so that we started uninstalling and replacing with Office 2000 or Office 2003.
Training for the end users for any critical applications.
This is going to happen no matter what. We have an accounting department that still uses software that only runs on NT and is no longer supported.
A new desktop management software roll-out for IT. Any server changes for IT. Training for IT in the new OS/Suite/Apps/Management software/servers.
This can be handled with classes costing not much more than the classes you are currently sending your IT department to take for MS software. Plus they are more informative. Much more informative.
Time to convert from the old systems to the new ones.
This depends on staff involved and level of planning. But I have seen rollouts to thing like SAS and Oracle and upgrades of MS products which were total fiascos. In some cases these problems were not resolved completely for a year. In one case there were 2 different companies with the same product being rolled out with vendor support. 3 months into it they realized that the vendor couldn't help and the 2 companies teamed up and hired their own experts to resolve the issues. Took a full year to resolve and get back to where they were prior to rollout. So I don't think a rollout of Linux will be that big a disaster, unless you really don't plan it.
and a few dozen problems that will spring up during the transition.

Now, after the millions spent on the above, you can wait a few years for the ROI in your new MS free environment.

Yes problems do spring up in the transition, some are unforeseen, but they are usually handled quite quickly, within a few hours, depending on the preparedness of the support staff.
ROI, the cost of planning and testing was cheaper than a new MS license agreement and product rollout. For us it also allowed greater flexibility and options for expansions, because it was much cheaper. Within a year we had recouped our cost. We also decreased our downtime due to patch installation. I don't mean the time for installing patches, but the downtime incurred when unexpected things happen on newly patched systems.
But the applications which ran entirely on Windows were the main headache, but once we got those resolved our customers were satisfied by the outcome. For many of them we put them on a centralized high end server, which allowed their apps to run faster. Now I bet I couldn't get those apps back on desktops.
But I agree there are some apps you just can't move off of a Windows desktop platform, and if you can't find a way to work around these then you are just out of luck.

Re:Slow decline it is

[I_want_information]

Ummm, no, these are not ignored costs; these are simply the costs of continuing to use M$ products

Which of my points do not apply for using Sun, IBM, or any other major vendor?

The Solaris I've used for more than a decade hasn't changed its (command-line) look'n'feel to my noticing it; I never did use OS/2 so can't comment on that, and Apple's changed its look'n'feel so gradually over the course of time that nothing compares to the total UI indifference of M$ in terms of the end-user learning experience.

For many years I taught the "how to turn on your computer" course for my local university, and I taught it on Mac (OS 6-9), PC (DOS through 98 & NT I believe) and Solaris (in both sections, just to give them an exposure to file management, ftp, telnet, email and emacs).

Making my own handouts for the PC sections was a never-ending nightmare of an experience (I think at one point, between the various versions of Word/Excell and Works across the two major OS platforms, I counted something like *6* different menu locations for something really mundane, like "insert header/footer" or some such thing). Students would be completely befuddled and frustrated to the point of asking me why, in the name of all things holy, couldn't M$ have made the Office "standard" they used in our PC labs even remotely like the Works "standard" that came preinstalled on their computers.

By contrast, I rarely had to update my Mac handouts (unless it was for a Windows app, especially after the disaster that was Office 6 for the Mac) and never at all if memory serves me for my Solaris handouts.

And I cannot even begin to *think* about the "ribbon interface" of current Office without feeling the need to spit tacks as if I were a nuclear detonator.

There's simply NO EXCUSE for this kind of UI crap.

Microsoft's survival is finally questioned

[StackedCrooked]

I find it remarkable that today the survival of Microsoft is seriously questioned. I think that this was not yet the case last year. Things really are changing...

All wrong, this is what will happen...

[Anonymous Coward]

It has to do with sinking...

Jerry Seinfeld Commercials

[ProzacPatient]

"Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes?"

I don't know.. lets ask Jerry Seinfeld, he seems to be an expert on shoes!

this is entertainment, not prediction

[petes_PoV]

So some guys thought up a few possibilities about what could (do they really mean "what they'd like to .." ) happen to MS and posted them on the 'net

Next, they ask people to vote on each one - as if voting will make it happen.

Well, so what? we know that the whole of web 2.0 is based on popularity contests, and massaging the egos of the ravening masses, in the hope that on their way to have their say, they'll accidentally click on an advertisment and earn someone a few tenths of a bean in revenue.

So long as people treat this as what it is: a video game, we'll be alright. The problem occurs when enough idio^H^H^Hndividuals who had their vote, start asking why the "winning" scenario (or celebrity, or event, or personality or whatever) didn't come to pass.

As it is, we know what'll happen to M$, they'll do an IBM. Mystery solved.

Well that's an easy one!

[Woy]

We all know the answer is CowboyNeal.

Most laughs - door number five

[Drakkenmensch]

I have to admit, the "Gates was Right" scenario gave me the most giggles. I mean, honestly, an integrated OS into Office that can run on any platform? Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I'll believe they can pull this off only after they can provide a stable OS that runs right out of the box without multiple service packs stretched out over several years. That, and Microsoft's reliance on having to come up with new versions of their OS to impose their vision on the consumer rather than listen to what they need (and right what what we need is a streamlined, light, fast and unbloated OS)

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[Real1tyCzech]

Drek.

Microsoft doesn't listen to it's customers?

Right..because the customers don't *want* a dumbed down OS that does damned near anything right out of the box (and yes, you are going to think it's bloated). And that's not even bringing to bear the millions they spend yearly on analyzing the data from their tracking, surveys, usage patterns and so on.

*laughing*

A little out of touch with the reality of the consumer market, are we?

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[Drakkenmensch]

Right..because the customers don't *want* a dumbed down OS that does damned near anything right out of the box (and yes, you are going to think it's bloated). And that's not even bringing to bear the millions they spend yearly on analyzing the data from their tracking, surveys, usage patterns and so on. *laughing* A little out of touch with the reality of the consumer market, are we?

You're probably right. That's certainly why old users of Win XP are abandonning that obsolete platform to rush in droves to purchase the light, fast and highly efficient Windows Vista. My, do I love me that Aero theme and translucent gadget sidebar.

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[cloakable]

Hate to tell you this, but Windows doesn't do 'damned near anything' right out of the box. Far from it.
My main desktop, it wouldn't even install without some major work!

Then there's my webserver. LAMP stack, SMTP and IMAP servers (with unlimited clients), gateway and firewall. How much would this cost me if I were to go the Microsoft way?

Wait, HOW much? Fuck that.

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[DaveV1.0]

My main desktop, it wouldn't even install without some major work!

Well, what did you have to do, buy new hardware?

Then there's my webserver. LAMP stack, SMTP and IMAP servers (with unlimited clients), gateway and firewall.

Yes, because Windows doesn't come with a webserver (IIS Personal Webserver comes with XP Prod and Vista Home Premium), or a firewall (Windows Firewall), or a gateway (Windows Connection sharing). Now, tell me, how many people run a LAMP stack (which is available for Windows), SMTP server (also available with WinXP Pro and probably vista Home Premium) and an IMAP server on their DESKTOP machines?

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[Real1tyCzech]

Right..because the customers don't *want* a dumbed down OS that does damned near anything right out of the box (and yes, you are going to think it's bloated). And that's not even bringing to bear the millions they spend yearly on analyzing the data from their tracking, surveys, usage patterns and so on.

*laughing*

A little out of touch with the reality of the consumer market, are we?

You're probably right. That's certainly why old users of Win XP are abandonning that obsolete platform to rush in droves to purchase the light, fast and highly efficient Windows Vista. My, do I love me that Aero theme and translucent gadget sidebar.

*laughing*

Because they can't listen to their customers *and* have a completely fubar'd development process?

Right...

Newsflash! They can listen to their customer *and* still screw up. They aren't mutually exclusive!

{cue shock and amazement that things can be more complex than you seem to want to believe in your narrow views.}

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[Real1tyCzech]

"My main desktop, it wouldn't even install without some major work!"

Sounds like a driver issue.

"Then there's my webserver. LAMP stack, SMTP and IMAP servers"

Sounds like you're using a desktop OS to do the job of a Server OS. Funny how that didn't work out as well as you seem to expect it would.

Perhaps your expectations are about as acute as the OP's understanding of the consumer market?

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[Real1tyCzech]

Exactly.

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[Yunzil]

I'll believe they can pull this off only after they can provide a stable OS that runs right out of the box without multiple service packs stretched out over several years.

Ant that would be the first time in history anyone has done that.

and right what what we need is a streamlined, light, fast and unbloated OS

Speak for yourself.

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[cloakable]

I installed Windows 2000 (which had problems of it's own, but at least it installed), then used that to upgrade to Windows XP. Hardly uncomplicated.

IIS Personal Webserver? Haven't seen that mentioned anywhere, my bad.
Oh please. While I'll allow Windows Firewall is a (horribly basic) firewall, ANY third party firewall is going to do better.
Windows Connection Sharing is also horribly nasty. Been there, done that, then used Linux and DNSmasq to make it actually work.

As for people who ran a dual server/desktop on their machines, me? Until I hooked together a home server, my desktop served quite happily as a server.

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[cloakable]

Sounds like a driver issue.
Yes actually, with the built in Windows ones. Setup bluescreened, every time. Yay quality.

Sounds like you're using a desktop OS to do the job of a Server OS. Funny how that didn't work out as well as you seem to expect it would.
As far as I am concerned, there should be no difference between 'Server' OS and 'Desktop' OS, bar the software you put on top of the OS. The OS is the OS.

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[drinkypoo]

I have to admit, the "Gates was Right" scenario gave me the most giggles. I mean, honestly, an integrated OS into Office that can run on any platform? Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I'll believe they can pull this off only after they can provide a stable OS that runs right out of the box without multiple service packs stretched out over several years.

VERY TRUE. It wasn't until shortly before SP3 that Windows XP reached its currently actually quite good levels of stability and usability, and even then (to power users, at least) you still need TweakUI, MSVDM, and maybe Glass2k to get anywhere near the genuinely useful functionality in Vista, OSX, etc. (being able to make a window transparent and floating on top is genuinely useful, I promise.)

That, and Microsoft's reliance on having to come up with new versions of their OS to impose their vision on the consumer rather than listen to what they need (and right what what we need is a streamlined, light, fast and unbloated OS)

Is there anyone who doesn't share that inability? GNOME and KDE are both gigantic and slow. I have a Core Duo laptop with a Quadro FX1500M and I went back to Windows XP even though I have ironed out my hardware support issues because a> I wanted to play games on my fast machine again and b> it's just more responsive.

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[Real1tyCzech]

Windows does not write the drivers that are included with Windows. Just an FYI.

Those come directly from the manufacturer of the device.

"As far as I am concerned, there should be no difference between 'Server' OS and 'Desktop' OS,"

*laughing*

Then you shouldn't be using Windows. Period. That's not what it was *ever* intended to be.

Again, you're grading something based on your ideals, and not the intent of the creator. Amazingly...it falls short of your ideal. Go figure...

The market has decided that Server and Desktop OSes be two entirely separate beasts. That's reality. Sorry you can't seem to get a grip on it...

My guess is that you must be incredibly familiar with disappointment...

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[Drakkenmensch]

*laughing* Because they can't listen to their customers *and* have a completely fubar'd development process? Right... Newsflash! They can listen to their customer *and* still screw up. They aren't mutually exclusive! {cue shock and amazement that things can be more complex than you seem to want to believe in your narrow views.}

I never claimed they weren't listening. Only that Vista is a bloated system resource hog and ineffective as an XP replacement. I'm not attacking whether Microsoft is listening to its customers or not, just that Vista is flawed. Surely we can both agree to that.

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[Real1tyCzech]

Indeed, we can.

However, you did say just that:

From your OP:
"Microsoft's reliance on having to come up with new versions of their OS to impose their vision on the consumer rather than listen..."

Perhaps not word for word, but the implication was most definitely there.

I know, the memory is always the second thing to go... ;)

If the implication was not intended, I hereby withdraw my somewhat scornful reply. I know that text does sometimes carry meanings unintended as the tone is applied by the reader, not the writer.

As for a stable OS out of the box, I have yet to find one that is reliable on *any* configuration. Best of luck on your search for that elusive goldmine. :)

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[Drakkenmensch]

I know, the memory is always the second thing to go... ;)

What was the first one again? Yeah, you got me there, so I did write that. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to grab my broom and go yell at some youngins on my lawn. ;)

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[dangitman]

Sounds like you're using a desktop OS to do the job of a Server OS. Funny how that didn't work out as well as you seem to expect it would.

Why would you make this distinction? I guess you've been trained by Microsoft to believe you need a different product for each role. Funny how Linux manages both fine.

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[Real1tyCzech]

Ah! My favorite passtime.

Dang youngins.

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[Real1tyCzech]

Funny how virtually no-one in the consumer space uses it. Thus my point.

Your lack of understanding of the consumer market is not a "win" in anyone's book.

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[dangitman]

What lack of understanding the consumer market? Even if Linux is not a hit in the consumer market, it still manages to be a decent desktop and server environment. If Linux can do it, why can't Microsoft? There's no technical reason why there should be such a differentiation, or price difference.

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[Real1tyCzech]

*sigh*

Because 90% of the people buying the OS don't need server OS features and those buying the server OS sure as hell don't need the desktop feature headaches?

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[dangitman]

But why does it have to be either? Just reconfigure the OS to your needs. What's so hard to understand, unless you want to milk customers for more money?

Re:Most laughs - door number five

[Real1tyCzech]

Good god...

I'd like that. You'd like that.

Name one average customer that would even know where to *begin* "configuring their system".

80/20 rule. If over 80% of the users would rather just be able to turn it on and use it (and find it usable in that state), the less than 20% who don't (You and I) will have to find alternatives.

Linux is not even close to being in that "80" part.

Re:Only the "slow decline" option seems plausible.

[pizzach]

Not to mention how Microsoft is branching out to new platforms like the iPhone. Microsoft's Seadragon app came out first on the iPhone according to this news article. It makes me wonder if they will eventually be releasing their huge money making office type apps for the little bugger and this is just testing the waters...or maybe at least release some apps to give official exchange compatibility to the iPhone. I am sure that would sell like hotcakes.

Re:Only the "slow decline" option seems plausible.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It'll be really slow almost no matter what happens. Even if Windows and Office bombed tomorrow(by "bombed" we'll assume ourselves to mean "no sane individual would ever start a new deployment, legacy deployments are looking to migrate when they can") they would have years of legacy volume licence revenue to work with. Further, they would most likely spin out and sell a system(either VM based or like WINE; but with the benefit of the actual win32 stuff) for running win32 applications on whatever platform(s) became dominant.

That is not even mentioning the stuff they make that people actually like. Visual Studio + .net runtimes for various platforms would probably be a tidy little business all on its own. Their gaming division is also pretty decent(when it isn't throwing money at hardware).

MS is at considerable risk of losing its status as de facto standard, and of suffering significant erosion of its margins, and I hope both things happen; but the notion that it will actually die is implausible at best. Companies with far weaker products have held on for ages on legacy deployments alone.

I'd have to opt for the Borvell scenario

[HangingChad]

Although not for all the reasons they listed under that scenario. I was there when the pronouncements of the paperless office doomed every word processor to the scrap heap of history, only to see the amount of paper actually expand. But now offices really are using less paper and I believe the need for heavy duty word processing, particularly one for every workstation, will...no, is diminishing. That chops at one of Microsoft's major profit centers and, even if you disagree about the future of paper, it's still a declining industry segment any way you shred it. The need is diminishing, the alternatives are getting better and more abundant.

The internet appliance trend will continue to eat away at OS market share. On less expensive hardware the cost of Windows becomes a larger percentage of the cost of a new machine. Unless the user has a need that justifies the cost, if users have a choice they will, at least some of the time, choose the alternative. The desktop market isn't growing as fast as the appliance market and more functional and more powerful appliance devices, like Netbooks (oh, no, we're gonna get sued!) are going to continue undermining the sales of higher end laptops and at least a few desktop sales. Mobile devices, smart phones all take their razor nick of blood out of the beast.

I don't see MS disappearing for a long time but I do see them diminishing over time. And I also believe there will be an "Enron" moment when it becomes apparent that earnings have been sliding for a long time.

Re:I'd have to opt for the Borvell scenario

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I would too, but nowhere is the word Borvell explained. What the hell is a Borvell?

Borvell: (noun) a rubber container of liquids, shaped like a twinky, which can be filled with an intoxicating fluid such as vodka and shoved in your ass. This device provided the inspiration for the famous Microsoft product "Vista."

Re:I'd have to opt for the Borvell scenario

[Degrees]

From TFA:

... led yet another Microsoft CEO to take the "Borvell" option, radically scaling the company down to a server-and-app-dev business, following in the footsteps of once-mighty Borland Software and Novell.

Borvell = Borland & Novell.

Re:I'd have to opt for the Borvell scenario

[Jason Earl]

Actually the article does explain Borvell, it is an amalgam of Borland and Novell, and is basically a reference to how those two companies faded out of the computing spotlight.

Re:I'd have to opt for the Borvell scenario

[Profane MuthaFucka]

So, you're saying that I have to call this thing in my ass something else?

Re:Only the "slow decline" option seems plausible.

[Attila Dimedici]

Umm, you do realize that when you compare the size of IBM and Microsoft, the question is "how do you define size?": Number of employees: IBM is overwhelmingly larger Market Cap: Microsoft is about 1 2/3 the size of IBM Total Revenue: IBM is between 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 times larger than Microsoft There are several other measures that one can use that favor Microsoft or IBM. My conclusion is that Microsoft and IBM are currently more or less the same size.

GOOD!

[xiongyinglinkaigan]

http://auction1.taobao.com/auction/item_detail-0db2-3152d9302ebd4f50c3aa91ffbc33773b.jhtml

Missed one mac os x for all systems comes out and

[Joe The Dragon]

Missed one mac os x for all systems comes out and ms is forced to crack down and make windows stand up to it leading to a new os that is just as big as windows 95 was.

YES!

[xiongyinglinkaigan]

http://auction1.taobao.com/auction/item_detail-0db2-b0bf5f8eb13a92c64cf0d9deac0f835a.jhtml

Re:YES!

[notseamus]

This guy's a hoot!

His comments are all titles "YES!", and "GOOD!", with my personal favourite being "exerllent".

Why

[Hognoxious]

Why wasn't this posted as a poll?

I'd go for option 4, like always.

chop chop

[gbjbaanb]

why did they miss number 6? The latest court case (Vista ready)(or yet another anti-competitive one to be seen here soon) finally finds MS overstepped the mark and is totally untrustworthy and needs to be broken up into 5 or so Mini-Microsofts.

It nearly happened last time, stranger things have happened.

My Vote goes to...

[TheCybernator]

Hey!! Where is the Cowboy Neal option?

Good/Bad for Microsoft

[digitalhermit]

Microsoft has some good and bad things going for them.

Good stuff includes a large bank account, established market share, some measure of trust in some organizations (yes, heavily qualified but true), some interesting technology on the horizon.

The things going against them are formidable though:
1) They are the market leader; or rather, they hold the lion's share of the market. The market leader traditionally bears the brunt of costs to develop new technology. This is not just coding costs, but intangibles like pushing standards that have significant up-front costs and barriers to acceptance. With the heterogenous mobile computing environment, their previous strategy of closed "standards" no longer work.

2) Their traditional cash cows (OS, Office) are becoming commodities. Everyone and their little sister seems to be putting out OSes with enough functionality to be "good enough". Microsoft now has to fight for the niche markets. This is more expensive than appealing to the masses. In contrast, startups can target the niche easily. For MS, it could be death by a thousand cuts as they bleed money going after tiny markets. (Sound eerily like the Republican Party???)

3) Barrier to entry for new markets is getting very expensive. Google has built an infrastructure on search and Internet connectivity. To enter this market is difficult. In fact, many people think that Google is purposely developing throw-away technology knowing that Microsoft is going to jump/react and try to match it.

4) Vista sucks. Their next revision may be a lot better, but Vista missed a critical salvo. Windows is not going to die anytime soon, but the problems with Vista has tarnished an already battered image.

5) Competition is much fiercer.

Re:Good/Bad for Microsoft

[Tablizer]

They are the market leader; or rather, they hold the lion's share of the market. The market leader traditionally bears the brunt of costs to develop new technology.

What new technology? The "standards" that MS is famous for had no significant technological improvement since the mid 90's. MS mostly just shuffles menus around (for no good reasons in some cases) and adds a new coat of paint. Yes, they spend R&D in other areas, but not related to standards (de-facto or official). MS seems to spend most of its effort trying to lock people into their stuff using various gimmicks. They are mostly a defensive company right now.
 

Re:Only the "slow decline" option seems plausible.

[ivan256]

That's why "decline" was in quotes. The definition of decline would either have to be based on influence, or rate of growth.

exerllent!!!

[xiongyinglinkaigan]

http://auction1.taobao.com/auction/item_detail-0db2-3152d9302ebd4f50c3aa91ffbc33773b.jhtml http://auction1.taobao.com/auction/item_detail-0db2-05e01a958916e88bebedb9227639a9c4.jhtml http://auction1.taobao.com/auction/item_detail-0db2-b0bf5f8eb13a92c64cf0d9deac0f835a.jhtml http://auction1.taobao.com/auction/item_detail-0db2-7a6aa46ac129f79681330e58f33c9be9.jhtml http://auction1.taobao.com/auction/item_detail-0db2-8c4b5c783b12b10d2c98ab5aedb1fd5a.jhtml

I Have An Idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's write a year-end article that's nothing but an excuse to throw together as many buzzwords as possible! CLOUD COMPUTING WOOOOOO!

Seriously though, this author just wanted to rant for a while about how great and swell and important he thinks this spectacular "cloud computing" business is going to be. Honestly, if I didn't know any better I'd say he works for a "cloud computing company" and is just trying to whore the catchphrase out (then again, maybe he does, it would be a good explanation for this article).

Really though, I wish people would stop pissing themselves over a dressed-up fancy term for thin client architectures--I mean, it's not as if that sort of system has been around for decades or anything...

Re:I Have An Idea...

[immcintosh]

That post was mine, BTW. I have no idea why it decided to be anonymous...

Predictions schmedictions

[tsa]

Making predictions about the future of computing (or about anything else for that matter) is useless. Most likely things will develop in a totally unforeseen way that is not described in the five models. That is why I didn't read the fine article.

PIM environment wins

[sgt scrub]

Microsoft, Apple, and Google battle it out for the new PIM (personal information management) environment which replaces the desktop environment. Microsoft relies on lock in and cloud applications. Apple relies on multimedia integration and mulimedia services. Google relies on the FOSS/OSS community to port applications to their cloud. As the years go by all three give up on lock in. The PIM environments of each company become so commingled, outside of each company branding it with their own look and feel, nobody is able to tell them apart. Consumers buy devices instead of software. The days of "I run windows, osx, linux" end.

Re:PIM environment wins

[Daengbo]

God, I hope you're right. The day we can worry "What does it do?" instead of "What does it run?" I will have entered Nirvana.

The scenarios were from June ...

[jdp]

The five scenarios were written right around the time Gates retired; TFA is a short six-month update ... One of the things that none of the scenarios discuss is the economic meltdown expected in 2009. Microsoft, with its multiple revenue streams and strong international business, may be better equipped to handle this than a lot of its competitors (e.g. Google is still almost completely dependent on advertising). It's also a great opportunity to refocus the business and turn costs. On the other hand responses like the rumored across-the-board 10% cut would further slow Microsoft's product delivery, and wouldn't do anything to improve the quality of the offerings. We shall see ...

Re:The scenarios were from June ...

[Daengbo]

Have you heard from anyone who was actually called in and told "you have x weeks left?" I've seen some posts, but they were, of course, all anonymous.

Re:They blend.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which frauds would these be, then?

Damn, I just realised who I replied to. Never mind.

Wang Labs as example

[kherr]

I've always felt Microsoft is likely doomed to follow Wang Labs decline from huge success to irrelevancy. The only real question is the timeline.

Wang, like Microsoft, dominated for a long time with proprietary OS and software, generating gobs of money and being a huge company. Then one day it seemed like the world just walked by them and they stopped selling new stuff and just sort of faded away.

Microsoft's decline will could be more complex, largely due to the Xbox and Windows Mobile markets with their own cycles, but Microsoft seems stuck in their tell-the-market-what-it-wants mindset instead of adapting to changes.

Re:They blend.

[aetherworld]

http://slashdot.org/~SockDisclosure/journal/

Does Ballmer really fill Gates' shoes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes he does. Every morning. With Spaghetti-O's. And then he screams at them for 25 minutes.

MS is an oil tanker

[Opportunist]

You can switch the engine off and it will continue to move forwards for a long, long time, simply due to its mass and momentum. The same is true for MS. They have a lot of long term contracts with companies that cannot simply cancel them. Companies in turn have long term plans that include licensing plans for MS products.

The IBM case and how big blue "lost touch" with its customers around the early 80s, when they missed the rise of the PC and how mainframes lost their importance, does not really apply either. There is no "PC" that MS would have missed. And the times are quite different. Computers are today in every home (ok, not every, but close). And for the average person, computer means MS operating system. Yes, that was similar with IBM and computers back in the 70s. But when you bought one for your home, you had no option to get a mainframe (unless you were some super rich geek). So you had to get "something else", which was a PC with a MS OS. Today, people get a "computer for their home", so they don't look around for an alternative.

Yes, one of the things MS benefits from is the lazyness of people. And that's why this oil tanker is going to go forwards for a long, long time to come. They'd really have to do something insanely stupid or piss off their users in some really insane way to change this, because nothing could come from the outside that could change that. People are too used to MS systems and they will continue using them because they're used to them. Why learn new tricks when the old ones were already hard to grasp? Unless users are really, really pissed and fed up so they start looking for alternatives, this won't change.

Re:MS is an oil tanker

[notseamus]

It's not just laziness, but ignorance about computing as well.

People like my parents blame computers for "problems", like not being able to navigate easily to connect to wireless networks while using windows or not being able to figure out how to disconnect a drive.

These things piss people off, but while the solutions are there, and relatively easy, they're well hidden. The icons are in the taskbar in XP and Vista too, as far as I know, but that's pretty much useless for anyone who doesn't already know what the green arrow means, or a computer beside three arcs. They're too ambiguous, and too hard to find.

I honestly believe that Windows isn't bad, and it's my platform of choice mainly due to AutoCad software. But from using both Ubuntu and OSX infrequently they're more intuitive systems that are easier for the casual user to pick up.

People like my parents would probably pick up OSX quite quickly without too much help, but don't know that the problems that they complain about aren't computer issues, but are Windows problems.

Windows does have other problems, which have been talked about ad nauseum here already, but one of the biggest issues with the casual user is the GUI.

If Windows 7 fixes the GUI, amongst other things *cough*UAC*cough*, then they'll have a system that people will stay with.

And maybe I'll stop getting calls asking how to connect to the internet :)

Re:MS is an oil tanker

[SnapperHead]

Microsoft has been pissing off their customers in a fun product called Vista. Using your tanker analogy, Microsoft has a huge gaping hole on the side of the ship. Its not going to stop them, it will slow them over time but its them bleeding customers.

People are starting to look for alternatives. I couldn't believe it when I saw 2 friends of mine, who have next to no technical knowledge purchased a laptop and installed Ubuntu on it. I almost fell out of my chair when I saw it.

There are also lots of people switching to Mac or wanting to switch to Mac. Lets face it, Apple is more expensive because they don't have a low end machine. They don't want to fork out the money right now, so they are just waiting. Will they switch ? No idea, but the ones who have made the switch haven't been happier. Hell, I am one of them.

There are alternatives and many people are eye balling them. If Microsoft drops the ball on Windows 7, that hole in the side of the tanker is only going to get bigger. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that it would take a major event for that hole to sink the ship.

Re:MS is an oil tanker

[Opportunist]

This ignorance stems from lazyness.

For me, this applies readily for cellphones. I use my cell for calls, and not that many, and as a replacement for an alarm clock. That's it. I don't know the billion various calling plans our five competing companies offer, and thus I probably pay more for my cell than I should have to. It's lazyness, nothing else. The cost does not yet cross the line where I would go out and actually look around for a cheaper plan. I'm even sure that there are a lot more interesting and better cells than my ancient Nokia brick that can't even handle Java or polyphone ring tones, but I don't really care for either. Ok, I'd care for Java since I'd love to play on my cell, but then, when I am not at home where I could play on my PC, I usually have better things to do than play games.

What OS is on my cell? Beats me. Probably Symbian. Would make sense, considering they make the OSs for Nokia (or so I heard, correct me if it's wrong). Do I care? Not really.

And until they keep me from doing what I want to do with my cell, it probably won't change.

It's the same for people and computers. They don't know about their OS because they don't care as long as it lets them do what they want to do. Until this point is reached, they will not even consider looking around for something better, because they don't care. They got better things to worry about. We're geeks. Our world revolves around computers and the differences between XP and Vista can keep us busy discussing for hours and days. The average person out there? All they want to know is whether it runs their application. If it does, they block any further information and tell you that's all they wanted to know, they don't care about the rest.

Re:MS is an oil tanker

[Opportunist]

That's why I said it can't be brought down from the outside, they have to sink it from the inside. One such scenario would be that they release one or two more versions of Vista quality and cease support for XP, i.e. no security updates and more important no feature updates. In comes some must-have hardware (something to the impact of USB, for example) and people will start to scramble for replacements of their XP.

If anything will have an "outside" impact on whether people choose a Linux distribution or accept an inferior MS product (inferior to XP, not Linux), I'd guess the quality of Wine will be the deciding factor, and whether people are being informed about it by papers, mainstream computer magazines and their peers. Wine is maybe the only outside factor I could see that will incite a switch.

Re:MS is an oil tanker

[ErkDemon]

Is MS's support strategy that they support the previous OS, but not the one before that?

If so, does XP support get nuked when Win7 appears?

Re:Only the "slow decline" option seems plausible.

[mysticgoat]

Give them 20 more years, and they may have "declined" to the size that IBM is now.

I dispute that "fact". Public financial statements of both companies are easily available on the web. By the simplest measure, they show IBM is twice as big as Microsoft (TA of $120.4 billion to $65.1 billion). By more sophisticated measures, IBM's comparative size is very much greater than this while MSFT has just a little tiny multiplier (IBM L/A = 0.76; MSFT L/A = 0.48, etc)

Comparing Microsoft to IBM is like comparing the four hundred pound gorilla to the two and a half ton elephant. Only a ass would see the antics of the ape as somehow making it look like the bigger of the two. Any value in the remainder of parent post is pretty much undermined by the demonstrated ignorance of fact.

My personal guess is that with economies crashing left and right, businesses are going to look hard at where they can pare down costs, and traditional IT departments with their sizeable cost-center structures are going become major targets for right-sizing. Microsoft's future is going to be determined by the shift from purchase-license software to FOSS-with-support business models, and the future for MSFT is bleak. Most of MSFT's skills are in market management and are going to become as obsolete as a fletcher's skills when the infantry adopts firearms. Microsoft's technical skills have been adequate for the commercial grade software of the last millenium, but fall far short of what is now the common level of quality in business grade FOSS products.

Re:Only the "slow decline" option seems plausible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the death of mainframes, businesses have been reluctant to adopt hosted apps, even when they are hosted in the company's own datacenters.

Nonsense. Businesses have become very averse to installed software. My employer sells software to large corporate environments, and most of these are transitioning to a hosted web environment (some even on a 3rd party hosting service). Even when they allow windows apps, they want them in a citrix environment (which costs an arm and a leg). Suggesting locally installed windows apps has become almost a taboo.

It only makes sense. Most business apps depend on a central database. The network is therefore the weak link anyway. So, it's a logical step to avoid the complexity of local installs and just put an app server next to the database server.

Technology goes the way of fashion

[Dan East]

We are nearing a point where technology - both hardware and software - are going to reach a plateau. Let me use Microsoft Word as an example. Twenty years ago the software available to do desktop publishing was pretty poor. The interfaces were primitive, there were severe limitations of what could achieved, and the integration of intelligence to aid humans (spell checking, thesaurus, grammar checking, language translation, etc) was non-existent. There was a massive amount of room for improvement, and thus Word was created and has steadily grown in features and capability ever since. Because there was so much improvement to be made in that market, there was room for Word to progress, perhaps ahead of the curve, to set itself apart from similar products. So what is left to be implemented in modern word processors? What groundbreaking feature remains to be invented that can really set one product far above the others? There's not much. GUIs can be tweaked and redesigned. File formats can be updated and made more portable. But the simple fact of the matter is competition, like Open Office, can chug along in development at a leisurely pace, and before anyone realizes it, Open Office is suddenly completely on-par with Microsoft Office.

We're heading towards the same end with operating systems, web browsers, and even hardware. Every now and then something new will come along (multitouch iPod / iPhone comes to mind - Microsoft was idiotic not to encourage that simple and logical progression with the Windows Mobile OEMs) that will set a product far apart. However, eventually we will have, for the most part, equivalency throughout.

So what will dictate what companies or products are popular and which are not? Take a look at the fashion industry. The whole skirt-length, tie-thickness phenomenon will occur in the technology arena. Fads will come and go. Specific products will become popular because of subtle differences between them and competing products that the masses somehow identify as "modern" or "cool". Eventually the recycling process will begin, probably on a 15-20 year cycle, but perhaps even faster in the technology market. Some company will dredge up a GUI or method of doing something that was popular a couple product generations back, and it will make a resurgence for a while. Speech driven interfaces will become popular, then eventually be perceived as stupid and primitive. Gesture driven interfaces will become popular, then people using them will eventually be seen as old-fashioned and out of vogue. Direct interfacing to the human neurological system will become practical and popular, then later will be seen as too unnatural and invasive, leading full circle back to some other method of interfacing.

So I don't think any one company is going to dominate for any duration, because they will not be able to make their product different enough (for better or worse) to make it stand up against the alternatives. This is where open source will really make a huge impact. The odds of a company like Microsoft managing not just to survive, but to dominate these kinds of drastic changes in technology paradigms is very, very unlikely.

What happens to old software?

[David Gerard]

One future prediction: MSDN discs make excellent scarecrows.

Like the old Usenet .sig: "When I collect two solar masses of AOL discs I will collapse the Sun."

Re:What happens to old software?

[dzfoo]

Don't knock AOL and their disc distribution strategy. It's because of people like you, complaining about it all the time, that I am right now two discs short of a complete 160-piece drink coaster set for entertaining guests.

          -dZ.

Re:Missed one mac os x for all systems comes out a

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac OS for all systems will come out only when you have prised the licensing agreement from Steve Jobs' cold, dead hands.

I can predict the future too - The sun will rise!

[AviLazar]

The thing that annoys me - this guy listed pretty much all of the most likely scenarios. So when one of those happen he will liken himself to be Nostradamos. When you throw enough shit at the ceiling, eventually one will stick.

This guy is not prophetic at all.

Their problems are easily solved

[realmolo]

Seriously. At this point, it's fairly obvious that Microsoft is going to be creating an all-new version of Windows that breaks backward-compatibility, and runs all the old stuff in a VM. As long as they release a new version of Office for the new OS, they won't lose much market share.

Honestly, that's the best of both worlds. The old Windows cruft goes away, but old apps keep working until they can be re-written.

Re-writing apps is hard, and that's what has kept Windows from *truly* evolving. Yeah, major commercial apps get re-written pretty quickly, but it's all those unique "business critical" apps that have been created by low-paid, inexperienced, in-house programmers that never get updated. Too many companies depend on those things, so MS has kept that junk running, at the expense of actually making Windows better.

As for Linux and MacOS, well, until they get something like Active Directory and Group Policies working, they aren't really what you want on a corporate network. MacOS and Linux are MUCH more difficult to manage. Yeah, at the actual workstation-level, things are easier to configure, but doing mass configuration of lots of machines is a hassle. There are no good GUI tools, and no real standard tools in general. It can be done, but it's too difficult.

Re:Their problems are easily solved

[Junta]

Though MS keeps teasing it, I doubt they'll actually jump to a redesigned platform. It's just too much investment and risk, given a low chance of meaningful improvement. The major flaws with Windows aren't at the lowest levels, they lie more in high-level organization and third-party activity.

In terms of manageability, to what extent has your professional experience been with at scale linux deployments? I would have said the opposite, that Linux was much easier at scale. For obscure things that MS doesn't wrap for you, MS is a pain, and Linux and others have a richer scripting environment to do those. Powershell has advanced the state of things, but that is hooribly slow and a pain. In terms of GUIs/Directory/policies, Novell may have the most comparable stack with their ZENworks stuff in SuSE. Knowing that AD was the first even moderate competitor to Novell's coveted directory management translates well to their work in SuSE.

The simple fact of the matter is that by and large, a person will learn one primary way of doing it, and be ill or misinformed about the alternatives.

Re:Their problems are easily solved

[codepunk]

There are no good GUI tools.
It can be done, but it's too difficult.

Difficult for who? Why don't you just admit that you only know Windows and don't know jack about Linux.

It will not matter for much longer anyhow, at this point people could just about care less what OS they
are running since the browser is now the OS.

Re:Their problems are easily solved

[Limburgher]

http://freeipa.org/
And for what it's worth, we're using Linux on a large number of workstations without it. Google OpenLDAP, apt, yum, sudo, kickstart. I spend so much less time messing with security and policy than my Windows counterparts that it's embarrassing.

Re:Their problems are easily solved

[drsmithy]

Difficult for who? Why don't you just admit that you only know Windows and don't know jack about Linux.

Well, I know quite a bit about Linux and GP is spot-on. There is nothing even close to the AD + Group Policy combo on Linux and it is a major lacking of that platform.

Sure, you can waste time and money rolling your own, or twisting your brain into knots trying to figure out something like cfengine, but the simple fact is there's no out of the box, simple to use tool[set] for configuration management of a collection of Linux machines.

In this day and age the lack of such basic management functionality in a server OS is ridiculous.

(This is not to say GPOs are flawless, by any stretch. Integrated revision control, for example, is a significant missing feature.)

This guy lives in Microsoft's Ivory Tower...

[argent]

Yet this same company has produced a great server operating system (Windows Server 2008) and sharing server (SharePoint 2007)

SharePoint? A great sharing server?

SharePoint is like someone at Microsoft heard of a Wiki as explained by a Martian, and hired some people from Lotus to implement it. It's inflexible to set up and configure, only works right on Internet Explorer, and is insufferably clumsy to use. It could only be described as "great" by someone who has never touched any software unblessed by Redmond.

Re:This guy lives in Microsoft's Ivory Tower...

[Degrees]

Sure, I wouldn't use the word "great"; but... I see the foresight MS used in bringing out SharePoint.

Better than email is a whole, real, Document Management System. And although implementing a DMS is smart, traditionally they didn't do "web". So Microsoft brings a DMS into its stable of product offerings, and makes it a WebDAV server, and integrates its access control features into Active Directory. That was smart.

Did I just use the word "stable" in a sentence describing a Microsoft product? Gad - they've gotten to me.

Anyway - the idea behind SharePoint was a good one, and I don't know of a better option out there. (Novell wants us to buy Teaming+Conferencing, but like iFolder I expect it's a good idea that will fade away).

Re:This guy lives in Microsoft's Ivory Tower...

[argent]

And although implementing a DMS is smart, traditionally they didn't do "web".

Yes, that would be the problem, wouldn't it? It's exactly the same problem I have with Lotus Notes... they're implementing something that the Web does better than anything, but without the web (yes, really, WebDAV is not a "web" technology, it eliminates the most important thing in the web... the replayable, reusable, recordable, readable reference). It's exactly like someone was trying to create a web-based technology without any comprehension of what that meant.

Re:This guy lives in Microsoft's Ivory Tower...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree. I work at MS and I would rather just have a big network drive than our team's SharePoint site. It's slow and difficult to navigate. Plus the search capability is trash.

Re:This guy lives in Microsoft's Ivory Tower...

[cparker15]

OMG, argent was right! Your description sounds exactly like Lotus Quickr (a nightmare-inducing POS I hope to never have to deal with ever EVER again).

Threashold

[Tablizer]

MS will fall apart when the alternative(s) to Windows and Office reach a certain threshold such that companies switch in droves. Predicting when that will happen is difficult. It's sort of like predicting earthquakes: you can tell that tension is building up, but you can't tell when it will reach the snapping point.

MS is in a bind right now: if they keep things mostly the same, then the clones will become more and more compatible as they have time to match MS bug-per-bug. If MS changes things too much, then the changes will angry enough users that the alternatives look better. Both sides of this doom-room are closing in and MS has less space to move.

I doubt MS can compete outside of the "standards bearer" route. The only reason they were able to branch into other businesses such as XBox is because they had deep pockets to live with a long learning curve. Almost all of MS's successes since DOS are due to this patience-oriented deep-pocket approach. And even then they've had many flops or dragging yawners, such as MSN.

When their standards get away from them and their deep pockets dry up, they'll start to implode and face what IBM did. Ironically, IBM is doing well now, but they had to make some gut-wrenching changes and came close to death in the mid-90's. IBM is a different company now. If MS survives, it will probably also be very different.
   

Re:Threashold

[Dan Ost]

Replying to your sig: Fork Python to rid tab-crap.

Most people who use for Python for more than a couple of minutes stop noticing that whitespace is significant since they already use whitespace meaningfully in their code in a way that satisfies Python's requirements. People who've never tried Python but have heard about the whitespace requirements often assume that whitespace is meaningful on every line, rather than just at the beginning of a statement. Once they learn how it really works, they stop complaining.

Could you post an example of your code (in any language) that shows how you format your code? Also, please explain how it conflicts with the Python whitespace requirements.

A few things..

[Junta]

MS's venture into the PDA/Smartphone realm has been problematic. It seemingly remains low on their list of priorities. A WinMo phone currently implies a further investment in third-party commercial applications to actually get suitable experience. Meanwhile, Apple and Google are getting a number of things right. Apple's out of the box experience is usable for most, and the App store is a much more well organized approach to third-party applications. Android is similar, but with the added benefit of the lowest barrier to entry for development and plenty of free apps in the 'Market'. I might have to give Google the long-term market edge in this market. We have a market that is still nearly a clean slate, fundamentally distinct from the ecosystem that MS flourished in (move the cost from developers, resellers, and users to advertisers given the ubiquitous internet access that wasn't possilbe as MS formed), and could become many people's dominant method of interaction with the internet. This would be akin to the mainframe to PC revolution you mentioned.

In terms of laziness, that also backfires too. Maybe not in marketshare, but in revenue. For example, most still run XP that was licensed long ago. Those users are not a revenue stream for MS. In terms of Linux defualt being shipped on systems, the eeepc was the best chance to date at evaluating it, and both sides of the debate find the statistics they want somehow, making it still inconclusive. Maybe Dell has some telling statistics, but if MS OS was an expensive addon to a computer, would people just get the cheap-o option?

Re:A few things..

[Alex Belits]

Windows CE/Windows Mobile has one purpose -- preventing PDA and mobile phone users from being exposed to Symbian (OS used in old Psion PDA and modern Nokia E and N series). Microsoft never bothered selling Windows Mobile products to consumers (last time it did so with Windows CE, it destroyed the whole market of early PDA and subnotebooks), they sell it to cellular carriers that had full control of what customers were getting.

Discounts Linux/Open Office

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the scenarios discount any gain by Linux and all but the first one discount OpenOffice. OO is ready for many, many uses (schools, government, office use, etc.). The only places that OO might not be ideal are when tied to Microsoft products (Sharepoint) or extended by 3rd party applications/tools (for example, Rational Req Pro).

We are still waiting on the "Year of Linux on the Desktop". Yet, we are moving closer with netbooks, embedded appliances, Google Android, etc. These are all taking market share from MS.

Unless MS can make Windows 7 run as efficiently as XP or provide a similar "experience" on low-end devices (netbooks, etc.), they may lose further market share.

MS's competition is strong (Google, IBM). Some have been around for YEARS (IBM - Eclipse and Lotus). MS stock has been essentially flat since about 2000. Some MS divisions are making great products some so-so, some losing money. MS seems to be very, very large company running somewhat adrift and with some now-strong competition.

However, with some retooling, refocusing, and key improvements in technology and marketing, they COULD rebound. Don't discount them and write them off yet, but unless they make some radical changes, they will CONTINUE to decline.

Re:Only the "slow decline" option seems plausible.

[ivan256]

Even when they allow windows apps, they want them in a citrix environment (which costs an arm and a leg). Suggesting locally installed windows apps has become almost a taboo.

The fact that you cite Citrix combined with Citrix's minuscule market share indicates to me that you don't serve the typical client.

Almost every technology finds some market. Hosted apps are nothing new. Just the current batch of technology is new (And not very novel). There is no reason to believe that things will turn out differently this time compared to all the other attempts.

If windows / MS dies apple may be forecd to open i

[Joe The Dragon]

If windows / MS dies apple may be forecd to open it up.

1992-2008 "year of the Linux desktop" too - b.s.

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard a rumor that 2009 is going to be the year of the Linux desktop too... oh wait: That was also said all the way back to 1992, up to this year in 2008, & every year in between also. Funny that hasn't come to pass, lol!

The browser

[codepunk]

MS is already extinct it will just take father time a little bit to catch up with them.

Most people could care less what OS they are running any longer as it has a working web browser. People are already
primarily using their computers for web based application services. There will be of course some things that cannot
be handled easily by the browsers but for the most part the average computer user today is nearly 100% focused on the web
and web based applications.

It sure isn't "the year of the Linux desktop"

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure as hell isn't "the year of the Linux desktop" by way of comparison, though it's been said that between 1992-2008 that each of those years' was going to be "the year of the Linux desktop"... even though the clear BIAS here is towards Linux, & this site is run by LINUX.COM's owners, no less.

Talk about 'bias & bullshit'... it's rampant here and if you think the crap you people spout is going to change things? Guess again - it hasn't for more than 17 yrs. now, and won't.

Re:It sure isn't "the year of the Linux desktop"

[dpilot]

You're absolutely right! On the desktop, Microsoft is IT, and will be IT forever! The big I.T. news of the year 3008 will be yet another Windows migration, how many will advise waiting a year until the first service pack is out. Of course NEXT year - 3009 - will be the year of the Linux desktop.

After all, contrary to what Lester Throeau says, present trends WILL continue. 3008 will look just like 2008, simply further along Moore's law, poorer health coverage at greater premiums, nation never more divided, etc.

my scenereo

[FudRucker]

the year is 2025, Microsoft and Apple went bust, filed chapter 11, then MS & Apple merged in to one company, OSWinXV is the OS and can only be installed on WinApple Hardware, and the bundle literally costs a bundle (about the price of a new luxury car) while all the rest of the world runs 95% Linux & BSD (mostly Linux) and a sprinkling of OpenSolaris, only the uber rich buy the MS/Apple with OSWinXV, (roman humerals for 15) and it does not do much other than surf the internet & email, and solitare, while all the real work and productivity is on the *Nixes...

Re:my scenereo

[sznupi]

But what happens 12 years later? ;)

neural interface is the end-game

[ovu]

If direct neural interfacing ever becomes possible, it will be a one-way conversion. The benefits to be had transcend fashion, they represent human evolution, like gaining a 6th sense - the sense of tapping into the collective consciousness. Would you cut out your eyeballs because that interface to the world isn't trendy?

Our fallible memories are not an obstacle when the internet is there. Neural interface will free our minds to focus on short-term caching, processing, innovation, and content creation.

Re:When you are that large, you need to be everywh

[Anonymous Coward]

That is exactly the thinking that began IBM's giant paradigm shift. This is a brutal industry to begin with and to compete in every segment and sector, eventually you won't be good at anything because you'll be too busy doing everything.

If that is what they keep doing, and I'm inclined to think it is because they don't know better and it's in their blood, then what will have to happen is at some point in the future after another gaff (it could be windows 7 for all we know..) they'll have to decide how to split the company up. They'll split it up in to a bunch of wholly owned subsidiaries and then start selling them off and figure out what their "core" is along the way. It's really indicative of playing defense when you have to do everything to avoid missing the next "big thing." Once you're playing defense, it's just a matter of time.

What's more interesting, their culture makes is very hard for them to slice their business up in many ways. .Net is a pretty compelling product but they only support .NET, they don't support Mono and they haven't ported theirs elsewhere. You take windows out of their equation and there isn't much to sell right now. A forward thinking CEO would start to rectify that because splitting up is the only option if they continue to try to do everything.

Around for a long, long time

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah the Mac has come into a new golden era fueled by people who like the stylistics. In a bad economy (like the one we are in), can you afford the extra $$ for style? The new Mac Book Pro (15") for $2,499. Do you know how much PC you can get for $2,499? You can buy each person in a family of 4 a new 15" laptop (ok, so it has Vista or XP) for that price.
Microsoft will continue to dominate as the cost of the hardware drops. Cheap hardware still needs an OS, and getting one that 'everybody' already knows is a big benefit. Apple got it right with the iPod and took over a market segment. The MP3 player and media player portable belongs to the iPod now - the others are just playing in the space. The same holds true of the MS hammerlock on the OS. With nearly 100% of corporate America using MS products somewhere in their organization, the hammerlock is not likely to get broken anytime soon.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

ha ha ha in coming decade ALL your OS are belong to ME!

This is all wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is going to create a new operating system built on Linux. They will embrace FOSS in an attempt to extend and monopolize it. Eventually they will lose their power/position in the industry, and become just another market competitor rather than Darth Sauron.

trollz

[Anonymous Coward]

troll zoo

Windows 7 will not suck as much as Vista

[mangu]

that assumes that Windows 7 doesn't suck anywhere near as much Vista when it comes out

You know, Windows 7 doesn't need to suck in order to fail. It will fail, unless it offers significant advantages over XP. What could those advantages be? I don't know.

Microsoft's biggest problem today is its own success. They have managed to make XP a pretty good system for the market segment it targeted. Which means it needs not be replaced, software doesn't wear out, an OS is replaced only when the hardware underneath fails.

No matter how good Windows 7 turns out to be, unless it offers some revolutionary advantage, it will be relegated to the same situation Vista faces: no one will upgrade to it, they will only get it when buying new hardware.

Re:Windows 7 will not suck as much as Vista

[guardia]

Well, just an example, the first version of Microsoft Office that supports the ISO version of OOXML (whenever that one comes out) might not run on XP... that is how you make software obsolete, and that is how Microsoft has always done it!

Re:Only the "slow decline" option seems plausible.

[dpilot]

I'd be careful on that definition of "slow." I watched IBM's decline, and at the time certain parts seemed quite precipitous. Every now and then there are inflection points, for example where network effects were working in your favor, and then those same network effects turn against you. Plus sometimes the outlook on a situation changes, and being "properly diversified" turns into "the death of a thousand paper-cuts" almost overnight.

Nor do I think Microsoft will die. At some point I expect them to tread the road trod decades ago by IBM, with the same pain. But guess what, IBM is still with us, and I expect to Microsoft to be, as well. But IBM no longer dictates what the industry does, and I expect the same thing to happen to Microsoft. Furthermore, the industry benefited when IBM stopped dictating, and I expect the same types of benefits when Microsoft is no longer able to.

Old idea, new times

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The idea has failed to launch many times before, but that's not necessarily because the idea is broken. X windows was a pretty crappy idea when it was first launched because desktops just did not have enough grunt to run it. Multiply the CPU by a hundred or more and the X server's CPU load is insignificant.

The idea has to match what the technology can provide. The cloud needs cheap, high speed, networking. As that becomes available it starts to make a lot of sense for some companies.

Re:Threashold (OT)

[Tablizer]

I've seen huge, long debates about that issue (I was in some but not others) and I don't think I can present a good case in a quick paragraph. Rather than "argue with the customer", why not just make (fork) a curly-brace version of Python and let the market-place decide? That's the beauty of OSS: split instead of fight.

And What About Debian?

[BattyMan]

You Insensitive Clod!

Re:And What About Debian?

[Miseph]

Nobody installs Debian. Nobody.

For the record, I just tried to install Debian over my Ubuntu install that borked on getting a new video card (I don't really use it for anything important, so fixing it was a VERY low priority), but the initial X configuration was broken and I didn't feel like fixing it. So now I'm putting on Kubuntu instead. The point is, I'm kidding... sort of.

That's NOT the message I was replying too!

[BattyMan]

Nothing more to see here, move along...

The geek's cloudy crystal ball

[westlake]

The Magic 8 Ball has been on top of this for years... Outlook not so good.

For Microsoft or for Sun?

Michael Meeks Says OO.o Project is "Profoundly Sick"

the fact it is pirated means its useful

[Anonymous Coward]

remove that ability and guess what people move in droves to linux, all the DRM and crap does just that , linux message of freedom is what is in fact moving more gov'ts not less to use them and more and more smaller IT peoples use linux because the fact is its cheaper and more customizable and MS can never compete with that EVER

AND here's to MS "securing itself" as the second that happens and crackers can't crak it its game over for MS, and thtas one major REASON that vista failed it was too hard to install as a pirate ( not that a determined peep could not)
Anyhow without that linux makes continued gains as does mac.
2009 will be the year of MS EPIC FAIL web 2.0

Re:When you are that large, you need to be everywh

[chartreuse]

To nitpick (hey, this is /.), they had a position in the phone market years before the iPhone, not that it stopped them from being lapped by Apple within 18 months. And iPod/iTunes/iTunes Music Store are all owned by Apple, no third parties involved.

that silly ballmer

[peas_n_carrots]

Ballmer is stuck in the 90's and hasn't a clue where or how to lead Micro$oft to success. He's basically running the company on auto-pilot while the rest of the market forges ahead with new and better business models.

M$ will be around for a good while, but their influence is already waning. It will be good for consumers, and the industry as a whole, when competitors are more on par in market share/influence. Ballmer will get ousted when he can't talk his way out of the hole he's been digging for M$.

Re:Only the "slow decline" option seems plausible.

[chartreuse]

Not to mention how Microsoft is branching out to new platforms like the iPhone. Microsoft's Seadragon app came out first on the iPhone

Their coding will definitely have to improve. Seadragon crashes enough on my Touch to be useless.

I see....

[Anonymous Coward]

They are going to upgrade Windows to something called "Glass Houses".

The Geek In Fantasyland

[westlake]

Meanwhile, just because they're the biggest company doesn't mean they're relevant. It just means they WERE relevant. Past tense.

This is fantasy - and fantasies are dangerous. Toyota doesn't become irrelevant in heavy industry because its shows its first loss in 71 years. Microsoft doesn't become irrrelevant in tech because its revenues and profits continue to grow in good times and bad.

Object Lesson #1: Michael Meeks Says OO.o Project is "Profoundly Sick"

Object Lesson #2: The Moz Foundation and Google.

Life and death by the add-click.

Object Lesson #3:The Netbook at WalMart

Object Lesson #4: Operating system market share, Top Operation systems versions trend

Re:The Geek In Fantasyland

[ThePromenader]

A bit of reasoning here. Before even beginning to try to lump the question of MS' future into a global "relevance", one must determine what that relevance ~is~. Better still, to better analyse what future market impact their products will have, it is better to examine their product directly vis-Ã-vis a) market shares and sales techniques compared to b) product quality and c) other existing products (themselves analysed through the first two criteria). Sooooo...

a) & c) Microsoft is for sure the major player in the proprietary desktop market. They got there not through promoting/developing product quality, but through marketing techniques (hooking first-time users by shipping pre-installed in most every PC shipped) and its incompatibility with other OS's/media. Although innovative, Mac only became popular through the sale of Mac computers - important, because the market 'staying power' of a product is directly related to its quality - but it only recently began to deal with incompatibility issues. Lastly, "free" *nix has the majority of the Server market, its ground gained through a long evolution and accessible development - again a market share maintained by the quality of the product itself - but these are still largely incompatible with other OS's/media.

b) & c) The quality of their product is improving but negligible compared to other products out there (ease of use, compatibility, security, etc.). For the time being, the only widely-accessible "better" desktop product out there is the proprietary Mac OS, but for the time being it is usable only Mac computers/emulators. This leaves the various *nix distros - for the desktop market, there are many available *nix solutions (Ubuntu, etc.), but these fail on ease of use (installation, etc.) compared to other proprietary OS's.

The direct opposites in the above are MS and *nix - the former gained/holds its share through marketing techniques before quality, and the latter, even if it is free and more 'difficult' to use, depends totally on its quality in maintaining its market share. Mac seems to be the middle ground between the two.

My conclusion: MS will be around as long as a) they are not surpassed in "ease of use" by other other-OS/media compatible PC-installable OS's, b) they continue their 'pre-installed' deal with PC manufacturers and c) the Mac OS continues to be (easily) installable only on Mac computers. If any of these conditions should change, MS is going to be losing market-share big-time.

Re:The Geek In Fantasyland

[Repossessed]

Linux share increases 30% over the course of a year and this is supposed to be bad?

A second note on those numbers, Market Share is fairly accurate, but gives are North American specific numbers, worldwide you see more linux and less mac (though about the same windows)

Re:The Geek In Fantasyland

[Daengbo]

Before you go banging the "Microsoft is doing well in a downturn," you ought to read the most recent Mini-Microsoft post where everyone is discussing massive layoffs and the day of reckoning that is coming to the company for mismanagement over the last few years -- some even go so far as to imply some kind of fraud is involved.

Level 63s are claiming MS is in the shitter and employees need to have CVs up to date.

Re:The Geek In Fantasyland

[Elektroschock]

Look, the desktop is getting irrelevant. You just need a PC of whatever-OS to access the cloud.

Microsoft has the following problems:

- does not understand the internet, thus the cloud

- it made itself an enemy of open source and open standards for ideological reasons why the competitors make smart use of it.

- the desktop is going to fade out.

- Vista is not well received. All they can possibly get with operating system investments is a sustention of their market share

- it gets difficult to sustain the stock growth rates of the past and profit expectations and investors are getting nervous and want higher dividends.

- the limits of growth hit them hard. So they go on a shopping tour and buy "old online" or share of other markets such as game consoles. Two strategies: Either you invest a whole lot of money to attempt stealing a market or you invest in overpriced online companies such as Yahoo.

Re:The Geek In Fantasyland

[Risen888]

On the day that there is free, all-pervasive wifi access across the nation, the desktop may become irrelevant. Not before.

Re:The Geek In Fantasyland

[westlake]

Microsoft is for sure the major player in the proprietary desktop market. They got there not through promoting/developing product quality, but through marketing techniques (hooking first-time users by shipping pre-installed in most every PC shipped) and its incompatibility with other OS's/media.

Microsoft remains the major player on the desktop - period.

Microsoft writes operating systems for hardware that will be mid-line at the time of release and entry level a year or two later.

This isn't "perfection" as the geek understands it.

But it is shrewd and sophisticated marketing and to get it right demands a great deal of technical sophistication. This is how Henry Ford managed to get 22 million cars on US roads by 1920 - and why the Ford V8 became the sensation of the Great Depression.

---and it sucks the air out of the room for OEM Linux.

Walmart will gladly sell you an XP ATOM netbook for $350. The dual-core HP laptop with 64 Bit Vista Premium with 4 GB RAM will set you back $800.

In a sense, there are no "first time" users.

I know families who began with MSDOS, Win 3 or Win 95 whose grandkids are starting out with Vista.

The OEM system install is the gold standard here.

That will never change. The out-of-the-box experience is everything.

Re:The Geek In Fantasyland

[Elektroschock]

Freifunk or Free 700?

At least Microsoft buys into the Cloud concept.

More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it run Linux?

Open Source Wins In The Long Run

[HermMunster]

The very nature of open source means that it wins in the long run. Software parity will be achieved sooner or later. There's only so many features you can add to any given application and as a result they will all do the same things, period.

Open source has many more minds and many more ideas that will spring from those minds and those ideas will be implemented. It is that simple.

When Open Source achieves that parity the choice will be between free and paid for the same features. People will chose free given the same set of features. Even if Microsoft tries to play the marketing game that Apple plays sooner or later that will also fall by the wayside and people will chose free over paid over perceived quality.

Right now Microsoft is selling the idea that Windows is superior because it is polished. Open Source will gain polish. It's the nature of open source. You can't get away from it. It's that simple. As more and more minds work on a project over time the project becomes refined, polished. There's no question.

So, the scenario is that Linux will build and grow to the point that even if it takes years and years it will surpass the retail versions. This is precisely what frightens Microsoft. When Linux Distros were wallowing in their own shit (the shit of the zealot) we had lack of polish and no direction. Now we have direction and polish. This frightens the hell out of Microsoft.

There is a difference...

[Junta]

There is a difference between an unexpected surprise (which many users are trained to automatically suspect malware) and an announced change.

Re:When you are that large, you need to be everywh

[shutdown -p now]

next gen programming (Java/Eclipse)

What's "next gen" about Java? Or Eclipse, for that matter?

Now if you said Delphi, that would make some sense. But by the time Java was there, MS had its own high-level alternatives to C++ (VB etc).

Re:When you are that large, you need to be everywh

[zzatz]

I had no idea Apple produced so much music. Where are their studios? Oh, those third parties...

There isn't any need for force....

[westlake]

MS will continue to force OEM installations on the market

If there is any mass market retailer in the states that has tried to make a go of OEM Linux, it is Walmart.

There isn't a distro, form factor, brand name or price point that Walmart hasn't tried.

Nothing ever comes of it.

The Netbook for sale in Walmart's big box stores has a 9" screen, an ATOM CPU, 1 GB RAM a 120 GB HDD and costs $350.

This holiday season the OS is XP, next year it could be Vista or Win-7. The hardware requirements for the Windows OS are no barrier - in the long run, the hardware requirements for the Windows OS are never a barrier.

Walmart stocks Windows because Windows is what sells. The OEM installs Windows because Windows is what sells.

Period.

End of story.

Re:There isn't any need for force....

[Risen888]

No. Period. Not end of story. Period.

It's pretty common in big box retailing to place a low-price product beneath or next to a higher-end product. There's a name for the practice but damned if I can remember it. Anyway, long story short, Wal Mart has never given a shit about moving those Linux boxes. They're on the shelf to help sell Wal Mart's other products.

Period.

Re:When you are that large, you need to be everywh

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't quite agree with what is being stated here because Microsoft is still gaining power by buying small companies that are really off the radar.

They have really realized that they can't code in MS. The 7 launch around the world was complete atrocity and their recent seems to have the code stripped out of it for the drivers. MS needs to learn what RoHS is.

If MS does something to SAP like you think, they are going to be reamed a new one by another authority. They are still are against server rooms. I know that this sells SQL and server, but this not how to organize the information in an OS release.

YES!

[sjames]

Does Ballmer really fill Gates' shoes?

Yes, with cold oatmeal. Every morning. Ever since that hot soup in the lap incident.

Here's my predictions...

[XDirtypunkX]

A unified non-volatile RAM/storage system will displace DDR/SSD/Platter based storage in one blow at around the same time, meaning a drastically new OS model is needed. This will probably be race-track memory or something similar.

Microsoft will leverage .NET and their investment in Singularity/Midori will pay off as better memory management technologies (improved garbage collection/region inference) come along and make performance stable. Code will be shipped in a managed form, verified with a proof system statically at install time and then compiled to native processor code into a locked install area. This will be a new system and will run almost entirely in ring 0 without memory protection, apart from legacy Windows applications running through a Wine like Windows API shim. The difference this time will be that the managed code system will be an ISO standard.

Apple, like they were caught out by a lack of memory protection and proper multi-tasking, will be caught out by a combination of this, Steve Jobs dying/retiring and the inevitable swing of fashion against them.

Linux will adapt much quicker and will adopt a lot of it's own revolutionary changes, overtaking Mac OSX as the alternative OS of choice. Sensing their time coming again, Novell will use their improved fortunes to fork the Linux kernel and start integrating improving/mono to the point where they actually release a system capable of running Midori applications natively. Google will contribute heavily to the project and release their own version.

Intel will poop their pants as x86 becomes redundant as every application gets shipped in managed code. Managed code becomes a defacto web standard and native applications/the web blur together as a capability based security system allows the code to execute safely. A plethora of processor platforms based on creative ideas take off.

Games consoles become redundant as powerful stream processing units on centralized PCs become more than games can actually utilize fully, online distribution becomes a reality and TVs can be connected wirelessly to your PC.

Slashdot memes continue.

Re:more importantly?

[reiisi]

Have you ever tried Putting the GIMP on a Mac?

I actually find the GIMP easier to use than photoshop for a lot of things. Probably just me, I suppose.

Deadly to a company, ...

[reiisi]

This kind of stuff would kill Microsoft.

That's the reason Microsoft's management is afraid of "open source." To them it seems something like a zombie. Or a bunch of zombies.

On a cashregister? Which cash register?

[reiisi]

(Okay, the lame filter is getting lamer about comments in the subject:)

On a cashregister? Which cash register? (I don't think that's what the meme is all about.)

westlake or westbake?

[reiisi]

Oh. pro-Microsoft. Westlake.

Re:When you are that large, you need to be everywh

[chartreuse]

Woosh.

reality

[reiisi]

I was going to say something about the articles not containing much evidence of awareness of reality, but calling those random fright fantasies articles doesn't seem very meaningful.

But you're right. This is definite evidence that the wall of illusions is coming tumbling down.

Bad things going for them?

[reiisi]

Hmm.

Yeah. They've always had a lot of bad things going for them.

(There's another phrase that has a certain meaning or two hidden in it.)

bahahah

[Atrox666]

Ya know if running Linux wasn't like ramming white hot pokers in your eyes then Microsoft might have some competition.
It's not as polished as Windows (which is REALLY sad).
It's like the little kid who's welfare mom told him that homemade clothes are more special than store bought..and all the other kids beat up.

Linux is just full of things that are more effort.
On a superior OS things would be less effort and have fewer compatibility issues.
OSes that have superior abilities but are irritating to install, cause incompatibility errors and won't run the software you want easily are a FAIL (i.e. the OS/2 losers)
Installing drivers are a massive FAIL.
Installing software is a massive FAIL.

The average user doesn't read dialog boxes..and you want them to read man pages..riiiight..keep holding your breath.

The media science behind Linux is simply wrong. It's a visual object in a tactile environment.

I have never met a Linux head that doesn't spend more time screwing around with their OS than actually doing productive work.

Just like all the OS/2 losers I'm going have people arguing every little point..I will laugh last because I heard it all before from arrogant OS/2 geeks.

I'm just wondering how many of you are going to hang on long after the party has ended like these losers http://www.os2world.com/

Yeah my OS sucks but I can get stuff done AND THAT'S WHERE THE CULTURE IS.

Business as Usual

[Daengbo]

When are we going to admit to ourselves that not only are they NOT standards compatible, they do NOT want to be; nor will they ever be!

You are absolutely right. MS just released their plans for Office 2007's ODF support (in SP@). Surprise! It won't be compliant or interoperable with other implementations.

I on the other hand

[LeotheQuick]

... think that they could go on selling copies of Windows XP for the next century. People don't care about whether or not their OS has the latest virtualization technology, or version of DirectX. They care about their web sites, music, games, and pr0n. I think people are just sick of having to deal with upsets in the already steady stream of digital goodness they have been feeding off of with XP.

Twice nothing is still nothing.

[westlake]

Linux share increases 30% over the course of a year and this is supposed to be bad?

0.64% to 0.83%. Big Whoop. The Linux stats move up and down, in fits and starts all year. To me, that suggests "margin of error." Vista shows steady growth from 12% to 20%. Those numbers I am prepared to trust.

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing.

[Repossessed]

Now you're just trolling. Windows share declined overall, claiming Vista did well is like only looking at share increases for intrepid ibid and nothing else.

infoworld is so fucking stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I took time to write this as a reply to their stuff, and their software way when I click post that my message should be less than 3k bytes. What a broken software. Just like MS.
So here my prose, as a comment to the Infoworld redactor.

You think so small. We are in a global village now, for the better or the worse. MS is so americo-centric and most america is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Most of it is financially bankrupt too. This is not only Madoff that ran a Ponzi scheme, not Wall Street, but a whole nation that consume way more value than it produce and steal resources in the whole world and make believe this is no so. Hopefully there is still some pockets of creativity here and there. Europe is hardly better, but ar least, we have partially learnt our place by nominally loosing our colonies even if we still rape them thanks to the complicitty of corrupt regims.
But with China, America is not the only game in town^Wthe global village. Eventually China will not need the US and the US will have to pay for the global resources it consumes.

As for Bill Gates. he has money, but as a monopolist, i am not sure he understands today world. If we continue as we do, the problem is not only malaria or clean water for everyone. It is the survival of our species in a world we have devastated. If we augment the general life expectancy like we did in our occidental countries, and if the natality will slow down in the rest of the world, the problem will be that a big part of the population will be senile. We don't know how to cure Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases yet.

So no one with a independent mind cares anymore about Microsoft even if we must deal with their sofware. We expect that Bill Gates will do a better job as a charity manager that he did as a producer of sofware. But that means to fight Ballmer that bribse governments to kill the OLPC. That means to empower people like Open Source does for software and creative commons for other things. You can't decide for people what they need like the IFM did that obliged people to switch from substance crop to cash crop and let them starve to death if the market is not interested by their crop. A freak control like Bill Gates will have trouble with this concept of empower people and let decide from themselves. Probably in his late years, he will write a book saying he was right even if his undertakings as a philantropist did not pan out like he intended. Just like Mac Namara that did not understood he had botched up the Vietnam war and wrote a book to defend his genius.

Back to software. Companies want MS out but it will take time. There are still Cobol and Fortran programs around so we can expect there will be some XP and Vista program to be around for a long time. Also companies don't want to have their data on a "cloud". They have been badly burned by offshoring so they have learned their lesson.
Parallel Desktop makes possible to have windows programs and linux program to appear as window on Mac OS X. So the transition to a pure Mac desktop will be eased. More and more people will be driven to Apple thru the iPhones and IPod touch experience that they will want to have on a desktop. Eventually even management will get a clue when people will bring in their own laptops .

On the server side Linux and Open Source software will dominate on any hardware because companies will want control and perennity of the operating systems software by imposing it to be Open Source. On the desktop, Google and Linux will be there as potential alternative to keep Apple honest and people will want it that way to avoid to be trapped in a new monopoly.

In papers with journalists that don't know better Ballmer will still make headlines promising that the next version of Windows will fix problems. The advertising related to the Microsoft foodchains made these journalists live for so long that they can't see it otherwise.

Prediction for the next two decades. Caution : it is difficult to predict the past, more so for the future.

Re:infoworld is so fucking stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I meant to say :

It should not let be left in the hand of Monsanto that has a long history of helping criminal acts against humanity : Agent orange in Vietnam, live roundup experiments of roundup in populated areas of Colunbia to eradicate coca plants, massive attacks against biodiversity...

-- cognominal

IBM in the Eighties

[ErkDemon]

In the early Eighties, IBM was facing an antitrust investigation, and the distinct possibility of being broken up. They survived partly by testifying on oath that all their products were technically inferior to and more expensive than the corresponding products from their competition, right across the board.

What they basically said was: "If you break us up into separate companies now, every single division will go bust if it has to survive as a self-contained company, on it sown merits. The only thing that's keeping us going is the very monopoly power that you don't like. Split us up now, and you'll effectively destroy one of America's biggest and most important companies."

What IBM also said was that they were betting the whole company on the development of a new operating system, which would be along in a few years. With that OS, IBM and its subsiiaries had a future, without it, they didn't. But the development of that OS required the combined resources of the whole group, so splitting the company at that point in time was the worst possible option.

In the end, we never got to find whether IBM's argument would have swayed the enquiry, because the Reagan administration shut the thing down. But it was nice to see IBM giving evidence that every one of their product lines was overpriced and inferior in every respect to the competition.

Vista wasn't for customers, it was for MS execs

[ErkDemon]

Some customers want that, some don't.

Vista might have been great as a high-end multimedia OS aimed at people who have shiny new high-end machines, and want to see lots of bells and whistles and preinstalled goodies. As an expensive OS for people who like to have the latest expensive hardware, it probably works.

For businesses who want simple terminals for wordprocessing and running the companies' in-house apps cleanly and efficiently ... not so much. For people with legacy hardware who aren't intending to throw it in the skip any time soon, not so much. For people with kids who want a cheap, low-spec machine that just works to let their kids play a few games and access the internet, not so much. For people with old machines who need to service them and maybe update the OS to something newer, not so much.

What MS execs basically did was target the "Apple user" market, so as to give themselves a nice warm feeling about having a really, really nice-looking OS product, and alienate the part of their customer-base who weren't natural Mac customers.

What they probably should have done was to have a media edition (Apple niche), a business edition (no aero interface), and a micro edition for netbooks. Instead, the f***ed up, and aimed at the prestige Apple market. They assumed that everybody would be upgrading to the latest high-spec machines, which would compensate for lack of performance in the OS, and that's not what happened.

So at a time when businesses are pulling in their horns and not wanting to buy new hardware, and the new netbook market is booming, Microsoft take their excisting OS that works well in those markets, XP ... which doesn;t have a replacement product in those markets ... and announce that they won't be selling it any more.

Really, as a shareholder, you want the guys who made those decisions sacked, or at least to not be getting any bonuses, because they were putting personal pride and credibility ahead of the company's ability to make money. They wanted to boast about having a flashy OS, and when it stumbled, they wanted to force unwilling customers to buy it, to justify their own earlier bad decisions. They announced the shutdown of a popular and profitable OS, which people still wanted to buy, in order to force people to get a new OS which didn't necessarily meet their needs so well. They tried to /force/ Vista to be a success, whether it suited all customers or not, by telling buyers who just wanted XP that they weren't allowed to buy it any more.

What it's done is create a popular impression of Microsoft as a company that really don't know what they're doing.

Abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/~SockDisclosure/journal/214377