Slashdot Mirror
If Windows 7 Fails, Citrix (Not Linux) Wins
Julie188 writes "Microsoft blogger Mitchell Ashley, who has been using Windows 7 full-time, predicts that Windows 7 will fail to lure XP users away from their beloved, aging operating system — after all, Windows 7 is little more than what Vista should have been, when it shipped two years ago. But eventually old PCs must be replaced and then we'll see corporations, desperate to get out of the expense of managing Windows machines, get wise. Instead of buying new Windows 7 PCs, they could deliver virtualized XP desktops to a worker's own PC and/or mobile device. Ashley believes that Citrix's Project Independence has the right idea."
for when hell freezes over.
Although if Microsoft had an option in 7 to "make it look like XP" it would be a good thing.
That's just propoganda nonsense. If the scenario actually holds true, then Virtual Engineering wins. This means VMWare's enterprise desktop virtualization, and possibly Citrix might get a piece. This is just a little Citrix plug. Wouldn't quite call it news.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
In my experience Citrix has some serious out-of-band issues with modifier keys on Linux and Mac OS X. Shift key events don't send correctly.
C'mon, that is a problem that could be solved in an afternoon! It could be solved at the citrix client level or at the linux host level.
If project independence takes off and businesses don't need a windows license on each workstation to make it work then look out. This obstacle will stand like a sandcastle in a rising tide.
Bah!
Citrix is freaking expensive too!
And when you look at the difficulties and TCO on a Citrix farm, you're really no better off than if you just had a 5 year technology replacement plan anyways.
And when you look at what Citrix is trying to do, centralizing application execution, compared to the rise of Web Apps and instant deployments (click-once and the like), there is really no big gain by going to Citrix unless you are locked in to proprietary software that only runs on Windows.
Honestly though, you are significantly better off sticking to a 5 year replacement plan and pushing for web and low impact distributable applications.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Because the longer that XP is around, the closer Wine is to replicating the environment, and Linux is to overtaking it in usability.
That is one reason that MS wants to move forward.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Linux also has a PR problem. The average person (if they have heard of Linux at all, and most haven't) tend to think of it as something for anti-social geeks who will be mean to them if they ask for help.
I'm not saying that is the truth of the matter, just the common perception I have seen.
They also perceive Mac as being the easy and cool computer, but perhaps too expensive or trendy for them. Or simply not the computer they currently have.
That leaves XP. It is already installed on their computer. Installing a new operating system is not something they want to do any more than they want to install all new toilets. They'll do it if they have to, but are pretty sure they'll screw things up with disastrous results.
The average person isn't a programmer and doesn't want to be. The concept of open source and free software means nothing to them except free as in beer. They like free beer. But they aren't willing to set up a brewery to get free beer. They don't want to learn the details of brewing. They just want to get drunk...
There is nothing technically that prevents Linux from going mainstream. The Linux kernel (and that is all that is actually Linux) works and works great. The software that sits on top of it is of mixed quality. Some is great, some sucks. Same is true of Windows and Mac, right?
So why don't those suffering XP users switch to Linux? Because they aren't suffering enough to take action. They give lots of reasons why they won't switch to Vista, but at the end of the day most don't largely for the same reason they don't switch to Linux: XP works well enough that they aren't willing to do what they consider the difficult and annoying work of installing a new OS.
The same arguments apply to the digital TV transition. Some people simply don't believe they should have to buy a new TV or a converter box (or subscribe to cable or satellite) when the hardware they have is not broken.
For the record, I believe that on older hardware (the kind my hypothetical person has), installing something like Ubuntu is likely to be much easier and more successful than Vista. But neither is as easy as keeping the current, spyware infested XP. Easiest wins.
That was far more than I intended to post so I will stop now. Wait. Now. Doh!
It's pretty evident from things like Google Apps and Microsoft's Live that the antiquated idea of a thin client is not going to be making its way back into the business.
Enter the era of frugality. The decade of waste is over and now, whether by regulation or by pragmatic need to survive, business will be thinking about how to maximize the money that is available. Buying a newer version of the same thing isn't going to be happening anymore. Using the hardware and software that's already available will be more important than it ever was before.
Microsoft should just get smart and start charging for service pack updates to XP. Extend the life of the product and start monetizing it in different ways.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
Not necessarily. One client I worked at implementing an enterprise ordering and billing app used a kind of thin client terminal specifically meant to connect to Citrix servers for the customer service representatives. It struck me that we had come full circle from mainframes and dumb terminals to essentially mainframes and dumb terminals. Except the mainframe is now a Unix server and you had windows instead of text interfaces.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
They are not going Mac or Linux. The apps are not there.
They are not going to Vista or Windows 7. The apps are not there, either.
Here's the essential problem: Microsoft cannot simply keep trading on backwards compatibility alone. Sooner or later, despite their best efforts to sabotage standards, the Internet will come along and eat their lunch.
In order to keep that from happening, they need new Windows-exclusive apps, not just legacy ones. Which means they need to make Windows actually an attractive platform to develop new stuff on. Which is kind of hard, when despite IE, the Web is such an attractive platform already.
For me, personally, it's bad enough to have to deal with IE. I really wouldn't look forward to fighting the Win32 API.
But at the same time, their biggest selling point to all their existing customers is, "It's what you're used to!" and "It'll run your old apps!" In order for either of those lines to work, they would have to make as little progress as possible -- the best strategy, from that point of view, would be to sell XP SP3 as a new OS, instead of writing Vista.
So, looking at that, they do seem pretty screwed. They have to innovate or the new kids will all start using Linux and OS X. But they can't innovate, because the more dramatic the improvement, the less they can use their 800-pound-gorilla of compatibility, and the more they'll have to actually compete with Linux and OS X on a level playing field.
I don't think they can. If I was a Windows user, looking at the Vista situation, I'd think "I can use Vista, and none of my apps will work. Or I can use Ubuntu, and none of my apps will work, and the OS won't suck as much."
And I don't really see how they can resolve this situation. It truly seems like a catch 22 -- every step forward is nearly guaranteed to break compatibility, and every effort to preserve compatibility is likely to prevent a step forward.
So, why aren't they dead? Well, to quote Joel Spolsky:
Microsoft has an incredible amount of cash money in the bank and is still incredibly profitable. It has a long way to fall. It could do everything wrong for a decade before it started to be in remote danger, and you never know... they could reinvent themselves as a shaved-ice company at the last minute.
He wrote this four years ago, so the recession may have changed things, but not by much.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
If you think Linux just has a PR problem, you've never tried to see things from the perspective of someone who has no geeky interest in how their computer works. These are most of the people who want to stick to Windows XP because it is safe, stable and fairly easy to use.
Most of the people who say "oh, my wife or kid has no problem using Ubuntu" are also missing the point: your wife or kid has someone at home who actually knows how to use Linux. If they need to ask you how to do something, you're right there like their own permanent, free Geek Squad agent who is always happy to not only help, but take new steps to make things better.
Once mainstream support and bug fixes to XP end, enterprise level IT groups will move to Windows 7 to continue to receive patches (*). There currently is no reason to move to Vista because XP works and is still supported. Once that support is gone, it's time to move on. The grandparent is correct.
(*) No, not all of us can just switch over to Linux, and in fact that would be a horrible idea for your average office that isn't full of geeks. For some of them it's hard enough for them to even understand their job, never mind their OS.
Lets add for a lot of features that people are happy with on Windows.
Linux will feel like a step back.
There is gap in Linux Between Grandma (Who will just do one or two things) and the "Power User" who is willing to check stuff out and do things differently.
These people will want to setup wireless via a GUI.
They get worried when you do an Update for a driver there is a warning this is not Free software, meaning to average Joe, oh this is going to cost me money.
And still Linux has a problems with Icons Oh Lets drag Fox to the dock from my File Browser. Hey where did the Icon go it was a nice firefox icon then it turned into an ugly window icon.
Then when people make the complaint there is almost always a zealot remark how that feature isn't a good one and you should stop doing it anyways.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Speaking for myself,
(i) I am XP user (since 2003) and I don't suffer. Well, not *that* much.
(ii) The first reason I don't switch to Linux is specific applications I use under Windows (which are not free, by the way) which I can't find the equivalent on Linux.
(iii) The second reason I don't switch to Linux is potential incompatibilities with laptop (hardware). Not that I didn't try.
Clearly, I have no incentives moving to Windows 7. Even if (and when) I need new laptop, I'll try to make sure XP is supported. The only reason I would move to Windows 7 (or 8 or 9) if the current version of application XYZ I'm using is no longer supported under XP, and for whatever reason I *must* upgrade.
So, fundamentally, I care very little which OS I'm using. OS is just a platform to run some applications (I guess this statement qualifies me as non-geek, so sue me).
And they were saying the same thing post WFW, and post 95, 98SE. Corporate and educational markets are loathe to upgrade and are responsible for the largest amount of licenses. But for the record, I recently purchased a new PC for my home office with Vista Home Premium installed. I considered bricking it but decided the only way to be a LEGITIMATE critic for my clients was to actually use the OS instead of reading what others said about it. And you know what? Maybe MS has a legitimate gripe in their commercials; I enjoy using it and after turning off UAC and a few other prompts top 'save me from myself' I've become quite accustomed to it and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to clients without compatibility issues. (Of which I found none in my case out 30-40 apps tested...) I'm an FOSS supporter and dev and I love *nix and Mac too, but I'd really like to see at least one posting here at /. that doesn't begin with the word "Microsoft" and end with the words "Evil empire".
Tried setting up wireless on OS X and compared it with Windows lately? Particularly if it's not a straightforward open or shared-secret configuration?
It really should be an embarrassment to Microsoft how much easier it is under OS X.
In order to keep that from happening, they need new Windows-exclusive apps, not just legacy ones. Which means they need to make Windows actually an attractive platform to develop new stuff on. [But] I really wouldn't look forward to fighting the Win32 API.
Microsoft has already realized this, and that's why it started over with .NET. The various APIs exposed to the CLR, such as Windows Forms, XNA, and the like, won't immediately get ported to Mono. Mono will lag behind .NET just as Wine has lagged behind Windows.
I am tired of hearing these nonsensical arguments about geeks being some kind of rudimentary humans with no social skills.
Geeks are some of the most commited people I know, help anybody that asks and go way out of their way to help people.
And so tell me people I know that are less technically inclined.
This myth of the inadequate nerd should be put to rest frankly.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.