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."
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.
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!
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.
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).