Can Windows 8 Succeed In a Cloud-Based World?

New submitter Nerval's Lobster writes "To say that Microsoft has a lot riding on Windows 8 is a bit of an understatement. The upcoming OS needs to prove that Windows can stay relevant in a world where desktop-based programs are increasingly giving way to cloud apps, and mobile devices are eclipsing PCs as the center of people's computing lives. Can Windows 8 succeed in that mission? The real answer will have to wait, but in the meantime I've laid out some potential success-or-failure factors over at SlashCloud."

Comments

I challenge!

[Kenja]

I doubt the validity of both the claims and the question in this article. I dont see "desktop-based programs are increasingly giving way to cloud apps" nor do I see the client OS as a factor in cloud computing (isn't that the whole point?).

Re:I challenge!

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Agreed. Cloud based systems are a cachet that finds itself most useful for people who are highly mobile, even a low range laptop or netbook these days has vastly more computing power than is needed to operate every application most people might need. Data storage on USB drives and other mini systems are also well capable of absorbing a lot more data than most people produce. I mean any computer capable of playing a modern computer game can do almost any other task with ease, and cloud computing isn't useful for most of those other tasks.

The "cloud" is being heavily promoted for a variety of fairly obvious reasons, but to me its a solution looking for a problem, with as much value as thin client systems have.

Re:I challenge!

[Sir_Sri]

*some* desktop applications are going cloud ish, especially things that can be done on the web, and new technologies (that are mostly built from the ground up to be web products) are OS independent.

And sure, for those solutions windows is no better and no worse than its competitors. Even if that becomes 99% of computer use time. It's still the rest of the time that is the differentiating factor that Windows competes in. To give an extreme contrived example: imagine 99% of my computer use can be done in a webbrowser, in the cloud. the other 1% is diablo 3. Now, I can run diablo 3 on mac or windows and linux. If I just spent 600 or 700 dollars in computing hardware 'extra' to play diablo 3 am I going to now avoid spending another 100 or so on an operating system if that makes it perform better? That's where windows has to compete. They have to do all of the stuff you can't do in the cloud better than everyone else. Better can mean a lot of different things to different people of course.

Admittedly, the question sort of implies a connection with Office and Windows, which is fair enough, if not all that clear in the summary. How office will survive, when there are cloud document systems that are much more reliable than traditional office on a desktop ever can be might be fair question, but that's why windows 8 is integrating skydrive and all that stuff, and office is as well.

What's a "cloud-based world"?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Sounds like bullshit world to me...

Tell you what: the "cloud" hype will come crashing down the minute some big company that invested massively in off-site services and storage loses internet connection for a few hours...

Re:What's a "cloud-based world"?

[ArcherB]

Sounds like bullshit world to me...

Tell you what: the "cloud" hype will come crashing down the minute some big company that invested massively in off-site services and storage loses internet connection for a few hours...

For some reason, I'm not seeing Windows8 to be oriented towards business. I'm sure MS will try to force it, but I just don't see that tablet interface running on a typical workstation and certainly not a server.

Re:What's a "cloud-based world"?

[Penguinisto]

Even a "private cloud" can cause troubles.

I used to work for a place with manufacturing facilities in Oregon and California. All of production (stupidly) relied on a BI cluster located in OR. In spite of numerous demands to have it made redundant, the dumbass IT head insisted that dual connections (through two differing carriers) would supply sufficient redundancy.

What he didn't count on was a (IMHO drunk) CAL-TRANS worker accidentally digging up a few fibers, which in turn knocked all of Ventura County into the dark for almost a day - including both carriers. When that went down, so did production. 17+ hours at ~$4500/minute downtime gets awful expensive. A backup/replicated cluster at the CA site would have only cost about 3-4 hours of that time at most, but would have saved them a whole lot more.

Re:What's a "cloud-based world"?

[Kalriath]

That is completely wrong. The server owner has as much claim on the data on the servers as you do - specifically, none. In the event of a liquidation sale, the liquidator would wipe the drives, and if they fail to do so, releasing confidential info from the drives is a criminal offense. Absolutely not "free and clear" and definitely not "public domain".

What does that even mean?

[pegasustonans]

"Cloud-based world"? Did the marketing team write that up?

Anyway, Windows 8 will do just fine, especially because Microsoft is falling all over itself trying to be tablet-friendly and all of the other bollocks that'll generally make it a pain in the ass.

But, as in many things related to the traditional desktop PC, the reports of its demise have been greatly exaggerated.

On a related note, Windows 8 will be just as relevant to the business market as they ever were once you disable the terrible new UI, and that's all that matters anyway (whether businesses choose to skip Windows 8 in favor of waiting for the next iteration is another possibility, but unrelated to all the tablet nonsense).

Re:What does that even mean?

[SJHillman]

I think the business market will largely skip Windows 8 like it did Vista. It's more likely Windows 8 will be akin to a botched beta to try new features (IE: Metro) and see how the market reacts - similar to how Vista was. Then Windows 9 (like Windows 7) will take the good and strip out the bad from its predecessor and be the next Big Thing like Windows 7 was. It's not the first time MS has launched a product that will likely fail just so they can use the data to make the following product a blockbuster.

Re:What does that even mean?

[gstoddart]

I think the business market will largely skip Windows 8 like it did Vista.

I would tend to agree ... but not because they're "avoiding" it (though that might be the case), but because people are really still in the middle of deploying Win 7.

Where I work, rolling out Win 7 has been in the planning stage for well over a year. We're going to start rolling it out fairly soon to users.

Which means at an enterprise level, Vista got skipped because people were waiting for it to get sorted out. Win 7 is ramping up, but not everybody has gotten there yet. And all of the organizations who are just in the middle of putting out Win 7 will end up skipping Win 8 because Win 9 (or whatever) will be out by the time they're ready to change anyway.

The reality is, corporate stuff happens on a *long* timeline, and it isn't something you can change direction mid-stream on.

Though, for my own personal machine (which is also due for an upgrade), I will likely opt for Win 7 because Win 8 is a fresh steaming release which I don't trust. (Actually, I don't thin it's fully out yet anyway.)

Enough of this cloud BS

[JDG1980]

The problem is actually exactly the opposite of what the original poster thinks. Microsoft is making too much of a break with the past with Windows 8, being far too quick to chase trends and forgetting that real work is done on the traditional desktop and will continue to be for the forseeable future. The cloud is a fad that will flame out after the first couple of high-profile security breaches and/or data loss incidents. Tablets are great as consumption devices, but not if you're actually doing real work.

Re:even better question:

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Can Windows 8 succeed in a cloud-based world where ISP/carrier bandwidth caps are becoming prevalent?

Can the cloud-based world succeed in a world where ISP/carrier bandwidth caps/overages are become prevalent?

Forget about the cloud

[satuon]

Microsoft's biggest challenge would be to convince people that Windows 7 is somehow not good enough anymore and they can't just use their current computer until its harddrive gives out. How many years until there's software that won't run on Windows 7? Or XP for that matter.

Do you want dumb terminals and remote mainframes?

[DutchUncle]

Because that's what this whole cloud nonsense really means - going back to the hierarchy and control from which personal computing freed us.

Every time a game or program requires remote authentication, the reviews are scathing; yet somehow there is still a push to a paradigm of remote *everything*. This is completely inconsistent with the observed preferences of knowledgeable users. Of course, business management loves the idea - they see the control of centralization without even needing an in-house IT department. For anybody else, it means giving up the rights to your own computer.

Re:even better question:

[Electricity Likes Me]

Oooh I live in Australia: no!

Seriously, how anyone uses any of the cloud-based services I know about was a mystery still I started realizing what type of internet you could get for $70 a month in the US.

Re:even better question:

[Anonymous Coward]

No. And Windows 8 can't survive in any world. Metro is going to sink Windows.

Wrong questions

[werewolf1031]

As a decades-long desktop- (and now laptop- and tablet-) user, I do not want "cloud based solutions". If the cloud-based bullshit goes down, or if the power goes out locally, or my ISP decides to take a crap, my shit better still be there... or rather, HERE. Locally. On a disk. It can be one of my hard drives, or my USB SSD drive, or my LAN-accessible network drive, whatever, but if I don't have direct access and control of my shit, then something is WRONG, and all the "cloud" solutions in the world won't help me at that point.

My second Android tablet, an Asus Transformer, came with some kind of cloud storage service. I've never touched it; never felt the need to. I'm not paying someone else to store my own stuff, especially when most of it won't even run on ARM devices anyway.

Yeah, I use Dropbox to keep files synchronized across devices. The difference? I still have access to my shit when I can't access the "cloud" for any reason.

Honestly, this "cloud" nonsense has to stop. The marketing bullshit has to stop. Just call it what it is: Internet-based storage. Which means, if you can't access the Internet, you can't access Your Stuff. It's off-limits to you. WTF is the point? As a remote backup? Ok, I can see that. But as real-time storage that you can't control? Screw that.

Re:even better question:

[Darinbob]

Seriously, here in the US I don't know of any individuals using cloud based services, it seems to be mostly a pipe dream for corporations hoping to unload some of their infrastructure costs. It's a silly idea that's being hyped to death, and this article is just one more example of the hype (ie, by assuming that cloud based world will exist it prompts the reader into accepting that premise).

Re:even better question:

[dimeglio]

I agree. Cloud based services exist for the short sighted few who see IT as a cost center when in fact IT should be considered a key factor in driving up enterprise competitiveness through increased efficiency.