I think Microsoft's goal with 8 was for it to be a transitional OS. Everything was moving to touch (or digitizer for desktop) And then they chickened out. Same as what happened with Vista where the original plan was to make Aero mandatory and just not run on many XP boxes. In other words Metro is the interface and traditional is just legacy. I definitely fault Microsoft for: not pushing faster and not making that message clear
As for ARM IMHO that's a very different issue. I agree that OS-X / iOS did it differently but Microsoft believed strongly in ubiquitous computing. Here is a video from 3 years ago regarding where they saw themselves headed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Are you kidding me. Click on my link. Call up the CEO of GE capital Snehal Antani and ask if he knows me. Or do you not have has his number mr I work for GE.
Anyway if you want a 2 year cycle you don't start one cycle and end the other. You have constant cycles so if deployment takes 6 years on 2 year cycles one is starting, one is midway and one is ending everyday.
That's because Microsoft has permitted it to happen. If say there were a 2 year mandatory migration schedule would be working around or removing those roadblocks aggressively. In terms of the roadmap, Microsoft does a great job on the roadmap. The customers though because they wait make things unpredictable for IT.
A 3rd party piece of equipment isn't really the same thing as desktop. That's sort of like a terminal. I've worked with Windows shops that use all sorts of wild applications for equipment specific terminals. I'd classify that as a different problem, a niche problem, that can be solved regardless of upgrade strategy.
So they keep making the same mistake, and you just give them a pass on that?
I'm not giving them a pass. I'm pointing out that they repeated the same mistake with the same results.
If I regularly had the majority of my customers still running something two versions old and actively protesting what I considered the latest and greatest, I'd take that as a hint to quit changing things. YMMV.
Microsoft gets paid for change. They have to change. Otherwise they have to move to annual subscriptions.
I've run large company IT organizations. If you are managing hundreds of applications (at 10,000 it ain't gonna be dozens) and migrating every 2 years that means you need a large number of full time employees testing new images regularly and migrating applications because you are probably doing more than one application per workday every workday. That's what existed in the 1990s. Yes it is more expensive, yes customers won't be happy with this additional expense.
But if you think about it the expense is not too high. 10k employees at say $100k / per for fully loaded cost is $1b. $5m in additional support costs is 1/2% more and yet $500 per head per year far more than enough. The effect on the ecosystem of rapid migration is a huge positive and that's where Microsoft benefits. They create a vibrant ecosystem.
How did Microsoft make it difficult or expensive? Seems to me they did about as good a job as we know how to do on making the migration low cost. The reason it got tricky is the culture of upgrading regularly was allowed to collapse and so companies had to start from scratch.
If Microsoft had tried to force companies to migrate to Vista, we would have seen 2007 as finally the year of "Linux on the Desktop".
No we wouldn't. Vista had some problems like most early versions of Windows. Those were fixed rather quickly. The two big issue with Vista were
1) upgrades where older hardware didn't get newer drivers because the driver model changed. 2) bad performance on low end machines that get rectified once people had the proper graphics hardware for Aero.
Both of which were caused by Microsoft giving into OEMs and allowing cheap hardware. Same mistake as Windows 8 allowing machines without digitizers or capacitive / resistive touchscreens to run Windows 8.
Software vendors need to get a grip on their role in the ecosystem. They serve us, not the other way around.
They serve us in the aggregate not in the individual case.
When people still run XP (hell, people still run 95!), that should tell Microsoft everything it needs to know about the viability of continuing its current trend toward forcing rapid unwanted change on people.
What does that tell them? That they might lose the 1/3rd of customers who are the biggest cheapskates? Migrating away from Windows is hard and expensive. Microsoft has been applying very little pressure and they've been able to force a shift. They can apply far more.
Where do you think the cheapskates go? Linux changes much faster than Windows does. No one in today's world does better binary compatibility. Apple? Much higher prices and even faster forced migration.
I agree with you on Windows 2000. That was really the high point of Microsoft comparatively. XP mainly brought Windows 2000 features to a wider range of machines. And around the same time Apple overtook them with OSX 10.1-10.2 which was so clearly better.
I had very high hopes that they were going to force through hardware changes in Windows 8 but Microsoft seems to have repeated the same mistakes as with Vista allowing OEMs and customers not wanting to spend to force them into using an OS on inappropriate hardware and thus destroying its reputation.
Those companies need to understand that Windows updates are a regular part of infrastructure. They should be on a constant upgrade / update process like companies were in the 1990s and early 2000s. Microsoft made a terrible mistake in allowing enterprises to remain on XP so long and thus allowing this culture of not upgrading to take place.
I'm not sure you know what the word superstitious means. But I haven't found that people that build their boxes tend to worse understanding. The programers in telco / networking have the best low level understanding and they don't build their boxes at all they work on tiny components. Same with the embedded guys. The device driver guys often do.
I actually people on the IRS system. It isn't staggeringly complex it is moderately complex. They also have a lot of dysfunctional management, lack of proper skills, unclear budgeting all the way up, changing objectives, and unnecessary requirements all of which drive the costs sky high.
I think the GP was talking about the hardware. If not then on every Unix box there are routines still running from 1974. For example VI/VIM is an extension of ED (ED -> EX -> VI -> VIM) which is 1971.
I and the GP were talking about the cost of the mainframe not the application layer at all.
As for legacy conversions click on my link I've done dozens of them and quite successfully. Absolutely capturing business rules is a big deal. And frankly most mainframe applications were labor inefficient in their construction. That doesn't mean $100m worth of programming can be replaced for $1m but it can be replaced for $10m.
I haven't seen that. I can see how an additional 300 $1 parts might double the price though. This started as a discussion about Apple, which is a good example. The extra $.20 per screw, $5 for how the glue is applied, $25 extra for this part... turns into a few hundred extra in cost.
Does it surprise me no. I've used RAM disks with Linux and older OSes over the years mostly to trick older software to get it running faster.
I'm not sure what your point is regarding superstition. There is nothing superstitious about a brand with good customer service, better parts and higher prices.
I was talking home warranty where Apple is excellent. And most urban people are near an Apple store and they are open business days plus most non-business days.
For business where you have replication I recommend / use redundancy often with little or no warranties. Warranties are a 2nd resort.
Absolutely true. Today's structures will not stand the test of time. Even the concrete we use is steel reinforced which means in 2 centuries without ongoing care, it will be dust. Though Jerusalem where limestone is dirt cheap and still an excellent building material is an interesting counter example to that global trend towards throw away buildings.
Have you ever gone to developer conferences, notice the number macs? Me thinks maybe you might want to check your assumptions. For example my mac is really easy to service. I buy a warranty and if something goes wrong the Apple store fixes it for free, quite often same day. Can't get much easier to service than that.
Give me what that system cost in 1974 inflation adjusted dollars and I'll be happy to flip out a modern system every year. Using cheap less durable components with redundancy is a better strategy. I live in a 1830s house so I get the advantages of good quality construction. But if I were building a house I'd use 2014 cheap materials.
Legally forbid derivitive/distributed android operating systems from preventing the user from upgrading.
Which kills carrier's ability to customize the operating system and thus one of the major reasons carriers liked Android. At that point why wouldn't the carriers push Windows or other OSes harder?
Wayland doesn't have window managers in quite the same sense they will be totally incompatible (excluding the X11 layer that runs on top of Wayland). However there is nothing to stop there from being multiple flavors of window management under Wayland. So there will be a generational shift.
Well yes a major feature upgrade introduced many many more bugs. Which was my point. That after that Apple could concentrate on smaller features and less bugs for a while.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Microsoft's goal with 8 was for it to be a transitional OS. Everything was moving to touch (or digitizer for desktop) And then they chickened out. Same as what happened with Vista where the original plan was to make Aero mandatory and just not run on many XP boxes. In other words Metro is the interface and traditional is just legacy. I definitely fault Microsoft for: not pushing faster and not making that message clear
As for ARM IMHO that's a very different issue. I agree that OS-X / iOS did it differently but Microsoft believed strongly in ubiquitous computing. Here is a video from 3 years ago regarding where they saw themselves headed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Then replace them early. What's the additional cost of a machine over 5 years? $200-300 / year tops? That's nothing.
Are you kidding me. Click on my link. Call up the CEO of GE capital Snehal Antani and ask if he knows me. Or do you not have has his number mr I work for GE.
Anyway if you want a 2 year cycle you don't start one cycle and end the other. You have constant cycles so if deployment takes 6 years on 2 year cycles one is starting, one is midway and one is ending everyday.
That's because Microsoft has permitted it to happen. If say there were a 2 year mandatory migration schedule would be working around or removing those roadblocks aggressively. In terms of the roadmap, Microsoft does a great job on the roadmap. The customers though because they wait make things unpredictable for IT.
A 3rd party piece of equipment isn't really the same thing as desktop. That's sort of like a terminal. I've worked with Windows shops that use all sorts of wild applications for equipment specific terminals. I'd classify that as a different problem, a niche problem, that can be solved regardless of upgrade strategy.
I'm not giving them a pass. I'm pointing out that they repeated the same mistake with the same results.
Microsoft gets paid for change. They have to change. Otherwise they have to move to annual subscriptions.
What does the FDA have to do with this?
I've run large company IT organizations. If you are managing hundreds of applications (at 10,000 it ain't gonna be dozens) and migrating every 2 years that means you need a large number of full time employees testing new images regularly and migrating applications because you are probably doing more than one application per workday every workday. That's what existed in the 1990s. Yes it is more expensive, yes customers won't be happy with this additional expense.
But if you think about it the expense is not too high. 10k employees at say $100k / per for fully loaded cost is $1b. $5m in additional support costs is 1/2% more and yet $500 per head per year far more than enough. The effect on the ecosystem of rapid migration is a huge positive and that's where Microsoft benefits. They create a vibrant ecosystem.
How did Microsoft make it difficult or expensive? Seems to me they did about as good a job as we know how to do on making the migration low cost. The reason it got tricky is the culture of upgrading regularly was allowed to collapse and so companies had to start from scratch.
No we wouldn't. Vista had some problems like most early versions of Windows. Those were fixed rather quickly. The two big issue with Vista were
1) upgrades where older hardware didn't get newer drivers because the driver model changed.
2) bad performance on low end machines that get rectified once people had the proper graphics hardware for Aero.
Both of which were caused by Microsoft giving into OEMs and allowing cheap hardware. Same mistake as Windows 8 allowing machines without digitizers or capacitive / resistive touchscreens to run Windows 8.
They serve us in the aggregate not in the individual case.
What does that tell them? That they might lose the 1/3rd of customers who are the biggest cheapskates? Migrating away from Windows is hard and expensive. Microsoft has been applying very little pressure and they've been able to force a shift. They can apply far more.
Where do you think the cheapskates go? Linux changes much faster than Windows does. No one in today's world does better binary compatibility. Apple? Much higher prices and even faster forced migration.
Sorry I don't agree at all.
I agree with you on Windows 2000. That was really the high point of Microsoft comparatively. XP mainly brought Windows 2000 features to a wider range of machines. And around the same time Apple overtook them with OSX 10.1-10.2 which was so clearly better.
I had very high hopes that they were going to force through hardware changes in Windows 8 but Microsoft seems to have repeated the same mistakes as with Vista allowing OEMs and customers not wanting to spend to force them into using an OS on inappropriate hardware and thus destroying its reputation.
Those companies need to understand that Windows updates are a regular part of infrastructure. They should be on a constant upgrade / update process like companies were in the 1990s and early 2000s. Microsoft made a terrible mistake in allowing enterprises to remain on XP so long and thus allowing this culture of not upgrading to take place.
I'm not sure you know what the word superstitious means. But I haven't found that people that build their boxes tend to worse understanding. The programers in telco / networking have the best low level understanding and they don't build their boxes at all they work on tiny components. Same with the embedded guys. The device driver guys often do.
I actually people on the IRS system. It isn't staggeringly complex it is moderately complex. They also have a lot of dysfunctional management, lack of proper skills, unclear budgeting all the way up, changing objectives, and unnecessary requirements all of which drive the costs sky high.
I think the GP was talking about the hardware. If not then on every Unix box there are routines still running from 1974. For example VI/VIM is an extension of ED (ED -> EX -> VI -> VIM) which is 1971.
I and the GP were talking about the cost of the mainframe not the application layer at all.
As for legacy conversions click on my link I've done dozens of them and quite successfully. Absolutely capturing business rules is a big deal. And frankly most mainframe applications were labor inefficient in their construction. That doesn't mean $100m worth of programming can be replaced for $1m but it can be replaced for $10m.
I haven't seen that. I can see how an additional 300 $1 parts might double the price though. This started as a discussion about Apple, which is a good example. The extra $.20 per screw, $5 for how the glue is applied, $25 extra for this part... turns into a few hundred extra in cost.
Does it surprise me no. I've used RAM disks with Linux and older OSes over the years mostly to trick older software to get it running faster.
I'm not sure what your point is regarding superstition. There is nothing superstitious about a brand with good customer service, better parts and higher prices.
I was talking home warranty where Apple is excellent. And most urban people are near an Apple store and they are open business days plus most non-business days.
For business where you have replication I recommend / use redundancy often with little or no warranties. Warranties are a 2nd resort.
Absolutely true. Today's structures will not stand the test of time. Even the concrete we use is steel reinforced which means in 2 centuries without ongoing care, it will be dust. Though Jerusalem where limestone is dirt cheap and still an excellent building material is an interesting counter example to that global trend towards throw away buildings.
Have you ever gone to developer conferences, notice the number macs? Me thinks maybe you might want to check your assumptions. For example my mac is really easy to service. I buy a warranty and if something goes wrong the Apple store fixes it for free, quite often same day. Can't get much easier to service than that.
Give me what that system cost in 1974 inflation adjusted dollars and I'll be happy to flip out a modern system every year. Using cheap less durable components with redundancy is a better strategy. I live in a 1830s house so I get the advantages of good quality construction. But if I were building a house I'd use 2014 cheap materials.
Which kills carrier's ability to customize the operating system and thus one of the major reasons carriers liked Android. At that point why wouldn't the carriers push Windows or other OSes harder?
Wayland doesn't have window managers in quite the same sense they will be totally incompatible (excluding the X11 layer that runs on top of Wayland). However there is nothing to stop there from being multiple flavors of window management under Wayland. So there will be a generational shift.
Well yes a major feature upgrade introduced many many more bugs. Which was my point. That after that Apple could concentrate on smaller features and less bugs for a while.