Yeah, "the previous version was crap, but we've got everything sorted now". Do you know how often I've heard that in my past 25 years of using Windows? Every single time they released a "radical new version, built from the ground up", which they claim every other version or so. I'm not buying it anymore. It's just the same old stuff over and over again.
Re:Microsoft is in deep shit now!
on
Microsoft CFO Quits
·
· Score: 3, Informative
So, XP level security and no UAC and no sandboxing in IE and other windows level engineering changes were not needed.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Sandboxing could have been implemented in XP, just as Chrome does in XP. UAC doesn't provide any real level of security, it's just a pop-up box which everybody answers with "OK". It's exactly these types of superficial changes, marketed as major improvements that show that Microsoft really doesn't know what features to add to Windows anymore.
How about I just say you seem to have no idea about what you are talking about. And you _deserve_the modding down.
It's a free country, say whatever you like. But the numbers don't lie: *a lot* of people are perfectly happy sticking to XP because later editions simply have no real added value for them. More people are using XP today than Vista ever had at its peak. Windows 7 only has a lot of users because 8 GB of RAM became the norm and XP can't handle that properly, but still I think most people that are using Windows 7 are using it because they either wanted to get rid off Vista or because it came with their PC when they bought it. There is a cycle going on of making a version with serious flaws so they can fix it in the next version and use that artificial mechanism to boost sales. But Microsoft will have a tougher time convincing people to upgrade with every new version of Windows, because their software is simply done as it is and nothing of real value is to be added anymore.
Re:Microsoft is in deep shit now!
on
Microsoft CFO Quits
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Even though this is modded down, it's really the bottom line: with Windows XP the operating system was basically done. Complete. Finished. No more features are required. Everything that was added later was either cruft or could just as easily have been implemented in Windows XP. The only reason why Microsoft kept certain things from XP (like proper 64-bit support, IE9+ and DirectX 10+) was to artificially create a reason for people to switch to future versions of Windows, not because XP didn't offer a decent platform for these things.
Same thing applies to Office by the way, the other big part in Microsoft's revenue stream: both Office and Windows are "done" and have been so for years. And since Microsoft hasn't been able to make any profits in markets outside of the Windows/Office ecosystem, the future of the company currently depends on how much longer they can convince people to keep buying new versions of the same old software. How long before the general public realizes they don't need to "upgrade" because they don't get anything they already have now? Looking at Windows 8 sales figures: not very long.
Stock prices are a reflection of expectations, not of past results. The fact some company made profit in the past doesn't mean it will do so in the future.
They still have more than 80% of the desktop market. Doing poorly is means truckloads of money. I can't see MS going anywhere soon.
They actually have more than 90% of the desktop market. The problem is not that someone is threatening them in that market, the problem is that the market as a whole is starting to collapse and Microsoft doesn't have a foot in the door in the booming markets.
Well apparently the law in Germany says you can't provide a service without having a method for customers to contact the provider directly. And why not? Why would it be so strange to be able to call Google up with a question or send them an e-mail and get a response?
There is a 64-bit version of XP as well. But true, that is a bit rough and not a lot of drivers are available for it either, so in practice you might be right that the only reason to upgrade your copy of XP is because you want to use more RAM.
I would say by modern definitions Windows always was more of an operating system than DOS ever was. DOS is really just a launcher and does almost nothing help out the application it is running.
Windows 7 is basically a stable and faster version of Vista. It's easy to see how people would prefer Win7 over Vista, but it really is a very traditional release and it isn't at all what Microsoft originally planned with their "project Longhorn".
Especially database apps like the ones you mention will be web apps in the future, if they aren't already. It's just way more convenient to have all the data on a central server so you can do easy backups. And having a cross-platform front-end which you can access from every device in existence is also a great advantage.
Not everyone will migrate to online, nor is that desirable. But your average Joe at home will be using his computer mostly for web browsing, I totally believe that. Of course PC's will stay around, and they'll be running native offline apps for doing serious work. But I also think that will be a small portion of the total computing market, instead of the main thing like it is now.
Windows 2000 was awesome, very popular within its target market and even popular with consumers (even though it was never meant for them). Probably the best version of Windows ever shipped.
So how does that prove every other version of Windows failed to gain market share?
Are you going to say both Windows Me and XP didn't gain any traction? Because sure, Me wasn't very good, it was used by a lot of people and it really wasn't that much worse than W98 either. And XP might have upset a few Win2K users because of the required internet activation, but other than that it was a huge success and even today it is the most used version of Windows after Windows 7.
The bottom line is: Windows Me was kinda crappy, but only Vista and Windows 8 in particular didn't get the number of users Microsoft was hoping for. So even if there is a version-skip-thing going on, it only started as recent as 2007 with the release of Windows Vista. Which is just 2 versions ago, so that ain't much of a pattern at all.
So what? Things have pros and cons. Sure, a web application might be slower than a native application, thats a downside to them. But the upside is you get to use the app without having to install it *on every single digital device you own which has a browser*. That's a huge benefit! Excel might fly on your PC, but you can't use it on your phone, tablet, television, gaming console or whatever device you might use now or in the future which isn't running Windows.
And in all fairness, the slowness of web applications isn't really that much of a problem for most things. Chips get faster, browsers get faster, internet connections get faster. Even if you are using a web application right now which is too slow for your taste, chances are this will be solved by itself in the future.
What do you mean with "efficiency"? I'm not more productive on Windows 7 than I am on Windows XP if that is what you're saying, nor does it require less resources.
It's true native apps are still usually richer and faster than web applications, but if you compare the state of the web as an application platform today with how it was 5, 10 or 15 years ago it's very clear it's becoming more competent every day. Nobody expected HTML5 to be a magical leap, but it is solid progress and it isn't slowing down either. I wouldn't call HTML5 a failure at all. It's a great step forward, no more and no less.
Just a few power users who were using Windows 2000 complained about XP, but the main argument was the fact XP didn't anything to 2000. Which is actually true, as 2000 and XP are basically the same product.
But not that many people used Win2K to begin with, even though they were quite vocal on the internet.
With Windows XP, Windows was basically "done". Everything added after that was cruft and not worth the upgrade. Sure, snapping windows to the side of your screen is sorta nice, but that doesn't justify an entire new operating system. There are utilities available for XP which offer the exact same features.
It's not really the same, but I do get your comment. It is important to have a reliable connection in order to use something like a Chromebook and it is also absolutely necessary for a world in which web applications are the main form of application.
But a big difference is that it doesn't really matter if Google is still around. If you have a Chromebook, you will be able to surf the web as long as you are connected. No Google means no Google services, but your device is not reduced to a paper weight. This is different with the new Xbox: if Microsoft decides to pull the plug and shut down the server, the device will be instantly reduced to a useless brick if it requires the internet to function. And that is a huge problem, as it is almost certain the server will be shut down at some point and people will want to play games after that moment in time.
Only people who weren't around in the 90s think that. In reality it makes no sense whatsoever though.
This is what happened in consumerworld: Windows 95 had people lining up. Windows 98 and 98SE were extremely successful. Windows Me got bad press, but it was still widely used. XP was a powerhouse of course. And then came Vista, which was the first version of Windows ever to fail to gain a significant marketshare (it peaked at something like 30% before Windows 7 came out and then quickly faded away into obscurity). Windows 7 was seen as both a viable upgrade from XP and an escape from Vista, so that worked out fairly well. And now we have Windows 8, which is the second version of Windows every to fail to gain momentum. Even though W8 has been out for 6 months and it already went through a holiday season, market share is still stuck solid in single digits, passed easily by both Linux and Mac OS X and according to some research the numbers are even below the share of people who are still on Vista.
And before you say something about NT: every single version of that was successful in their target market.
The skip-version-theory simply isn't true. Only two versions of Windows have ever failed and of those two, Windows 8 failed the most.
I think you are seriously mistaken there. It might be hard to imagine for a "power user", but lots of people right now are perfectly happy with a Chromebook already. The web as an application platform is a revolution which is just getting started, but already lots of people are using their computer mostly for the web and not much else.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, "the previous version was crap, but we've got everything sorted now". Do you know how often I've heard that in my past 25 years of using Windows? Every single time they released a "radical new version, built from the ground up", which they claim every other version or so. I'm not buying it anymore. It's just the same old stuff over and over again.
So, XP level security and no UAC and no sandboxing in IE and other windows level engineering changes were not needed.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Sandboxing could have been implemented in XP, just as Chrome does in XP. UAC doesn't provide any real level of security, it's just a pop-up box which everybody answers with "OK". It's exactly these types of superficial changes, marketed as major improvements that show that Microsoft really doesn't know what features to add to Windows anymore.
How about I just say you seem to have no idea about what you are talking about. And you _deserve_the modding down.
It's a free country, say whatever you like. But the numbers don't lie: *a lot* of people are perfectly happy sticking to XP because later editions simply have no real added value for them. More people are using XP today than Vista ever had at its peak. Windows 7 only has a lot of users because 8 GB of RAM became the norm and XP can't handle that properly, but still I think most people that are using Windows 7 are using it because they either wanted to get rid off Vista or because it came with their PC when they bought it. There is a cycle going on of making a version with serious flaws so they can fix it in the next version and use that artificial mechanism to boost sales. But Microsoft will have a tougher time convincing people to upgrade with every new version of Windows, because their software is simply done as it is and nothing of real value is to be added anymore.
Even though this is modded down, it's really the bottom line: with Windows XP the operating system was basically done. Complete. Finished. No more features are required. Everything that was added later was either cruft or could just as easily have been implemented in Windows XP. The only reason why Microsoft kept certain things from XP (like proper 64-bit support, IE9+ and DirectX 10+) was to artificially create a reason for people to switch to future versions of Windows, not because XP didn't offer a decent platform for these things.
Same thing applies to Office by the way, the other big part in Microsoft's revenue stream: both Office and Windows are "done" and have been so for years. And since Microsoft hasn't been able to make any profits in markets outside of the Windows/Office ecosystem, the future of the company currently depends on how much longer they can convince people to keep buying new versions of the same old software. How long before the general public realizes they don't need to "upgrade" because they don't get anything they already have now? Looking at Windows 8 sales figures: not very long.
Stock prices are a reflection of expectations, not of past results. The fact some company made profit in the past doesn't mean it will do so in the future.
They still have more than 80% of the desktop market. Doing poorly is means truckloads of money. I can't see MS going anywhere soon.
They actually have more than 90% of the desktop market. The problem is not that someone is threatening them in that market, the problem is that the market as a whole is starting to collapse and Microsoft doesn't have a foot in the door in the booming markets.
Well apparently the law in Germany says you can't provide a service without having a method for customers to contact the provider directly. And why not? Why would it be so strange to be able to call Google up with a question or send them an e-mail and get a response?
Han Solo obviously, there's no competition at all. Aragorn would be shot before his sword would even be near his opponent.
There is a 64-bit version of XP as well. But true, that is a bit rough and not a lot of drivers are available for it either, so in practice you might be right that the only reason to upgrade your copy of XP is because you want to use more RAM.
I would say by modern definitions Windows always was more of an operating system than DOS ever was. DOS is really just a launcher and does almost nothing help out the application it is running.
I think that actually might be the reason why the original article headlined "Windows: It's Over" :-P
Windows 7 is basically a stable and faster version of Vista. It's easy to see how people would prefer Win7 over Vista, but it really is a very traditional release and it isn't at all what Microsoft originally planned with their "project Longhorn".
I really mean "all PC's", including laptops.
But still, *a lot* of computers these days are phones and tablets and Windows is on next to none of those.
Especially database apps like the ones you mention will be web apps in the future, if they aren't already. It's just way more convenient to have all the data on a central server so you can do easy backups. And having a cross-platform front-end which you can access from every device in existence is also a great advantage.
Not everyone will migrate to online, nor is that desirable. But your average Joe at home will be using his computer mostly for web browsing, I totally believe that. Of course PC's will stay around, and they'll be running native offline apps for doing serious work. But I also think that will be a small portion of the total computing market, instead of the main thing like it is now.
Windows 2000 was awesome, very popular within its target market and even popular with consumers (even though it was never meant for them). Probably the best version of Windows ever shipped.
So how does that prove every other version of Windows failed to gain market share?
Are you going to say both Windows Me and XP didn't gain any traction? Because sure, Me wasn't very good, it was used by a lot of people and it really wasn't that much worse than W98 either. And XP might have upset a few Win2K users because of the required internet activation, but other than that it was a huge success and even today it is the most used version of Windows after Windows 7.
The bottom line is: Windows Me was kinda crappy, but only Vista and Windows 8 in particular didn't get the number of users Microsoft was hoping for. So even if there is a version-skip-thing going on, it only started as recent as 2007 with the release of Windows Vista. Which is just 2 versions ago, so that ain't much of a pattern at all.
So what? Things have pros and cons. Sure, a web application might be slower than a native application, thats a downside to them. But the upside is you get to use the app without having to install it *on every single digital device you own which has a browser*. That's a huge benefit! Excel might fly on your PC, but you can't use it on your phone, tablet, television, gaming console or whatever device you might use now or in the future which isn't running Windows.
And in all fairness, the slowness of web applications isn't really that much of a problem for most things. Chips get faster, browsers get faster, internet connections get faster. Even if you are using a web application right now which is too slow for your taste, chances are this will be solved by itself in the future.
What do you mean with "efficiency"? I'm not more productive on Windows 7 than I am on Windows XP if that is what you're saying, nor does it require less resources.
It's true native apps are still usually richer and faster than web applications, but if you compare the state of the web as an application platform today with how it was 5, 10 or 15 years ago it's very clear it's becoming more competent every day. Nobody expected HTML5 to be a magical leap, but it is solid progress and it isn't slowing down either. I wouldn't call HTML5 a failure at all. It's a great step forward, no more and no less.
Just a few power users who were using Windows 2000 complained about XP, but the main argument was the fact XP didn't anything to 2000. Which is actually true, as 2000 and XP are basically the same product.
But not that many people used Win2K to begin with, even though they were quite vocal on the internet.
With Windows XP, Windows was basically "done". Everything added after that was cruft and not worth the upgrade. Sure, snapping windows to the side of your screen is sorta nice, but that doesn't justify an entire new operating system. There are utilities available for XP which offer the exact same features.
It's not really the same, but I do get your comment. It is important to have a reliable connection in order to use something like a Chromebook and it is also absolutely necessary for a world in which web applications are the main form of application.
But a big difference is that it doesn't really matter if Google is still around. If you have a Chromebook, you will be able to surf the web as long as you are connected. No Google means no Google services, but your device is not reduced to a paper weight. This is different with the new Xbox: if Microsoft decides to pull the plug and shut down the server, the device will be instantly reduced to a useless brick if it requires the internet to function. And that is a huge problem, as it is almost certain the server will be shut down at some point and people will want to play games after that moment in time.
Windows 95 was totally cool. It included music video's on the disk, that was insane back then! Actually, still is now :-P
Only people who weren't around in the 90s think that. In reality it makes no sense whatsoever though.
This is what happened in consumerworld: Windows 95 had people lining up. Windows 98 and 98SE were extremely successful. Windows Me got bad press, but it was still widely used. XP was a powerhouse of course. And then came Vista, which was the first version of Windows ever to fail to gain a significant marketshare (it peaked at something like 30% before Windows 7 came out and then quickly faded away into obscurity). Windows 7 was seen as both a viable upgrade from XP and an escape from Vista, so that worked out fairly well. And now we have Windows 8, which is the second version of Windows every to fail to gain momentum. Even though W8 has been out for 6 months and it already went through a holiday season, market share is still stuck solid in single digits, passed easily by both Linux and Mac OS X and according to some research the numbers are even below the share of people who are still on Vista.
And before you say something about NT: every single version of that was successful in their target market.
The skip-version-theory simply isn't true. Only two versions of Windows have ever failed and of those two, Windows 8 failed the most.
They won't bring back the start menu. At least not yet. Otherwise there won't be any reason to upgrade to Windows 9.
I think you are seriously mistaken there. It might be hard to imagine for a "power user", but lots of people right now are perfectly happy with a Chromebook already. The web as an application platform is a revolution which is just getting started, but already lots of people are using their computer mostly for the web and not much else.