backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 175 comment(s) - last by Jack Ripoff.. on Feb 20 at 10:55 PM

Despite analysts speculation that Microsoft can't keep up the pace, Ballmer states that Vista is a sign of things to come

It has been a huge endeavor to get Windows Vista out the door, but according to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, there's "plenty more where that came from.” Sure enough, there is more to come starting with Vista’s first service pack which should be released before the end of 2007.

There has been much speculation in the industry, however, that Vista (and similarly Office 2007) would be "last of its kind.” With the rise of the Internet and the "have it now" aspects of online applications like Google Docs & Spreadsheets and Google Calendar, many experts believe that Microsoft's model of doing business is going the way of the dinosaur.

"Microsoft made Vista the old-fashioned way, as a single packaged product that it puts on a disk so users can buy it in a store and load it onto their computers," said Dean Takahashi of the San Jose Mercury News.

Takahashi continues with this scenario, "By contrast, rivals such as Google are creating spreadsheets and browsers that you simply download from a computer server, which delivers what you need to your desktop as you need it. If Google follows through with more offerings of free, ad-supported software over the Internet, Microsoft won't be able to charge a premium for its operating systems anymore. Nobody will need its big upgrades anymore."

The Windows operating system has grown more and more complex requiring an immense amount of manpower and resources. Vista has been a 5-year endeavor and Takahashi estimates that over 10,000 employees working on the project have cost Microsoft over $10 billion USD in payroll costs alone. “That has to be close to the costs of some of the biggest engineering projects ever undertaken, such as the Manhattan Project that created the atomic bomb during World War II,” said Takahashi.

"The current, integrated architecture of Microsoft Windows is unsustainable - for enterprises and for Microsoft," said Gartner analysts Brian Gammage, Michael Silver and David Mitchell Smith.

Despite the skeptics, Microsoft is confident in the viability of the Windows platform. "We've got a very long list of stuff our engineers want to do, a long list of stuff all of the companies here want us to do," he said. "There are so many areas where we need innovation," said Ballmer.

When it comes to future variants of Windows, Fiji will be the first dramatic update to Vista and will arrive sometime in 2008. According to various reports, Fiji will include WinFS, better integration with Windows Live services, native HD DVD support and enhanced speech recognition, among other things.

Vienna, which is even further out on the timeline, is expected to be a more radical departure from what we all consider to be a "traditional Windows operating system." Although not much is known about this release, the leap in design/functionality is rumored to be akin to the OS 8-9 to OS X transition.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

<no subject>
By Scabies on 1/31/2007 2:31:46 PM , Rating: 5
Is this guy any form of intelligent? Tell me, mighty newswriter, how do you intend to download your free products? In DOS? from the BIOS?

/headshot




RE: <no subject>
By Flunk on 1/31/2007 2:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
Linux, which is modular, open-source and free.


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 1/31/2007 2:57:36 PM , Rating: 4
Yet, despite those obviously positive attributes, Linux still has practically zero desktop market share. Instead, people shell out hundreds of dollars per copy of Windows. So, bottom line, they can't even get people to take Linux for the desktop even though it is free. What does that tell you?


RE: <no subject>
By Ringold on 1/31/2007 3:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
Hey now, it's ~4.8% desktop market share, not 0%. Careful, TomZ, you might offend them!


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 1/31/2007 3:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
According to this source, Linux is 0.37%:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=...

I can't vouch for the accuracy of these figures, however.


RE: <no subject>
By Shining Arcanine on 2/1/2007 11:57:22 AM , Rating: 2
It is more likely that 4.8% of its marketshare is composed of desktops.


RE: <no subject>
By trupti on 2/2/2007 5:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
New Quote

This is my first quote


RE: <no subject>
By nothingtoseehere on 2/4/2007 9:34:07 PM , Rating: 3
I remember back in the day when Linux server marketshare was around 5%, Microsoft never even publically mentioned Linux, and in places like this many people where saying it wasn't ready for the enterprise and didn't stand a chance against the other servers out there...

Nobody was talking about Linux on the desktop then (was ignored for that)...

It's ghandi's "First they ignore you; then they mock you; then they punish you; then you win." all over again, but then for desktops and we're in the 'mock' stage now.

Linux isn't done yet, it's growing and keeps improving. Even in it's strongest field, embedded computing, it's still gaining marketshare (if you own a wireless router, you probably own a Linux device).

'Linux' is not afraid of 'Microsoft', but the reverse is true (as can be seen, among many places, in the risk statements in Microsoft's quarterly reports).


RE: <no subject>
By crimson117 on 1/31/2007 4:32:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yet, despite those obviously positive attributes, Linux still has practically zero desktop market share. Instead, people shell out hundreds of dollars per copy of Windows. So, bottom line, they can't even get people to take Linux for the desktop even though it is free. What does that tell you?
It tells me that people use whatever Dell installs for them. If Dell sold Desktops with Linux preinstalled, most users wouldn't know the difference, and Linux's market share would increase.

It also tells me that you're not saavy to the fact that OEM's get a significant volume discount and therefor do not pay anywhere near hundreds of dollars per Windows license.


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 1/31/2007 4:55:28 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, I'm aware that, by virtue of their volumes, System Builder licenses cost manufacturers less than "hundreds of dollars." Maybe I exaggerated a little there, but the point is still valid, right? People are paying for Windows, where they could be getting Linux for free.

Also, maybe you are not savvy to the fact that it is actually pretty easy to get Dell machines pre-loaded with Linux: http://www.dell.com/linux

So, your argument that more people would choose Linux if they could, pretty much ends there. The fact of the matter is, that most businesses and consumers like buying machines pre-loaded with Windows.


RE: <no subject>
By sprockkets on 1/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 1/31/2007 5:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, it's Windows by default dub ass. That's probably what 99% of Dell's customers want. Why would they make Linux the default if few people want that?

You guys are missing the point. It is not up to Dell, or Microsoft for that matter, to decide what operating system a particular customer buys. It is up to the customer to decide that. The customer decides, get it? And for whatever reason, good or bad, most customers decide to buy Windows and not Linux.

If suddenly Dell saw tons of demand for Linux, and flagging demand for Windows, you bet they would offer Linux systems off their front page, or even make Linux the default. But that is not the case.


RE: <no subject>
By sprockkets on 1/31/2007 5:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well, put in OS choice list, Windows XP, "Linux Distro", and we will see what happens. But, this whole crap of "Dell Recommends Windows XP Professional" for what reason, and now it is Vista Ultimate, and also ever manufacturer gets money to say that is NOT due to customer demand.

But hey, I like the market share as it is, because I want the "system" to target windows with their DRM and crap and us Linux people will remain off the radar. We like it that way.


RE: <no subject>
By Gatt on 1/31/2007 5:57:31 PM , Rating: 4
I can tell you what happens, it's really fairly obvious.

Linux still loses.

Linux will never be a mainstream OS, computers are commodities, and the average person couldn't reliably run Linux if their life depended on it.

I know those in the computer industry love to believe otherwise, but Microsoft is the only reason why computers are ubiquitous and why half the industry has jobs.

Without MS and Windows, the internet would still be used by only a very few people who're trained in computers and this very site would likely not exist because there'd be no traffic to support it. I'll also guarantee you there'd be no Nvidia, no ATI, and computers would still be running on 2D accelerators, because there'd be no PC Gaming market.

MS and Windows is the only reason why there's a computing market. If the market was still relying on educated people capable of command line computing, there'd be a very small market.


RE: <no subject>
By oab on 1/31/2007 6:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
Linux does loose, and if windows/MS failed, then there would still be a PC gaming market, except it would be called "Apple gaming market" "made for Mac". Where MS would have failed, Apple would have succeeded. MS would still be around, relegated to the 5% ownership market and have a niche lineup of some programs (whatever they would be), and the world would not be using the x86 chips, but instead would be using Motorola/IBM POWER chips (as Apple would have still switched architectures in teh mid 90s).

nVidia may not be around (I'm not sure when they were founded, and I don't want to look it up), but ATI has been around for 20+ years, AMD would still be making flash memory, and maybe some niche processors (like VIA is now), so would Intel, or Intel would ahev done something else (embeded machine processors maybe), who knows what would have happened.

There would be no PC gaming market, but there would be an Apple gaming market. MS/WIndows is not the reason there is a computing market, there was computing market before windows came out (DOS and POSTIX os flavours of various types).

What would have happened if MS didn't stab IBM in the back over OS/2? No idea, something different would have happened, but would have it been better or worse? I can't say, and neither could you, but there WOULD be games, and there WOULD be 3D accelerators, because someone would have built them.


RE: <no subject>
By StevoLincolnite on 1/31/2007 10:55:43 PM , Rating: 4
I'm sorry... There would be a gaming market, but don't ever expect it to pass doom or something.

Prior to 1996, there was not a standard for 3D graphics. Everything was just software rendered graphics, and therefore very pixelated as there was no dedicated graphics rendering hardware. But that all changed in 1996 with the release of the Voodoo Graphics chip set from 3dfx.
When Microsoft first Released its Direct X API, Older 3D accelerators Which had to be "Hard coded" into a game just so it was supported, no longer had to, Direct X handled everything, Which made making games for different hardware combinations easier! Then When 3dfx brought glide onto the scene, It was faster, Games looked better, And could beat DirectX in every way. Microsoft kept updating and improving the Direct X or more precisly Direct 3D upon every release, Which when it hit about Version 6/7 It was on par with Glide, The TNT/Nvidia had burst onto the scene, So had Matrox and ATI, S3, SiS, Intel So game developers either chose to stick with Glide, Or Direct X and sometimes Both. (Like Unreal Tournament).

It was Microsft Windows, And 3dfx that brought on the 3D gaming market, Apple had nothing to do with it, Microsoft Pushed developers to make 3D games for they're API as did 3dfx. Apple did no such thing, so guess what? They missed out. ANd because of the several different companies competing each other in the PC market technology improvements were much MORE noticeable on the PC, because makers was trying to be number 1, trying to have the best market, Alot of 3D accelerator companies failed, Like Rendition, 3dfx, S3 (who are back), matrox who are still alive. It was never Nvidia vs ATI back then, it was Nvidia vs 3dfx, ATI was more catered to the OEM market, and survived without much hassle because of it, Only with the Advent of the Rage Chipsets did they make themselves known.
The Mac, has never been the ideal platform, most people had to use some form of emulation to play PC games, and we all know that Emulation is another layer of bloat, so you don't ever get the same performance you could have if you bought a PC of similar spec.
There may have been 3D games and accelerators if Microsoft wasn't around... But I can tell you, that they wouldn't have been nearly as advanced, And not many companies would have tried, because of how small the market would have been.

The people want Windows, Not Linux or MacOS that has been clear for years and years now. Things may change in the future though.
but The PC is like my baby, You watch it grow and change over the years with various upgrades, New versions of the Windows Operating system, Driver changes, Different games, etc.


RE: <no subject>
By Rayz on 2/1/2007 5:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, they're right.

If MS had failed then your choice would be an Apple costing £10,000 for a desktop system, or a command line based Unix system. I still think open source would have come about, but without a vibrant computer ecosystem to copy its wares from, it would be extremely limited.

OS/2? An attempt to build a better desktop OS than Windows, that started off with Microsoft's help. If not for MS, then IBM would not have even bothered to start it.