Future of Microsoft....

[gbaughma]

You know, I was providing sound for a class reunion this weekend (class of 1956), and I was wearing my "No, I will not fix your computer" shirt. <lol> Well, this gentleman came up to me and said "You must fix computers for a living", to which I responded "Yes, among other things." So he asked me "So, where do you think Microsoft will be in 5 years?"

The funny thing is, I really didn't have an answer. I pointed out that Microsoft, of course, had a majority market share. I pointed out that Microsoft had "standardized" so many things, making it much easier for programmers and developers (I remember having to write my own printer drivers for just about EVERYTHING when I was programming during DOS days...) I pointed out that Bill Gates personally had much less of a hand in the company than he used to (by choice), and was more into the philanthropy now, and that people tended to blame Bill *personally* for some of the actions of Microsoft, and never focused on the good that Bill does (grants and scholarships and research funding and even taking care of homeless/foster kids), but I still didn't have an answer for where I thought Microsoft would be in 5 years.

What do you folks think?



Just my 2¢

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg

http://parallel.tzo.com

 

[Glenn9999]

I see the death knell coming with all the anti-consumer technologies being rolled out for XP and Vista - and all the ill-will the XP rollouts are generating to the point that I'm seeing a ton of "I'm switching to Linux" or "I'm getting a Mac" posts as a result of it all.

Add to that the fact that Vista is almost completely devoid of any features that are of benefit to the end-user and you got problems. Of course, there will always be the lemmings that upgrade because they want the hottest, newest thing, but from what I'm seeing I don't see anyone wanting to get away (in an anticipatory way anyhow) from the XP or 2000 boxes they already have in favor of Vista.

 

[gbaughma]

The sad part about that is that at some point, we'll be forced to make a choice. It will once again come down to "We're discontinuing support for XP. No more security hole fixes, etc." Granted, this might not happen for a long time, but it already happened with Win98. So, using that as a model, we can expect Microsoft to support it's OS's for about 7 years.

I do tend to agree with you, however, on several points. The only thing that I've seen in Vista is that they have once again redesigned the user interface, and now you have "transparent" windows. <Shrug> Oh, and tabbed browsing, but I already have that with IE7. And I heard that Vista is a HOG when it comes to resources, so I'm really not in a hurry to upgrade.

The other issues that "scare" me about Microsoft is the WGA... it seems like MS is just pulling folks in further and further. You need an internet connection to even activate the software (ok, you *can* dial up and read an umteen-long digit code in, and get an umteen-long digit code back again). Now, I've heard rumors that Microsoft is talking about a yearly "fee" to license software, which means if they don't get the $$$, your word processor, spreadsheet, database, whatever stops working.



Just my 2¢

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg

http://parallel.tzo.com

 

[dennisbbb]

5 years from now? that's easy to predict.

1) XP support discontinued.

2) Vista SP2 coming out soon.

3) Genuine Advantage will be much more effective. No pay, no Windows. (Linux looking better.)

4) A new MS Windows platform will be in in developement, but like Office, it will loose steam.

I'll be in my 40's. People will be asking this same question at that time.

 

[Sympology]

Intresting...
Microsoft may ask for a yearly fee...Of course no one else does that..

well except...

Nearly every database company
Most A/V companies
Most Firewall Companies.
Then of course there's hardware maintaince...

Odd we're willing to by an AV subscription, but not the OS we run it on....

I'm not saying I'm in favour of it, I'm not, but we need to be aware we do it for nearly everything else we use.

Before the Linux crowd jump in and do a dance, business is what drive development, so they "pay" for Linux (see other threads).

People are not sheep for upgrading and to call them such, is insulting the intellegence of the huge numbers of people who will upgrade. People moan at MS for being unstable and insecure, yet when they try release a more stable, more secure platform, then you get biased people jumping up and down chanting "boooooo". I'm really bored of this childish, MS vs Linux vs Unix vs typewriter arguements. If you don't like the platform, don't buy it.

Back to the discussion, have a read off thsi article:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/03/microsoft_mundie_investment/

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[gbaughma]

The reason that we're buying an AV subscription, however, is not because the software is broken, but because we understand that there are researchers developing new anti-viral code and so forth.

However, I don't think that it's right or fair that I would have to pay a subscription to MS, so that I can download bug fixes and security patches. That should be under a software "warranty" of some sort.

Think about it... if you bought a car, and paid for the car, you would expect the car to run. If the car didn't run, you take it back to the place you bought it and tell them to fix it. That warranty is anywhere from 90 days to 10 years, depending on the car. It doesn't work that way in software, though. If a car purchase worked the same way as software, it would be something like this:

"My car is missing on 2 of the 8 cylinders."
"Yes, sir... that's a known bug. It will be fixed in the next version of the car, which you can purchase at a reduced rate when you upgrade from car v1.0 to car v1.1. Oh, but your current tires won't be compatible with car 1.1, so you'll need to upgrade those as well."



Just my 2¢

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg

http://parallel.tzo.com

 

[stefanwagner]

The last months, MS bought a lot of things which deal with services (games, security, web-services).
I guess MS is moving to a more service and content-orientated buisiness.

On the other side: What big changes do we see, compared to 2001?
.net was already in an early stadium that time. I don't know for Vista.
The movement to sell AV-software is a bit new.

I don't expect a big change in five years.

seeking a job as java-programmer in Berlin:

http://home.arcor.de/hirnstrom/bewerbung

 

[buck2506]

I see MS moving towards a pay as you need type of arrangement. "Need to use a word processor?" "One time use $1.00 or we have a subscription for $5.00/month"
Something along those lines and not machine specific. Just login and the utilities/apps paid for available wherever you are. All based on a subscription basis.

No more purchasing software rent or subscribe.

 

[strongm]

>we can expect Microsoft to support it's OS's for about 7 years

Microsoft's lifecycle policy is pretty well documented: you'll get an additional 7 years of support for an OS after the replacement version has been released to retail (Windows 98 predated this policy)

 

[Sympology]

I also like to use car analogies.

Of course, you are almost correct in saying that you don't subscribe for fixes, but actually, you do.

Try claiming for a warranty repair if you haven't had it serviced at a over the top price.

Oh your cam belt snapped? We'll you missed you last service, so you'll have to pay...

People have been saying Windows will die for years, but simply it won't. It bay far the most widely used, most widley supported platform ever.
Microsoft will continue much as they are:
O/S
Office
Hardware.
The only place they are likely to change is on the web, such as search and hosting.

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[jrbarnett]

People talk about switching to non Microsoft alternatives as if its as easy as flicking a switch, but its not that simple.
All code will have to be completely rewritten and fully tested in the new platform before going live, and as one of the systems I run processes almost 60% of my employer's income with another one another 10%, I'd be loathe to do anything to them without very good reasons.

Even with the relatively small number of systems for which I have responsibility, to convert them to another platform, or even just one aspect of a system (eg SQL Server to MySQL, or Excel to OpenOffice Spreadsheet), would be a huge job with few benefits to my employer.

My background is Microsoft applications and operating systems, so regardless of what gets changed, I'd certainly need to learn about the platform to a level I'm happy to write, test, debug and support before starting on the rewrite (to ensure that best practise for the system in question gets used).

I can see that with this attitude, Microsoft products will continue to be used by my employer, unless something happens that causes them to have a major change of attitude. With this attitude, which I'm sure a few other places share, Microsoft's future is assured, maybe not in the same shape they are now, but they won't be going under any time now.

John

 

[Sympology]

I agree with you John, to many Linux fans are either:

Home enthusiasts, who have the time to time to tinker, mess around and play. It's no skin off their nose if the pc's isn't running xyz application or driver correctly, they can wait a few months for someone (hopefully) to fix it.

Unix people who are moving over to Linux, because Linux is more of a threat to Unix than (imho) Windows.

Given the fact there is a monumental pool of Windows desktop users, who can make the (relavtivley) easy migration to server admins, it makes for a very cheap and freely available resource. Nad cheap is "good" in the business world.

Iim not "diss'ing" Linux, but to say that, at this point in time, it's a true alternative to Windows, it a poor statement. It simply doesn't have the critical mass required. If anything Windows is going to get bigger as new markets open up.



Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[Grenage]

Agreed, there is no way Microsoft will fall from it's dominant position any time soon. I doubt it will happen in the next 50 years to be honest. I swapped over to Linux but most people won't, you stick with what you know and everyone uses Windows in school. Aren't firms in India/China working on alternative operating systems, too?

I don't think much will change in the next 5 years. As Stu said, "If you don't like the platform, don't buy it". That's quite right, so we can only assume that everyone is happy with the current products and licensing!


Carlsberg don't run I.T departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[Sympology]

In fact, possibly the biggest change that may happen is that the next OS, may become a more embedded system. With the convergence of all home services (Phone, TV, Video, Audio), it's more and more likely that MS will move into this market. Maybe providing a far more advanced version of Media centre. Maybe you have a single pc sitting there, that allows multiple sessions, so one can watch TV while another listens to audio and another makes a call, all from a central, easy to use pc.

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[GlenJohnson]

Anybody remember Novell? Take a look at what they are hyping now.Things have changed a lot. Don't know if MS is going the route of Novell, but it's a thought.

Glen A. Johnson
If you like fun and sun, check out Tek-Tips Florida Forum

 

[strongm]

>Don't know if MS is going the route of Novell, but it's a thought

Well, it is down to the dominance of MS in the markets that Novell were competing that caused Novell to change. ANd it took years for their decline to occur. Not seeing any signs of that in MS for now

 

[LadySlinger]

I agree with the 5 years being too soon to predict anything. They'll most likely stay the dominant OS that they are. Linux is growing, yes, but I haven't seen too many Network Administrators jump over to a Linux domain for their networks.

Now where MS will be 10 years? 20 years from now? That might be a little interesting of a prediction.

 

[gurner]

like most of us here, we all pretty much get paid to support/install Windows, yeah there are many that do with Linux. And i would love to, i've poked around with Ubunti, Knoppix, DSL, whoppix and many more (yep live cds mainly) but large portions of it are still a mystery (i couldnt go pro, but can dual boot install it with windows), i know for a fact i can suss it out, but i dont have time, and my employers (and girlfriend) would frown apon it, so go back to what pays the mortgage.

I had an interview at a place once that was Linux right the way through (it was advertised as a cisco/server engineer with Windows and Linux exp), the guy absolutley swore by it, the arguement was whats the biggest positive differences between Windows and Linux.

For Linux i said Free, more reliable as it has communities continually developing it not for profit but for everyone. For Windows, it has big business backing, everyone uses it, always areas to research for the cause and solutions and so on.

His argument was Linux is better coz you can keep out all the crap you don't want/need, was useful for them coz it was a 'sign a non-disclosure on your way out' place but they had a company of machines in what i would reckon were akin to a cluster bomb topology, administrative divergence, with a Unix Proxy and Qmail or something on the perimeter. Yeah i know about Linux running DHCP, Bind e.t.c. but is there a centralised directory? it has a lot of what AD has but they appear to be unrelated.

could you created a Cisco based Radius policy for a VPN connection tied in to an AD account with a roaming profile, that has an enforced complex password policy expiring every 30 days, for security reasons, and the workstation audited/restricted by a Group Policy preventing them from copying data to a USB stick to prevent offline data theft, giving them access to the same email via an SSL encrypted webpage that they also view in Outlook over a RPC/HTTPS through a Client/ISA/Exchange Server VPN Tunnel bridging e.t.c. i could go on

I hate the Windows desktop OS, but think the Server OS is pretty damn good (forget about the uptime, have had ones run for years, just keep them away from the web)

Linux will steal a march on the desktop, but has anyone got a convincing alternative to Workstation integration with Active Directory/Exchange/SQL/ISA? (individual or integrated especially in the enterprise) i'm not a Novell expert so cant put my finger on why it went wrong (bad marketing or something?) i heard people shout its praises, but didnt like it myself

There migh be others, where are they? i'd like to have a go, Unix/Linux skilled wages are going up. Windows on its own is rubbish, but with the complete package on an enterprise i'm afraid i think the guy with the full Linux system is p***ing in to the wind.

Theres that client/server centralised administration they teach ya with AD

simple as that, thats why m$ will continue (in business mainly, Linux will eat away at home users as long as it is softened up a bit, so much of it scares 95% off, ala Shell e.t.c.)

What a huge amount of the Linux types don't appreciate, coz they're not 'usually' doing it for a living, is 95% of users dont care how it works, just as long as it works, as simply as possible.

ask one of them to Untar, compile or make install, or whatever, or click Next Next Finish

I know what they'd pick

Gurner

 

[strongm]

>Linux will steal a march on the desktop

You're kidding, right? The desktop is probably the biggest weakness Linux has, and is one of the reasons that "Linux will eat away at home users" probably won't be happening soon

 

[kHz]

His argument was Linux is better coz you can keep out all the crap you don't want/need

Before long the Linux kernel is going to have as many lines of code as Windows if they continue trying to be the proverbial "everything and the kitchen sink."

Seriously, who needs 5 or 6 types of filesystems offered with the OS? Bloat.

I also don't believe Linux is a good choice for a large enterprise outside of web servers or peripheral uses such as firewalls, IDS, so forth (though I would run a Web Server on FreeBSD and a firewall/IDS on OpenBSD).

My reasoning is because some applications only support Red Hat while another enterprise app may only support SuSE. Suddenly your Unix variants have gone from two (maybe AIX/Solaris or AIX/HP-UX or maybe the big three) to another two. Each have their own nuances and it is difficult to know AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, FreeBSD, then know Red Hat Linux, SuSE Linux or another version of Linux, if you want to know them inside out.

Also, who knows how any of the Linux variants will survive. Maybe that is a reason to diversify the Linux distribution, if one fails you still have another to fall back on. But that isn't too practical for an enterprise.

At the end of 2005 Novell was having financial difficulties. Are they going to fold, or perhaps sell SuSE? Who knows?

Linux really isn't ready to take over the enterpise as some seem to hope.