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

 

[Sympology]

CAn we stop the Linux vs Windows bore, before it gets to silly.

The thread title doesn't mention Linux anywhere if I recall.

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

 

[Grenage]

No it didn't, but it's heavily related. If we only ever reworded the original post, these discussions would be somewhat dull


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

 

[Sympology]

Trouble is we'll end up in the usually. Window is rubbish, Linux is ace. No Windows is Ace, Linux is rubbish. It just gets sooo tedious...

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

 

[gurner]

Trouble is we'll end up in the usually. Window is rubbish, Linux is ace. No Windows is Ace, Linux is rubbish. It just gets sooo tedious..."

yeah, that is a bit much, should embrace the experianced pluses an minuses though.

I do advanced Windows stuff (trumpet blowing over) so like to think i can hold an opinion, but Linux is an occasional hobbie so couldn't really come back with a retort to

">Linux will steal a march on the desktop

You're kidding, right?"

but should welcome edjumakated (sic) opinions from both sides, after all Linux is the only viable alternative to M$ so M$ will prevail ala the general consensus on this post, unless there are monumental changes of fortune/development e.t.c.

Gurner

 

[chrissie1]

So this thread was about MS and this is what I think about MS.

I think MS is one of the biggest and up untill know one of the best companies around (and no I don't work for them). Their product an PR are good. But I think that even big companies can make misstakes and they must try to improve their core bussines and keep away from the rest. Remeber that even big companies can go down veery fast. Look at IBM nobody would have thought that they wouldn't be making PC's anymore. The bussiness world is cruel and everybody wants a piece of the cake and they all want the biggest piece. If Dell would decide to install linux on their systems instead of Windows they would go bankrupt in a matter of months. If MS keep up this XBox thing they will loose money (but they can afford it). It's all a matter of money and nothing else.

Christiaan Baes
Belgium

"My new site" - Me

 

[kHz]

even big companies can make misstakes

Very true. IBM again is a good example of a big company making a mistake.

OS/2 was a superior PC operating system compared to Windows but lost the battle on a number of fronts, one of them marketing.

I believe Microsoft should leave the large enterprise server market to IBM and HP. Windows cannot compete with IBM and HP in HPC environments, or when large databases are needed on stable, flexible, and reliable hardware.

Windows is a fine desktop OS. Linux is a fine Web/email/etc OS. Unix is a great parallel amd stable OS. Each have their strengths and the cost of trying to compete with the other is too great and leads to a worse OS. Unix (AIX/Solaris/HP-UX) don't try to compete as desktop OS's and Windows shouldn't compete as a HPC OS.

(and please don't reply that Linux is the most used OS on the top500 supercomputer list. I know this, but those systems are not everyday business-use systems. they cannot be compared that easily.)

I also dispute that Linux is a lower cost alternative to Unix in the data center. If you look at the yearly cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server, the licensing cost is higher than AIX or Solaris. The Intel hardware isn't any less than buying Sun or IBM hardware, and the maintenance costs for the HP or Dell hardware would be comparable to Sun or IBM hardware costs. Plus you have to purchase a software contract with your RHEL OS that isn't any less than a Sun or IBM OS support contract. The only thing you get here is multiple vendors and an annual OS licensing cost using Enterprise Linux.

People are sheep though. They read what others are doing and they don't want to be left behind so they follow.

 

[damber]

Look at IBM nobody would have thought that they wouldn't be making PC's anymore.
...
IBM again is a good example of a big company making a mistake

IBM has made mistakes, but getting rid of their 'PC' business isn't really one of them... PC's are a very low margin, highly competitive business.. lots of work for very little reward. PC's aren't IBM's core business - their software, services and enteprise hardware businesses are far more valuable and strategic for them.. they sold a costly and low profit-potential business unit. Hardly a mistake.

Windows is a fine desktop OS.

It is.. but not from a technical standpoint (though it is making a lot of progress in Vista, or it was until they descoped some of the good stuff). Most importantly it is from a users point of view.. and the vast majority of users are not technical... they want usability (ease of use of the gui for all their needs) and compatibility (they want all their software and hardware to work quickly and easily) - Try getting WPA for Wifi working in linux, or tri-monitors - doable, but hardly a breeze for average joe.. That's why Windows is such a continued success in the desktop market.

I believe Microsoft should leave the large enterprise server market to IBM and HP.

Were they ever truly in it ? Yes they do a lot of the windows networking and communications stuff - Active Directory, Exchange etc for those Desktops, and support some internal web applications - e.g. IIS and SQL Server, and some smaller enterprise apps... but most enterprises that aren't 'Microsoft only' tend to use Unix for their bigger apps and services.. e.g. ERP, EAI, Data Warehousing/EII, WMS, TMS, Finance etc.

I also dispute that Linux is a lower cost alternative to Unix in the data center.

Absolutely. Linux is by no means free.. not only in the capital costs, but the operation of the platform.. in our experience we've found that Linux isn't as stable as our Unix platforms.. from discussions with a couple of the technical infrastructure architects it seems that this is relatively common.. our linux servers have had more problems than our Unix Servers. That could be a broad generalisation, but who am I to argue with first hand experience of a large server estate ..?

Anyway, back to Microsoft...

I, like Chrissie, think they've done tremendously well and been one of the leaders in software during their time. They do not fulfil everyones needs, or lead every area - but where they do, they have made a significant positive impact on things. That doesn't mean to say that they have the most stable or secure OS.. or the most elegantly architected.. but it does mean that they've had success - which is likely to continue for a good time yet. (And that doesn't mean I don't like linux or unix either.. it's not a mutually exclusive choice you know..)

So, for the future:

1. A new Desktop / Web based (hybrid) OS - SaaS is a new focus for them, but is likely to lead to a new way of personal computing in the longer term.. people aren't quite ready for it yet.. but the more Microsoft does to forward this, the more people will shine to the idea.. like it or not, that's why MS can be called 'leaders'.

2. They will likely continue the product range integration to make deploying all Microsoft solutions a piece of cake.. this is their goal.. to have a click and go enterprise / smb deployment of their products. They already make admin of their products simple and easy (hence the likeability by businesses - they can use less skilled/costly staff (no offence - there are talented MS admins out there, but the point is that you don't have to be to do the basics)). The next step will be to make implementing a network of Microsoft's products (server OS, desktop OS, email/collaboration, databases, web servers/apps, DNS, Directory, integration etc etc) a matter of installing a primary management server that will host deployment packages that can simply be 'selected' and deployed over the network instantly. The idea being that these deployments will be aware of the network topology and solution architecture requirements and 'just work' out of the box with the other deployed packages.. e.g. Exchange, SharePoint, IIS, AD, SQL Server, BizTalk, etc,etc..

3. Microsoft might even put a stop to (replace) MAC OS.... I know, people are going to get riled by that one.. but, Apple on Intel... (Windows on MAC Hardware anyone ?) Apple famed for IPOD (hardware)... Apple profits from iTunes (services)... (or in other words.. they are distracted by $ in areas other than OS development).. Vista - visually a MAC-alike.. Apple invested in by Microsoft...mmmm... pure speculation I'm sure! ;-)

I'm sure they'll do other things, but I think 1 and 2 above will be their main focus in the coming years.

People are sheep though. They read what others are doing and they don't want to be left behind so they follow.

Never a more true word was spoken..

I work with several Unix variants - mainly AIX and Solaris, and with Linux (RHEL), as well as with Windows.
At home I have Linux (Fedora Core and Kubuntu), Windows (XP and Win2k3 server) and Unix (FreeBSD).
I like them all.... for different reasons. (I also like many of the concepts in AS400's, but don't get to play with these that often)

-- OS 'Fanboys' (for whatever OS) are only limited by their own choice.. it is possible to get the best out of any OS if you have an open mind and use it appropriately.

A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!

 

[chrissie1]

And we will always remebemer this

I, like Chrissie

I knew it.

Christiaan Baes
Belgium

"My new site" - Me

 

[damber]

you know it's true... I just had to tell the world... ;-)

A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!

 

[pgmr777]

Damber, linux not stable? Don't say that here, you'll be banned fer sure!

 

[gbaughma]

People are sheep though.

Oh, C'mon. We're not ALL that baaaaaad.



Just my 2¢

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

http://parallel.tzo.com

 

[damber]

Well, the wool has been pull-over our eyes once too often - rammed in our faces if you will.. so don't say we didn't tell ewe.. we're like lambs to the slaughter..
<groan>

(sorry)


A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!

 

[chrissie1]

Anymore of this and it will snow.

Christiaan Baes
Belgium

"My new site" - Me

 

[pmonett]

It's funny, but whenever a discussion about Microsoft and the importance of the Windows market share crops up, everyone starts discussing (or arguing) about the relative market share of Linux, the technical merits of OS X, or other such geeky considerations.

When I go to the supermarket and check out the software aisle, what do I see ? I see a section for the Xbox, a section for the PS2, and four or six sections for PC games and applications. If you want Mac stuff, you're an enlightened individual who already knows which specialized store you have to go to.

Go to the libraries and check the IT litterature. For every 10 books, I'd wager that eight are for Windows-related apps, games and programming, one is for Linux/Unix (all flavors) and one is for every other OS out there (Mac OS whatever and anything else IT).

Look at your TV commercials. When IT is the subject (rare), it's either Intel or now AMD flaunting whatever new processor needs to be sold (and the PC showing it off is running Windows), or IBM selling its services to businesses (that have Windows PCs, of course). A tiny percentage of IT airtime is Apple, showing off a laptop with the logo, but rarely the screen.

With this in mind, tell me that the consumer is going to buy anything else than Microsoft in the next 5, 10 or even 50 years.

Given that consumers "see" practically only PC/Windows products, the fact that 90% of the software manpower is geared towards that market should not surprise anyone. The inertia that is gained from this situation is what gives Microsoft the power to continually find new ways to shaft us (product activation, Genuine disadvantage, and now monthly software fees). MS can do it because all the market sees is MS.

And geeks blogging about Linux will not change that.

Pascal.

 

[Grenage]

You're right, it's time we start hijacking planes and broadcasting the Linux message out across the radio. That would get some attention right now.

Then again, that would somewhat substantiate the "8 out of 10 terrorists use linux" claim.


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

 

[Tarwn]

I think one of my biggest worries about the near future for Microsoft is .Net.

.Net is supposed to be their big new thing and hooks are being included for it throughout the OS as well as utilities and apps being written in it for the OS. yet since it is MS it is my belief that they are going to continue to sell things such as Visual Studio as a product, rather than focussing on .Net as a language.
We already have 3 versions. I know I was unhappy when I bought 2002 out of pocket and it was out of date a year later. Now I am still using 2003 but all of my coworkers are pushing to move to 2005 because they want the nifty new ASP.Net controls...but that leaves us still supporting 2003 apps. I haven't tried to upgrade them directly, but the fact that the controls have changed for 2005 makes me wonder if the version upgrade route might not be even less useful then it was during the 90's with the many Visual Studio versions.

This is my concern. If MS continues to change the .Net platform every 3-4 years, then I think in 5 years I will be very interested in not using it. It will provide a lot of contractors and consultants money to move all of the 2002 and 2005 apps to 2008/9, but I don't want to be a part of that. It is one thing to force your OS and Apps out of service by discontinuing support for older versions but continuiong with newer and backward compatible ones, it is quite another to release a new version of Visual Studio with limited backwards compatibility and force everyone to rewrite their business apps every 3-6 years.
Don't get me wrong, I like C# and the .Net libraries and I think that they could continue to be expanded without breaking too many previous versions' code, but I don't think the same is true for ASP.Net pages, especially not when we have to work so hard to get around flaws in the basic architecture or attempt to force it to do things tatwould be simple in any other web language.

In any case. I think .Net will be continue to grow in the next 5 years, but that interest in using it as a web technology will begin to wane after the next version. I think some of the better ideas in the .Net interface will be developed in other language interfaces and many people will start getting tired of having to support so many disparate versions of ASP.Net and .Net runtimes. I think the fact that MS is forcing a 3 year code cycle on IT developers who have better things to do then rewrite the same code every 3 years will begin to force us to start looking at other solutions, though I think that will be a small percentage in 5 years that will continue to grow after.

 

[pgmr777]

Tarwn, that is my dilemma too, I have some very large and complicated legacy .net 1.1 apps (previously asp classic), it was a huge undertaking to convert them to .net in the first place, they are running superbly, am I supposed to upgrade them every 2-3 years to the latest version of .net now? Why? Will they still be as robust and stable? I converted one of them on my test server to 2.0 and it broke it, so I backed off, it is NOT fully backwards compatible, I have to go through upgrade/troubleshoot/convert/fix hell every 3 years, in addition to new app deelopment? No!

 

[IT4EVR]

I don't think we need to worry about .NET transforming into something completely different for at least 5 or more years.

If you look at the huge amt of money and resources Microsoft has and continues to funnel into .NET, it's not going anywhere soon

From what I understand, and I could be wrong, is that the next generation will be in XAML, in which the entire code page is in XML format. .NET classes will still exist, C# will still exist, but as part of something larger.

But it's really hard to keep up with the technology. Does anyone really know everything there is to know about 1.1? Now 2.0 is here and they are already talking about 3.0.

Now if Microsoft took as much time in producing a new version of Visual Studio as it did in producing a new OS, then we might have .NET around for the next 10 years...

 

[IT4EVR]

Ok, I must take one dig at Linux.

While I think it's a great server platform (why else would Google be using it for their servers?), don't look for it to be a viable competitor on the desktop anytime soon.

I think a key aspect of a desktop OS is the office productivity suite (Microsoft Office, Star Office, Open Office, etc). I've used all these products and let's be real, there is NO comparison between Microsoft Office and Open Office from a feature and usability standpoint. Sure you can add more features to Open Office yourself, but what normal user has the time to learn C and write their own component?

 

[Sympology]

Too take IT4evr's point on a different twist.

Windows will dominate for a long time. Why? Who wan't to go through the hasssle of learning new things when, to most people, there is nothing wrong with what they have.

If it ain't broke......

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