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

 

[IT4EVR]

But Microsoft has definitely been affected by the Open Source movement. While .NET is technically not open source, they have offered the Express editions of their software as a free download.

This would have been unheard of ten years ago from Microsoft.

 

[strongm]

Unheard of? They released the CCE version of VB5 for free download back in Feb 1997. Not quite 10 years ago, but close enough ...

 

[Tarwn]

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

Thats the problem. It is transforming. With each major release they are making minor changes (or in the case of ASp.Net, major changes) to the framework. This is what drove me away from Java. I don't like having to support 2-3 differant versions of the same language. The one thing I did like about Java was that as a new release came out it would deprecate objects that were going away. The application would still compile, you would just get warnings that certain objects would be going away in future versions. In .Net terms this would be like releaing a 1.5 and 2.5 version of the framework to give developers the ability to more easily plan an upgrade path.

I do not want to have to have 3+ versions of Visual Studio on my system just so I can support eveything I have written. I also do not want to have to halfway (or more in some cases) rewrite applications because MS releases a new version of the language every 2-3 years with poor or no backwards compatibility.

I recently heard .Net 3.0 is up for beta download. I am just switching to 2.0 now. My company is investing in many copies of 2005 to run alongside all of our copies of 2003. And lets not even get into how they feel about spending $3k-$5k per developer/report-writer every 2.5 years.

And lets also not mention what multiple copies VS.Net does to my poor little computer.

 

[chrissie1]

I recently heard .Net 3.0 is up for beta download

And what is even worse .net 3.0 is not an upgrade for .net 2.0. It is the winfx system for Vista (or so I'm told).

the framwork stays the same they just added a few things.



Christiaan Baes
Belgium

"My new site" - Me

 

[IT4EVR]

Then it seems that .NET will become more entwined with the Windows OS than ever before.

I'd always hoped that they would make the runtime portable to other OS's. I know there is the Mono Project but...

Frankly, I think this is a big mistake.

 

[Welshbird]

I'm known as one of the over-sealous converts to Mac. I borrowed one for a morning to have a play, and ordered one that afternoon.

But I use Windows in work; cos everyone does. It does what I need it to do. It's not my favourite, but my company, like almost all others, is not going to switch to a mac environment ever.

Most of my work is on Oracle, so I am lucky in that as it means I can work from home on my Mac and still connect.

I'd love to think that in 5 years time Microsoft will be trying to get some***dammit ANY*** business back from Steve Jobs, but I know that won't be the case. Just as long as I can still be given the choice to use something other than Windows in my own time then I'll be happy.

And if Windows gets more pleasant for me to use in working hours; so much the better.


Fee

The question should be [red]Is it worth trying to do?[/red] not [blue] Can it be done?[/blue]

 

[johnherman]

With Balmer in charge, I believe Microsoft will become to the desktop what Computer Associates became for the mainframe. Microsoft will buy up all the profitable small companies and either integrate that product into their product line, or milk it for its profits while designing something of their own. Some care will be needed or the DOJ will be after them again, however. Look for Microsoft to buy one of the bigger BI vendors such as Cognos, Business Objects, or Hyperion. Cognos and BI appear to be the better fit.

-------------------------
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was - Steven Wright

 

[pmonett]

In any case, there's one company that's decided to NOT go to Vista and stick with XP until 2009.

I wonder how many will follow suit in the coming months ?

Pascal.


I've got nothing to hide, and I'd very much like to keep that away from prying eyes.

 

[Sympology]

Most large business won't install straight away, more than likely wait about a year. This is pretty standard practise with any major rollout. Would yo roll out an untried pice of kit to hundreds or thousands of users. I wouldn't.

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

 

[Welshbird]

I've just been reading some more higher up this thread, aand felt I just wanted to say:

I really don't care how any OS works - I want to be able to use it to achieve the end-game.

I know a fair bit about Windows now, because (historically) at work I have needed to make ajustments in order to get things to work. There has been much less of that in XP (although still some) than in previous operating systems I had used.

And yep - at home, I use OSX. And I have no idea how it works, cos I've never had to know. It just always does work.

So for me (and I think this is true for other people too) OSX allows me to be much less of a geek. And that I like!

Fee

The question should be [red]Is it worth trying to do?[/red] not [blue] Can it be done?[/blue]

 

[Stevehewitt]

Interesting points.

1. Microsoft will supply security hotfixes and KB articles for Windows XP FREE OF CHARGE for at least the next 7 years.

2. The reason people are stating Vista will be a flop as it's hard for users to 'use' the system are the same people that are using Linux. Funny really, as Vista restricts the user in the same way that Linux does... (see my point!)


In 5 years, Linux will have a better UI but got no further in beating MS on the desktop or certian enteprise functions (Active Directory, Exchange etc.). Windows will have better security (see Vista) but will not have claimed any more Linux seats for it.

E.g. I think MS have taken on the open source projects just in time to ensure that they don't get beat. I can't see Linux with it's UI (the OS is great, but the UI is years behind Windows and Mac) getting to the home user desktop in 5 years.
In the same breath, I can't see Microsoft converting Linux users as what they have works, and works well. Why move?

The two OS's are both getting better and fixing the holes (GUI in Linux and Security in Windows) - and it's a good balancing act. 5 years Linux will be more user friendly, and Windows will be more secure. So what's difference?

I can't see either having any major advantages over each other in the pipeline, and I doubt much will change.

FYI - the reason Linux is being mentioned as it's the only credible forecastable threat to Microsoft at the moment.




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[kHz]

I think it's a great server platform (why else would Google be using it for their servers?

Well they are probably using Debian or some other Linux variant that is free. Maybe the are using Red Hat but I would be shocked if they were.

And I don't believe it is a great server platform. I spend more time trying to get something to work that just works right away on AIX or Solaris. There literally have been days where I spent half a day trying to get something to work on Red Hat and it would have taken me 15 minutes on AIX.

Big plus there.

And the Intel hardware? Dell and HP blades. Give me a break. Oh wait, that is what they do. They break. Give me IBM Power hardware or Sun's Sun Fire hardware and they just run. That is something I have also been told by hardware people at the company I work for. They would prefer IBM or Sun or HP iron over the crappy Intel junk. They will tell you that stuff breaks all the time.

But hey, get a cheap Dell blade or pay more for IBM Power servers. Guess you get what you pay for.

 

[gurner]

got that just about right, want cheap unreliable servers, get a Dell, massed produced for the budget SME, or an IBM or (i've found) HP for an ultimatley more reliable (SME) server.

couldn't comment on Sun

But the person with the purse will only see the price, you must remember that, they are not going to care about MTBF or anything remotely resembling a tech crib sheet or ought, unless your director, or whoever ok's the order is an ex-techie

Gurner

 

[gurner]

Also, didn't Google re-write their own Linux Kernal and their own File System to produce a system more attuned to mass indexing rather than any sort of application performance e.t.c?

And use cheap quickly replaceable disks in basic non-raided, racked servers?

Coz their calculated MTBF cost (Mean Time Between Failures) was cheaper for replacing disks that break a couple a day on the cheap in a centre of 100,000 servers, than replacing the occasional expensive high end disk and the man power/down time hit the indexing would take, in a raided configuration. I'm not sure, a lot seems speculated.

Gurner

 

[Sympology]

You also have to look at how businesses work.

If Google lose a few gig of data here and there, big deal, it'll rebuild over time; so a few thousand links will disappear, will the world end?
If a bank looses a few gig of data, they could end up with unlimited fines and millions / billions of lost business.

Check you Free email accounts, if they loose your data, unlucky, but that's the risk you take.
If a business looses emails, they could be sued / fined left right and centre.

This is why you have a variation in systems....

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

 

[gurner]

too true, yes.

But also don't Google run (or used to) somesort of 3x replication over these cheap low end servers, or 3 servers store the same thing/replicate each other, at 3:1 compression of the data (so i read, but again speculation)

I think the OS runs a distributed/mesh processing system, and the storage is the above compression/replication

so that there is 3xStorage needed for everything, but as its at 1 3rd the size, the storage hardware requirements are less for more, for want of a better analagy. I believe this is their model for zero loss (or as near as, in percentage terms to the amount of storage they have)

its a near on model most businesses could use, if they had the 'physical' space

Anyway, this is about MS, and the thread introduced Linux (as it always does) so i guess this is a quick side step

Gurner

 

[Sympology]

We've started to try Vista, we have a app that screams on Vista compared to 2K & XP, so looks like they are doing something right.
Been talking to the guys and they complain that on less or on 512mb RAM it's a dog, a gig and it's great. Told them to disable Aero, as it look's like it's using shared memory. Let's see how it goes.

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

 

[lhuegele]

MS will continue to work torwards providing it's applications as a service (for a fee of course). As for the O/S side of it's business, it's very dependant on how quickly companies plan to refresh the hardware in their organizations. It's not like the Windows95 days where everyone went out to buy new PC's so they could run Windows95. Most companies have 3-5 year or even longer refresh rates these days. I don't think MS will see a bunch of companies rushing out to refresh their hardware base just because Vista came out.