Thank you Joe and Gartner for agreeing with what I've been saying since 2006.

Anybody want to argue with my statements?

The fact it's taken this long for an architectural screw up like Vista to be recognized as such in the information industry simply shows how badly the software industry is under-informed.

Color me a skeptic. I just downloaded a bunch of MP3s from Amazon that work fine with Winamp running on Vista. Then I burned them on CD and put them in a very recently made, big name stereo system that has MP3 support. Only about 25% of the MP3s play. Winamp updates glide down from the web. The only way to update the stereo system is to get a new one.

If I could get a handheld MP3 player or executive bookshelf stereo system running Winamp and Vista, I wouldn't have this problem. We're about three or four years from there.

Secondly, if Windows is a fat client in a thin world, then what do you think about OS X? I guess that's different because Apple is cool. At the moment.

Meanwhile Microsoft is posting quarter after quarter of huge profits.

Vista runs great on any dual core system with a recently made display adapter, especially if it's from ATI, because they have stable drivers. In a year from now, Vista will be in the same spot that XP was in during 2003--in the driver's seat.

Wake up, pal. Time to smell reality hitting you in the face.

I agree that Vista is a huge resource hog and vastly larger in its code base than it has to be, as are many apps from Microsoft, Adobe and others. No one wants should have to s***can a perfectly good P4 just because it runs Vista poorly if there's less than 1GB RAM and an underpowered graphics card. Nor has Microsoft made a good case for why we ought to fork over all this dough for new hardware and software. These are the main reasons why Vista does not have more market share.

However, I don't buy into the idea that the future is mainly web apps and internet clouds. The plain simple fact is that the core apps and operating systems must function in their most basic purposes when you're completely unplugged from a network. This is the main reason why a "web office" app will only have partial success. The other is that people want stuff stored locally, not on a cloud somewhere that promises space and accessibility.

The average person doesn't think like the geek I am. Maybe my fellow geeks should be remember that sometimes.

I guess it had to happen. Even Joe turns into a Vista Basher. And now the hardcore Microsoft Fanboys are beating you up for it.

Vista ? "You cant polish a turd". Its reputation is now toast. They'll rebrand it as windows 7 or something and seem to have accepted that Vista was the Ford Edzell of computing.

Certainly, my two months of Vista hell convinced me to buy Apple (and I'm up to four now). So it turned out just great for *me*.

---* Bill

Yes,Windows has certainly blown it with Vista. Perhaps not for those individuals who use it at home or on non-networked systems, but it is just a big, slow sloth on a networked computer.
For those of us who went from Dos to Windows 3.1 and moved up through the rest of the flavors, Vista is certainly a disappointment. I had hoped for something better.

Excellent analysis Joe.
It was something that a lot of people knew and few dared to say.

I would have to agree that Windows is overdue for a major internal re-architecture. However, I believe the role of a desktop/laptop will remain undiminished for the forseeable future. The primary reason for this is visualisation. I believe the average app UI has a long, long way to go to deliver information rather than data. Anyone who's had a 'good' look at Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), will have realised that the groundwork for the next generation of greatly improved UI's has recently been laid. Doing this over the web and without being able to take direct advantage of the local graphic capability is simply not practical or sensible - it requires a PC, most probably a Windows PC.

Joe wrote this same crap a half dozen years (and $120,000,000,000 in msft profit) ago while at c|net.

MSFT is telling us that Vista is a failure, why did Mr. Gates make that statement that Vaporware-7 is going to be released next year?

Why did MSFT extend XP on lower end computers till 2010 if Vista was a success. Why has there been a brisk business in installing XP over Vista in computer repair/refurb shops. If Vista was a success how come I can walk into Micro Center and get brand new XP machines? Why is Corporate IT holding onto XP until Vaporware-7?

If Vista was a success, why is Linux up 61%. Why did the swiss school system take 9,000 of its school laptops from Windows to Ubuntu Linux?

Why has Open Office taken off like wildfire? How come Firefox went from nothing to 17% of the browser share in 3 1/2 years?

Please tell me and anyone else why I "need" expensive, bloated proprietary software? To do what? Surf the internet? Do email? Watch videos online? Listen to streaming audio? Listen to MP3s? Print my documents? To do Wireless? Watch my DVDs on my computer? To have Vista's eye candy when compiz-fusion does it better and for free?

Why do I "need" MSFT when I can do the same with Linux and for free? Companies and governments are asking the very same questions today. South Africa found out they could save $350 million in license fees by going open source.

Yes "Windows as we know it needs to be replaced" and governments all across the world have done exactly that. Ask the City of Munich.

Many have mandated open source as their answer, they are not waiting around for Vaporware-7, or for the "Latest SP1 fix", or sweetheart deals like MSFT was reported to offer The Philippines XP for $20 each in school computers...which the Philippines rejected in favor of Linux.

Linux is up 61 % with no ad campaign or multi million distribution deal. Mac sales are up big time and MSFT's share went down a bit further, all on Vista's and Ballmer's watch.

Vista came at the worst possible time as the market shifts to less is better well evidenced by the wild success of the EePC. With the recession here in the U.S. and throughout the world, new shifts in priorities have made companies re think their budgets. New computers or software upgrades to Vista are not in the cards as well evidenced by the IT community holding onto XP as long as possible.

What is MSFT to do? Simple, release a lean, but fast running ( 512 MB and under RAM requirements), low cost (under $99), keep the spyware bloat out (DRM,WGA,backdoors), make it XP compatible, simple straight to the point desktop, and have it bundled with Firefox, Winamp, Open Office.

Make it so the customer can customize their own laptop and add their own themes (if they wanted). Don't make it a subscription model. Just one price, one version and MSFT has at least a chance to put a band aid on that leak thats about to burst the dam.

Will Windows go lean and mean and simple? They had their chance, why didn't they take that path? They listened to Hollywood and the Entertainment industry and came out with Vista instead of listening to their core customers...and now MSFT is suffering for it. Can they recover?

Calling Windows a "fat client" implies that its main function is to talk to a server, which is not true. I still want a device that will do useful work for me when not connected to the web. I tend to agree that Vista is a step too far, but the web is not everywhere yet and until it is I need well-written and full-featured applications and a solid OS that supports them without a mandatory connection.

uhura wrote: "Joe wrote this same crap a half dozen years (and $120,000,000,000 in msft profit) ago while at c|net."

Huh, uhura?

No, I wrote nothing remotely like this while at CNET (I was there 1999-2003).

Joe

And I assume OSX really fixes all of the problems...so in other words, we're all screwed because the world is shifting to device and server, and because OSX and Vista (so you say) don't do it very well if at all, we're in for some big trouble...
I'll believe it when I see it...I think they have some smarter people over at Microsoft than you give them credit for...

"Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it"

As as people who subscribe salesforce.com learned a while back and as those who are old enough to have worled with dumb terminals. Your wonderful web/thin client isnt very useful when the server is down. Your desktop computer however, is.

Like most elderly people have to deal with, MS is beeing caught up, and past by, by new technology.

MS biggest nightmare is unfoulding
Evolution of the consumer technology goes so fast, there already writing ancient history, in an effort to copy good idea's.

Back to there roots may be the best way to go, but then again, what are the roots of MS.

A developer always has to remember that a customer only buy's your software, by lack of better onces.
And if company's leave Microsoft as OS, that will be the final nail in its coffin.

When i compare ms and osx, 1 big thing hits me every time. When using OS X i use 99% of my time efficiently with work (programming) and 1% waiting until the beachbal disappears. You could say 1% to much, but keep in mind that i dont have to wait for 1 program to open to use other programs (real multitasking).

Would i be an owner of a company, i would make a simple but important calculation.

Waitingtime/day created by OS * Salarycost user * 600 days (End of life PC/laptop) = Compare it with similar OS systems
(If the difference is 15 minutes a day i can spend an extra $6000 on a metal, nice designed machine with a fruit logo, that gives a professional look to customers, and have enough money left to buy parallels AND a windows xp license for software from program developers that refuses to go to a new millenium and are still having meetings on how to deal with the number 2000.)

Let just hope for MS that not to much Financial CEO's will be doing this calculation.

Note: Ballmer if you are reading this. (Not sure if you can, but you never know what they can teach a monkey these days)
Thank you for showing us the big black hole where all company collaps when the don't innovate and face there demons.
Keep making crap, that inspires us to do it better.

Yuri

Each release of Microsoft's Windows OS has required an investment in new hardware. I remember in the 90's the need to move from 640KB memory for DOS/Win3.x to 64MB for Win95/98 to 128MB-512MB for WinNT/2K/XP; all with increasing storage, and graphics requirements.

WinNT3.x/4 were a major source of pain when it was released - driver issues, GUI, and application support issues, etc. Yes, it was painful, but it was needed for MS to compete in the corporate environment.

Windows 2000, while sharing some of the GUI experience with Win98 required more resources-not much, but it went thru the same issues with driver, and application support, etc. Over time, support and reliability stabalized.

Windows XP hits, and I remember the complaints. The "Fisher Price" interface, applications not working, driver support lacking, blah, blah, blah. See the pattern? Now people don't want to move from XP, because it's good enough.

Vista hits. I'v been running Vista on my 3 year old laptop with 1.5GB, and my home brew dual core 2GB system (4GB added last week - 6GB now) for 2 years. It was touch, and go initially. My laptop shows it's age, but both systems are stable. I'm running Office 2007, Cakewalk Project5, and Image-Line FLStudio along with other apps just fine on both.

It would be nice if all our OS experiences simply just worked from one release to another, but the truth is that to improve an OS, sometimes changes (and drastice ones at that) need to be made, and so was the case with Vista especially, but it was true of WinXP. Remember when WinXP SP1.x, and *SP2* were released; lots of stuff broke, but was eventially addressed. Vista has major plumbing changes, so some apps will have to be rewritten. A lot of apps were poorly written to begin with. Believe what you want, Microsoft made great efforts in support of app compatability.

Vista needs more, but let's face it, hardware costs compared to what they were ~10-15 years ago have fallen tremedously. I paid $258 dollars for 128MB ram in the 90's. Today, that same amount of money gets me 8GB of ram, or ~1.5TB of harddisk storage.

Going from 2GB to 6GB on Vista (3.5GB usable until I switch to Vist64) was a major performance enhancer. Sure Vista uses more resources because of its complexity. It's doing more, as did WinXP.

However, to say/agree with the notion that Windows is broken because of its complexity, and that the future is cloud computing is wrong/short sighted. That would mean that OSX, Linux, and other desktop OS's are doomed as well.

Remember the paperless office? Never happended. Likewise, cloud computing will not eliminate the need for native processing (not in my lifetime at least), and the warm fuzzy of knowing ones data is stored on their own harddrive .

Complain all you want about Windows/Vista being broken. It works, support for it is improving, and eventually the same complainers will want to stick with Vista when Microsoft releases Windows 7.

What are enterprises going to do? XP Pro is for the chop at the end of June. After that, it's either embrace Vista, or look at moving away from Windows altogether.

You hit the nail on the head Yuri. I love the part
about the Great Microshaft monkey uniblab Ballmer
never have liked that big gunHo mouth

Empires rise and empires fall.

tallgeese says;
Complain all you want about Windows/Vista being broken. It works, support for it is improving, and eventually the same complainers will want to stick with Vista when Microsoft releases Windows 7.

?????????????

Reality Check time people. It (Vista) is broken, it is not improving much either. Service Pack 1 is likely to be the last ever Service Pack for Vista, ever. And its a pain in the a** with all its problems installing SP1. Its a marketing pack, the fixes are minor, the pain is real. Microsoft is moving on now, and is abandoning Vista, and about to start Windows Seven, just like it did with Windows ME.

The same complainers moving to Windows Seven? Maybe moving to Mac or Linux, as Vista has been such a disappointment. Why do you think that MSFT has lost 3% of the market share since the release of Vista? Because its bad, thats why.

I guess the same can be said for Mac OS X and Linux on the desktop too. They are pretty much 'doomed' like Windows. Oh, and the hundreds of applications that come with a Linux Distribution will probably make Linux die even sooner.

I don't understand what you mean by bloat either, I am running Vista Ultimate on a machine from 2004 and it does seem slow to me. I think your light headed be all end all interest in this Web 2.0 momentum is really making you a bit too giddy.

re. oldman

Whereas if the server maintained by your under-skilled 2-cent IT department running your CRM app goes down and you're running a desktop computer you can still do... what compared to a server @ salesforce going down...?

On another note i just love the notion that Windows is too complex so Microsoft should ADD a hypervisor to the desktop OS AND a copy of legacy windows AND a new modular OS AND the software to integrate the two more or less seamlessly...

Joe, I really like your columns and I think you have some good points here. But I think you're pandering to the anti-Microsoft slashdot crowd with the overall tone of this. People hate Vista, but nothing has REALLY changed.

The fact of the matter is that it will take companies DECADES. Let me repeat: DECADES to move off of Windows. It's taken until now for many companies to move to Windows from their mainframes in the first place.

Also, Web 2.0 is a platform? Not to me. In my book, it's a really feature-thin client -- essentially today's TTY. The server is whatever you want, PHP, .NET, so let's remove that from the equation. A company sitting down to create a new client for critical work... what will get them a feature-rich client with less work, .NET Forms or Javascript? In my workplace, having custom .NET applications gives us much more flexibility than our websites. They're much easier to change and hand to a few people.

Arguing for web 2.0 in business is essentially arguing for the return of the mainframe. Sorry, I just cannot see the scale tipping that direction anytime soon.

Moving to Mac or linux... that I can see. But still, there is so much investment in Windows at this point that years will pass before any change is even noticeable.

In the meantime, what I really think will happen is Microsoft will start dropping the price of Windows. The easiest customer for someone else to poach is the consumer, and Apple's doing a good job of that right now with systems that WORK and cost just 10%-15% more than Windows counterparts. For business, Microsoft can't be very worried at this point except for the P&L on Vista specifically.

re. tallgeese
How did you manage to run Win3.11 on 640kb RAM?

tallgeese: just another fan boy Microshaft does no evil

Andre da Costa -the Mirosoft Shill says'
"Oh, and the hundreds of applications that come with a Linux Distribution will probably make Linux die even sooner."

When will you ever tell the truth. how about more than twenty thousand applications for Debian Linux.

If you're so smart, How come you are some low rent writer and not making millions fixing windows? You would think MS would be climbing over themselves to bring you in to fix things.

I wouldn't bet against MS, they didn't get to be where they are by luck.

"Even Joe turns into a Vista Basher."

Huh? I can remember only a brief period last year when he was actually not basing Microsoft. His flip flops are surprising but not entirely unexpected. Only, he needs to bury his archives. Or it's possibly a split personality disorder.

What is MS advantage over Linux.

Compatibility with applications. Ok Vista Failure its being less compatible than wine that is a Beta piece of software.

Hardware support. This is sliding Linux and open source os is slowly but surely winning over hardware companies.

Office intergation. Ie Outlook to Exchange. Things that lock out other clients from being used effectively. Problem this soon will be facing KDE 4.1 that could break this lock.

Standardized central control. This is under development but Linux guys normally get around this by using 1 linux distro threw out.

Microsoft is almost a sitting duck they have only a limited ammount of time to sort out there mess.

Mike P,
You are correct, Microsoft didn't get where they are by "luck", they got there by lying, cheating and stealing.
We Reap what we Sow, now Microsoft is getting it's butt ripped by lil ole VCSY- Ha!

Of course you average Joe's have been snowed by Microsoft's many paid Bloggers and shills, but you will soon see the smoke clear.

FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 2007
Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Microsoft Corporation
Fort Worth, TX, April 20, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE)? Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (OTCBB: VCSY)(www.vcsy.com) announced today that on April 18, 2007, Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. filed suit for patent infringement against Microsoft Corp. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. VCSY claims that the Microsoft .Net System infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,826,744.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2007
Now Solutions Successfully Resolves Its Lawsuit Against Ross Systems.
Fort Worth, TX, April 18, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE)? Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (OTCBB: VCSY) announced today that Now Solutions (Now Solutions), its wholly owned subsidiary, has successfully resolved its lawsuit with Ross Systems, Inc (Ross Systems).
According to the company?s chief litigation lawyer, Derek Wolman of Snow Becker Krauss P.C., NOW Solutions was given a verdict in its breach of contract claim against Ross Systems in the net amount of $1,300,000, which was calculated after deducting all amounts due to Ross Systems pursuant to its claim under a promissory note. NOW Solutions is also entitled to receive interest and attorney?s fees on its breach of contract claim. The amount of the award is subject to a final judgment to be signed by the court.
"We are delighted with the court's ruling in this matter. This lawsuit has been a strain on NOW Solutions and VCSY in terms of time, energy and resources for over 4 years,? said Richard Wade, President and CEO of VCSY and Chairman of Now Solutions. ?We can now refocus our resources towards attaining our business objectives".

----------------------------------------------
Microsoft's obvious motive in any suspected efforts to damage VCSY:
The two VCSY patents act as pivot points for key elements of Microsoft's continually degraded performance toward attempting to field Bill Gates' early XML vision. The vision has yet to see the light of day, although, for years prior to the granting of VCSY's SiteFlash patent 6826744 in November 2004, Microsoft was very energetic in demonstrating what they could do with XML, but still they have shown nothing.
They teach you in detective school that if you happen upon a scene and there is someone in the batch that has motive and opportunity and means, you should look at the dates and events and see if the suspect can be aligned with those. I would say Microsoft has the largest motives (which are the power and reach the 6826744 and 7076521 patents could provide Microsoft over all other manufacturers) and the most obvious opportunities (comprised of work done from at least 2000 to late 2004/early 2005 which could have put Microsoft on top of any other manufacturers were it not for the existence of the 6826744 patent) and certainly the means (which are doubtless legendary and often emphasized by advocates of Microsoft's predatory monopolistic manners).
So, in detective school, they also teach you to make note of such actors and dig into their backgrounds to see if they are in the habit of "offing" weaker associates with which they have a similar motive and opportunity. And, sure enough, Microsoft has numerous events which tag them as someone you wouldn't want to hold your sandwich while you went to make a phone call.
Looks to me like our preliminary indictment of Microsoft has numerous clues and indications which would likely drive a judge to view them with suspicion and a desire to examine. That's Microsoft's fault. Not VCSY's.
VCSY Shareholders are simply interested in the facts and they enjoy digging up factual items regarding Microsoft and apparent connections and allowing others to read.
I happen to be here to make the facts public and entertaining.
It's up to those who read to challenge the juxtaposition of those facts with the image Microsoft itself projects.
It's also up to those desiring to provide Microsoft with an alibi or mitigating facts to rehabilitate Microsoft's suspicious image. So far, nobody wants to take us up on the technological discussion. Nobody can knock out the patent claims. Nobody has offered a smidgen of evidence Microsoft can achieve Bill Gates' XML fantasies and schemes without relying on VCSY's patents 6826744 or 7076521.

So far, Microsoft looks as "innocent" as a jealous woman with a bloody ax.
"Microsoft pales when compared to the integrated oils and producers."
Oh. I see. One other area they teach you to watch for in detective school is other actors who may be willing accomplices ready to provide a misdirection for the suspect's actions. Now, we find you, Mister Wacalaca, wanting us to turn our attention to world energy problems so we can find rascals in that particular industry.
Nice try, but, last we looked, VCSY patents related to web-platforming and web-applications... a place where Microsoft said they wanted to be from 2000 until 2005. Then, they said they didn't need to be there. Then, once VCSY sent them a cease and desist, they decided they actually did want to be on the web... but they haven't been able to do so.
If Microsoft had been in the oil industry, the patents would not apply so we would have no need to be suspicious. But, thanks for giving us a perfect analogy to describe Microsoft's place in the software industry. Since they "pale when compared" to what you deride as abusive monopolistic actions in the oil industry, you've at least given us renewed confirmation Microsoft is not to be trusted.
--------------------------------------------
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=210968

Some of the points made for Vista are correct, particularly the modularization to fit smaller devices. Howevever, there is no operating system out there to fit the description of what's needed. Maybe the closest one is Windows XP and Microsoft can re-design Vista. Web 2.0 is not suitable for all kinds of applications and still needs another 10 years to be reliable and a viable alternative.

This is very interesting(but is Spanish)
ww.estandaresabiertos.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=76&Itemid=1
Ecuador migrate to free software ... And open standards
On April 10, 2008, President Rafael Correa Delgado has signed Decree 1014 by ordering with absolute precision that the software used by public administrations in the country is free software (and implicitly based on open standards)

However, its date of enactment is significantly coincided in time with two things: first, with the pressure received by the highest governmental levels for the INEN (Ecuadorian Institute for Standardization) voted in favour of the format OOXML in ISO / IEC ( something that eventually did not), but the second is even more striking temporary proximity to the news concerning the services of espionage Americans have been infiltrated systems Ecuadorian decision and even concealing information to your president. This coincidence can be explained by a well-founded suspicions that some proprietary software packages to American companies are serving as a tool for espionage.
-------------
This is a serious accusation.

skeptic: Your MP3 problem has been solved for years by an anywhere and anytime device that just works... Ever heard of an iPod? All you need is an audio input jack and it plays your Amazon MP3s just dandy.

@oldman: I am old enough to remember those days, and I agree with your representation of them. These days, however, the workstation is more likely to be down than the server. Truly "dumb" terminals may not make much of a comeback, but more and more of the load will be taken care of centrally. The analogy that I would use is electricity: MicroSoft is like Thomas Edison promoting power plants in every building. Local generation and storage never went away completely (think backup power and isolated locations), but it was largely replaced by centralized distribution networks. I believe that that will occur as computing matures.

I am astonished by some of the comments I'm reading here. It would seem that many people's reading comprehension is near zero, as they don't seem to be getting what Joe is saying. Joe wrote:

"Windows is now in an inevitable state of decline that can only accelerate as people use more powerful, smaller devices. Web 2.0 is ideally suited to lower-powered, highly-functional mini-laptops and smart phones. Vista is not. When I say, "inevitable state of decline," I don't mean immediate. ***Windows will have a place as a commodity operating system for many years yet.*** But real computing and informational relevance has shifted to the device, server, IP network and anytime, anywhere access on anything."

This is exactly right, folks. Windows isn't going away anytime soon, BUT its days are numbered. If you care to open your eyes and pull your heads out of your rears, you will see the increasing proliferation and reliance on mobile devices and mobile computing.

And, yes, this applies to OS X and Linux, as well. All of these desktop OSes are not long for this world, maybe another decade or so. OS X will give way to iPhone-like computing. Windows will give way to Eee PC and smaller "personal computers."

@Andre Da Costa:

Your assertion about Vista's performance on older hardware misses an important point. I recently purchased a Dell Dimension 9200 with Quad-Core processor and 3GB of memory. While it is perfectly usable, it does not feel any faster than my old Athlon box with 512MB of RAM, running WinXP. WTF?! Why did I spend all this money on high-end hardware?

In order to realize the great performance I expect out of this hardware, I'm afraid I will have to install Linux.

The lesson to everyone is this: Yes, Vista will run okay on your PC. But if you're expecting the best performance out of your hardware, esp. your NEW hardware, 'okay' isn't acceptable. The latest and greatest hardware is ***wasted*** on Vista.

But if you, like Andre, don't care about waste, then Vista is fine...

Web 2.0 and Vista at opposite ends? Never thought of it that way, but you're right. One glaring example: The Vista Calendar cannot sync with the Microsoft Live Calendar. MS says it "may" add this functionality down the road. Integration with a Web calendar should have been the REASON for building a calendar into the OS.

Quoting Joe Willcox;

"I concur that Windows is broken, but I don't agree that it's fixable."
----------------------------------------------------
Of course it fixable, but I would agree that it not going be fixed for several reasons, that mostly you have touched upon.

It not going be fixed for the consumer or enterprise users, because Windows is going do what Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer want it to do, not users. Their thinking is what is causing the "collapse" of Windows. Collapse perhaps is not a good word, decline would be a better one, and desktop market share the correct one. Bill and Steve are completely profit driven and cannot see past the money anymore when designing a new Windows. That is why the complexity is in Vi$ta. Another word for this complexity is DRM, that so thoroughly is embedded in Vista and requires so many cpu cycles and ram to check up on the computer user. Do not expect Bill and Steve to ever let computer users do what they want with their computers. MS has become the Big Brother of corporations and is in bed with Hollywood.

Joe is completely right when he says "Operating systems are commodity product." As a commodity product you must price your product to compete with others. Vista Ultimate standalone boxed version was at $399 US dollars when it came it. The price was recently lowered, because of the dismal sales. Windows is no longer competitively priced, even Mac OS X is attractively priced, and Linux is basically Free, faster, virus free, relatively bug free compared to Windows. So in the very near future, the price of MS Windows, must come down drastically, or it will collapse.

And as Joe has said, its the lower priced laptops that will spell major problems for MS. XP is the only product available for these, and MS is basically giving it away to keep Linux off those. No short term profit in giving away your product, is there Bill?

And further driving the "collapse, is the fact that people are starting to wise up about all the lock in that MS puts in its products. No only is there some backlash to the "lock in," but the EU is starting to watch MS very closely in this matter. Without their "lock in" MS cannot compete to the degree that it has.

The real collapse will come, when OEM's are not afraid to put out two laptops in a store, side by side, identical, one with Windows, and another with Linux with the MS TAX gone. If Mac ever legally licences OS X to the PC in general, MS is in serious trouble.

This is why MS wants to become an "advertising company" and buy Yahoo. Because the Windows Operating system is a commodity product that is vastly overpriced compared to the competition.

MS will basically give away Windows, if it has to in order to protect MS OFFICE, the bigger cash cow. However, Windows makes enough money, that any reduction in price, will hurt the company stock, unless there is another product (Yahoo) to take its place and offset the loss.

What to expect in the future from MS? Past Windows Seven, expect MS to come up with ad driven Operating Systems. They have already applied for those patents. And I believe have released a MS Works V9 advertisement driven program as well.

If MS loses the desktop OS war, MS Office will not be so far behind. Long term, this is why MS wants to do something else.

Richard Eng : Wrote
In order to realize the great performance I expect out of this hardware, I'm afraid I will have to install Linux.
----------------------------------------------------
Here is your answer.

http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/xubuntu/releases/7.04/release/xubuntu-7.04-desktop-i386.iso

It is a fast full desktop Linux , it out performs even XP in speed of loading internet pages. Run it live CD or do a dual boot. Download it, burn it as a ISO in Nero and similar program and load the disc.

Talk like this was unthinkable even five years ago. That alone tells me big changes are afoot. Not good ones either for Late Great Microsoft.

Am I alone in thinking web-based is a disaster waiting to happen. The very thought of it brings visions of a huge red flashing sign reading 'access denied' with blaring sirens, and fully armed SWAT squad.

That aint gonna happen to my data, nor the programs that handle it.

Thanks, Chips, for reminding us about the add-supported operating system.

It is hard to explain MicroSoft risking its entire reserves on a floundering company like Yahoo (even if its future is as promising as its CEO optimistically suggests), unless MicroSoft is as panic-stricken as you suggest. In spite of the availability of very good (and costless) alternatives to Office (such as OpenOffice), it is unlikely that MicroSoft is sufficiently worried about that threat, now that it has tentative approval of OOXML format as an ISO standard (unless it FULLY expects the appeals and EU investigations to go against it). That pretty much leaves the Windows franchise. Windows is not going away any time soon, but a critical mass of Unix-like operating system use overseas and in governments could occur soon, and that could cause Windows to go into rapid decline. Most people's operating systems are chosen by the OEM's. Once the BSDs/Linuxes become mainline, there will be no reason for OEM's to pay MicroSoft for an operating system license.

Knowing MicroSoft's history, it is difficult to believe that it would license its office suite to OEM's without its operating system, even if the OEM's were inclined to do so. Once the BSD's/Linuxes become mainline, applications (mostly costless) that are not dependent upon MicroSoft's proprietary standards will probably be preloaded on most computers. This would further increase the profit margins of the OEM's at the same time that it reduced the prices to the customers.

The white paper, "Establishing End to End Trust," suggests to me that MicroSoft views digital rights management and "genuine advantage" as much more than a sop to the entertainment industry. Instead, MicroSoft seems to consider these as FUNDAMENTAL to the future of computing--"the next big thing." In ways that may still be obscure, it sees its growth and the security of its own future in features that alienate consumers.

It is not implausible that backdoors are being built into closed-source software, such as Windows, as Marco suggests. This would have its analogy in the requirements that U.S. telephone service providers build backdoors into their fiber-optic systems for the convenience of government wiretapers, in the requirement that any encryption device have a backdoor (Clipper) to allow easy decryption by the government, and in the requirements that ISP's turn over information about traffic. With closed source software, such allegations are difficult to prove and impossible to disprove. Given the prominence of easy accessibility by law-enformcement in Charney's vision of "trustworthy computing," it would stretch credibility to say that prototypes for these features do not already exist in MicroSoft products, just as the publicly-acknowledged digital rights management and "genuine advantage" are prototypes for some of the other features of this "trusted stack." The EU may be investigating MicroSoft over its OOXML ISO shenanigans and bundling of consumer software into its operating system, but it (and other governments) are likely to view bundling "security" (theirs, not ours) features as a "social good" (again, theirs, not ours). Even if they do not, it would be inconsistent with everything else that the US Department of Homeland Security has done not to promote (pay for) the development of such features and then to require their implementation "end to end" (as Charney says we "must" do).

Of course, if Charney's "trusted computing" standards are ever implemented, whether by market forces or by government mandate, it is unlikely that MicroSoft will give them away. No doubt, MicroSoft will have plenty of patents, and anyone wanting his computer to function as more than a paperweight will be forced to pay the MicroSoft tax, no matter what his operating system or application software. It is also likely that MicroSoft will develop idiosyncratic implementations that will be difficult for others to follow. This will "break" the system for those who spurn MicroSoft. Even in the unlikely event that MicroSoft fully publishes the standards, MicroSoft and its products would have tremendous advantages over everybody else, especially as it keeps adding features or making "fixes" that break the system for its competitors.

"It is hard to explain MicroSoft risking its entire reserves on a floundering company like Yahoo (even if its future is as promising as its CEO optimistically suggests),"

You assume Ballmer is interested in achieving something positive for YHOO and its shareholders and employees. Perhaps this whole buyout drama is simply a Machiavellian ploy to destroy YHOO through the well known technique of FUD. Look at how MSFT has dealt with competitors like Intuit, Stac, etc. - they bring them close in a feigned acquisition dance, then stab them in the back.

IMO Steve Ballmer is a smart, ruthless a$$hole, and he really could care less about creating deals that leave the world a better place for others. Viewed in that light, almost everything MSFT does makes more sense.

Thankyou Joe for a good and careful analysis. What you have said is being supported in another way by Brian Proffit in his article:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/it_management/2008041102026OPMR

There is now a paradigm shift in the world of IT. Dedicated Windows users can rail all they like, but it does not alter the facts. The point is that Windows now has competitors and they can do things faster, better and with far less resources than Windows demands. Let me make a couple of points:

1. There are now over 1,000,000 viruses and trojans for Windows...........in the Linux world, there are viruses but they remain mostly as laboratory curiousities, purely because viruses are almost impossible to produce for Linux systems. As far as I know, there are no Linux viruses currently in the wild for the Linux desktop. At the moment, I run no antiviral software on my Linux desktop, and if I do, it is only to clean Windows viruses out of mail before I relay any of it so that other Windows users are not infected. Because everybody can see the Linux code, if a virus was accidentally successful, the problem would be addressed within 24 hours. You cannot react like that with a Windows system.

2. The Windows legacy affects all versions of Windows currently running on PC's. Windows was designed as a standalone, non-networked OS....and when the web became successful, its software architecture made it a sucker for any virus that was written. Linux and the Mac have a "Unix heritage"....Linux because it uses the same principles and the Mac because it uses an actual Unix variant. The Unix system was designed from the start to be multiuser and networked and so it is automatically designed to be far more resistant to malware.......

And yes, I believe that the only way Windows is eventually going to survive is if Microsoft gets its act together and completely rewrites its code base to conform to the Unix security principles of multiuser and networking. The pressures of over a million viruses cannot allow Microsoft to leave this for too long.......

@Tony

I think you got it completely right about the Windows security problems. Their lack of security against all types of Malware, has been a major problem for Windows users. It is one of the major reasons for Windows users to switch to alternative OS, that and of course, Vi$ta.

Tony:

Your 1st point,

Microsoft has a vastly larger foot print, and I agree, poor design. Hence the attacks - it's a very large target. They have, and still continue to address their plumbing screw ups.

Linux has not reached Windows distribution numbers, and hence not a lot of attention from hackers. However, don't be fooled. Linux is an OS written by imperfect human beings too, and eventually some malicious person(s)/group(s) will set their sights on it, and virus count will go up. The truth is Linux is a long range blip on the radar.

I question your remark about 24hr response times to address a virus issue - hit/miss IMO.

Your 2nd point:

I agree with you here. Microsoft executed poorly here. They went in with rose colored glasses, not taking into account the need for security - VBScript macros, ActiveX, etc. They;ve made great strides in addressing their security stance.

But, it's time for a rewrite.

In closing, I believe Vista is getting a bum wrap. After 2 years I'm happy with it, and would like to see it deployed in our enterprise - we just started migrating from Win2K to WinXP 1.5yrs ago.

Microsoft screwed up Vista with DRM. It's nothing more than a DRM system that spends every other instruction trying to figure out if the user is a crook. It's just optomized for pay per view video and because of DRM restrictions it is no longer a general purpose computing tool. Time to move on to open source.

tallgeese@ "Microsoft executed poorly here. They went in with rose colored glasses, not taking into account the need for security - VBScript macros, ActiveX, etc. They;ve made great strides in addressing their security stance.

But, it's time for a rewrite."

Huh? Vista is the rewrite! It was Gates' "moon shot" development effort where they were supposed to start with a new code base. Unfortunately it all fell apart and after three years of disasters and multiple program managers, Ballmer was fed up ordered them to ship _something_, and that something ended up a kludge called Vista.

If they tried again, what makes you think the results will be any different? The development process in Redmond is FUBAR, and until that problem is fixed, there is no solution.

Linux is ready for this new low-power, embedded device world. Just ask Linksys. It's also ready for the laptop. The new 2.6 kernel has excellent support for CPU low power modes. Intel has a tool that identifies Linux applications that consume excessive power via unnecessary timer interrupts and the like. My laptop uses less than half the power at idle than it did six months ago, just from software upgrades.

Linux has an enormous number of drivers and yet the kernel is still quite small. Some Linux distributions have a very large and complex set of applications and others are extremely minimal. Don't judge linux by Ubuntu and RedHat alone.

Linux also supports the NSA's excellent SELinux security framework, which ensures that rogue applications cannot gain access to resources for which they have not been granted explicit permission. Until we are free from the programming errors that give rise to worms and viruses, this is the BEST defense against compromise by remote hackers.

Windows has a lot of 'baked-in' reliance on the 32-bit Intel platform. Every other platform is missing features and drivers that are only present on 32-bit Intel. Linux does not suffer from this problem because the entire source base has been ported to so many different architectures. Fedora Linux on Power PC is identical in virtually every way to Fedora Linux on Intel.

I run Fedora Linux on my 64-bit desktop. It is stable and supports every hardware feature of my computer. JDK 1.6 performance is spectacular. Unlike you poor Windows suckers, 3-D performance is excellent with my nVidia card.

BSD is an equally fine operating system and shares many of Linux's excellent features. Those of you who have problems with the GPL for whatever reason, BSD is what you are looking for.

I think one of the main reasons that Windows is so entrenched is that Microsoft's lock-in strategies were successful. It's only recently that people are waking up to that and are requiring open standards be used. Witness the ODF vs. OOXML battle. Pretty much the whole IT world wanted ODF while MS and its partners fought tooth and nail to ram OOXML down their throats so their lock-in would remain. Web 2.0 will not make Windows irrelevant yet, but open standards and protocols will allow people to think twice about using their lumbering OS.

Keep up the good work, Joe. I watch the Microsoft Windows situation from the outside, as much as I can. You have kept your eyes and ears open, and presented useful and compelling information to your readers.

In regards to the idea of a do over, let me add this. Apple was in far worse shape than Microsoft when it declare a do over for their then flagship operating system, OS 9. What some of your readers may not know is that Apple failed more than once before OS X was born. The saving grace was that they never released those products.

Friedrich Nietzsche said, 'That which does not kill us makes us stronger'. Apple is stronger. And you will be stronger because of your objective assessment.

Just remember, for every 95 people who think you are an idiot for not bowing in the direction of Redmond, there are 5 of us who have much more respect for you.

One question for all the fanboi's who're running Vista & it runs great on years old HW:

where can mere mortals, like Al, find this Vista: Shill Edition? Seems like that SKU is the only one that works.

maybe if MSFT just released the Shill Edition version of Vista, there wouldn't be massive ink on how utterly shoddy MSFT's latest OS really is.

Internet: the new spinal cord of the humanity.

Well, my friends. I would like to share some of my ideas. I won’t dwell in genetics, sociologic or anthropology aspects (just some biology) as to compress the idea.

The unicellular came first. Then the multicellular followed. Nature’s responses to these were the chordates: animals with a spine. The spinal cord is essentially a way in which cells communicate.

The current stage of humanity is very similar to the aforementioned multicellular stage. A conglomerate of thinking ‘cells’ (some believe ‘unthinking’ cells). We are talking globally-it is highly likely that for the next evolutionary step as a specie, we need a spinal cord. Nowadays, the closest we come to something akin to a spine is the internet (PCs would come to be the nerve endings- the levels of exchange of information).

Therefore, it is highly important that the internet is not dominated by governments and their politics or companies like Ms, since these, be by politic or economic factors (e.g. software cost), would impede a percentage of the ‘cells’ access and/or interchange of essential information, which is basic for human development.
This is the future.

We all know this to be true deep down. Nonetheless, it is good to transfer it into words.

Marco 13-04-08

tallgeese says:

"Linux has not reached Windows distribution numbers, and hence not a lot of attention from hackers. However, don't be fooled. Linux is an OS written by imperfect human beings too, and eventually some malicious person(s)/group(s) will set their sights on it, and virus count will go up."
----------------------------------------------------
Really? I have heard this argument from the Softies so many times now. And they used to say this also about the Mac as well. The one I always heard was if Mac ever got even 6% of the desktop market share, it would have the same malware problems as Windows does. Its now up to 6.5 or 7% at the latest count, and still fairly secure. Plus Linux is even more secure than Mac OSX, which seems to be secure enough.

The Crystal Ball that Tallgeese is looking into, is just his malformed wild A$$ guess. Mirco$ofties like this type of argument because they are foretelling the future, and therefore cannot be proved wrong, they think. EVen if he was right, and he is not, users would have probably at least 2 or 3 years without viri problems by switching away from Windows.

I work on computers, mostly cleaning up the mess of malware thanks to the way M$ has setup windows by default. It is a big problem. Windows users are afraid to surf anywhere on the internet, and rightly so. They better not.

So since Tallgeese whats to predict the future, (whats fair for one side is fair for the other) let me gaze into the Crystal Ball, and give you some real predictions based on fact;

1. Before Windows Seven is released to the public as an OEM version, there will be double the amount of malware affecting Windows systems. 2 million.

2. There is a very large possibility of of another "Blaster" type worm, shutting down most Windows user computers.

3. The 20% of the Windows users with bad malware infestation will increase percentage wise in the next year.

4. As Malware for Windows greatly increases, antivirus venders will not be able to keep up. Leaving Windows Users infected without them ever knowing it. Not a good way to use the internet and do any type of money transfers, is it?

5. Linux will increase market share on the desktop and remain mostly or completely unaffected with viri problems.

I know MS is still the big dog in this game, but you know the auto makers in Detroit were laughing at their foreign competitors 30 years ago. Now, Ford and GM both are struggling to stay afloat. MS is not going anywhere anytime soon. However, they are not invincible and this Vista debacle proves it. Their lack of coordination with other MS products such as SQL Server 2005 further shows the cracks in their business model.

It is not the fault of the technology itself, the blame resides squarely with the executive leadership. The same could be said for the Detroit automakers 30 years ago.

Having anti-virus software and keeping it up to date is no longer enough to keep from geting infected by malware.

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/04/11/panda_infected_or_not/

Quotes from the link;
"A study by Panda Security revealed that 72 per cent of firms with up-to-date security software still had malware on their networks. The data - based on a sample of 1.5m users last year - also revealed that 23 per cent of home computers were infected. PCs protected by the security software from multiple vendors were affected by the problem.

The data comes from scans by users of Panda's ActiveScan online scanning tool.

Panda reckons the problem arises because the traditional anti-virus scanning approaches are no longer keeping up with the exponential growth in malware products. As a result, users are infected by threats that slip under the radar and leave little indication of their presence."
--------------------------------------------------
Time to switch to something more reliable. Distrowatch.com

Joe, I don't believe complexity is an issue here. All OSs have gotten more complex in recent years. The problem with Windows is that it always trashes some part of what existed before.

Take for example OS X. Now not only does it run on PowerPC it also runs on Intel. Applications are now Universal Binaries. Meaning they're build with a level and a set of code that makes them runnable on both architectures. That is quite a bit of added complexity. Yet you can easily upgrade to Leopard.

I think the key issue killing Windows is Microsoft's response time. Windows has the longest of them all. Practically 6 years. In the same time OS X has gone through 4 revisions (Puma, Jaguar, Panther and Tiger) between September 21 and January 2007. With Leopard being released late 2007.

Microsoft went the other way and by not using small release cycles condemned Windows. Smaller cycles would have helped to provide feedback and optimize parts over time. Instead of that and since 1998, Microsoft has been increasing its development cycles. Those big development cycles lead to a lot of changes people have to deal with (we can put home grown apps here for example or hardware requirements). If those steps were more gradual change would be more acceptable.

If Microsoft wants to release Windows 7 it must do so as a set of steps (like service packs for XP). The same way you can update Linux to the most up to date version without a reinstall. A full blown Windows 7 release will mean one of two things: a success if it is a "refurbished" XP with minor new features or a failure if it is a "brand new thing" with all that nice WOW stuff and the same old backward compatibility headaches.

reply to Gerardo Tasistro,

Agreed. MS is still in the 'waterfall' development mentality.

Why hasn't I-Man been banned yet? He is spamming the comments with some P.O.S. stock that nobody wants.

Jack, I hear you. I-Man is trying to pump and dump that worthless OTC stock. This is a technology forum not an investing site.

Joe Wilcox thinks he can enhance his prestige in the eyes of his readers by bashing Windows because he knows that most of his readers are dissaffected opensource fans and wouldnt piss on the best part of Windows or Microsoft. Unfortunatly for Wilcox he dosnt know what he is talking about- even if Windows resource requirements are large- these resources keep getting more plentifull and cheaper all the time. If desktops survive for the forseable future they will be running the latest Windows. Additionally the OS's going into mobile devices will be borrowing heavily from vista with the objective of remaining compatible and even Wilcox thinks he will allow Windows server to survive on the planet. Wilcox is full of sh.. and he should print his articles on more absorbant material so they would at least have some usefullness

Excerpt from the post: "Windows XP fans don't want it to XPire
Petition drive aims to keep XP as option on new PCs past June 30
By Suzanne Choney"

“Windows Vista has been dogged by the traditional early adopter barriers ... yet the product is ramping toward a normal adoption curve,” IDC Research said in a recent report, subtitled “Windows Vista Momentum Picks Up Steam.”
“The death of Windows Vista has been greatly exaggerated,” the IDC report said. The operating system has “compelling features for consumers and for business users. These features will see acceptance — and potentially love — over the longer term.”

I have written about this many times and no one has ever given me an answer. I am asking, what are these "compelling features for consumers and for business users, features that will see acceptance - and potentially love - over the longer term"? What does Vista do that XP does not or cannot? I have also written before that I have had really no problems or critical issues with Vista. It has run solid, stable, reasonably fast and quite compatible with my hardware and software. But so does XP, and XP does it even faster.

So, no I do not think Vista is horrible, just as I don't think Windows 2000 is horrible, it's just that neither is as good as XP. It's bad enough that there seem to be plenty of people who are having severe problems with Vista, but add to that those who are having few or no problems, but getting nothing more than they would/did with XP, and at a slower pace.

WHY SHOULD ANYONE UPGRADE TO VISTA?

@Steffan, well given that Joe is quoting Gartner I guess Gartner's readers are also Linux fans an MS basher. Is that a valid conclusion? No. Neither is yours.

Regarding your line "If desktops survive for the forseable future they will be running the latest Windows.". True, very true. But true because Microsoft is pushing Vista through the OEM channel and killing XP. Otherwise a lot of people would be fine with what they have. I should would! My Visual Studio 2005 works like a charm on XP, but needs admin rights and a whole set of patches to run on Vista and still I have issues.

I'd be delighted to hear what things will mobile devices be borrowing from Vista. I think there is more in common between Java Micro Edition and J2EE than Windows CE and Vista. Please enlighten me as to what else beyond Active Sync would there be borrowed from Vista that hasn't been borrowed yet? Not to mention that a great deal of mobile devices don't even use Microsoft OSes.

PS, it seems I forgot to add people like you to my post regarding the problem list with Windows. On top of the slow release cycles there is the denial of the existence of problems. Which you so proudly champion. Unknowingly so, in Microsoft's detriment.

"Computing is shifting from the desktop to the device and server."

So we went from centralized paradigm (terminal + mainframe) to a decentralized one (pc) and now we are going back? WTF?

What scares me now is that with a centralized server on the Internet, it provides a single point of failure and single point to ATTACK.

Just wait until we all move to this method and all of our precious data is stored offsite and a DDOS attack or zero day vuln. renders the server offline for days and what are we gonna do then?

We are all up in arms about the RIM outage and that's just EMAIL!

What's even more disturbing is that we are GIVING UP CONTROL OF OUR COMPUTING AND DATA TO A HANDFUL OF LARGE COMPANIES CONTROLLED BY AN ELITE FEW! This reminds of the concept of a centralized banking system.

@Gerardo,

don't engage "wh Steffan". he's a gutless softie shill from over on the MSFT yahoo! board who refuses to accept the tide is turning against his "precious" (yeah, Al pictures wallyball as a Gollum-like troll, busily shilling for his corporate masters in Mordor...er, Redmond...)

wallyball, much like I-Man/Portuno add nothing to the conversation.

@ skeptic, uhura, tallgeese

Stating that Vista runs fine means nothing. Microsoft is in a pickle and here's why:

When Vista came out, Microsoft rewrote their entire audio/visual subsystem to make Vista a DRM enforcer OS. MS wanted to have the success of Apple's iPod on the desktop. They quite literally forced their entire hardware supply chain (graphics chips makers, audio chip makers, motherboard makers) all take on new development costs to support Vista. ATi protested, NVidia protested, but Microsoft would not listen. Using their monopoly power, they forced everybody to respin their silicon to enforce Vista's DRM requirements.

So now here's the situation, you have all of these hardware manufacturers who took on this extra unecessary expense to support Vista, and Vista sales are not high enough to recompense the hardware supply chain for their extra expense. Add the effects of economic slowdown and everyone is hurting. So what is the result? Dell, out of desperation starts its DellStorm ideas website and gets popular demand for preinstalled Linux on their systems. They respond by releasing a series of products with Ubuntu Linux. Dell has expanded the line further, and they also manage to armtwist MS to allow XP to be resold on Vostro. You have ASUS, the worlds premier motherboard maker release the Eee PC. No doubt ASUS felt the consumer chill through their slump in motherboard shipments and a pinch in their profits because of what Vista made them do, so they release the Eee PC as a cheap laptop that they can control from soup to nuts to keep their manufacturing lines busy. So far, it's been a wild success. You have Intel, who released their Atom processor and a Linux based development package to drive sales for their hardware. MS was mentioned only once in the conference by an Intel VP. You have HP now launching it's own mini PC with Novell's SLED. You have the wild success of the iPhone. Folks, the real damage done by Vista was not that it was too fat, but that MS made its hardware partners take on extra expense on a DRM gamble that never paid off. What you see now is the companies that build computers, or parts of computers release cheaper and non-Windows based computing products to the market to offset and keep them busy. MS may be still making money, but the hardware guys are hurting. So you see, whether or not Vista works relatively well is beside the point. The truth is that the hardware guys now see a new revenue stream - small computing devices, and they need an OS that can run on these smaller devices, totally customizable, and stable. Linux has proven to be perfect for this. Oh sure, XP can be placed on an Eee PC, but how fast will that machine be when those same users have to put on their anti-virus software? AV is a pig now on even fast machines, it won't get better on the 900Mhz models or 1.2 Ghz models for these smaller devices. The truth is MS has nothing appropriate for these new categories of devices, and their monolithic design and strategy has made them ill-equipped for this whole new product space. Pandora's box has been opened, and now it's MS on the defensive - it's the one who will now be along for the ride. Mark my words, and evidence of what I'm about to say is already here - you will see hardware designed for Linux first, with secondary consideration for MS based products. Intel's Atom is one example. As non-MS based systems become popular, graphics chips, audio chips, and motherboards void of DRM design nonsense will come onto the market as important and alternate revenue streams. It's happening, and MS made it happen with their monopoly and "take it or leave it" attitude with Vista. The greatest irony of all, right now, MS makes too much short term money for them sacrifice profits and marketshare for a long term, and necessary adjustment in product design. MS will have to go through collapse in order for the money men to understand truly what is happening. Quarterly reports only tell you what happened, not where you are now, or what's coming down the pipe.

@Bob Maine

and still no one can tell you what is better about Vista as opposed to XP.

Many of these manufacturers will be able to make much less expensive products when using Linux and open source software. Perhaps these affordable products will bring average Joe Consumer into the Linux camp. Wouldn't surprise me. If average Joe can get a cool, sweat hi-tech little gadget that is very affordable, it will probably be a success.

I run vista at home and Linux Mint at work on my laptop and desktop. These are valid points i have been reading, but there are some points being left out.

1. If you have half a brain cell and you claim you are in IT, vista can run like a champ. It requires tweaks, but then so did XP. Also, XP was dog slow on the current hardware when it came out... (it ran slow on my dual 1GHz P3, but ran 2000 fast) but i reckon a lot of people here are not that old to remember. I so loved the BSOD everytime I tried to do something fun, like game? XP was a POS for the first 2 years it came out. It wasnt until SP1 that it started to be ok. It took to SP2 before it became good. I have reinstalled XP maybe 1000 times at various times since.

2. Bad drivers=bad windows. Nvidia anyone?

3. DRM... ripping out Directsound was a bone thrown to the RIAA and MPAA trusts. I have not encountered any DRM issues out of the fact that sound is no longer accelerated (no do not tell me x-fi was because it wasnt. I have one). I use mostly open source players and does not seem encumbered with DRM.

4. The one thing i have not seen mentioned and it ticks everyone off that works in IT. WGA and activation. This has no place. I bought Ultimate and vista ate itself about a month later. I reinstalled and when I called to reactivate, I was given the Riot act on why I was reinstalling. I told them their product sucked and it crashed... therefore I was reloading it. (they gave in). This is the one thing that sux in XP and is unforgivable in Vista. Microsoft is starting to think so to... that is why it just nags you to death now instead of reduced functionality mode.

5. What about gaming? I doubt running bioshock from a server would work very well.. (yes I am a gamer also). Web 2.0 is just hype. It has no basis in reality. Anyone who spends time in IT knows this. My company is testing thin clients for some people... (god is it slow). There has been talk about web based apps for 12 years now. The web 2.0 hype is just a new set of clothes for the pig. The internet is an indepensible utility for information, communication, and online gaming... but it will never replace local machines with local OS.

6. Linux is also a fat OS. However, while it has it's own shortcomings, it is as easy, if not easier than windows to learn now. (my 62 year old dad is running Linux Mint and loving it. His words, not mine.) This combined with Vista is the real reason why linux is getting faster uptake.

In conclusion, Vista may be an 800 lbs gorilla, but then so was XP at that time. Give Vista another year and it will be in the same position as XP was at the same age. But MS needs to dump WGA and activation. They would see a greater uptake if they did. Noone is going to drop $200-350 on something that they cannot reuse if their systems dies.

Thank you for your time.

@doctorx
Yes, there was a time when XP was considered slow, compared with Windows 2000. But not a year and a half after XP's RTM, and a service pack. And the difference in hard disk footprint and system requirements was nowhere near as extreme as from XP to Vista. And can you tell me what Vista can do that XP can't? Something compelling? Something of real value. I absolutely admit that my PC with Vista works flawlessly. But it does with XP also, just faster.

Many comments (but not the article) are implying that the problem of downsizing windows to mobile devices exists for Linux too. I just wanted to clear this up for people.

This is not true and really this is the *point*. If no other operating system could be scaled down then it would not even be worth mentioning in a report. The report is implicitly referring to the contrast with Linux. Linux scales down very well to low-end PCs, mobile internet devices, TV recorders, home media servers, PDAs, printers, smartphones and even very cheap phones. In fact, it has been put to commercial use in all of these applications. These things all run some variant of the Linux kernel and because it is so modular you can choose what you need and leave out what you don't. You're likely to have used Linux at least once on some device without realising it.

@doctor x:
Good points. And some comments:

1. Well, maybe more than half a brain cell. And more people are seeing that life it too short to fight with something that doesn't want to work for them. Vista's focus away from the consumer and toward the content owner has made Vista the user's mortal enemy, something XP never appeared as. Vista being late and slow and initially buggy isn't the problem. Vista's assumption that you and I are nothing more than low-life thieves IS the problem.

2. Yes, but.... Hardware manufacturers typically have razor-thin margins and a group of programmers with questionable software development skills. As Vista was late and getting later, why would a company commit resources to it? That company wouldn't survive to see its drivers run in Vista. It's the same argument that people use to condemn Linux drivers: A platform that has a small market is not going to get the focus. Period.

3. Yup. Vista treats the user--the owner of the computer--as the criminal who is guilty of theft before the first key is pressed. And you're using open source players to get around DRM? I wonder how long it will take Microsoft to figure out how to disable these end-runs around their preciousssss DRM.

4. Actually, our experience with XP and hardware changes is that yes, it does get upset when it detects a hardware change it doesn't like. But I found Microsoft to be relatively pleasant when reactivation is needed. Of course, XP and XP Pro has been widely "pirated" (actuall, piracy is theft on the high seas, but I digress), and as Microsoft tightens its WGA (or whatever it's doing) to disable these illegal copies, more and more of these illegal copies cease to function. So be it. Legitimate copies are (usually) easily reactivated as needed.

5. And the debate rages on. It's fun to watch. Mostly from the viewpoint offered by my fat clients. Because nobody seems to care about how fat their PC is; they only care about how much it costs and how much effort it takes to get it to work they way they want.

6. Yup. Fat being a relative term. Since a full installation of even the fattest distribution hardly puts a noticeable dent in most 200 GB disks.

Your conclusion is valid if expressed relative to the conditions that existed back in XP's growing heyday. But neither 2000 nor XP viewed its users as criminals. Vista is very late, it's full of hatred toward its users, the Linux world has made great usability strides, and there is a growing worldwide financial crisis (food and fuel, especially). Vista does NOT have the same luxury to take its sweet time to grow up and mature. It better be right the first time, right on time, and treat its users as if they were the center of the universe.

In baseball terms... Strike 3!

Yes Philosopher,

I completely agree with you. It has all been well and fine tuned to work together and restrict our freedom and save somebody's profits. Even the use of the word "piracy" for illegal copying. Guess who coined it first? Remember those ubiquitous ads reading: "Piracy is a crime ... how to tell". Actually REAL pirates are even murderers.

Yes, windows is too bloated as is many of the desktop applications that run on windows... office, acrobat, and so on. *IF* somebody could resurrect windows 2000 as an open source project, or even emulate a windows 2000 environment on a Linux platform... then I think this house of cards Could finally fall flat.

tallgeese

Each release of Microsoft's Windows OS has required an investment in new hardware.

While that may be true, there was a good reason for the additional hardware. It allowed the user to do more of what they wanted to do.

By the time you hit XP in about 2004. What more does a user need? You play, edit, encode and burn full screen video. You can play, edit and mix music. You can do email, word processing and browse the internet.

The only need for faster hardware now, is to run Vista at the same speed as you can run XP right now.

It is not like, wow, I will leave DOS behind for a graphic environment.

Or wow I will leave windows 3.1 at 640x480 behind for 800x600 or 1024x800.

Or wow, I will leave windows 95 behind for being able to play mp3's without them skipping.

Or wow, I will leave windows 98 behind so I can play full screen video.

There is no wow, I will leave Windows XP behind for....

What, translucent window borders and a much more complex control panel? Slowing networking? A security system that requires me to make decisions every step of the way?

There is just no reason to buy new hardware to run Vista. And anytime there is a little lag. It leaves you thinking "XP would SCREAM on this box".

To Fred:

Your list of WOW demonstrtes how many times Windows has been sold just before it became an OS in the Linux meaning of the word: something that allows multiple processes to run concurrently. I agree that the key was to link OS and its apps. Windows was a non-OS until Windows 2000.

It is a poor OS now. Look, it still leaves files locked when nothing uses them, cannot terminate a process (!!!!!!!!) that is unlucky to have problems within a system call, still occasionally displays windows that should be topmost, including the task panel (!!!), below other windows, and has administrative tools linked to the GUI while that GUI goes unusable when there is a problem that requires that very administrative tools, like low disk or CPU hungry run away process.

If averege "user" was not so dumb, Vista problems would have started with XP.

The next WOW will be Windows that does 64-bit as well as Linux.

There seems to be very little actual thinking of the potential business situation. Most comments seem to be from a home user perspective such as whether WEB 2.0 companies can be trusted with your data.
However a reasonable sized business will be hosting it's own internal systems, just as they do now for conventional file storage, database's etc - so for such companies these types of comments are not relevant.
But if you consider a cheap dumb terminal which only needs to load a browser interface to get access to network resources then there is serious money saving to be had. A tiny OS that can be hard coded onto a BIOS chip so no worries about viruses malware etc. For an example see the current Splashtop project.
No need for skilled PC support guys although PC support should really be called windows support. No Windows, the users can't spend all day playing with the wallpaper and themes and deleting system files. So if the device breaks down all you do is swap it out and turn the new one on. These things could be sent out in the internal post ( for you old timers like myself I'm thinking of flat screen devices not CRT's like we used to have).
Most end users do not need the full power of MS Office etc and could work perfectly well with Google Docs or an equivalent. Again a lot of users within businesses use specialised applications to perform there duties, so once these are ported to Web Interfaces ( which many apps currently are) then the thin client is all that is needed.
The argument about the backend server failing is irrelevant in these circumstances as these systems are useless without the backend servers whatever the client. This is why vital systems are usually clustered over multiple servers etc.
I would guess (note to trolls this is a guess based on my experience within IT over 20 years, I have no figures or statistics so feel free to flame away) that the number of users within most organisations who do need a full blown desktop and applications are very few, although everyone will insist that they do if asked.
But the bottom line is that as far as business goes it's all about the bottom line.

The question is, not whether Windows can be saved - but whether or not Microsoft can save itself.

The fact is Windows can not be saved as the fat desktop operating system as passed the time of being an marketable product. The operating system is now a commodity, it is the Applications that are relevant and these are increasingly become web-based which makes the Linux-based (or an Apple) desktop look all the more attractive.

The question is can Microsoft adapt? Does Microsoft have the ability to sucessfully transfer it's business applications (let's remember that Office is a good application, as our products like Dynamics - business will always need these.) to a web-deliverable environment -whilst simultaneously delivering a new version of Windows? All the expense on a new version of Windows will be wasted, once hardware manufacturers start to release a slew of non-windows based hardware.

Should Microsoft cut it's losses and ditch windows to concentrate on the Server/Business application side of things? But then without the revenue from OEM installs of Windows where would Microsoft be?

Also it's server OS is starring down the barell of a gun - for if applications break free of the desktop back to the server then very quickly the biggest bottom line savings come in hardware architecture - x86_64 may not be the platform for future massive web-apps. And will Linux or Windows adapt best to more exotic hardware? (Welcome back Sun & IBM - your investment in Linux paid off, without a strong free server OS we couldn't have this debate) Also some of the key features of Windows server relate to it's ease of integration with - Windows Desktops - without these what is it's real purpose?

So with it's Desktop/Server business under pressure it's only hope is delivering applications to businesses in combination with it's partners. Yet can it do this effectively whilst the desktop & server weight it down? Or will it be overtaken by new/old companies who are free to concentrate on this?

Hardware vendors have seen what the iPod/iPhone can do - and they want a piece of it. They can't do this with Windows so expect more and more cheap network devices without windows - these devices will push the desktop as know it out.

It's quite simple - I'm 24 and I know what a computer is right down to the electronic level. But we are exceptional. I see that a good proportion of 16 year school leavers don't know what a hard disk is, yet alone how to use 95% of what Windows does. They really don't. Yet you sit them in from of Windows or Linux or OSX and they quickly feel comfortable. That may sound like a contradiction but it's not - why? Because they don't USE Windows or Linux or OSX - they use the INTERNET.

Many of them don't even know how to use a desktop email program. As long as they have access to Gmail, MySpace, MSN etc and can sync their iPod, play videos, mess with and print photo's etc -they are happy.

And they are where the money lies for hardware manufacturers, if someone offers them a £150 device with a screen & keyboard/mouse and network connection - which can do all those things they do - they don't care what OS runs. But it sure as hell won't run Vista.

cjp

"OS decisions are predicated by applications or hardware."

Exactly! And that is why Linux won't take over the home market any time in the near future. Why do I have to shutdown my Suse box and boot into Windows? Because just like 95% of desktop users there are things I want to do that just can't be done in Linux. I want to edit some video. I want to play Battlefield. I want to run Quickbooks. I want to run AutoCAD. So what if there are alternatives to these applications? I use Gimp instead of Photoshop, Blender instead of Maya, Thunderbird instead of outlook... but in reality, most people want to use what they use at work. That's what they're used to. Why are people installing XP over Vista? Because that's what they're used to. I hated Vista when I first used it, but it's at least livable now. SP1 actually sped the thing up--but it's still not as fast as my Suse install...

People have been talking about abstracting the operating system forever now. Software as a Service, Platform as a Service... This is great, but when your work requires AutoCAD, Premiere, or something similar SaaS and PaaS go out the window. It's useless. The operating system has, is, and always will be integral. Businesses are not going to buy CAD machines that only run CAD. The PC will always need to be multi-faceted, no matter the OS. Thin clients have their place, but it is not THE answer. Cloud computing is great on a small scale, but it is not the future of all computing.

Linux developers focus on the next release. They fix bugs, but they don't try to keep a nine-year old operating system running. That doesn't make sense, so why as users are we demanding to keep XP alive when Microsoft could be focusing on the here and now. Fix Vista or replace it. Start by removing legacy support and backwards compatibility--start over with a new code base. Replace backwards compatibility with emulation.

That's my ramble. Have a good day.

I'm surprised that anyone would want to run Vista for playing music.

A dual-core 2GB machine just to play MP3s? Insanity, but the fact is that just to run Vista requires such hardware. This does _not_ include the applications!

Vista will fail because people don't run Vista in order to run Vista. They run it to run applications.

When XP can do the same job in 256MB on a 900MHz machine, when Linux can do the same job on 128MB on a 500MHz machine, why run Vista at all?

Much like what happens as the price of gas goes up. People look for alternatives. The "cost" of Vista is so great, in terms of what it requires to run, that people are looking for alternatives.

It's that simple.

As far as MS re-writing Vista to run smaller and faster, why? Use XP. Use Linux.

All the answers to these problems already exist. Microsoft, by making Windows7, is making an expensive, redundant product. I won't be buying it.

@Joe Wilcox:

Nobody yet has been able to answer me; perhaps you can. What does Windows Vista do that Windows XP does not/cannot? What productivity apps or video/imaging apps or games can I play on Vista that I cannot with XP? Is there something in Vista that maybe down the road it will be able to run things XP will not?

Security. I ran Windows XP behind a router firewall, Windows firewall, and fully updated AVG. I never had a virus or trojan. I did surf the internet and opened emails with common sense and security in mind. Is the added security in Vista what makes it so much better? Is it truly better? If so, is that all?

Joe, don't get me wrong. I have been running Vista Ultimate on my PC for about 2 years (including betas & RC's) and have had virtually no problems. I just don't know what is the added value of Vista. Some say that people won't move to Vista because XP is "good enough". I am saying that Vista isn't "better enough". I can't even say it is better at all. Vista works great for me. But so what. So does XP and it REALLY feels faster on my machine.

Joe. Can you tell me what is better in Vista? What does Vista allow us to do that XP does not? If there is anything, is it worth the cost of a copy of Vista and the time and effort getting it up and running with all our apps on our PC's?

> Replace backwards compatibility with emulation.

WINE works very well, but not for everything. My son's games are better supported with ever release, so my "need" for having Windows at all is diminishing.

I like VirtualBox with XP for those programs written for Windows that WINE can't run.

I cannot recommend VirtualBox highly enough. If you've never tried it, do. With Linux's I/O efficiency, XP runs faster in VirtualBox than natively.

@Bob Robertson

You are so right. And nobody so far has been able to tell me why anyone should have Vista. The Vista fans say it has "compelling features for consumers and for business users, features that will see acceptance - and potentially love - over the longer term". Umm, wouldn't you say that is a bit vague? I have never heard or read any specifics regarding what Vista does better than XP or what Vista does that XP does not. Vista runs great, just slower and with much greater system requirements. I think it has been a big waste of money and time.

jsmythe is on the right track, but is also wrong.
In the organization that I work for I would agree that no more than about 20% of our staff need desktop PC's and the rest could use thin clients as jsmythe described.
However there are then the directors and managers who make the decisions. They purchase new PC's for there homes and these inevitably come with Vista. Then as it's what they use at home they insist that is what they need at work ditto MS Office. This is in spite of the fact that at work they have PA's or secretaries to do all their office work, check their email etc. These people have no need for a PC/laptop at work but insist on high spec machines with the latest software. They then insist that everyone must upgrade to match, despite protests from IT and Accountancy.
Microsoft know this is how things are, so they know that if they can get the Vista into the home it will follow into the workplace.
Sounds stupid I know, but we are just starting a major migration project for just these reasons.
Game set and match to Microsoft.

Hey Dave Lindhout :

In regards to the idea of a do over, let me add this. Apple was in far worse shape than Microsoft when it declare a do over for their then flagship operating system, OS 9. What some of your readers may not know is that Apple failed more than once before OS X was born. The saving grace was that they never released those products.

Also lets not forget. They had to go OUTSIDE to buy a solution. There is no one waiting in the Wings to save Microsoft.

They could build on top of BSD or Linux. But with the advent of Winodws 7. It looks like they are going it on their own.

@Bob Robertson
I agree, WINE does work very well. I use it all the time. But it's not 100%, and that's the problem. When people have applications that their job depends on, they can't just hope that it works. It has to work.

Doesn't running VirtualBox (or any other VM) just take away from the whole point of moving to another operating system? You still have to have a license to run the guest operating system. You still depend on the updates and support. And you're still allowing the software developers to get away with only supporting Windows.

@Blimpieboy:

"When people have applications that their job depends on, they can't just hope that it works. It has to work."

True, but people keep using Windows. So it isn't such a strong enforceable statement. A corrected version would be:

"When people have applications that their job depends on and they can't blame anything else for their failure, they can't just hope that it works. It has to work. Otherwise they can use Windows and blame it for all their trouble."

Sadly enough this is true for a lot of people and a flawless OS would only expose their flaws and would not be welcomed in the work environment.

If Web 2.0 is the best we have to look forward to then heaven help us...

I want applications that have graphics acceleration, are visually stunning, and allow me to interact with a pc in a new way. Voice recognition, handwriting recognition, device integration and AI are not possible on a thin client...

Once WPF/Silverlight becomes main-stream and people see the kinds of applications that are possible with it they will forget about Web 2.0. The future is high powered smart clients with advanced hardware using web technologies for integration to back end systems.

I agree that Vista is bloated. This certainly needs to be addressed. I suspect the next version will use virtualization for backward compatibility with applications written for previous versions of Windows, which means they are free to create a slick fast “from the ground up” Windows version for future applications. The biggest problem with the current way they develop Windows is that every change made to the system must be backward compatible which means features are often a compromise between performance and compatibility, not to mention that this uses up a huge amount of development resources.

I don't know what most of you are trying to say but I do know that at work I use Microsoft and I am continually cussing at the problems I encounter. At home I use OSX and it is simply a blissful experience. When I want to upgrade, it is simple , when I want to multitask it just does it and when I look for security flaws in my system, I don't find any!

I expect rampant Microbashing elsewhere but on the Microsoft-Watch site? Joe, you go from MS lover to MS hater and back again - can't you just be objective?

"When I want to upgrade, it is simple , when I want to multitask it just does it and when I look for security flaws in my system, I don't find any!"

You didn't look hard enough...
http://cybernetnews.com/2008/03/28/in-2-minutes-you-can/

And don't tell me that the reason the Macbook Air got cracked first was because more people wanted it. I'm sure there was at least one person that also wanted the other two machines for free.

Many fine comments on a OK article.
Let me try to add my 0.02 cents (euro).
I remember Gates in some speach said "I think Vista is really scary".
Scary as in very good, I suppose.
When Longhorn - Shorthorn - Vista was defined as the ultimate OS of all times, I belive Gates was the main architect, or the head architect, or the god architect or something.
I seriously think Gates had visions of visions of value.
But Gates is not an innovator, he never was.
Strengths, yes, but in other respects.
I feel sorry for all those programmers who tried to read his lips, and in a way, I feel sorry for Gates who did not find, and is looking abroad, for those eyes to read his lips.

Well there is nothing scary about Vista.
What is scary is the way Microsoft is acting to day.

Security, Vista, the way Microsoft is looked upon bye users, reputation, does not matter to Microsoft at all.
Microsoft is to day in the process of infiltrating communities and states all around the globe.

And that is far more inportant for Microsoft than any stupid problems with Vista.

I wish those who collect taxes in different countries like the US, and the EU, took a harder look at how Microsoft money is delivered and to whom.

And well, is there a more perfect way to corrupt and infiltrate goverments than through charity.

you mean to say Larry Elison was right? Remember the network appliance/smart terminal? Ugh.

"Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it"

And don't forget its corollary:
"Those who remember the past are condemned to watch those who don't repeat it."

The problem with dumb terminals isn't that they are useless when the server or network are unavailable. It's that they make you a slave to the group of people who own the server and who decide what you can and cannot do with your terminal.

Those who believe that fat clients free you from server and network outages should see the average person's reaction when their internet provider is experiencing a network outage. That fat client is suddenly viewed as a useless paperweight.

The PC represented freedom... not freedom from server or network outages... rather, freedom from the whims, edicts, and clutches of the servers and their increasingly-drunk-with-power owners.

You want a custom report from the mainframe? Stand in line and wait for your audience with the mainframe owners, and be prepared to worship the ground they walk on while you wait endlessly. But you have a PC? Then ignore the wanna-be pompous mainframe bureaucrats, roll up your sleeves, get with a few friends if you need to, and get the job done in a fraction of the time and without having to pay homage to the server goons.

Just like the "mainframe goons" you refer to I do not wish to pay homage (and a boat load of cash)for windoze. In the past 6 months 2 of our clients looked at the cost of having to replace 70% of the desktops, pay for vista, pay for the office suite, etc. to move to vista. We then showed them the costs for using the same hardware to run Linux, purchase support and install openoffice AND train existing personnel. In one case the company saved over $700,000 in the roll-out.

They will continue to save as the windoze office suite upgrades cost $$$ and openoffice does not, same for OS upgrades. Also, running openoffice supports open standards for document exchange instead of being locked into a single vendor for access to your documents. Ever tried to send an excel spreadsheet to someone not running windoze? They get the document, but can't open it unless they move to the windoze OS and buy the windoze spreadsheet; so much for an open exchange of ideas.

msft is beginning to collapse under it's own weight. It will continue to have a place in IT for some time (we still have clients running VMS today). But it will sink into oblivion kicking and screaming and make anyone working with it's products wish they had never drank the windoze cool aid

Unfortunately for my company, AutoDesk (makers of AutoCAD) were conned (bought off?) by Microsoft into making their current release of AutoCAD and related products run only on Vista. So while we are happy running AutoCAD 2006 on XP, after June 30th we'll be stuck having to spend $$$ on an unneeded application upgrade just so the freakin' software will run on a platform (Vista) that we'd rather not buy and have to support and integrate in the first place. I know my CEO and CFO are pretty pissed at the prospect.

I've been programming on Microsoft platforms since the IBM XT and Vista didn't kill the Windows platform, .Net did. Many utilities and add-ons (from the applications groups inside Microsoft) write in .Net and .NET is FAT FAT FAT. Sending the memory AND processor requirements through the roof at a time when processor performance (murphy's law) has seemingly stalled as well as user requirements for small has increased.
I called it years ago when I saw it. .Net is going to be Microsoft's undoing.

P.S. Windows next version (7) will be hyper-visor based 'BaseOS' with a HAL to a 'thin' Win7 sessions running many 'OS's of what ever compatibility and capability configurations you want.

So what does this mean for the future of Windows XP Embedded / Windows CE?

Hey Fred,

I'm going to agree with your OUTSIDE comment, even though a great deal of the work Apple adopted came from NeXt, Steve Job's gig between his Apple gigs. And while NeXt's development sat idle, BSD continued to be enhanced and cared for. roughlydrafted.com has some great history of the development.

And all of this is exactly my point. You don't release version 1.0 of a kernel and release it to the general public running a huge variety of hardware. And you certainly don't push it out the door in the timeframe Microsoft is talking about. The fact that Apple went outside for the core of their operating system is a GOOD thing.

Why reinvent the wheel? Apple has differentiated it's product by adding to a mature OS. It now boasts of Unix certification where compatibility and reliability counts. And adds it's own flare to attract a broader audience.

Microsoft has not exactly been able to 'roll it's own' over the years. Vista has proven to me that Microsoft is unable to produce an operating system according to plan, or in a timely fashion. Windows 7 will be no different.

I want to know more about the architecture of operating system.

I want to know more about the architecture of operating system.

How easy is it to install and use a unix system? Where can i get it from? Persuit of microsoft products released every year not well polished - to be patched and patched has finally hit my nerves. They are just window-dressed software products heavily markerted but full of bugs and a target for million viruses! help me try something different please!

This is Microsoft's major drawback which will keep it behind other competitors...