It’s not just applications, it’s also hardware. You don’t just want to run neat apps, you want to connect neat gizmos and have them work.

So how do you get the applications to play nicely with the hardware? That’s right—through the operating system. That’s its job.

The only reason Microsoft is cutting stuff out is because it has hit an evolutionary dead end. The proprietary software business model needs to keep offering new reasons for customers to buy new versions of the software, otherwise it dies. That model has now gone past the point of diminishing returns, to the point of _negative_ returns. This is why so many customers are sticking with Windows XP: that was the limit of the evolution of the proprietary model, and everything after that (Windows Vista, and soon to be Windows 7) has done nothing but reinforce that point.

As evidence that the operating system still matters, look at the discussions about upcoming, even cheaper, lower-power netbook-type machines based on ARM processors. How will you port your apps onto those machines? First you have to have a portable operating system, of course.

And guess what? Windows isn’t it.

The OS part is often (but not in all cases) the least consideration. Despite a relatively small proportion of acolytes, who gets excited about buying the next version of Windows? People will buy Windows because they're accustomed to using Microsoft Word and anyway, what choice is there? (For the most part, only geeks are aware of choices.)

Ideally the OS should be a commodity item and cost next to nothing (hmm, that sounds like Linux or FreeBSD or OpenBSD). One serious problem that Microsoft has is that it has always been pushing Office + Windows. I've always found the Mac versions of Office poorer than the PC version - but that may be dumb luck - it's not as if I get to load and try out every version. But Microsoft absolutely resist developing its products for other systems like Solaris, Linux, *BSD. Now MS find itself in a world where there are many alternative software solutions which run on various incarnations of UNIX and even Windows. What to do? Waste money on ads, threaten litigation, and redouble efforts to kill interoperability. How can Microsoft not see that as hanging itself? There is such a morbid fear of Free software that MS is not willing to release its proprietary software on Free operating systems. Sure not many people will think it's fantastic to be able to run Office on Suse 11, but that would only be a foot in the UNIX door. Over the years more software will be available for multiple platforms and one day MS may realize its goal to take away UNIX market share - and if not, at least they're still selling apps into that market.

Sorry to tell you this but Microsoft does think the OS is the most important part of the equation. Thats why they said, that Office was the moat that protects windows. Thats why they illegally co-opted the office products competition and thats why they illegally bundle windows with all new PC's that OEM's make.
Thats why they illegally bundled explorer and media player with windows, to make sure windows was the OS. Thats why they illegally put other competition to death using whatever means they could use. Windows is the be all and end all of microsoft and the minute everyone grabs a brain and realises this , then thats the minute microsoft is done for. Dont believe crap, understand the truth.

ahhh but MicroShaft has a little cat in the bag for all of us using Xp or Vista or someday 7 even.
It comes in the form of Activation... Microsoft controls activation therefore they control whether or not you can continue to use your old operating system they did not have the activation structure in 95,98,NT so when you bought those Operating Systems you actually owned them.

Now when they finally decide to pull the activation plug your 'lease' on Xp/Vista/7/..... will be up.
Oh it will work till you need a reinstall but how many years can you go without reinstalling?
I'm sure there will be an excuse such as the continued cost of keeping the activation servers up as the product has reached the end of its cycle and they can't afford to keep doing it or some Bs like that I wonder how many people will go to OS alternatives then and how many will suck it up and buy er. rent the next Microshaft Os then or maybe Ms will go to an up front rental model where you pay monthly to have OS Service with some sort of contract for a year or two that way the have guaranteed revenue.

Well all those XP and Vista thieves will then be my best friends as I see no reason to go out and buy something if my old one isn't broke...

You wrote an entire blog post on how the OS is no longer important, then you say this.

"My answer: applications, applications, applications, compatibility/interoperability, security and manageability."

So you are saying that there are other things which are important. If the OS was didn't matter then you could use XP SP1 with a direct connection to the internet as your machine. Security is fairly important to most people.

Add that to the fact that certain applications (like the window manager/dock etc) are all specific to the OS so part of an OS contains apps which you cannot use on another OS. For example I cannot live without middle-click paste or multiple desktops, none of those are really OS features, but they are provided by apps which are almost part of the core OS. Windows will still be shipping with explorer.exe.

I think you are getting confused by the fact that cross platform and internet based applications do not care what the OS is, that is different from the OS not having any differentiating features.

Microsoft is removing everything from Windows because they are scared of the EU, not because they think it makes for a better OS.

The OS on a DVD player makes a big difference, I have seen many boxes differentiated by the OS. Sagem used to make cheap digital receivers, but their OS kept crashing and freezing. To me, not crashing is an important feature in a set-top box.

@Lawrence D'Oliveiro:

ARM? Think "Windows CE". I've coded for CE in a previous life (ca 2003); I didn't think it was an awful system but I always thought it so bizarre that my coding had to be hobbled a bit when using what is a fairly capable processor. Unfortunately I've only run CE for 2 weeks at most - I never had the OS hang on me though; it was the accursed proprietary 3rd party software that caused the system to crash and trip the watchdog. So all in all I have nothing bad to say about CE - but personally I wouldn't use it simply because I'm a tightwad and will use Free Software whenever I can. If a customer is adamant about using WinCE, or for x86 MS Embedded Standard (WinXP), that's fine by me - it's their money.

Microsoft hit their high water mark with 98SE. Mac is nothing but Debian Linux. And Linux is only attractive to geeks who want to spend more time tweaking their box than USING it. They pretty much ALL suck.

"Mac is nothing but Debian Linux."

Hate to be pedantic, but they use the XNU kernel which was based on Mach which contains a lot of BSD code is totally different to Linux. You are probably confusing the userland tools with the kernel. Most people interact with the GUI toolkit which is Cocoa on OSX and Qt/GTK on Linux. Even geeks do not interact with the kernel directly.

You should have compared OSX to FreeBSD since it is closer. But then you would not let facts get in the way of a perfectly good rant, just like Joe.

@ Hugo Danner:

Funny about that "spend more time tweaking their box than using it" comment: dropped an Ubuntu disk into my box last summer, it Just Loaded Up in about 40 minutes, and the only "tweaks" I have to deal with is adding the occasional new app, or about 15 minutes monthly running the system update utility. Reboots happen when the power glitches.

My wife's Windows machine I spend about 1-2 hours a week running antivirus/anti-spyware, then end up bouncing it because Windows Update needs to reboot for some bugfix to 'take'.

Tell me again which OS takes more time invested...

Microsoft is not in denial about applications. What is the mantra at Redmond? Yup:

Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers ......

P U.

This is like listening to a third grade class arguing about who keeps the crayon in the lines better.

The entire operating system argument among all the various proponents misses the point.

It's the virtualization ability that matters.

The OS needs to be there ostensibly to control the bare metal resources so applications can work. If the application carries its own resource controls, the OS is not needed.

The ability to virtualize applications renders the OS argument moot.

What's coming next will give all you frantic OS defenders spotty underwear. The ability to virtualize granular parts of the application renders application source another pointless exercise.

Commoditization is achieved through granular virtualization (the ability to render any data point arbitrary) and that era will throw a welcomed blanket over the techie conversation, putting them where all tech discussions need to be put: behind the scenes.

You folks who've had so much unmerited fun being in the forefront of technological opinion for decades are about to find out what the typesetting profession felt when Mister Guttenberg's invention fell to the selenium drum.

Mister Ringmster... drumroll please.

@portuno_diamo

Pft.... then we'll argue about which company offers the best virtulization platform or hardware.

Where theres a way theres a flame fest.

I don't think Microsoft has been in denial about applications for about 24 years. However, the point of the article does have implications for any "platform" vendor.

Personal opinion: I was the Director of Research and Development at Digital Research (the company that wrote/sold the first microcomputer OS'es: CP/M & MP/M). In the mid-80's Microsoft had decided that applications were core to it's business and thus thrived while DRI consciously left app development to ISVs and, despite the best efforts of some of us within the company to change that, eventually faded into computing history.

@Robert Halloran :

Every decent Antivirus/Spyware suite out there automatically updates and can be scheduled to do regular scans. You never have to touch it.

Windows updates can be configured to automatically download and install critical updates. The system will reboot all on it's own after the update unless you specifically modify local policy to prevent it. Automatic updates will wake computers up from sleep mode to install updates.

Windows vista has low-level defrag tech that runs during cpu quite times. and can be scheduled.

I own 6 computers and I spend jack in maintenance time.

Don't get your point.

As a developer, the OS does matter. I have to choose a OS and write to its APIs. Writing portable code between Windows, Mac and Linux is very difficult. I can (and do) a lot with Java, but it has its limitations.

It used to be that Windows owned the market and writing to Windows was the way to go. 98% of your customers ran Windows and you could pretty much write one program for the then flavors of Windows (98 and NT) fairly easily. Now Windows has fragmented with many completely different versions, WinCE, XBox, WinMobile, Zune, XP, Vista, Azure, all very different and pretty much (even with .Net) to write one program to run on all of them. Add to that Windows diminishing market share and you have Macs and Linuxs outdoing various Windows segments.

For developers this is the biggest push away from Rich client and on to Ajax browser based applications. Here you need to worry about differences between IE, FireFox, Safari and Chrome. But IE is really the only different one. And the toolkits like GWT are really good at hiding this from you. So then its not the OS in general that matters, but the browser on the client and the operating system on the server.

@Billybob

Joe's vision is cloud computing becoming the norm. If it happens OS WON'T matter. At least not to the end user.Desktop security won't mean a damned thing because nothing will be stored on the desktop. Connections to web based apps will be secured using encryption and authentication certificates.

The attack target of the future will be large scale corporate clouds, and People by way of social engineering. We're seeing a slow migration to cloud computing right before our eyes as more and more of what people do is enabled by the web.

I've visited companies where every user connected to a virtual desktop. Each desktop was firewalled and the virtualization platform was a low attack surface firewalled infrastructure. All web browsing was secured via proxies and filtering. Any infected desktop could be rebuilt in minutes.

All applications were streamed from a centralized source. The applcations themselves were virtualized.

For my part I don't think we're going to that world anytime soon. There are large Chunks of Americans that don't have access to high-speed internet. But make no mistake,Cloud computing will continue to change our digital lives. I think Operating systems are at an evolutinary dead end. In the end there will still be desktop computers out there because people like having their data on machines they can control. I don't trust google, amazon, or microsoft with my Data. Most people won't give a damn about that though.

Wow. So much sophistry, so little time to refute.

First of all, "doesn't matter" is a meaningless term. What does it mean for something to "matter"? That it compelled people to pay money for it? That it convinced developers to create those all-critical applications for it? That it found (by hook or by crook) virtual ubiquity for a big part of the last two decades?

"If operating systems mattered, Be OS would have been a rock star, Mac OS market share would be even bigger, and Ubuntu would outsell Windows Vista 3-to-1—at least."

I'll ignore the slurping sound you made downing the Shuttlesworth Kool-aid. The statement is ridiculous. It confounds the technical merits of an operating system with its overall impact on users: that is, availability of applications.

Yes, at a certain point, the tail wags the dog: applications create market share for an operating system, and an operating system's market share drives applications. But that has nothing to do with the vacuous analysis of "mattering".

Of course, virtualization and the cloud may undermine the role of operating systems in the purchasing of the computing utility, but that represents a SHIFT in what matters, NOT proof that the OS never "mattered" (whatever the Hades that means in the first place).

Sometimes, things that sound like a Zen koan are merely stupid.

smist08 : You should try Qt Creator and the Qt toolkit. It is cross platform and does not make the GUI look like Java. It is written in standard C++ which is well documented with a lot of support.

http://www.qtsoftware.com/products/developer-tools/developer-tools?currentflipperobject=821c7594d32e33932297b1e065a976b8

Most of KDE is already working on Windows and Mac because of this, it did not take much code modification for them to work once Qt was ready.

So, what you're really saying...is operating systems are...plumbing?

If I remove work from the equations, OS doesn't matter, in fact, platform is starting to not matter... I haven't been a desktop user for a while-- strictly portable, yet now I'm using my mobile more and more.

Even weirder is how much of my morning I've wasted looking at watches. Thanks for that, Joe.

Your OS should matter if your banking system was hacked....Ask the IMF why they shipped their 40 Windows servers to MS to FIX... Ask Citibank what they thing about their MS hacks....Ask the financial markets what they think about using Windows now...

Operating systems do matter. It manages the interactions between your applications and hardware devices, memory management, pre-emptive multitasking. Those are benefits of an operating system to provide reliability, security, performance and ease of use. Windows Vista and 7 are not Windows 95, they are modern 'multimedia' operating systems, so is Mac OS X. They provide more than the traditional concept of an operating systems. We need get out of the 60's definition of an operating system. If we were to still follow the same principles early developers had in mind, I would be typing this message through a command line.

I expect my operating system to carry some fundamental functionality out of the box: Web Browser, Media Player, Networking. In fact, I remember the days when you had to acquire a network stack for the OS. Do we really want to go back to those days? I don't think so! We have evolved, the web browser being the most fundamental important built in feature in the OS. Part of it has grown over the years based on consumer feedback, they want this feature, they want that feature. They also expect a level of satisfaction, it must run/work a certain way. Windows provides that and that's why operating systems matter.

Was ActiveX one of those things that people just had to have? Not to mention automatic execution of email attachments. Neither of those did much for security.

MS seems to have forgotten that the purpose of the OS is to run programs. Look at Win7 Home, it only runs 3 programs. Browser, Virus Checker, Anti-spyware? Can it even run Office?

Qt looks pretty good. If I were to write another traditional desktop application, I think I would use that. But now that I write for the browser, I don't want to go back and the marketplace is demanding browser based applications. No one wants to install anything anymore.

@smist08 @ 11:15

"I have to choose a OS and write to its APIs."

No. You don't.

That is the problem with the API model you're developing for, but it doesn't have to be that way.

We're entering a new paradigm brought on by next generation XML processing tools. Those who maser early will be in the best position to reap in a coming disruption to developers.

Take a good look at this:
http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Flex-AIR-Christophe-Coenraets

Before any of you jump the snark, at least put out the 1hour effort and give an honest assessment of the presentation content. I'm sick of people who claim to know so much and know the issues then walk straight into corners they would have thought through if they had actually looked.

Once you see the budding capabilities, imagine Silverlight trying to do what you see and then ask yourself what Silverlight 3.0/Expression had better provide. They had better provide the same kind of capabilities and better (there's plenty of room for innovation and advancement in AIR and that will unfold as Adobe meters their market) or MSFT Silverlight will be a used-to-be.

A developer should have the option of using whatever language he cares to use on any platform he may encounter. And you should be able to do so (on a web browser or a desktop or pdatop or settop or celltop or watchtop... any http/local interface )for the purpose of integrating functionality between applications of any type.

This means interoperating between web-page components and desktop components at any internet link and it can be done by using language you like.

Now, THAT is "developing".

See there? You can keep your experience and modernize it too.

@ Ghostdizzle:

You're right in that the stuff can be scheduled. The *point* is that it's 'maintenance' time where the box is fairly well-occupied and not useful.

Back to "Hugo Danner's" original point: sure there are "distro whores" that try every version of Linux as they pop up, but on the flip-side there's all those Win7-beta junkies out there too. Most of us are just happily using our systems without needing to tinker, and I'd contend the *need* to tinker with most current Linux versions is as little or less than anything coming out of Redmond.

smist08 : Correction

Windows 7 Home Basic, Home Premium all run unlimited applications. Windows 7 Starter Edition is restricted to 3 applications on the Taskbar. Get your facts straight and stop misinforming people.

Starter Edition and Home Edition swapped places for some unknown reason. As far as western audiences are concerned Starter == the new Home. They are restricted for the first time ever and I think some people will be upset. It is not very surprising that people would make the same mistake.

"We need get out of the 60's definition of an operating system."

That is rubbish, Microsoft is actually going in the opposite direction because it makes the system more reliable, secure and configurable. You obviously do not know what a kernel is or why it should be separate from the userland, so stop spreading misinformation.

All of the early principles about reusability and modularity still apply, it is a shame that Microsoft thought they could do otherwise. If you want to get rid of old practices then rewriting the registry would be a good start.

In scanning the first 29 comments quickly, I have to conclude that most of the posters don't get it, Joe. Personally, I couldn't agree with you more. I'm a marketing director in a software company, and I've held many similar (and not so similar) roles at various companies large and small over the last 25+ years. You hit the nail on the head. My soon-to-be-college-freshman son talks about buying a PC for school, even though he uses a Mac now. Why? For what he can run on Windows that he can't run on Mac OS... even the kids get it. Although last night he said that since the MacBooks run Windows better than PCs, he's back in the Mac camp... best of both worlds!

As for cloud computing ... if you thought Vista was resource-hungry, then trying to run an office suite written entirely in interpreted JavaScript is only going to make things worse. That’s just not going to be practicable on low-powered netbook machines.

And virtualization—that’s completely irrelevant. It’s basically a tactic to try to get around the fragility of Windows Server—unlike Unix/Linux, it’s been traditional to avoid putting multiple apps on the same Windows box.

@ Sheryl Breuker :

Yes, Sheryl, basically the OS *should* be providing the underpinnings for the stuff you actually want to get done without getting in your way.

Depending on what those apps are, Windows may not be your best choice. Traditionally graphics-oriented apps have been "best-fit" to Mac, and the rising functionality of Linux makes it more and more feasible for the 'Aunt Minnie' user (web browse, email, light office docs, random media). Windows is still, better or worse, must-have for certain apps (Photoshop, hardcore gaming), but that list is getting shorter (ex. WoW actually works faster in Windows emulation under Linux than natively, as long as you have a higher-end video card). The increasing size of the Windows bundle is starting to make some folks question whether the get-in-your-way factor is enough to justify moving.

Robert Halloran :
@ Ghostdizzle:

You're right in that the stuff can be scheduled. The *point* is that it's 'maintenance' time where the box is fairly well-occupied and not useful.

Ummmm.... no. Windows update will install in the background and allow you to continue working. Smart defrag, will stop the defrag process until you stop using the computer. Yes SOME antivirus software will consume processor cycles during a scan, but the best kinds have real time protection engines that use little resources and basically stay the hell out of your way.

See both arguments are basically worthless because they're all subjective.

For me the Distros of Linux I've tried never just "worked" Even Ubuntu that you tout gave me fits because of shoddy wireless support.

You take issue with performing updates to security software, (which can be largely automated) you just don't want to be bothered, and that's your right.

It all comes down to what the user wants to do. Ubuntu would be a waste of time for me because that's not the world I live in or want to live in. I mean can you even get video cards to run in SLI mode in Ubuntu? How about quad SLI? It comes down to what's important to the user.

I'm USED to the Micrsoft ecosystem of applications and hardware support. It works for me. You on the other hand seem to want a clean lightweight OS with less security concerns. That's cool for you and I'm glad you're getting what you need. But generalizations are pointless and just spur arguments.

Robert Halloran :
@ Ghostdizzle:

You're right in that the stuff can be scheduled. The *point* is that it's 'maintenance' time where the box is fairly well-occupied and not useful.

Ummmm.... no. Windows update will install in the background and allow you to continue working. Smart defrag, will stop the defrag process until you stop using the computer. Yes SOME antivirus software will consume processor cycles during a scan, but the best kinds have real time protection engines that use little resources and basically stay the hell out of your way.

See both arguments are basically worthless because they're all subjective.

For me the Distros of Linux I've tried never just "worked" Even Ubuntu that you tout gave me fits because of shoddy wireless support.

You take issue with performing updates to security software, (which can be largely automated) you just don't want to be bothered, and that's your right.

It all comes down to what the user wants to do. Ubuntu would be a waste of time for me because that's not the world I live in or want to live in. I mean can you even get video cards to run in SLI mode in Ubuntu? How about quad SLI? It comes down to what's important to the user.

I'm USED to the Micrsoft ecosystem of applications and hardware support. It works for me. You on the other hand seem to want a clean lightweight OS with less security concerns. That's cool for you and I'm glad you're getting what you need. But generalizations are pointless and just spur arguments.

Robert Halloran :
@ Ghostdizzle:

You're right in that the stuff can be scheduled. The *point* is that it's 'maintenance' time where the box is fairly well-occupied and not useful.

Ummmm.... no. Windows update will install in the background and allow you to continue working. Smart defrag, will stop the defrag process until you stop using the computer. Yes SOME antivirus software will consume processor cycles during a scan, but the best kinds have real time protection engines that use little resources and basically stay the hell out of your way.

See both arguments are basically worthless because they're all subjective.

For me the Distros of Linux I've tried never just "worked" Even Ubuntu that you tout gave me fits because of shoddy wireless support.

You take issue with performing updates to security software, (which can be largely automated) you just don't want to be bothered, and that's your right.

It all comes down to what the user wants to do. Ubuntu would be a waste of time for me because that's not the world I live in or want to live in. I mean can you even get video cards to run in SLI mode in Ubuntu? How about quad SLI? It comes down to what's important to the user.

I'm USED to the Micrsoft ecosystem of applications and hardware support. It works for me. You on the other hand seem to want a clean lightweight OS with less security concerns. That's cool for you and I'm glad you're getting what you need. But generalizations are pointless and just spur arguments.

Virtualization has zero to do with the fragility of the Windows server OS.

All operating systems are in efficient in the way they use hardware resources. Virtualization attempts to address those inadequacies with optiomized hypervised hardware and software.

Besides virtuzlized systems are easier to manage and recover in the case of failure. Easier to deploy to. Why install OSes over and over when you can create virtual templates that can be used on the fly? And if you think windows servers are the only servers being virtualized I have a bridge to sell you.

Lastly.... I've seen Windows small business servers where one system is used for file services, E-Mail, Sharepoint, IIS, directory services and SQL. And I've also seen single purpose Linux and Unix boxes.

“All operating systems are in efficient in the way they use hardware resources. Virtualization attempts to address those inadequacies with optiomized hypervised hardware and software.”

Considering that virtual hypervisors are written by the same people who write operating systems, can you spot the flaw in that argument?

“Why install OSes over and over when you can create virtual templates that can be used on the fly?”

Who says I have to install them over and over? With just a simple rsync command, I can replicate one OS install as many times as I like. All the major distros already include tools for managing mass installs, it’s nothing new.

There is no flaw.

These are facts.

I know, I'm a server consolidation specialist. And speed of deployment is simply a side benefit.

I wonder..... how many virtual servers do you manage? How many ESX, XENApp, or Hyper-V host servers have you deployed? Any experience with Virtual center?
(btw last time I checked citrix and VMWare aren't in the OS business. The fact that some os developer also developed a hypervisior is a non sequitor)
Flexibility and resource management are the factors that are driving virtulization. For instance several hosting companies I've done work for sell virtual servers. Some of the servers are windows, some are OpenBsd, some are Linux.... What matters is each client get's it's own virtual space with the storage, memory, and processor cycles they need. Those resources can be reallocated in minutes. And since each server is isolated there's no danger of intellectual property theft. No need to crack open a server and add extra memory or another processor. The entire infrastructure is extremely scalable because you can simply add more servers with shared storage and centralized management.

It's sort of disconcerting that you think virtualization is about "windows" when one of the largest desktop virtulization projects was done in Brazil with Linux desktops.

Btw don't try to embroil me insome interjerk flamewar. I use windows at work, and OSX at home. I've virtualized everything from RHEL to Ubuntu server. I'm agnostic, I don't believe in Operating systems. They all suck in one way shape or another.

@ Sheryl Breuker :

Yes, Sheryl, basically the OS *should* be providing the underpinnings for the stuff you actually want to get done without getting in your way.

Depending on what those apps are, Windows may not be your best choice. Traditionally graphics-oriented apps have been "best-fit" to Mac, and the rising functionality of Linux makes it more and more feasible for the 'Aunt Minnie' user (web browse, email, light office docs, random media). Windows is still, better or worse, must-have for certain apps (Photoshop, hardcore gaming), but that list is getting shorter (ex. WoW actually works faster in Windows emulation under Linux than natively, as long as you have a higher-end video card). The increasing size of the Windows bundle is starting to make some folks question whether the get-in-your-way factor is enough to justify moving.

@Massive Quasars

"Desktop security won't mean a damned thing because nothing will be stored on the desktop."

What about passwords for web services? Keyloggers are just as useful against web attacks as local applications. In fact they are probably used more to access web based banking passwords than local user passwords.

If the PC is part of a botnet then it does not matter if the user is using cloud based apps or not, the botnet owner still gets to do what they like with your internet connection.

"Connections to web based apps will be secured using encryption and authentication certificates."

There is a massive amount of code to be run on the unencrypted data before it is sent. An infected operating system will still be able to see your data, even if you are using SSL.

@billybob :

When everything moves to the cloud you won't need much of an OS anymore Billy.

Kinda hard to infect something being run from a read only chip.

In fact I wouldn't be a bit suprised to see systems that boot from flash memory and run just enough code to establish a connection to a cloud.

A cloud OS as it were.

The whole world is about to change Billy. Not saying it will be 100% secure, nothing is... especially when so many people fall prey to social engineering. but the whole issue of "endpoint" security may very well enter into the realm of "remember when?"

I find the whole thing quite intriguing.

I have lost count of the number of systems I have put together connecting all the various pieces of hardware (Motherboard, processor, RAM, hard drive, optical drive etc) but not a single one has done anything useful without some kind of operating system to tie all the pieces together and make them work.

I cannot agree that the OS is irrelevant. Any device these days that runs on some kind of digital platform only runs because of its underlying OS. Whatever it is the OS is essential its ability to do anything at all.

ASUS have a thing called Express Gate integrated into many of their main boards which is a small OS stub loaded into a small amount of Flash memory in a chip on the board to enable quick access to the Internet and a few other rudimentary functions. It is that, and only that that gives those systems any functionality.

If anybody knows of an OSless computer please inform me.

I have lost count of the number of systems I have put together connecting all the various pieces of hardware (Motherboard, processor, RAM, hard drive, optical drive etc) but not a single one has done anything useful without some kind of operating system to tie all the pieces together and make them work.

I cannot agree that the OS is irrelevant. Any device these days that runs on some kind of digital platform only runs because of its underlying OS. Whatever it is the OS is essential its ability to do anything at all.

ASUS have a thing called Express Gate integrated into many of their main boards which is a small OS stub loaded into a small amount of Flash memory in a chip on the board to enable quick access to the Internet and a few other rudimentary functions. It is that, and only that that gives those systems any functionality without an OS loaded on the HDD.

If anybody knows of an OSless computer please inform me.

I have lost count of the number of systems I have put together connecting all the various pieces of hardware (Motherboard, processor, RAM, hard drive, optical drive etc) but not a single one has done anything useful without some kind of operating system to tie all the pieces together and make them work.

I cannot agree that the OS is irrelevant. Any device these days that runs on some kind of digital platform only runs because of its underlying OS. Whatever it is the OS is essential its ability to do anything at all.

ASUS have a thing called Express Gate integrated into many of their main boards which is a small OS stub loaded into a small amount of Flash memory in a chip on the board to enable quick access to the Internet and a few other rudimentary functions. It is that, and only that that gives those systems any functionality without an OS loaded on the HDD.

If anybody knows of an OSless computer please inform me.

Sorry about the multiple entries. This system wasn't behaving sensibly and gave me the impression that the posts wern't going up to the server.

Been happening all day.

"When everything moves to the cloud you won't need much of an OS anymore Billy."

LOL - What do you think the Cloud runs on? Pixie dust?

"Kinda hard to infect something being run from a read only chip."

A rapid spreading worm would not need to have writable media, it would essentially live in the wires of the internet and in infected machines. As soon as a machine reboots, it will be infected as soon as it reconnects to the internet. A bit like XP SP1.

The slightest bug in your read-only media would be exploited forever since you would have to resolder the chip to update.

The ways of exploiting machines may change, but that does not mean we will not have OS's which need to be secure. If there is no OS, or it does not care about security then how will we secure our data?

The point of an operatimg system is to bind the software, or quite literally to emulate the hardware. Operating systems like Windows move to a cloud to use less resources on the client side of the network, guess what happens when you lose a connection? all the work is gone, now you have to worry about your computer dying, your router dying, your ISP having an outage, any number of routers it takes to get to the server, those dying, and finally the server, now thats a lot more risk. applications? I'm leaning more toward familiarity, technoslugs seen word forever, all of the sudden the tech decides to put out openoffice instead and they freak out that it is not organized the same way. The mistake of Vista was that it used far too much hardware for its software which require bussinesses to replace every single computer, costs are too high to buy that many more new computers. Windows is not hardware, you forget there is also Unix, there are billions of distros mostly because it is open source.

"The list of products with operating systems is seemingly endless: automobiles, ATMs, calculators, cash registers, cell phones, coffee makers, DVD players, game consoles, microwaves, portable music players, set-top boxes, stereo receivers, televisions, etc." Most of those are applications, ATMs, Cell phones, Automobiles, calculators, DVD players, game consoles, music players are the only ones you mentioned have their own operating system to minimize hardware to maximize its value, only a trick of its trade, all the others you mentioned are machines much apart from computers.

What you do not seem to understand is the purpose of an operating system, apart from a typical computer OS are used to provide human-readable commands, translate its meaning to the machine so that it provides the functions the person wanted. In computers and Cell Phones (and everything between)it is a similar deal except that it tries to maximize hardware resource availiabilty so that applications can be used on them.

@Joe,

This blog entry of yours has triggered the most entertaining flame fest I've seen on Microsoft Watch in a very long time! It's very reminiscent of the old programmer editor wars of the past. And between the insults and passionate evangelism are to be found some true gems (very few gems, but gems are gems!) Very nice job!

You are 100% right of course, though the title is awkwardly stated. What you really meant, of course, is that the choice of operating systems doesn't matter. And it doesn't. It's all about the applications.

Portability? The term "WinTel" means that the dominant desktop platform, and hence the high-volume low-cost platform, is Windows running on top of Intel (or Intel-compatible). Portability is valueless on the desktop. AMD's value is Intel compatibility at a lower cost; drop Intel compatibility, and AMD ceases to exist overnight.

Contrary to your statement, Microsoft DOES understand this. But keeping their wildly popular applications running on their own operating system means that they have the best chance of controlling the application market and driving people into using only Microsoft applications. IE's non-standard web features weren't meant to drive IE to dominance, but to drive Microsoft back-end servers to exclusive dominance.

And Microsoft knows that if Firefox, OpenOffice.org, MPlayer, and Flash provide all the functions that 95% of the unwashed masses (i.e. technically illiterate) people need, those unwashed masses wouldn't know the difference between Windows and Ubuntu if their very lives depended on it.

And they are very fearful of Linux, not because it's cheaper or non-Windows. But because it is getting fearfully close to offering all the application functions than 95% of the unwashed masses really and truly need. Andre Da Costa can laugh at this all he wants, but Microsoft got where it is by being uber-paranoid and it sees more of a threat than it is willing to admit to its faithful followers.

If Microsoft had faith in its applications, it would simply release them for Mac and Linux and continue to own the application space. Linux has advanced to the point where binary compatibility is relatively easy (Adobe Flash and Google Earth are 2 examples of binary-only Linux applications that can be easily installed on nearly any modern Linux distribution). But the advances in the Linux kernel have arrived hand-in-hand with advances in open source applications.

How many people really need the functions in Office 2007 that are not part of OpenOffice 3? A few geeks here and there, but most people don't care, and a very large number of people cannot even remember where the heck they saved their document, let alone how to set up sophisticated documents.

How many people really need Photoshop and Illustrator? Yes, the top-end professionals. But I have long had an artsy-fartsy side, and I once bought into (suffered with) the CorelDRAW upgrade treadmill. In fact, CorelDRAW 3 was THE KILLER APP that drove me to Windows 3.0, and I stay with it all the way to Corel 9. But now, for me and also for quite a large number of non-professional "effing artistes", The Gimp and Inkscape are everything and more than CorelDRAW but without the stupid bugs and endless upgrade costs.

So it's not a case of the operating system not mattering (of course you need something to host applications). It's that the choice is starting not to matter, and Microsoft fears that it will lose its grip in the application space when the choice of operating system really doesn't matter anymore.

A very good preview of this is in the mobile space. Microsoft's market share here is MUCH LESS than its share of the desktop space. The choice of operating system truly doesn't matter. All that matters are the applications (including being able to make a phone call!). Nokia, RIM (Blackberry), and Apple (iPhone) all have very different underlying mobile operating systems and yet are currently own vibrant and credible market share.

And that is in DIRECT conflict with Microsoft's need to own the information industry across entire known universe and enslave everyone living on every habitable planet within it.

You're missing a point here.
People want the most their money buys. Now version Y has more functionality over version X for an increase of price by 5%.
So version Y gets you more for little extra money... well in that case lets get the "better" version.

It doesn't matter if you need it, it's the implication of more bang for your bucks.

No, I'm not missing any points, and I think we actually agree.

For example, maybe Inkscape and the Gimp have 5% more features in some areas and 10% less features in other areas as compared to CorelDRAW while otherwise closely matched in reliability and performance. But Inkscape and the Gimp are $0 while the CorelDRAW upgrade is $100 or more, and runs close to a $1000 for the 3->9 upgrade cost with no end in sight. Which offers more bang for my bucks? I'm not a professional that depends on CorelDRAW (there are a few who do!) nor needs Illustrator and Photoshop (with their even higher $$$$ bucks for somewhat more bang). So assuming that all choices offer enough bang (i.e. an Etch-a-Sketch offers too little bang to be considered), the highest bang/buck ratio goes to Inkscape+Gimp.

For the programmer side of me, Slickedit offers the most bang. But it costs many $$$$, and there are some platforms (such as home systems) on which I cannot personally justify the $$$$ but still would like the bang associated with training my fingers once time only across all platforms. So the initial effort spent leaning GNU Emacs (Yes, it was very tough to learn, No, my brain was up to the challenge, and Yes, it gave me plenty of bang to meet my needs) meant that the bang/buck ratio for Emacs was much higher than that of SlickEdit.

And that is crux of the problem that Microsoft faces. Not so very long ago, the bucks denominator associated with open source applications was $0 but the bang was insufficient and eliminated those zero-bucks applications from considerations. But now, the bang of Firefox, OpenOffice, MPlayer, Inkscape, Gimp, and other applications is sufficient, and when divided by the $0 bucks, the ratio of bang/bucks becomes very compelling.

Disclaimer: I do NOT claim any of these applications, especially my choice of editor, to be the absolute best for anyone else other than me. So back down with the flamethrowers! I only use them as real examples of how 5% more or less bang isn't as critical as the overall ratio of bang to bucks. As Hammond Shelby reminded me.

"The list of products with operating systems is seemingly endless: automobiles, ATMs, calculators, cash registers, cell phones, coffee makers, DVD players, game consoles, microwaves, portable music players, set-top boxes, stereo receivers, televisions, etc." Most of those are applications, ATMs, Cell phones, Automobiles, calculators, DVD players, game consoles, music players are the only ones you mentioned have their own operating system to minimize hardware to maximize its value, only a trick of its trade, all the others you mentioned are machines much apart from computers.

What you do not seem to understand is the purpose of an operating system, apart from a typical computer OS are used to provide human-readable commands, translate its meaning to the machine so that it provides the functions the person wanted. In computers and Cell Phones (and everything between)it is a similar deal except that it tries to maximize hardware resource availiabilty so that applications can be used on them.

@Erik Pomerantz:
1. Read Joe's article again.

2. Keep in mind that he means "The Choice of Operating Systems Doesn't Matter", and does NOT mean "There is no need for Operating Systems".

Joe understands your point full well. He's only saying that people choose a device based on what it does (applications, battery life, etc.) far more than how it actually does it (chip set, operating systems, etc.).

3. Then read Joe's article AGAIN before claiming he does not understand that those devices contain operating systems, chips, H-MOS, C-MOS, VLSI, molecules, atoms, Cross-Interleaved Reed-Solomon Coding, or any number of other things that rarely if ever participate in the selection decision even if Yes, Virgina, Those Things really ARE part of the device.

When Joe said "Microsoft won't agree with that assertion, nor will Linux or Mac aficionados.", boy, was he right. All the evangelists have come out of the woodwork, misinterpreted what he was saying, and go on to argue that "Shoppers need to pee now and then, and some brand or other toilet and sink are required, so Yes, it REALLY DOES MATTER what brand of toilet is in the store when people are deciding on which MP3 music player to buy". Sheesh!

"The Choice of Operating Systems Doesn't Matter"

That is a very vague statement which is probably why there is so much disagreement.

If you mean that people will buy whatever runs their apps, then that implies that people look for software and then find an OS which fits it.

I don't think this is right, people get a computer they like in their price range and then find software which best fits what they want to do that runs on the system they have. I think they normally have an idea about what they want to do with it, not what applications they will use, most things the average Joe wants to do is available on any OS.

Now, everything is 'moving to the cloud' so that means that apps will run across any OS, so again "the choice of OS does not matter".

But then you have applications running in this OS shell which do have vast differences which the user can see. In this case the customer only has to choose the OS that they like the best, but that does not mean that all choices are the same to them. The choice of OS could mean your identity being stolen or not so it does matter.

Re: "If you mean that people will buy whatever runs their apps, then that implies that people look for software and then find an OS which fits it."

Well, I was once loathe to run Windows on a PC, as it took a lot more memory than just plain old DOS. But I wanted to run CorelDRAW 3 and that required Windows, and so the application drove the choice of operating system.

And we long resisted the Mac as being expensive different for no apparently good reason. But after the long, expensive, and bug-ridden Adobe Premier upgrade path, my wife finally realized that perhaps Mac was after all better for HD video production, and its proven capabilities along with the Apple-only Final Cut Express drove the choice of the Mac platform (and the operating system that came with it). To me, the BSD Unix heritage of the Mac was a bonus, but for her, reliable and smooth HD video production drove all the other decisions.

And many people who are in a position to buy anything at any price have specific flight simulators, flight tracking packages, and arcane (to me, not to them!) focused financial trading applications, and they all run under Windows. One brave soul started to migrate to Mac, but the Apple store foolishly discounted him and he then bought a new Dell with Vista. He since "downgraded" (Microsoft's term, not his) to Windows XP because that is exactly what he needs to run his very-focused financial application, and it was more familiar to him.

And I could run Rockbox on my iPod Nano, I suppose, but I run the operating system that came with it; my only deliberate choice is to stick with the stock iPod operating system (whatever it might actually be).

But for you, for me, and for a very small (but Very Important!!) segment of the population, freedom is also vitally important. And so, Linux (Ubuntu, for me) offers the freedom with good-enough support for the applications I need, and stellar applications for a surprisingly large percentage of applications I need. I ran GNU Emacs on Windows and OS/2 before I ran it on AIX and now Linux. I ran OpenOffice on Windows before I migrated to Ubuntu 7.10 and finally had a solid pre-packaged 64-bit Linux build of OOo. I learned the basics of Inkscape and Gimp on Windows before I finally got around to using them on Linux. And the entire new world of Linux/Ubuntu/Gnome package management, file navigation, file preview, PDF handling, video and sound conversion and handling, is now driving my choice of Linux.

So thanks to Linux's support of low cost machines, I started out with freedom from commercial Unix. And quickly discovered its desktop and creative prowess, providing freedom from Microsoft's licensing and decisions. And then realizing that its ecosystem was so spectacular that commercial Unix and Windows fell into the background as would thought of homework on a warm and sunny spring day. All in all, a very heady experience, I'd say.

But then again, you and I are not like the other 95% who run Windows because it came on their low-cost PCs and for no other reason.

Ah, "The Cloud". That's a topic for another day. When faced with commercial operating systems, my question used to be, "If milk is free, why buy the cow?". With The Cloud, my reaction is, "If milk is free, why rent the cow?". Linux does more with less local resources than Windows Vista needs to rent time on The Cloud.

(And maybe Windows 7 will be leaner and meaner, but it's just a beta, so if criticism is off-limits, so is praise.)

That only proves that 95% of people buy a computer with an OS and then search for software to match. If 95% of people use Windows then it is natural that most software will only run on that. Now Windows use is around 85% so anyone writing apps for Windows is cutting out 15% of their market before they start.

This reminds me a lot of the browser market 10 years ago, it is only a matter of time before app developers adhere to a standard cross platform solution or they will lose to the web developers.

The future is cross platform apps that run on anything so the OS does not matter, but it does because it offers a differentiator for OEMs to sell their hardware. Apple has done it for years and makes much more money than Dell, HP etc.

If the argument is that the OS does not matter because you need to run Windows apps so just suck it up, then I think that is wrong as well.

@Philosopher
I was referring to Joe's article. I
But as long as we're on it. You compare different products, not upgrade paths of the same product. So your analogy imo is not really suited.

@Hammond Shelby,

OK. Since you didn't mention what you were referring to, I took at as a reply to the previous comment. Which made sense to me, anyway.

Re: "You compare different products, not upgrade paths of the same product. So your analogy imo is not really suited."

Ah, but you really aren't talking about upgrade paths. The essence (correct, IMHO) of your comment was bang for the buck. And bang doesn't necessarily imply upgrading the same product.

I agree with the author to some point. However, applications are not the only deciding factor. Linux/Unix has the most *free* applications for doing almost anything you want to do. Now several applications have been ported to windows and Mac as you pointed out.

The fact is people are used to windows because it was the only real option in the early days. When there were choices, they didn't get much talk/press.

Mac didn't have very many apps in the beginning, but it did graphics better than anything else at the time. Therefore, it was relegated to the graphics/marketing teams.

There are many different arguments on this page that have valid points. Ultimately, the answer to the questions of "Do operating systems matter?" is subjective to the user and for what purpose. Developers, users, servers, mobile and embedded devices all have different needs or focus points. The selection of the operating system is very much subject to the needs of the task (eg. playing games, creating graphics/videos/movies, running specific apps, etc.).

I agree with the author to some point. However, applications are not the only deciding factor. Linux/Unix has the most *free* applications for doing almost anything you want to do. Now several applications have been ported to windows and Mac as you pointed out.

The fact is people are used to windows because it was the only real option in the early days. When there were choices, they didn't get much talk/press.

Mac didn't have very many apps in the beginning, but it did graphics better than anything else at the time. Therefore, it was relegated to the graphics/marketing teams.

There are many different arguments on this page that have valid points. Ultimately, the answer to the questions of "Do operating systems matter?" is subjective to the user and for what purpose. Developers, users, servers, mobile and embedded devices all have different needs or focus points. The selection of the operating system is very much subject to the needs of the task (eg. playing games, creating graphics/videos/movies, running specific apps, etc.).