When it comes to understanding IT, groupthink only gets you so far
Earlier Friday I was speaking with a CIO when the conversation turned to the subject of Microsoft. There's been no small amount of reaction to the publication of Gartner Group's gloomy report on Windows. But this exec was not buying into the notion of a future tech landscape where Web browsers elbow aside client operating systems as the preferred software development platform.
"We're still on XP. I'm not going to move to Vista for a while. We'll let other people be the early adopters," she said, asking to remain unidentified in case Microsoft happens to read her quotes. Still, she added, "I just don't see a world in which Web apps make the OS obsolete anytime soon."
Anytime soon is the operative phrase.
One quote doesn't a trend make--except when the person delivering the lines agrees entirely with me. (Just kidding.) In their quieter moments, I suspect that most of the participants in the bloviation-fest which attended dissemination of the Gartner report conclusions would agree. But the groupthink around this topic is leading to entirely off-the-wall prescriptions--especially when it comes to promoting online advertising as the magic answer to Microsoft's troubles. I'm on record writing that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer would only be wasting billions of dollars to buy Yahoo, but enough on that topic for now.
Microsoft has a big challenge figuring out how Windows will thrive in a world where more client apps are operating system-agnostic. But that's not the same as proclaiming the demise of the client OS. I don't know how many people attended the speech or read the report, so consider the following from the report:
"There's lots of discussion on how Web 2.0, Ajax and open-source products will make the client OS unimportant and unseat Microsoft as the dominant desktop software vendor. Some even insist that the client OS already doesn't matter. The client OS may be less important today than it was 10 years ago, but that's a more-accurate description for application developers trying to decide what OS they want their applications to run on. New applications are increasingly OS-agnostic, but legacy applications were very often developed for a specific OS, usually Windows. Legacy applications remain installed and important for years, meaning that for enterprises, the client OS is still a critical choice and will be for years to come."
Gartner is more concerned with the changing definition of an operating system if a virtualization hypervisor takes care of the interface between hardware and application. (Hasn't that been the traditional role of an OS?) The report then geeks out on what Microsoft needs to do to retrofit and rescue Windows from oblivion, etc., etc. But nowhere does it make the silly leap of logic mentioned above.
Microsoft's seemingly getting attacked from all sides these days, but give the company some credit for not being completely clueless about the changes taking place around it. Apropos, ZDNet's Mary Jo Foley offers several good points to consider:
• Windows currently contributes one-third of Microsoft's revenues and two-thirds of its profits, I've heard company officials claim. Windows is installed on more than 90 percent of consumer and business desktops combined. That market share isn't going to disappear overnight, no matter how much Web 2.0 pundits and online-services vendors want that to happen.
• Windows 7, from all accounts, is going to be a minor upgrade to Vista. It is not going to be the start-from-scratch, slimmed-down operating system that many believe Microsoft is building in a back room as a "Plan B." Singularity, the Microsoft Research microkernel OS, also is not that brand new Microsoft operating system. However, I do believe Singularity is the core of what ultimately will become a brand-new distributed OS platform from Microsoft. Unlike Gartner, I'm not going to pick a date out of a hat (by 2011!) and claim that's when such a platform will be announced.
• As has been reported previously, Windows 7 is likely to include a feature that, at least at one point, was called the "Component Delivery System" which is expected to allow users to install the pieces of Windows that they want and need in a more user-configurable way. This may not be identical to the modularized role structure offered in Windows Server 2008, but it is similar in its intention. This should help, to some extent, with Windows' bloat--as should Microsoft's expected move to use Windows Live to deliver non-core pieces of functionality to users.
• Windows 7 also is likely to include some kind of virtualization layer that will help ease backward compatibility, I've heard from various sources. Microsoft isn't likely to a port of Hyper-V to Windows client. But it could take the form of a virtualization service like SoftGrid (Microsoft's application virtualization offering) and/or hosted desktop virtualization (the new name/positioning for Microsoft Terminal Server, I hear).
That's the sort of granular analysis that won't flag much attention on Techmeme. But you know as well as I that headlines often don't tell the full story.
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. Before joining CNET News, he worked at the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie. 
My work uses Windows because that's what Office and Outlook needs to run. Outside of that, who needs them, except Mary Jo. It's not my universe and not for those I have worked with the for the last seven years. Windows won't implode - we'll just keep moving on without them.
I'm doubly forklempt that the founders of this country were able to establish the country without a bunch of highly paid consultants advising them. Those damn rebels .. what were they thinking? Who would provide political cover to save their jobs (and heads) if stupid decisions lead to disaterous results. If not for highly paid consultants who would face the gallows? God bless ALL consultants and especially the Gartner Group for allowing incompetent leadership to continue to thrive and prosper.
I can't believe the ingratitude and aragance of Microsoft.Without highly paid consultants advising IBM to give away the operating system Microsoft wouldn't even exist today. If Microsoft had a fraction of the type of intregity that perminates the Gartner Group they immediately declare bankruptcy. To pharaphase Henry Ford " If Gartner thinks your are right or thinks your are wrong" Gartner is right.
Regards,
Dave
Sorry have to break character ...still chuckling about Gartner Group .. those guys are such a joke .. They went to Business School not Engineering school ...I know for a fact the majority of the consultants would have trouble writing a hello world program..but they look damn good in suits -).
Thanks for pointing out the emperor has no clothes:-)
We spend so much time conversing about the client OS, but in the last few years has it really mattered? What's more interesting to me from a client perspective is who wins the "neuveau fat client" wars - Silverlight, Adobe Flex, Appcelerator, et al. Five years from now I really doubt I'm going to care whether I'm running Ubuntu or Windows (meaning my OS should be cheap) but I'm going to care a whole lot about my web experience. Maybe Bill's touch computer will change the game and make me care about Windows again but for now I'm more interested in improving the web experience than once again re-working the plumbing. Maybe I've just got tunnel vision ...
Today, that means more open source in the server room than ever before, the roll-out of more web based apps, and the introduction of non-windows thin clients in the office.
I agree, MS is not going to disappear quickly from the enterprise. But I also highly doubt I am the only IT guy guiding it toward the door.
Is IBM obsolete? Dead? Competition happens. Markets mature. Data centers... are different.
And Sensationalism sells... briefly.
Windows will be around for a long time... and take a long time to be marginalized.
You can't really make money off of an OS if you're really honest with your customers. Can you make money from a support perspective and new sales? Yes.
Windows is a tiny operating system with a bazillion poorly integrated applications added to it --many of which I nor others don't want but can't get rid of.
thank you
Life cycle terms are 2 years. Microsoft generally abandons support for legacy operating systems after 5 years. Dramatic changes to the OS have to occur within 2 years before my clients 'trust' Microsoft again. By then it will be too late for the desktop OS. But then again, for most office uses, the OS will be inconsequential. So why pay for it? A legacy multi-billion dollar Microsoft bed mates industry will keep it floating awhile longer.
Thank God for GPLs out there!!!
In the conversation with a CIO, the CIO said
"...We're still on XP. I'm not going to move to Vista for a while. We'll let other people be the early adopters," she said, asking to remain unidentified in case Microsoft happens to read her quotes.
Wait just a minute, folks.
We're talking here about a CUSTOMER who's afraid that her (not even negative, but so what if they were?) comments will be READ BY MICROSOFT?
And people wonder why Microsoft is hated? Wow, what a telling article. Thanks, Charles.
Please, everyone, send a copy of this article to all the MicroSombies and MicroSITHs--that's MicroSoft-In-The-Heads--you know. On second thought, send it to anyone who needs entertainment and enlightenment.
Oh, and by the way, to all, and I do mean ALL, you MicroSITHs and MicroSombies in Redmond, you can reach me at
jcthomasc@alltel.net, or
ditloml@gmail.com
I would give you my Yahoo address, but I REALLY want you to be able to get in touch with me; I started shutting down that account when word got out that you were considering buying Yahoo. So I'm converting all that activity over to Google.
Guess I'm not CIO material, huh, Microsoft?
Or, maybe I am. Anyone out there looking for a CIO or CTO who would employ The Chinese Solution to all your Microsoft problems? You know: "Totally remove anything Microsoft from all your equipment by Monday morning, or else"?
Give me a call.
It does look like the Boy Fuhrer from Duncan Hines is going to end up overseeing the melt-down of Microsoft.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
I think the Gartner report is right on. No empire collapses immediately, but if it does not adapt to the future, then it will erode continuously. Eventually, the erosion is so great that what is left of the empire finally crumbles. Of course, the headline was meant to grab attention. It's a shot across MS's bow saying they have not inspired confidence that they are able to adapt to the future, and they had better start showing more confidence and it better not be the Iraqi information ministry.
Your word "median" should have been "medium"...
All us NOOBs are "...rising" our middle finger? Can this be controlled? Is it lethal?
Your word "...databases'..." should have been "databases".
"As far back as 1987 MS knew the desktop OS was a median [sic] to its more lucrative platforms...". You must be one of those MicroSITHs from Redmond I asked to contact me, since you have--obviously--unequivocal inside information as to MS's strategy for the last twenty years.
Please, folks. I don't mind the personal attacks, but let's have a little higher quality respondee.
And yes I do fat finger my typing on occasion. You are upset with Microsoft because you are one of those idiots that couldn?t past the certification exam aren?t you!?
In addition you may look around and ask yourself if the situation with Windows 7 will be the same as the existing Vista debacle. Could you wind up in 2012 waiting for Windows 7 to come out sometime around Q1 2013, with most of the features shelved? You might start asking yourself if this is the kind of relationship you want with a vendor, especially since they're not the only game in town. Why go through another round of the "Vista mess," when you could use virtualization to pass around whatever version of Windows your users need. If you are going to move to a virtual machine centric environment, deciding if you really need Windows on every desktop becomes a reasonable question. Microsoft doesn't really want users to start asking that question, especially.
- by cube3 April 14, 2008 6:23 PM PDT
- lol,
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(23 Comments)Lost .you think having a VP read it and act at MS is scary....it is.
But youre ready to "switch over to GOOGLE who's goal is to let a computer read it and act...
beyond scary, its sad.