Gartner: Windows is collapsing
SAO PAULO, Brazil--At a Las Vegas conference on Thursday, Gartner analysts warned that Windows is in danger of collapsing, according to a report in ComputerWorld.
Upon reading that, I wondered how this could have happened in the 10 days I have been traveling around Latin America. Although Microsoft faces challenges from Linux and piracy here, looking out from the company's futuristic offices, it hardly seemed like either the building or the Windows empire was in imminent danger of collapse.
Seriously, though, Gartner analyst Michael Silver appears to be noting some important long-term issues that threaten to make it harder for Microsoft to maintain its dominant position in the market. These threats are not new, but nonetheless all bear consideration. First, Microsoft has had an inordinately difficult time upgrading its core product.
Although Microsoft has said it will not go as long before its next release of Windows as it did between XP and Vista, even the possible sped-up timetable hardly shows a product that can quickly adapt to change.
Meanwhile, while Apple was able to build the iPhone on OS X, Microsoft has had to extend another lifeline to Windows XP because its latest product can't even fit onto the cheap mini-laptops from HP, Asus, and others.
"Windows as we know it must be replaced," Gartner said in its presentation, again according to ComputerWorld. Meanwhile, the company faces other threats, such as a diminished role for the operating system in a world of hypervisors.
Is it really all doom and gloom, though?
Sure Apple has been gaining ground and, more than ever, the same Internet applications can run on multiple platforms. That said, Microsoft still holds a huge share of mind among developers, meaning that there will likely to continue to be a whole host of applications that come out first or only on Windows. That, in turn, will make it different for mainstream businesses to shift to an alternative to Windows.
What is of concern is the trend. Windows appears to be harder than ever to update and improve. Windows Live offers an option to build on the value of Windows without going under the hood, but in this area, rivals, too, are investing big bucks.
I think it is an overstatement to say Windows is collapsing. "The main idea is that Windows keeps getting bigger and bigger with stuff being added that Windows is not really designed to do and it is collapsing under its own weight," Silver said in a e-mail on Thursday.
Empires don't really collapse. Rather, they become large, difficult to control, and eventually unable to defend themselves against a large rival. Gartner may have used the wrong term, but its warning seems nonetheless prudent.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
think that the Xbox has been more of a success than anyone
would have thought. They have a larger marketshare than Sony
(who was dominant for years) and are the #1 selling console
behind the Wii.
I don't underestimate Microsoft because they will scratch and
claw to get where they need to be (bend and even break the law
if need be). Ballmer epitomizes this and is really an icon of what
MS is all about (even more than Gates)
Personally, now more than ever, I think it's popular to hate
Microsoft just because they're Microsoft. Whereas the only thing
I hate about them is the customer service at Xbox--the most
pitiful joke of a customer service department I've ever had the
displeasure of dealing with.
So did you get all these viruses?
Vista is nowhere near done, there are still many low-price games that you can only get for a computer that are far superior to the ones on the consoles, and most console games are able to be played on a computer with an emulator.
Also, XP didn't just have these alleged 20,000 viruses. People make these viruses. Viruses come out, soon to follow is a security update.
Since you really do not seem to really understand the process of how things work, you should stick to sitting in your room at your mom's house using the ****** computer that she bought for you that probably cannot even handle running Vista in the first place.
You go ahead with your Ubuntu OS. I buy my computers to use them, not to load some worthless OS that currently does not work with anything that the rest of the world uses. Good luck with all of that.
to Microsoft's rut of bad luck w/ Windows, well, it's been a long
time coming.
Apple has been there, sort of as a bad penny that always turned
up when there was talk about Windows (good and bad), PCs, and
the next best thing in technology.
Now, that once bad penny is looking very shiny to would-be PC
buyers and IT managers alike. Now, I'm not going to say that
Windows is "doomed", or floundering....far from it, but let's be
honest and agree on the fact that Microsoft has in fact taken a
hit on Windows--from where (Linux, Mac, etc.) , and how deep
(sales?) is up for debate.
I don't villafy or praise Microsoft because I see them as nothing
more than a necessary evil--would companies innovate to
compete with them if they weren't who they are today? Probably
not as much... I think Apple likes to push its own envelope, so I
can't say what they would or wouldn't do in an alternate world.
Linux probably wouldn't be as developed as it has been today,
either.
Good article, Ina.
Fact is, Rome died of a thousand paper cuts, and not decapitation. The Huns were only one of many, many, many groups that came in and carved out bits of what was once the Roman Empire. Huns, Vandals, Germans, Gallians, Picts, and eventually Muslims (at the fall of Constantinople) destroyed what was left.
Rome and Microsoft have a lot in common: Big, bloated, slow to respond, and lingering on the fumes of what was once a glorious achievement for them. Their respective Imperia are more interested in distraction, perversion, and an incestuous desire to maintain the status quo, than in minding their own stores. Both ran off to try and conquer new lands, because that was how both made their respective incomes... through conquest and tribute.
Rome was destroyed by their inability to fully comprehend what it is they incorporated... Christian Rome ceased to be Christian at the Emperor's palace entrance. An "open", "business friendly", and "innovative" Microsoft ceases to be all three at MSFT's boardroom door.
Windows' big hit is far from obvious... their public facade shows confidence and strength. They fiddle with their sales and financial statistics until the results like like some sort of record. Scratch the surface however, and the whole thing collapses - massive losses in every department except Windows and Office sales, dropping marketshare on all horizons, shackled to a bloated and slowly creaking OS core that they cannot rebuild for fear of losing compatibility (and therefore even more customers)... they're basically screwed in all directions. Just like Rome.
...of course, neither Roman populace or MSFT customer knows this, because the endless parade of bread-and-circus propaganda hasn't even begun to slow down ...yet.
/P
Fact what? Did the stream of consciousness dry up on that sentence?
with the comment that MS is doomed. Did you not read the
whole article??
Yes empires do fall. You said they dont, then listed all the
reasons they do. I mean, what do you call it if not collapse? Blow
up, die, end?
I too have gone to Ubuntu 7.10 and i love it. I don't play games
either anymore so it serves its purpose well. I also have about a
3.5 year old Mac laptop and I love that as well. While I'd like to
say M$ is on the brink, its not. It is however in a very bad place
right now. They better hope "Windows 7" is better than Vista is
because another seven years of a bad OS is really going to start
pushing people away. if not, someone is going to make
something better because companies wont use crap forever.
Inc and their products.
It's also the first time I've heard Gartner question the future of Windows in such a strong strong way.
Corporate execs pay a lot of attention to Gartner, despite the lack of values they usually provide. So this could be pretty huge.
I remember when the press turned on Apple in the mid to late 90's, things got ugly really really fast. Kind of like a ton of piranha gang-biting a big struggling fish.
Hmmm...
"Silver" is the color of most Apple products. "MacDonald" contains the word "Mac".
Coincidence? ;-)
consultants," can not only get you any Windows software but
also the password, with a 24 hour guarantee for $5.00. I,
however, have a MacBook and the pirates don't do Mac. Except
for the Universidad de El Salvador where I volunteer, I don't
know of anybody or any business that doesn't use pirate ware. I
imagine the international companies, NGOs and the government
pay but they get corporate discount. So I can't imagine how
Windows can succeed. In any case, most computers in use here
are used models shipped from the US and other countries that
go for between $200-400 with all software installed. The geeks
here do rave about Linux but they tell me that pirated Windows
wares completely rule the market and that can't even give away
Linux to the average person. So as long as they're shipping
already loaded Windows machines from the US and the pirates
are around to upgrade, Windows software will flourish here.
Microsoft, of course, won't make a dime. But that's poetic justice
for a company that runs roughshod over the industry.
BTW: My favorite sign in the Mercado Central "Abajo con precios
imperialistas. Viva la piratería."
Ubuntu will crush windows by being better in every way, not by costing nothing.
I don't need windows. I have WINE.
However, Linux is a 'good-enough' in the internet-only and office use only arenas. It's already a 'better-than' alternative in the low-power/small footprint arena. The people who switched will see Windows like we see Lotus 123 now. History.
/P
The UI is very similar, the security model is identical, it has most of the same features... But it's Microsoft, so people complain about it while they praise OS X for the having the same feature.
"...while Apple was able to build the iPhone on OS X, Microsoft has had to extend another lifeline to Windows XP because its latest product can't even fit onto the cheap mini-laptops..."
Fact: OS X on the iPhone is not the same thing as OS X on a Mac anymore than Windows Mobile on a smartphone is the same as Windows on a PC. Yes, they share some core technologies, but it's not like Apple just stripped down OS X and Safari and loaded them on the iPhone. If that were the case, why doesn't the iPhone support full Java, flash, the full Aqua GUI, etc. Answer: because they're not the same.
I don't know why supposedly technical reporters keep parroting this marketing hooey that the "iPhone runs OS X" -- Apple's has done a great job of branding both the iPhone OS and the Mac OS as the OS X, but they are simply not the same thing.
What's my point? Apple couldn't get the full OS X 10.5 with Aqua to run on a mini PC any better than MS can get Vista running well on a mini PC. Think about this: MS could just have easily have called the newly released Windows Mobile 6.1 something like Windows Vista Mobile and adapted it to run on mini-PCs, but they're apparantly not taking that approach. Changing the name of the Windows Mobile or Windows CE products to Vista would allow the superficial technical press to write glowing articles about how incredible it is that MS could get Vista to run on a mini-PC or handheld, but that would be BS as well.
Granted, MS is falling behind in many areas. but part of their problem is simply bad marketing. MS could have gloseed up Windows XP SP1 and SP2 and called them Windows 2005 and Windows 2007 like Apple does with "dot" releases (10.3, 10.4, etc.), but since they don't people think the product never changes, which is dead wrong.
Anyhow, I think it's fair to expect a C-Net technical writer think a little harder before mindlessly repeating such simplistic, misinformed comments that have little basis in fact and don't withstand technical scrutiny.
-Mister Winky
anymore than Windows Mobile on a smartphone is the same as Windows
on a PC. Yes, they share some core technologies, but it's not like Apple
just stripped down OS X and Safari and loaded them on the iPhone."
Fact: You are wrong. OS X on the iPhone is the same as OS X on a Mac.
Apple did exactly what you described...stripped down the OS and Safari
and loaded them on the iPhone.
computers. The only differences are as follows:
1) Only ARM processor compiled kernel
2) Printer support removed
3) Aqua layer not fully utilized (but it is there)
4) Core is the same, only difference is there is no
mouse/keyboard drivers (replaced ala touch-screen) and
accelerometer sensor - but APIs same. Something MS couldn't
do with Windows Mobile :-)
So, which would you rather have a complete vetted POSIX
certified unix system or the pos Windows Mobile (1/2 ass XP
implementation)?
OS X on the iPhone is recompiled for a different CPU, likely has custom software to take advantage of the iPhone's dedicated multi-media and communications chips, has a totally different GUI and 1/5th the functionality of OS X on a Mac, yet you think they're the same thing? They are based on the same core technologies, but they are not the same. They are no more the same as an RHEL 64-bit x86 OS and a Netgear router developed around a minimal Linux kernel.
If you honestly believe that OS X on the iPhone = OS X on the Mac, then Windows Mobile is the same thing as Windows by the same logic since they both share the same degree of relation to their parent OS. All MS has to do is get Windows Mobile running on a mini-PC and they can say they're running Vista on a mini-PC. Heck, XP and Vista share enough core components that they can just claim it today by your logic.
It's just semantics and definitions, people.
-Mister Winky
The problem is Joe Admin does not want the night-mare of mixed Network. Jane is so comfortable with her XP she has been using for over 7 years, any thing non-XP freaks her. The life-cycle of the computer just increased from 3 to 5 years.
This is the new reality in computing world esp. Corporate world, expect things to be used for longer periods. The fault of Microsoft is not that they made a bad OS with Vista, they just delayed it enough that lot of people just got too comfortable with XP.
That said, the core functions of businesses will always run on Linux, and that's not going to change any time soon.
What needs to be noted, though, is this comment: "Oh and F.Y.I., my OpSys is updated every 6 mos." This is a common misconception about the so-called "major" operating systems. Windows Vista updates every few days, OS X generally every couple of weeks. The large updates, such as Apple's dot-releases (10.4, 10.5) and Windows Service Packs (SP 1, SP 2) are like whole new operating systems.
As long as market share remains the way it is, things aren't looking bad for Microsoft. With a comfortable 92% market share, they're going to stay on top for a while. The company conceeded that business adoption of the new version is slow, but picking up. And Windows Vista is to this date the best operating system released by Microsoft, despite its bad publicity, and the most secure proprietary system (mostly because they took a few pointers from the Linux community).
Nobody has any illusions about Windows being bulletproof. Also, the Titanic was sunk due to human error, it's actually a good analogy to Windows. With basic, common-sense practices it's possible to have infection free Windows machines. It's stupid mistakes that lead to infections, especially on end users machines.
You like learning about how the OS works, well that's good for you. You shouldn't have any illusions that 95% of the computing market shares your enthusiasm.
Bill Gates always has been an iconic image of most successful and smart CEO in the world, and I bet everyone at least has heard the name "Bill Gates" even if that person is a computer illiterate. There are people who hates Bill Gates, but the hatred is targetted to his massive amount of accumulated wealth and fame rather than his characteristic. Of course, some of Windows operating system version were not successful, but that is essentially the problem with Microsoft than Bill Gates.
I know Google is right now most famous company of all in this nation, but not everyone recites the names of Google founders: Larry Page and Sergey Brin. And as for the Apple, Steve Job is seen as a cool CEO in the technology world today, but the appearance of Bill Gates in a place probably gathers more attention than the apperance of Steve Job. So, now, Bill Gates quit. Microsoft basically lost the "cool" iconic image, and Steve Balmer is certainly not seen as a cool guy.
I think Bill Gates probably made a wise decision to retire so early. You probably know Bill Gate's closest friend is Warren Buffett, and there can be no better adviser when it comes to the investment and money transaction. So, I believe that Warren Buffet gave an advice to Bill Gates to quit early, though the magazines report that the decision was mostly due to Bill Gate's wife Melinda Gates and philantrophy reason.
The stock share price of Microsoft is dropping, and it is probably impossible to bring the share stock price up to above $80 as Microsoft once had in its hay day. And by quitting Microsoft, Bill Gates can claim his actual networth by selling his stock shares. But the Microsoft's future is probably not that bright... Maybe, it will become like AT&T, splitting up into the different sections one day...
guarantees MS fade into oblivion.
Apple, Steve Job is seen as a cool CEO in the technology world
today, but the appearance of Bill Gates in a place probably
gathers more attention than the apperance of Steve Jobs" was
funny.
Any time Steve-o gets out of the office for an announcement,
the press goes completely nuts. He has far more media
recognition than either Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer, primarily
because his announcements are usually predictors of where the
computing market will be in several years, and the press wants
to get it in print first.
But, if you look closely you will see a lot of cracks with water seeping thru (Apple, Linux, Vista...)
One day it will just crumble and the river of software freedom will flow again.
As far as operating systems and software go, I use Ubuntu (the 8.04 beta is pretty nice), but most small businesses, don't have the level of expertise to use it.
As for OSX and Apple, sorry the cost is too high.
1) Any other OS does not have DRM embedded in the OS itself.
2) Any other OS performance increases over time vs. Vista
(performance hit)
3) Any other OS memory footprint is smaller
4) Any other OS knows how to do a UAC right
5) Any other OS does not used ancient technology (lol, the
register vs. meta data)
shall I continue?
surfing, and uploading/viewing pictures. And their "office"
needs can be satisified with online services like Google Docs.
Why do you think MS is so desperate to get into online services?
Because they know the Windows bubble could burst very quickly.
If Comcast, etc. were to offer them a nice thin client that did all
this for $10 a month the majority of home users wouldn't care if
it ran Windows or diesel fuel.
Today, a PC with an internet connection and a browser will give you access to a large number of really good apps. With more people trying out the different Linux flavors, and with Apple attracting people to OSX via its other popular products (e.g., iPhone and iPod), Windows lock on the OS market is slowly slipping away.
But the world is about more than looking good in Starbucks - it's going to be run more and more from the back-end and that is why Linux is the true threat.
1) If we move away from desktop based technologies we're gonna rely on server based tecnologies (be it in-house or web). MS is still the king of this arena but Linux could threaten.
2) If MS falls Apple PCs will be next. "So I'm paying £2000 for this shiny laptop and that grey one does the same stuff for £400?". IT execs have budgets to meet and as PCs begin to demand LESS power Linux again starts to look attractive.
3) There is always a backlash against personalities and brands. Linux has no personality and no brand.
Or maybe we're looking in the wrong place - Apple build EXPENSIVE hardware software combos for people who think a turtle neck looks cool.
Imagine if HP decided to develop their own version of Linux?
billions of dollars in the hardware market. MS makes their
money from software - specifically Windows and Office.
Apparently XBox, Search, Mobile, and many other of their
ventures are still black holes responsible for billions in losses.
Sorry, MS is not the server king of the web - never was. And
based on the latest figures (they are losing market share) they
probably never will be.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
Apple is competitive on price when you compare Apples to
apples :) and they fit comfortably in my budget (I'm one of those
"IT executives")
"Imagine if HP decided to develop their own version of Linux" If
they did they would have to spend millions developing their
brand - which is why my HP servers came with Novell SuSE.
PS: I've always though turtle necks were hot and itchy.
Apples are less accessory and more of an investment. They typically outlast PC's.
IMHO, they're perfect for home users.
Now for business, Linux rocks the house. For servers, Linux is a dominant mofo. But for the consumer market, Macs just work.
[i]"So I'm paying £2000 for this shiny laptop and that grey one does the same stuff for £400?"[/i]
No, you're paying 2000 quid for a machine that the PC makers can't even touch spec-for-spec without charging 2200-2500 for. The 400 quid model is made of lesser parts - which means it runs slower, and you'll be replacing it a few times over before that Mac decides to finally die, or you decide that it runs too slow to keep around.
A cheap Kia does "the same stuff" as a BMW, but performance, comfort, and reliability-wise? I think you can see the parallels.
[i]"Imagine if HP decided to develop their own version of Linux?"[/i]
Dell sells pre-loaded Linux gear now. HP does this also for the business customers. Why develop a new distro when you can use an existing one?
IMHO, there's plenty of room for both OSX and Linux...
/P
1/4th, yet per capita they far exceed MS in actual productivity.
Apple has passed DELL and now more recently HP in net worth.
Yep, some bubble.
for playing games. My Mac laptop (only £450) runs far more
demanding tasks than the average £400 Windows PC does. I'm
doing high-resolution image editing, building flash and
quicktime video, designing complex layouts and working on
large complex databases and streaming online radio (typical
Windows tasks: opening internet browsers, viewing
spreadsheets, MS Word...don't make me laugh).
The people who fill MS seats are not back-end developers; those
are only 5% of the computing market. The other 95% are regular
people who know just enough about their computers to do the
(relatively simple) tasks they need to get through the day. And
they won't have Linux on their PCs because Linux takes too
much user knowledge to be usable. These folks could appreciate
Apple products not because they make owners look good in
turtlenecks, but because Apple's products are even easier to
learn than MS products.
Do you really believe Apple products are so expensive or are you
just parroting PC wisdom that's been around for 20 years?
Imagine if HP didn't route their tech support through India and
could actually solve your poorly-designed PC problems...
numb nuts?
Linux's brand/personality/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is its anti-Windows, anti mainstream, techy, coder, open source thing.
Once the Linux community a)decides on ONE version to champion for the general public and b)makes the OS usability on par with or better than Windows or OSX, they will begin to look attractive. Right now Linux is only attractive to the technically elite.
that is all that is holding Windows up you better get out of the way!
Company is buying replacement laptops. On a trial basis we got a bunch of Thinkpads R61 with Suse Linux. They were rolled out to the "advanced" users. Now what company is going to have time to retrain its people in just about everything. Nothing works the same in Linux than in Windows. This may look the same, but try and do something as mundane as installing software. Even if there's a linux version, installing new programs is insanely complex for end users. Sure I can do it, no sweat, but they couldn't. So while I can babysit four users, nobody has the resources for 500.
BTW: those R61 Thinkpads run Vista just fine, even with only 1GB of RAM. Oh and we're using OO which comes up just about as fast in Vista as it did in Suse.
- WINDOWS WOULD HAV BEEEN OK IF
- by MARKWIDERSTROM April 11, 2008 5:35 AM PDT
- Windows would have been OK IF it was ROCK SOLID, like linux. What happened is Bill gates put out a program that was nothing more than JUNK, he did not care about the end users JUST HIS PRIVATE POCKET BOOK. HIM AND HIS WHOLE STAFF ARE NOTING MORE THAN GREED ARTISTS, who have no sense of honor, or kindness are the Basic understanding. They bring out JUNK every time. THEY TEAR UP computers, THEY DID NOT DO THEIR JOB and HOW MANY COPIES OF WINDOWS HAVE THEY WRITTEN 12 or more and still going. THEY Should have gotten it right along time ago.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- Well said!
- by Commander_Spock April 11, 2008 11:12 AM PDT
- "THEY DID NOT DO THEIR JOB (VERY WELL) and HOW MANY COPIES OF WINDOWS HAVE THEY WRITTEN 12 or more and still going. THEY Should have gotten it right along time ago". The one that they came close to getting it "right" with was with - "OS/2". ;-) !
- View reply
Processing -
Showing 1 of 4 pages (235 Comments)MARK