Comments on: Is Windows still relevant?

CNET News.com's Charles Cooper says recent upset over Vista should put a rest to that lingering question.

[avfolk--2008]

Why assume it ever was?

If Microsoft felt that Windows was ever relevant, they would have
made it powerful, easy to use and upgrade, affordable and
secure.
It is in reality NONE of those things. If Microsoft cared enough
to ensure Windows relevance -- they would have delivered the
real Vista deal -- as promised, when promised. The only real
thing relevant to Microsoft is profits. Not software - profits.
Not innovation - profits. Not security - profits. Not user
satisfaction - profits. Have those profits benefited other than
key employees and shareholders? The context of this entire
thread is an eloquent answer.

[cascadia4]

Would you like some cheese with that Whine?

After reading many of the comments here, all I have heard is the usual "Microsoft Sucks" opinions. I use Windows, and cannot stand Apple, for one because it's too expensive, but also because as far as I know you can only run Mac OS's on computers built by Apple. How fair is that?

I've tried a flavor of Linux... ditched that ASAP because hardly anything worked on it.

What it really comes down to is Microsoft is a COMPANY. It's whole reason for existance is to PROFIT. Last I checked, they weren't a Not-for-profit organization. They are attempting to make a better user experience right out of the box. I work in Tech Support, and I constantly talk to people who have no idea what AV, Firewall, or anything of the like is. Those that do have it don't know how to tune it so that it works with existing programs. For those people, its best that they include these things.

For people like me, I want to be able to run my Zone Labs products on my machine without interuption from MS's firewall (disabled XP Firewall as soon as ZA was installed). I do think MS should wise up and give access to the core of Vista to security companies and allow people to have a choice, but to block MS from including these things as a default is pure lunacy.

I can say, though, from what I've read, I won't be switching to Vista any time soon. Their next edition of WMP is not looking good, and that could be a real deal killer for music afficionados such as myself.

[coryschulz]

oh, I liked WMP 11

I find it actually much easier to use. And the graphics aren't bad.
It's much different from iTunes, but I think they are on about the same level.

[benjiernmd]

Hello?

"After reading many of the comments here, all I have heard is the
usual "Microsoft Sucks" opinions. I use Windows, and cannot stand
Apple, for one because it's too expensive, but also because as far
as I know you can only run Mac OS's on computers built by Apple.
How fair is that?"
What century were you from? or planet? What are you smoking
there? My Mac mini was just US$375 from CompUSA. Now that was
inexpensive! I can run Mac OS X and Windows in it using Guest PC.
So? Can your PC run Mac OS X? Now, how fair is that?

[Stan Johnson]

The main reason Windows is very relevant

Windows owns the OS marketplace. It's share is ENOURMOUS in the PC world. Businesses are so entrenched with the Windows OS it will take many years for Microsoft to lose their dominate marketshare or for Windows to even appoach being irrelevant.

Like Windows or dislike Windows it is the dominate OS in the world by an ultra large margin.

[avfolk--2008]

Fossilized remains

Someday cyber-anthropologists may wonder at how much
Microsoft was similar to dinosaurs. Both huge, pervasive, and now,
GONE. How long did the carcasses stink?

[Mendz]

Until such time...

... that connectivities are truly cheap (if not free; wired or wireless), that online services are truly reliable and secure, that online software are the best available (vs. installed versions)... etc. Then maybe, the OS will become irrelevant to consumers -- as much like it doesn't matter to people if they're using Symbian powered phones because, the fact is, the phone just works!

The time may come when the OS can be just one of the software in the chips to start the device. Then everything else would be the applications for my work and for my lifestyle.

Come to think of it, more than 75% of what Microsoft and Apple sell about their OSes are actually the applications that doesn't really help in booting up the device at all...

[wbenton]

WRONG!!!

>>>the dustup speaks volumes about the true state of Windows' relevance. Looks like "yesterday's product" still has a few more tomorrows left.<<<

The dustup speaks volumes... YES.

That Microsoft continues to force the market how ever it wants due to it's SHEER MONOPOLY which everybody and their brother have staked their entire companies around!!!

But Microsoft some how still smitheringly, sneaks through the legal crap and continues to squish out it's competition!!!

So if Microsoft has a few tomorrows left... then it's a few too many!!!

They should have been divided up several years ago and settled this once and for all, but as that's been delayed... Microsoft's life has been extended a little.

FWIW

[technewsjunkie]

Dej Vu all over again, the answer lies in substantial competition

This is about meaningful choice and competition.

With Window's over ninety percent market share, the solution
STILL remains the same - we need more, and substantial
competition in the Operating Systems or Browsers, or neither.
Sun Micro talked about multiple OSes running on non-
proprietary Standards. Netscape was making the OS irrelevant
because programmers were writing to the browser and
"ignoring" Windows - essentailly bypassing the OS/Windows.

With web STANDARDS there could have been, and may still be an
opportunity to have competition in Operating Systems (if still
"relevant" or necessary) that are written based on industry (not
proprietary or DEFACTO - MS) standards.

[StargateFan]

I don't like the idea of my pc being on the web

What I got from the article is that we are moving towards a future with computers not having OS's on the machine but rather on a server sitting in a corporations data center some where. I don't like the idea of my entire computer being stored on a server and I log into it everytime I boot my machine up.

Yeah, Web features such as iTunes and YouTube are good but I don't buy into this whole web 2.0 stuff. I agree with getting away from shrink-rap software. I do believe the future is the user purchasing software online then downloading it. But not to a point where my entire computer and my data is stored on servers all over the world. That just paves the way for corporations who have my OS or my data on their servers to eventually access it at any time and make changes, and then tell us(the of course paying costumer)that the
changes wehetther they be to the UI or not are routine updates. Don't get me wrong I'm a MS usert through and through and my PC is set to automatically download updates. However they are downloaded to my own pc and await my permission to install, and at all tiems I know what is happening.

For years we have been trying to fight internet threats and now we are moving towards the future of putting users data online, come on guys this won't work. I don't want to have a machine 10 years down the line that has a hard drive with an empty mirror image of a file, and the file itself is on a server somewhere miles away. I don't want a machine that boot's a basic dos ROM OS that has the capability of opening of a network connection to the system server that has my full GUI OS on it.

[ajbright]

You're suggesting we return to the days of dumb terminals and mainframes?

and I remember some guy from IBM who said the personal computer thing was pointless and would never catch on - after all no one needs to control their own computing needs.

Maybe for stupid people having dumb terminals accessing internet applications and having all their data managed for them is a good thing - or it would be until they can no longer afford the subscription fees and lose access to their family photos, music or movies.

Personally I'm not so retarded that I don't know how to maintain my own computer, and the idea that I would trust some helpdesk jockey to oversee the safety of my software and data is not something I care to think about.

I've seen this crop up several times, and certainly old timers like Oracle's CEO would like nothing more than to see time reversed and a return to the days of mainframes and dumb terminals.

But we've moved on, we don't need to go backwards, what we need is the next generation of operating systems - that instead of coping with modern lifestyles, are actually designed with them in mind.

Personally there's no way I'd trust the photos and movies I want to show my grandkids with an internet business that will probably go bankrupt, taking the memories of thousands of families with them when they go under.

There's no way I'd trust the integrity of the minimum wage personel they'll hire to administer systems that allow me access to personal or financial software/web apps.

There's no way I'll put up with the lag of internet based systems, slowing down my games and video to the speed my internet provider is reduced to when everyone around me is trying to access their software too.

Finally there's no way I'd conform to a software rental system, that will force me to pay over and over for the same sofware - just because it's of benefit to corporate software companies.

Go ahead and return to the world of dumb terminals and mainframe computing - just don't be surprised if no one else is interested.

[Hardrada]

In response to your conclusion...

Blast!

[True_Rues]

most of these things are free now anyway

so why shouldn't microsoft just make there own and throw it in with windows, makes it helluva lot easier for the end users, and for microsoft. symantec wouldn't even be where they are now if microsoft didn't have so many vulnerabilities, so they would sell their product if it is better