Perspective: Is Windows still relevant?

In the increasingly Google-YouTube-Web 2.0 age we inhabit, it's become fashionable to dismiss Windows as a relic.

Ask around the office. You'll hear the Gen Xers sneer about how Microsoft's operating system is, well, so yesterday. Even a fair number of IT graybeards are warming to the notion that the times, they are a changing.

And so they are. Before closing the books on the Age of Windows, however, let's not get too caught up in the fashion of the moment. The water-cooler crowd may take a dim view of "Win-doze" for all the right reasons. Still, Microsoft's archrivals continue to view it as a product with a potentially make-or-break impact on their businesses.

In fact, two of them--Adobe Systems and Symantec--are lobbying European regulators to get tough on Microsoft. The European Union already has an unresolved antitrust dispute with Microsoft, and Adobe and Symantec would be silly not to play that card for all it's worth.

So this is what they're doing.

The U.S. software makers reportedly want regulators to prevent Microsoft from incorporating competing software for reading and creating electronic documents into the upcoming Vista operating system. Just as bad, from their perspective, Microsoft would include the applications for free. (Symantec has also made the rounds, telling European regulators that Microsoft's designs for Vista will put major hurt on competing computer-security software makers.)

Microsoft's archrivals continue to view it as a product with potentially make-or-break impact on their businesses.

For a moment, I thought I had been transported back in time--only the names had been changed. In 1997, the roster of tech companies complaining about Microsoft's behavior was led by the likes of Netscape and Sun Microsystems, with IBM, Intel, Apple Computer and a host of other Silicon Valley names pulling up the caboose. Joel Klein, then the Justice Department's antitrust chief, finally was persuaded to file the government's antitrust case, and the rest is history.

Nowadays, it's the European Union's Neelie Kroes, who figures as Microsoft's chief nemesis. She's warned Microsoft not to design Vista in ways that would screw the competition. The EU has already stuck Microsoft with more than $600 million in fines. Kroes imposed an additional $350 million because she said Microsoft subsequently refused to change its business practices.

All because of an operating system that so many have deemed to be yesterday's news.

The reality is that Windows remains as important as ever. Web-based AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML) applications may be the tech world's future, but there's a long transition between now and then. In the meantime, software vendors understandably dread any plans to "improve feature functionality" in Windows because they remember Microsoft's history.

At the risk of showing my age, I still recall when memory managers, firewalls, hard drive compression and defragmentation software, and any number of system tools, were sold separately (not to mention, of course, the Web browser). Most of those products--as well as the companies behind them--no longer exist because Microsoft has thrown everything it can inside Windows.

I can only imagine that Kroes is getting an earful about Vista. The security guys are seeing red because users will naturally gravitate toward the new Windows security console Microsoft designed for Vista. There's no longer any way that a Symantec or a McAfee can disable that feature. What's more, Europe is home to several antivirus software firms--such as F-Secure, Panda Software and Sophos--that share the same concerns.

Meanwhile, Vista's XML Paper Specification could pose tough new competition for Adobe's portable document format. The fact that Microsoft will include free software for reading those documents threatens quite a lucrative business for Adobe.

Companies usually are loath to air their dirty laundry--especially regarding Microsoft--but the simmering frustration with the way events are heading was on display earlier this week. McAfee claimed in a full-page ad in the Financial Times that Microsoft was purposely trying to hamstring security software makers by denying them access to the core of the operating system.

Only a week earlier, Symantec claimed that Microsoft had withheld important application program interfaces that security makers need to make sure their products are compatible with the anti-spyware product that will be bundled into Vista.

For the record, Microsoft disagrees with the accuracy of these portrayals and says it's maintaining close contact with regulators in Europe to ensure everything is in order.

However this gets resolved, the dustup speaks volumes about the true state of Windows' relevance. Looks like "yesterday's product" still has a few more tomorrows left.

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

[kicken18]

Damned if ya do, damned if you dont.

This is annoying me, to be fair. These companies exist BECAUSE OF WINDOWS. Anti-virus companies do well, due there being so many attacks on windows PC's. So, we are screaming at MS "MAKE A SECURE OS", they do, they give us all this stuff like AV, firewall etc, what happens, people moan...hang on, can they win? NO. Moaned at if they dont, sued if they do.

Alot of people say "ahh yeah my linux system come with blah blah, all free, its nice. So MS, include this this and this, its free, its nice...oh hang on...are people moaning because there putting stuff in for free :O...So....moaned at if they dont, sued if they do?

Really I see MS with no way out unless these companies **** and everyone decides they want **** on there fresh install, or they dont.

[alexgp87]

yep

i agree. they all use windows as the scapegoat for why their software sucks. why cant we all just get along?

[c|net Reader]

Faulty Analogy

Your analogy to Linux is faulty. With Linux, the underlying OS is built with security in mind. It isn't bolted on as with Windows in most cases. Furthermore, the tools included with Linux providing firewalls, etc., are *not* exclusive. You can use a different tool at will; there will be no vestige of the replaced tool.

These are two fundamental problems with Windows. It wasn't designed with proper security in mind from the lowest levels. I've no doubt Microsoft is desperately trying to fix that, but they have so much backward compatibility to preserve that progress is hampered. That's why Windows is not a secure OS and Microsoft gets grief.

For vendors, the typical integration of Microsoft's built-in tools is the problem. Do you recall the ruckus over IE being tied to the OS? Is there an option to uninstall the XP firewall? If Microsoft's tools were a download and install away just like other vendors' tools, the playing field would be more level. To help ensure users get a secure OS, Windows can include the means to know that you have installed a firewall, antivirus software, etc. and complain when you haven't. So long as Microsoft's own are not included and are available for download/purchase like all of the rest, they will compete fairly with the third party vendors.

Microsoft gets heat because they have designed an insecure OS, don't consider the security ramifications of each gee whiz feature added, and bundle and couple their own tools in the OS.

Making the OS secure doesn't require bundling or coupling tools in the OS.

[wykthorr]

I agree

I'm not at all a Microsoft fan, but I can't help to notice the abuses of the EU regarding Microsoft. At first the EU imposed to Microsoft that they release a version of Windows without Media Player. Next they whant to make microsoft release a version of Windows without essential features like support for open document format (I hope I got the naming right) and security. They're taking away from windows it's most important feature: the out-of-the box usability. Who said that if Windows shipps with Mediaplayer, antivirus and firewall users can't uninstall them and chose whatever software thy like. No one constrains them to use the microsoft products. Forcing microsoft out of the competition is killing innovation. The only thing that concerns the other sofware companies is that Microsoft sollutions would be better.(though I don't think there's any reason to panic since Microsoft poses no threat)

[DraconumPB]

The only thing is...

Apparently the security companies have been locked out of the Vista kernel or something. I think that's the main issue. But even still they would be complaining anyway.

[stuxstu]

Agreed!

Your right, I can choose the MS version of a feature or I can purchase a version I prefer. Which if these complainers are smart they will keep pushing technology and keep out in front of whatever MS does.

As to the MAC fanboys... Give me a break. Their software is "more" secure. How about unleashing a million hackers at MAC OS X and lets see how good it really is.

And finally to those who "think" Windows is going away. I don't think so. I can sit on my laptop anywhere in the world and work. You can't do that if I have to be connected to the internet 24/7. If you don't like the security now, wait till it is on the net and you are completely exposed to every threat the second it happens.

[Too Old For IT]

Maybe MS Needs to market Vista-Nellie

Market a half-arsed, functionality-lacking OS so Nellie will be happy.

Price it the same as full-blown Vista. See which one gathers dust in the warehouse.

[fred dunn]

Only Hardware MFRs Will Gain with Vista....

And of course Microsoft, but the users will not. Vista is like a bull in a china shop, just a disaster in the waiting.
It's codebase is and will be rife with security issues that a more mature OS has already fixed. The reason behind this is that MS decided to start from square one so all the mistakes they and others have found and fixed are back out there again.
And for what? The Aero UI, big whoop. The granular user permissions, another big whoop.

This has got to be THE least efficient OS to date because the meager functionality provided compared to the enormous hardware required.
This incredibly sized codebase gives me a real bad feeling that we will need to wait TWO service packs before this OS is stable and possibly secure.

Vista will be a boon to Apple and the Packaged and supported Linux Desktop. I never thought that I would see the Linux desktop gain ground on Windows but with what I have experienced with Vista I will be a part of the gain.

[PCCRomeo]

Well, In my own honest opinion...

I don't really see Microsoft in the wrong. Who knows their software better than the manufacturer?? I don't blame Microsoft for not wanting to release the core code for Vista, who's to say that someone at McAfee or Symantec will not leak the information? All of these anti virus software makers are making money on Windows' vulnerabilities, and now that Microsoft is trying to do something about it, they cry foul. And what contributions are the likes of McAfee and Symantec giving to the general public? Over priced bloat-ware that actually causes damage to you system? Another thing, Adobe Acrobat Reader SUCKS! You can't use it without it grinding your browser to a dead halt! It is so Windows 2k, I can't believe it is still around. And as if that wasn?t bad enough, they try installing that spyware called Yahoo! Toolbar on your system, which is in no way relevant to Reader. Go sue them EU! Go Microsoft!!

[rcrusoe]

No one NEEDS Windows these days.

MS is still the big dog, but running Windows these days is a choice, it is no longer a necessity.

There are fewer IE only websites every day, a fact for which, IMO, we can thank Mozilla / Firefox. You can find almost any kind of program you need if you run a Mac, but not as many for Linux. But the move to browser based apps makes binary programs less and less important. Within a few years the OS you run locally won't matter at all.

I've been running OSX and Linux online exclusively
for nearly 4 years, and have had no problems doing anything (online banking, etc.).

If you want to run Windows today, great. That's your choice. However if you don't want the problems that come with it, that's also your choice.

[mudlogger]

Oh Really

Try this since your so good at finding software to run on a Mac, find software to perform the same on a Mac as Logplot 2005 or Trivision Systems Powerlogger, then find software to match Geographix by Geoquest. As an "oh by the way" find the same software that will print continuous banners (no page breaks) up to 50' long without using more than one program to do it. As for the rest of this discussion please see

http://news.com.com/5208-1016-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=21172&messageID=189483&start=-1

The above rant comes at this idea from a different view point but still contains some elements of why some of us "need" Windows today.

[dragonfly8610]

Really now?

Until all of the hackers turn their attention to Linux and OSX....

[ben_winnipeg]

vulnerbilities

I am not sure were i read it, either on Cnet or the Register, but firefox had more vulnerbilities to date than IE. Also Mac OS X has thier share of issues, but no one cares

[Blito]

And the beat goes on...

This scenario will go on forever then some other cooperation, like AOL did with Netscape, gobbles up the product and so on and so forth. Noone wants a gazillion small companies that do the job only so so and create allot of confusion. A free market has a few large firms at the the top with the ability of smaller firms to make it big and get bought out to become part of a larger reality The reality is that MS is very user-friendly and managed up front to facilitate this business-user model relationship still with total access to a private product used in their ecosystem. Standards are good but companies need to propel them in the end not some translucent non-profit.
As long as people get along with Microsoft then everyone can win. Basically people have just switched over to open source solutions while XP played catch up with Windows firewall and some new security tools. Plus the added benefit at pressuring MS to maybe go open source in the future and rely on a SAAS or SOA model.
It's also a personal preference like as far as commands or the command line. I know people think they don't use commands in Windows but that's the core of any OS and MS still bases allot of their functionality around their simplistic cammand line structure that doesn't take too much training to understand.
Also most people can admit that the Windows GUI is pretty good and easy to get around in. For the most part it is better then KDE 3 but KDE 4 will be very good if not have a very embedded feel to it.. Vista should be allot better although I still don't think that have multiple desktops. The Windows UI is singular with allot of outside companies participating in extending it. The new UI is completely 3D in XML unlike Linux (XML based XGL is partial) and extremely user friendly based on XML including the registry. Any novice can whip up 3d graphics just by typing in a few XML commands and have it fully part of the Windows UI.

[jabbotts]

msDos 2007, Security and the parasites

In terms of msDos2007 Vista
I hope they've done as much under the hood as to the cosmetics. It's Microsoft, you know it'll be pretty even if it doesn't run. I've no plans to run it as my primary OS but I welcome a new msDos to explore (when they leg go for the legacy code, I'll stop calling it Dos).

In terms of security
Incorporating Explorer as a "feature" of Windows was a dirty trick when confronted with Netscape. This is security however and is not the same. Security is a core function of the OS these days; interface applicatons with hardware, authenticate and secure processes. It's about freaking time MS put some pre-development throught into security. We're not talking about cosmetics and user level applicatoins that bar competition, we're talking about OS core. I don't think they should be selling antivirus services but it is absalutely applicable as a free inclusion to patch over the years of shotty programming. Malware isn't some special creation by divine intervention, it's indaviduals exploiting a flaw in the OS programming; this makes it a warrenty support issue.

In terms of the parasites
The sooner MS' amoral business practicies and preditary licensing schemes bight them in the ass, the better but again, that's seporate from the the Antivirus parasites. The parasites have gotten nice and fat of fear marketing and the larger regularily named folks have gotten bloated and lazy about it. There are plenty of AV companies that work just fine with current versions of Vista. Write your software for the OS, don't demand the OS be flawed to make a place for your old code.

[coryschulz]

Microsoft IS the competition...

So how can they say that it is MS's responsibility not to interfere with competition if they themselves are part of the competition? Ever since the first version of windows it has been their business model to include more and more features at a relatively low cost, and they do it rather well, and their products really aren't that bad. Just because these other companies exist, that doesn't give them the right to continue existing. They need to address consumer needs and desires through good products, and if MS illiminates the need for these companies with a few simple features, then how is this bad?
An OS that can meet all of the consumers needs right out of the box is an amazing selling point for MS. Apple is growing, and more people are experimenting with Linux. MS has to do something. Europe knows nothing about capitalism. America grows much faster then they do.

Maybe we should all give Vista a chance before we start ripping on it and calling MS the devil?

[fred dunn]

We have given it a chance, It's BLOATWARE

And your insistance that Microsoft can secure it's Operating Systems as well as a third party not associated with the development and maintenance of the OS is insane. Microsoft can't even keep their core OS secure much less keep up the perimeter and application guard.
All the security companies that MS is not allowing kernel access to are known entities in this field, Microsoft IS NOT.
It's like the old addage "if you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have the guns" except in this case if you block the legitimate coders from the kernel then only the illegitimate coders will OWN the kernel.
I don't plan on going to Vista so good luck with your Vistabot.

[dragonfly8610]

Hacker's Paradise

From everything I have seen in the OS world, the people most vociferously ripping on Microsoft are hackers using other OSes to hack away at Windows, compromising and destroying machines.

All of the complaining about Windows will stop when it is no more, and the real complaining will start when all the hackers with their supposedly secure OSes start getting hacked by the people with the newest and securest OS.

God help us all when that moaning starts.

[i_made_this]

windows is still the most relevant and...

and pervasive o/s on the planet by far - that's a fact. whether we like that fact is completely irrelevant. windows will remain the most relevant and pervasive o/s on the planet until Microsoft encounters a competitor capable of giving windows a serious run at the o/s market. at this time, Microsoft has no significant o/s competitor by count of market share - again, a statement of fact, not personal preferance. My view of Window's future is that there's only one software firm on earth of sufficient mass and technological expertise that's capable of giving windows a serious run for the o/s global market share. If Google chooses to offer an o/s, that would be the firm I'd put my money on to unseat windows - but it won't happen for many years. Hopefully, it will happen in time to compete with whatever o/s Microsoft has in mind to follow Vista.

[ravipad]

Whats wrong if Windows elimenates Adobe?

If at last MS is getting its act together and there is no need for pdf reader, antivirus and all sorts of other applications, why should anti-trust have any objections? Does Apple complain that their software is irrelevent in Windows? Let a hundred OS bloom. Public will buy only the best OS that incorporates everything.
I was very happy with Apple but as the Mac got more and more expensive, I shifted to WinTel world.

[lgmbackman]

Whats wrong

If you have only one car maker, only one brewery in the US.
If you don't get it try to disscus it with people from the former Soviet Union or East Germany.
They know everything about the superb level of quality you can reach in a situation where the "monopoly" is the truth and the king.
I cannot, acctually, blame Microsoft for wanting to achive that wonderful state.

As far as I remember Gates has already claimed to having invented the PC.

I remember there was this "The Aviator" film about Hughes where Pan Am wanted to have a monopoly on all international flights.
Cannot remeber how that ended but I am sure all Americans to day understand how stupid such a decision, bye the state, would have been.

Microsoft is, to day, trying similar stunts.
And as IT is so young and hardly known bye those who make the political decisions, in a much better position to succeed.

For those of you who are realy interested in reading about this MS/EU thing, searh for

Case COMP/C-3/37.792
download the .pdf
It is a well written document about "the conduct" of Microsoft and what is expected of Microsoft in it's monopoly situation.
And absolutely nothing that Microsoft could not have delivered with ease, years ago.

Microsoft is to day in a situation where it is cheaper to bye political power, than invent and produce, to succeed.

And I do not think many companies (or their lawyers) to day, would react differently.

And then it becomes a question about the laws conserning monopolies and how to prevent the "sovietisation" of a trade.

[t8]

Detroying competition is what

Detroying competition is always bad for the consumer.

What happened when MS destroyed Netscape?

No innovation on a browser for 7 years.
Imagine if there had of been competition in browsers. We would have had weblications years ago.

Would you argue the same way for cellphones? One cellphone OS for all?

Variety and competition is good. You see both these in nature and nature is good. Do we want forests with one tree?

[lesfilip]

Trying to eliminate PDF format

Microsoft can not stand that they did not invent the PDF format, so
they are once again trying to bring their own bastardized version of
it to the party. PDF itself works fine, and should be used until
something significantly better, not just different, comes along.

Have a nice day!

[lesfilip]

Also, Apple is not getting more expensive

You must not be following the news if you still think Apple
computers are getting more expensive, especially when comparing
similar hardware capabilities.

Have a nice day!

[DarkPhoenixFF4]

You SHOULD care...

PDF is an OPEN specification. Anyone can legally write a program that can read and write the files.

Considering Microsoft's history, I'd bet on their replacement being open until it's taken PDF's spot as the number one document spec. Then it'll suddenly be closed off to anyone who isn't Microsoft, forcing people to gravitate to Windows to use it.

And it wouldn't be the first time.

[btljooz]

M$ wants cake and to eat it, too...

M$ gripes about "[i]piracy[/i]. Well what the #311 do they think they're doing by 'incorporating' other companies' programs within their O$ essentially giving these programs away for [b]FREE[/b]?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Kettle's callint the Pot [b]BLACK[/b]! :|

As was stated in the article M$ has already put other companies out of business. Why should they be allowed to continue building their [u]MONOPOLY[/u]????????

M$ is being allowed to do this, Ma Bell is re-uniting under the new moniker: at&t....

What ever happened to Anti-trust laws? I guess they're just "g-d pieces of paper", too.........

[markdoiron]

Vista Should Be Full of Holes!

"The security guys are seeing red because users will naturally gravitate toward the new Windows security console Microsoft designed for Vista. There's no longer any way that a Symantec or a McAfee can disable that feature."

Yes, MS Windows Vista should be built full of security holes so that these companies can continue to milk the money machine! Why don't these companies go after Apple for making such a "secure" OS (truth be known, no one wishes to target such a minor player!) that they can't sell their bloatware for that OS as well?!?

mark d.

[Stufiano]

It is STILL full of holes...

No one would be complaining if windows was rebuilt properly and securely [be realistic ppl, don't whine about whining]. But Microsoft didn't improve the security base much at all.

They added an antivirus and spyware sys.

They did not create a 'secure os". It's only an AV and spyware program. They did not improve the underlysing issue: THE CODE! Demand a real secure os, demand from MS better code not a new av that we can't remove. What makes this av safer than my current av?

I just think they should focus on creating a new os with new code and push ppl to the new os like mac pushed ppl from 9 to X. Only when the code is improved and they don't slap on plugins will the os be secure

THE SAME HOLES ARE THERE; AV AND SPYWARE SYS DON'T EQUATE TO SECURE OS!

[K.P.C.]

The thing is . . .

MS isn't supplying their "Security Service" (ROFLMAO - MS &
Security) for free, as they should, since it's their OS you are
purchasing in the 1st place.

Noooo - They're cutting the other security firms off from the
guts of Vista and then charging people monthly for the privilage
of using MS to keep their MS "OS" virus free and to plug any
holes built into the guts of the OS!

Hmmm - Sounds alot like someone from the old neighborhood
asking businesses to pay money so "someone" doesn't ransack
the place in the middle of the night.

Some people call that extortion. Others with "connections" call it
protection money.

MS Tax?

[qwerty75]

More ignorance

Security is not a numbers game. You are either secure or you are not, how many people use it is irrelevant.

How come Apache has over 70% of the server market(most run on *nix), yet MS has the most security issues in the server market?

Simple: it is easiest. It takes no technical knowledge to exploit a windows box and propagate it. Security explerts with advanced Computer Science degrees have tried and failed with other OS's.

XP has no built in security and neither does Vista. It only plays amatuerish shadow games and puts up weak perimeter defenses.

Defender is nothing more then what Symantic products do, but locks out third parties. This sort of lock out is illegal and anti-competitive.

Why doesn't windows do what Linux and OSX does? Have security done so well(not perfect) that only a firewall is required.

Once MS can run as securely as the other OS's with only a firewall then they can claim they take security seriously. That will not happen in vista and likely any MS OS.

[NukemAll]

The Windows Leaches

One of the reasons I'm migrating away from Windows is the fact that they are the host for other blood sucking leach companies to sell their wares. Microsoft needs to plug their own holes as an obligation to their customers and the hell with the wining blood suckers making money off windows customers.

[dragonfly8610]

it boils down to this...

MS designed an imperfect piece of software (as it will always be), and due to the imperfections, it created a niche market for other software vendors.

MS should be under no legal obligation to preserve this niche market at their own expense.

As long as MS creates software that does not infringe on the copyrights and intellectual property of other software companies, they should be free to do as they please.

This is called CAPITALISM, and in this form of economic governance, MS should not be required to give away its intellectual property just so another company can feed off its table scraps.

[qwerty75]

The problem is

.. that MS did not shut them off because those types of services are not needed anymore. That is one thing. If they did that, these companies still would complain, but at least the customer would be happy knowing that much of his processor cycles are not being used for perimeter defense software., and for once Windows could be called reasonably secure.

Vista still requires perimeter defense software, because it has no real built in security. Add this to the fact that they are purposefully cutting off competition to their software.

It is very much like an auto maker coming up with a part that never breaks. That would be great. What isn't great is if the auto maker were allowed to force all its customers to use only their parts and not some 3rd party part manufacturer.

[Stan Johnson]

Stupid question...

enough said

[qwerty75]

Windows is irrelevant

For one simple reason:

It is a poorly copied version of other operating systems.

[maverick_nick]

Simple solution

Look at the oil companies - even though I dislike having to depend on oil - they've got no problems when it comes to competition, because the price of oil is regulated by a governing body.

What we need is a software governing body that would regulate software pricing. This would obviously throw open-source into disarray, but competition and innovation will be born. Example: A web browser must be sold for $5.00. The web browser market would then become feasible for several companies to enter and there would be a flurry of innovation.

Obviously the problem comes in when software needs to touch the core of the operating system. Since ordinary law makers don't have great knowledge of this complex world, we need to create a software regulating body comprised of legal experts as well as technical experts.

On the other hand we could really throw a wrench into the works by requiring that all software, regardless of platform be open-source. Lets just do it and get over with it despite the financial implications that it would have for a few fat cats.

A good analogy is the automotive industry. You can strip the engine of a car and see how it's built, but companies aren't all copying the most powerful or fuel economical designs. They're competing and innovating and surviving.

So it's time for the law makers to step up to the plate or IT experts to get law degrees!

[lesfilip]

Wrong solution

Your plan would be frowned upon in most of the free world.

Have a nice day!

[Bilodeaumj]

R U on drugs?

Dude, no offence but take economics 101. Governing body???
you scare me... Regulating an industry would kill any type of
innovation and set the computer world back to the stone age.
Do you have any idea what it costs to develop Vista or Leopard
(Apple OS?) Neither do I but $5 bucks a pop sure wouldn't cover
any sort of R&D. Drop your OS and add linux and see what you
can get for $5 (no offence to all you Linux brainiacs that are
doing good things over there as you will ultimately win the day).
Also, I sure wouldn't want a "governing body" telling me what a
OS should look or act like. Goodness, your scary solutions are
turning me into a conservative. Go tax yourself!!!:)

[imacpwr]

Get a Mac and NEVER look back..!!

I've used M$ OS's the last 10 years and have watched them take
out one software company after another. It's obvious they want
to be the ONLY supplier of software for the world. The bigger
and pushier they got the more I hated using their products. Well
less than a year ago I took the big step and gave the Mac a try.
Less than a week later I knew I had found my salvation. Not only
do I feel better using a Mac but the Mac is increadibly better at
doing everything I enjoy doing on a computer in the first
place..!! Oh and not to forget.. Apple makes the sexiest
computers around, even when it's not turned on it's a fashion
statement just standing there.

[chuck_whealton]

Get a Mac and NEVER look back..!!

I'd agree the MacOS is a superior product. At the same time I
also agree with the person who wrote the article we're
commenting on.

Windows is far from being a relic. It's going to be here for a
long time to come. I don't necessarily like it, but I'm fairly
certain it will be around for a while.

For whatever reason, corporate America loves to throw away
billions when it comes to software. Not to mention, there aren't
many alternatives right now...

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[chuck_whealton]

Get a Mac and NEVER look back..!!

I'd agree the MacOS is a superior product. At the same time I
also agree with the person who wrote the article we're
commenting on.

Windows is far from being a relic. It's going to be here for a
long time to come. I don't necessarily like it, but I'm fairly
certain it will be around for a while.

For whatever reason, corporate America loves to throw away
billions when it comes to software. Not to mention, there aren't
many alternatives right now...

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[Bilodeaumj]

Mac is in the same boat

First off, I'm a Mac user (just got the 24"- WOW!). However, the
articles finer point is the user interface is changing and it won't
be too long into the future when MS & Mac OS are part of the
past. With online video comes TV/computer interface
integration which lessens the need for an off-the-shelf OS. Your
user interface will be provided either by your internet company,
Google, or iTunes.

There will always be a place for MS Office and that is a good
thing as standardization makes good economic sense in a
worldwide economy.

[broman07]

Only Microsoft

...can take a problem and turn it into a revenue stream. Why make
your OS more secure when you can sell an antivirus package. It's
like McDonalds selling antacids. If corporate IT departments wake
up to this garbage, then and only then might we be free of the M$
stranglehold on the OS market.