Posted on 04/11/2008 6:50:11 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The researchers damn Windows in current form, urge radical changes
Calling the situation "untenable" and describing Windows as "collapsing," a pair of Gartner analysts yesterday said Microsoft Corp. must make radical changes to its operating system or risk becoming a has-been.
In a presentation at a Gartner-sponsored conference in Las Vegas, analysts Michael Silver and Neil MacDonald said Microsoft has not responded to the market, is overburdened by nearly two decades of legacy code and decisions, and faces serious competition on a whole host of fronts that will make Windows moot unless the software developer acts.
"For Microsoft, its ecosystem and its customers, the situation is untenable," said Silver and MacDonald in their prepared presentation, titled "Windows Is Collapsing: How What Comes Next Will Improve."
Among Microsoft's problems, the pair said, is Windows' rapidly-expanding code base, which makes it virtually impossible to quickly craft a new version with meaningful changes. That was proved by Vista, they said, when Microsoft -- frustrated by lack of progress during the five-year development effort on the new operating -- hit the "reset" button and dropped back to the more stable code of Windows Server 2003 as the foundation of Vista.
"This is a large part of the reason [why] Windows Vista delivered primarily incremental improvements," they said. In turn, that became one of the reasons why businesses pushed back Vista deployment plans. "Most users do not understand the benefits of Windows Vista or do not see Vista as being better enough than Windows XP to make incurring the cost and pain of migration worthwhile."
Other analysts, including those at Gartner rival Forrester Research Inc., have highlighted the slow move toward Vista. Last month, Forrester said that by the end of 2007 only 6.3% of 50,000 enterprise computer users it surveyed were working with Vista. What gains Vista made during its first year, added Forrester, appeared to be at the expense of Windows 2000; Windows XP's share hardly budged.
The monolithic nature of Windows -- although Microsoft talks about Vista's modularity, Silver and MacDonald said it doesn't go nearly far enough -- not only makes it tough to deliver a worthwhile upgrade, but threatens Microsoft in the mid- and long-term.
Users want a smaller Windows that can run on low-priced -- and low-powered -- hardware. And increasingly, users work with "OS-agnostic applications," the two analysts said in their presentation. It takes too long for Microsoft to build the next version, the company is being beaten by others in the innovation arena, and in the future -- perhaps as soon as the next three years -- it's going to have trouble competing with Web applications and small, specialized devices.
"Apple introduced its iPhone running OS X, but Microsoft requires a different product on handhelds because Windows Vista is too large, which makes application development, support and the user experience all more difficult," according to Silver and MacDonald.
"Windows as we know it must be replaced," they said in their presentation.
Their advice to Microsoft took several forms, but one road they urged the software giant to take was virtualization. "We envision a very modular and virtualized world," said the researchers, who spelled out a future where virtualization -- specifically a hypervisor -- is standard on client as well as server versions of Windows.
"An OS, in this case Windows, will ride atop the hypervisor, but it will be much thinner, smaller and modular than it is today. Even the Win32 API set should be a module that can be deployed to maintain support for traditional Windows applications on some devices, but other[s] may not have that module installed."
Backward compatibility with older applications should also be supported via virtualization. "Backward compatibility is a losing proposition for Microsoft; while it keeps people locked into Windows, it also often keeps them from upgrading," said the analysts. "[But] using built-in virtualization, compatibility modules could be layered atop Win32, or not, as needed."
Silver and MacDonald also called on Microsoft to make it easier to move to newer versions of Windows, re-think how it licenses Windows and come up with a truly modular operating system that can grow or shrink as needed.
Microsoft has taken some new steps with Windows, although they don't necessarily match what the Gartner analysts recommended. For instance, the company recently granted Windows XP Home a reprieve from its June 30 OEM cut-off, saying it would let computer makers install the older, smaller operating system on ultra-cheap laptops through the middle of 2010.
It will also add a hypervisor to Windows -- albeit the server version -- in August, and there are signs that it will launch Windows 7, the follow-on to Vista, late next year rather than early 2010.
Bloatware. Silly how much activity goes on in that OS even for the simplest things.
Its a humorous story. To be honest...Windows XP has pretty much maxed out whatever you wanted it to do...and I think the mass of users really don’t have any huge expectations anymore. The geek squad might....but most of us see no reason to buy into the next round.
Even if we discuss Office 97...most of us with copies of this...will agree that upgrading to Office 2003 or Office 2007...is really not necessary. Office 97 does what ninety percent of us want.
I admit being a humble daily user of Microsoft products and certainly not a Geek...but if you asked me...saying that Windows is just about “finished”...would be a joke.
•
Seems that the main focus of this article is corporate adoption, which is historically slow for any new OS, Windows included. Chock this article up to a big yawn from me.
I supported OS/2 warp until 2006 on a network because it worked for the need.
Couldn’t agree more. I have Vista on two different laptops, and the system ‘think time’ is absolutely over the top. It once took nearly 10 minutes to come out of hibernation.
If Microsoft came out with Windows Lite, that was guaranteed to contain no legacy code and was lean and mean, I would pay extra for it. I want something that can run basic software efficiently, and want all the rest of it to just go away.
Nowadays, to get the same thing, I get it for free from open sources. But that is a hassle I could do without.
Tech list PING!
(Your computer out of hibernation in Houston yet??)
Maybe so, but I am not happy with Vista, and I don’t intend to buy a Vista machine anytime soon (really, how many non-corporate users upgrade an OS on their existing machines).
Vista is too hardware intensive for me. I don’t want a “pretty” desktop. On my work and home PCs I’ve turned off most of the Windows visual enhancements, because I don’t care about them, and I’d rather be able to keep a browser window, a Word document, and 4 spreadsheets open than have animated window opennings.
At home, I used to like to play games on my computer, but I gave up due to my unwillingness to upgrade my hardware frequently enough. Looking at a Vista PC, I don’t want to have to have a graphics card just to run the OS, which is where this is heading. Give me an updated, but not upgraded Windows 2000.
Open Office will do 99% of what people want. But that 1% makes all the difference, especially to a programmer creating an application needed by a client.
don’t forget the MS snoopware to “authenticate you”
The multitude of “versions”
Downward compatability is a MAJOR issue for my business as I do not want to be buying new 3rd party EVERYTHING just because the OS upgraded.
What I really want is a basic software suite, word processing, web browsing, photo editing, book-keeping, media player and a few standard games. I want that all to run off of a non-writable platform, like a CD perhaps or maybe BIOS, so that it could not be effected by malware, and if it was, it could be reloaded easily. The only thing I want to write to the hard drive is data files, that I could back up.
Then if the thing blows up, it is easy to fix. Such a system would do 99.9% of what I want it to do.
Thus completing the Windows Vista / Windows ME analogies.
ah, Windows. The OS for stupid people...
I am buying 4 gig of RAM for a new box for $70. The video card is built into the motherboard (ATI 3400) and will more than adequately handle Vista. You can upgrade a box to do Vista for next to nothing.
And what will be replacing Windows in stores tomorrow?
Right here.
You want Ubuntu Linux. It’s free.
Win OS is running the vast majority of corp systems, and home systems. I run Win OS on my servers and rarely have a problem. I suggest that if you can do better, then do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.