Windows is 'collapsing,' Gartner analysts warn

Computer Worlds ^ | April 10, 2008 | Gregg Keizer

[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.

[Swordmaker]

No, the cost difference is still there.

You have to compare apples to apples (no pun intended).

A Windows machine with the exact same specs as the Mac can be had at far less, I’m talking $600 range.

So I’m not going to pay an extra large premium because it has a plastic Apple on the front.

No, gjones77, you can't.

I just spec'd a new Dell Precision workstation to match the basic off the shelf MacPro Workstation:

Mac Pro in the Apple Store on 4/11/2008 at 6:20PM PST $2799.00

The dell isn't even close!

Dell Precision Workstation priced on 4/11/2008 at 6:15PM PST $4299.00

To be fair, the Dell includes a free 19" Ultrasharp 1908FP display... so let's add that to the MacPro that comes without a monitor...

Dell Ultrasharp priced on 4/11/2008 at 6:30PM PST

... so that brings up the Mac Pro to $3083.00

We also have to add AppleCare to match the 3 year warranty on the Dell which adds $249.00.

That brings the MacPro price to: - $ 3,332.00
The Dell Precision Workstation: - $ 4,299.00
The MacPro is less expensive by: -- $ 967.00

Gosh, gjones77, just to MATCH the retail price of the Mac Pro, you have to spend almost $1,000 more. . . and you haven't even started on purchasing a software suite to match iLife. . . or anti-malware for the PC!

Oh, and that's already including Dell's Instant Savings Discount...

How about checking the all-in-one computers offered by Dell and Apple... the XPS One and the iMac:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oh, gosh, gjones77, the prices for similar systems and specs are the same! Again, the Dell doesn't come with a full Vista... only the home addition... the ultimate edition is an extra $300. The Mac comes with a full edition of OS X.5 Leopard. . . and the iLife suite of applications.

Compare Apples to apples, and the Apple Mac price is either competitive or less than equally specced PCs.

[antiRepublicrat]

True, only Apple had the Apple. But, Apple could’ve been the dominant PC or API if it had done things right back when it had the chance.

But they didn't. IBM brought DOS to power, clones made it ubiquitous, it was all over after that. Windows is as popular as it is because of business decisions, but not because of quality or ease of use.

[Swordmaker]

The cheapest MacBook is $1,100 according to Apple’s website...for 1 gig RAM, 120GB HD, running 2.1 GHz Core 2 Duo.

If you spec out a Dell, for example, I can get an Inspiron model with same processor, 2 gig RAM and 250 GB HD for $900.

MacBook Notebook computers priced on 4/11/2008 at 8:20 PM PST $ 1299.00 & $ 1499.00

Upgrading the Dell Inspiron:

How did you get it to offer a 2.1Ghz processor? They don't seem to offer one when I specced it out.

In any case, speccing out a Dell Inspiron 1420 Laptop (14.1" screen) to get as close to a MacBook should be done matching processors... that means the next step up MacBook... the 2.4 Ghz White and Black models... which match the upgraded 2.4 GHz processor in the Dell.

Dell Inspiron Laptop priced on 4/11/2208 at 8:20 PM PST $1497.00

Buying the Dell specced to match a mid-range MacBook gets you a slightly larger screen and an additional 70GB of hard drive. But it also buys you a notebook that is half a pound heavier, an inch deeper and half an inch thicker than the MacBook. Thin costs money. Other than that, it is fairly close in price... but you can spec the White MacBook to include the 250GB HD and it is $1399.00.

And the Mac still comes with the iLife suite of software apps.

Looks pretty competitive to me.

[MeekOneGOP]

ITEOTWAWKI!!!! *

It’s the End of the WINDOWS as we know it. :)

[Swordmaker]

Actually if I spec out and build the machine myself, I come out way ahead of the Mac and better than Dell. ;)

Why not do it? Show us. The basic Mac Pro is $2799.00.

Put a price list together that will build a system that duplicates the components of the Mac Pro... for under $2800. Should be easy.

I tried it:

I found that the Intel Xeon processors alone to match the MacPro (Intel Xeon E5462 2.8GHz, 1600MHz FSB) are which Dell sells for around $1200. Best price I found for these on the Internet was $843... each. You need two: $1,686.00.

High quality aircraft-grade aluminum case: $ 150.00.

1000W Power Supply (The Mac Pro's is actually 1200W max) .. you might get one cheaper but are you going to risk your $1600 of processors to the bottom of the barrel? Average price is : $250.00

High quality dual quad core Xeon ready 771 Socket Xeon (1600MHz FSB) quality motherboard (average price of six offered): $600.00

Graphics card: $100

2GB Fully buffered ECC DDR2 800MHz FB-DIMM (cheapest): $ 140.00

320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s, 7200 rpm, 8MB cache Hard drive: $ 80.00

Vista Ultimate OEM: $ 166.00

CD/DVD burner: $ 30.00

Cooling fans - case requires 4 - and the Mac Pro is very quiet so you can't get buy with cheapies: $100.00

Keyboard with USB ports and Optical Mouse: $30.00

ITEM	INTERNET PRICE	BALANCE
Apple Mac Pro Retail:	$ 2799.00	$ 2799.00
2 Xeon Processsors	$ 1686.00	$ 1113.00
Aluminum Computer Case	$ 150.00	$ 963.00
1000 Watt Power Supply	$ 250.00	$ 713.00
Xeon 771 Socket 1600MHz Motherboard	$ 600.00	$ 113.00
Graphics Card ATI Radeon HD	$ 100.00	$ 13.00
2 GB ECC FB-DIMM (2 1GB DIMMS)	$ 140.00	$ 127.00
Vista Ultimate OEM	$ 166.00	$ 293.00
CD/DVD RW burner drive	$ 30.00	$ 323.00
Four (4) Quiet cooling fans	$ 100.00	$ 423.00
Keyboard and Mouse	$ 30.00	$ 453.00
Total Cost: PC Parts v. Mac Pro	$ 3252.00	$ 2799.00

Show me how to do it for significantly less money, Slapshot68...

[Swordmaker]

Yes and if you spec the identical components vs. Dell, the Mac is cheaper.

Look back a few posts... I did it again. It's like harpooning whales in a barrel...

[Swordmaker]

Twice the ram twice the hard drive and it’s still $242 less than the Mac.

Wrong form factor... compare the iMac to the XPS One. They are both all-in-ones.

[dennisw]

Plus if you are patient you can get that Dell for $200 less when on sale. Or a very close equivalent with low end Quad core

Apple stock just took a beating

[BulletBobCo]

bump

[D-fendr]

Well researched and presented.

thanks..

[Swordmaker]

My apologies... I made an error in comparing the Dell Dimension to the Mac Pro. I assumed that the Dell used a 1600MHz Front Side Bus... I was wrong. It uses a 1333MHz Front Side Bus... it is much slower. Unfortunately, to compare the Mac Pro with the Dell, one must upgrade both to the 3.2GHz quad core processors so you get an upgraded motherboard on the Dell Dimension and the 1600MHz FSB, When you do that, the price of the upgraded Mac Pro is $ 4,399.00.

The upgraded Dell Dimension is $ 5,598.

The 3.2 GHz Mac Pro is $ 1699.00 less expensive than the 3.2GHz Dell.

Again, my apologies for that error.

snicker... ;^)>

[HAL9000]

I submit that if Apple had the install base that Microsoft has, the MAC would suffer just as many viruses/spyware etc.

If Windows and Mac OS X had equivalent usage shares, Windows would still have far more malware. The reason for the discrepancy is that Mac OS X has a better design, and so far, no one has been able to make self-propagating malware (viruses, worms, etc.) work on a Mac.

[HAL9000]

That’s mostly because Apple has always used it’s own graphics format for it’s internal apps, I believe it’s a *.pic format.

The PICT format hasn't been used much since the OS 9 era. Mac OS X users typically use iPhoto to manage and send photos, and it uses the JPEG format. Mac OS X also has first-class support for PDF, TIFF, GIF and PNG formats.

There is an checkbox option in the Mac OS X Mail.app for "Windows-friendly attachments". That might fix the problem.

[twntaipan]

There is a way to speed up how quickly OO loads (in any OS). The trick is to make a change to how it loads/uses java. Google for speeding up Open Office and you’ll find how to do it.

[tomkat]

ABC Amber Outlook Converter

(no affiliation, just a user)

[Slapshot68]

Actually, I have a lot of wholesale contacts where I can get parts significantly cheaper....hence my claim. But good job on your homework, sounds like you’re an Apple fan. You have to wonder though, if you could build your own Apple machine, how much cheaper it would be compared to buying it stock.

And I’m not knocking Apple in terms of it’s performance, it’s a great machine but I’m a PC gamer so obviously my choices are limited on the Mac.

[untrained skeptic]

You can actually architect around that. If the filesystem had advanced permissions and the OS didn't require every user to run as an Administrator, you could have administrative applications protected, and each user in their own sandbox, unable to write to other users or the administrative area.

Windows NTFS does have such advanced permissions.

However, there is always a trade-off between usability and functionality.

If a user can change or delete files, so can a trojan program operating as that user.

You can set up different accounts that have permissions to do different tasks or access different files. However, each account can always mess up what it has access to, and while they may not be able to make the OS unusable, they can delete or corrupt their user files, which for most people is what they value most on the machine.

It's much easier to protect system files or keep one user from destroying the files of another user. On a server that is much more critical than protecting a single user's files. However, on most people's PCs a single user's data is most likely the most important thing on that system, and to be able to create and modify that data, they also need to effectively be able to destroy it.

The administrative area could then back up documents that could be wiped out by a harmful program, and if there were a problem, restore them on boot.

Windows does this with device drivers and other system files, but since most people don't want the hassle of having to have a separate administrator account on their PC, a virus or trojan can still destroy those files, because it is effectively being run as the administrator.

Of course, that would mean every administrative application would have to be signed by Microsoft, and drivers too for that matter.

Microsoft doesn't prevent people from loading unsigned drivers, but they do warn them about unsigned drivers. They keep trying to push both developers and customers towards only using signed drivers and applications, but their user base keeps demanding that they be able to run unsigned drivers and apps. Such security is in Windows. The users just don't want to accept the restrictions using such security places on them.

And there would have to be a way to have lower applications stored to another universally accessible section of the drive, and all applications would have to save preferences and other user changable data to their sections. It's a big change, but it could be done.

It's already in there and has been in there for quite some time now. Some of the features didn't start maturing until about Windows 2000, and have been improved upon since then, but a lot of what you are suggesting has always been part of the Windows NT line, and I don't think any of it wasn't at least mostly there at least by Windows 2000.

[Fawn]

Just wanted to let you know that program for Hotmail to Outloook worked fast and easy! Thank you...

[Southack]

"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."

Exactly, but there's more. It's not just buying new 3rd party shelfware that is compatible with your new OS...you've also got to re-write all of your in-house corporate proprietary software that's been working fine for your company and its programmers for years.

And after you spend large amounts of money paying your own programmers and rush-contractors to make the changes, you are only getting the same functionality from your software that you once had back when your company ran XP instead of Vista.

That's a lot of money for a company to spend to wind up doing the same thing. So why change OS's?

And here's the kicker: MicroSoft could write a new OS from scratch and simply ship XP with the new OS. The new OS could have dual boot or virtualization (i.e. actually run XP in a window). So there's NO REASON for spaghetiing XP/Server03 into one giant VISTA OS.

Microsoft could have trivially shipped two OS's together "as one."

Boot to pure XP for speed...or run XP in a Vista virtual window for convenience...and have Vista available for whomever wanted/needed whatever it is that Vista does that XP doesn't (sound of crickets).

Instead, Microsoft so butchered the Server '03/XP code that old hardware drivers won't even run on the Vista OS. Backwards compatibility was thrown out the window...and for that "priviledge" Vista runs at half the speed (at best) as XP on the same hardware.

Faced with an easy solution for the entire marketplace...or a cludge that would hammer performance and botch backwards compatibility, MicroSoft chose the worst of all strategic options.

[longtermmemmory]

This is why the new Iphone and MS want to move everything you do to THEIR servers.

The compatability nightmare will mean you will eventually be forced to store your data at their locations and remote your database and then pay them to subscribe to the software to access your own information.

OS as a utility service.