

Why Microsoft needs three or more operating systems - shawndumas
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/why-microsoft-needs-three-or-more-operating-systems/

======
fidotron
As time goes on I'm more convinced arstechnica doesn't understand the
increasingly non-Wintel world we're in. Things like the comment about Intel
based phones, the whole premise of the article here (without going into how
the whole point of WP8 was it was supposed to have the same API as RT, but it
actually didn't and thus was pointless) and their confusions about the XBox
are all indicative of a mindset that still believes in the ultimate
invincibility of MS and Intel.

~~~
DrPizza
I think you miss my point about Intel phones. Intel is threatening to have
processors that will be somewhere between "credible" and "best in class" for
smartphones. It's not guaranteed at this stage, but it's absolutely within the
realm of possibility. Should this happen, it's absolutely something that
Microsoft will need to support, especially since Android already runs on such
phones.

Windows Phone 8 was intended, first and foremost, to bring the kernels into
alignment. It did this. It is a shame that it does not provide the full WinRT
API, but Microsoft never said that it would, so I'm not sure why you're saying
that it was "supposed" to.

------
PaulHoule
The elephant in the room that's being ignored here is the business model.

I'm typing this message right now on an Android tablet and a Bluetooth
keyboard. I paid $150 for a pretty nice device, and adding the keyboard and
mouse brings that to about $200, a lot less than any netbook. Perhaps a $300
netbook is better spec wise, but this thing is smaller and cuter and even
turns heads in rooms full of macbook toting developers.

Android devices will always be able to beat Windows 8.1 devices pricewise
because the biz model for Microsoft is that device manufactures pay something
in the high $XX for a Windows license.

They can demand that premium because of all the software that exists for
Windows. Windows RT deliberatly dumps Win32 compatibility because they want to
have a cheap tablet OS they can sell that doesn't command the price premium
without cannabilizing the market for Win 8.1

~~~
scholia
True, but it depends on the value you put on functionality. If you look at the
Dell Venue 8 tablet, it's going for $150 running Android or $300 running
Windows 8.1 on a quadcore Bay Trail (which performs really well).

The extra $150 gets you Windows 8.1, a copy of Microsoft Office Home and
Student, and the ability to run x86 apps from the world's biggest software
ecosystem.

That may not be of any value to you, but it's certainly of value to businesses
and individuals that live in and off Microsoft Office and a vast range of
Windows utilities.

If you're into photography, for example, the ability to run Adobe Lightroom
and other software with batch processing and bulk uploading from an 8in tablet
is pretty compelling.

The premium price is $1 a week over three years. This isn't a lot if your time
time has any value.

~~~
PaulHoule
I don't disagee that that $150 premium brings some real value. Personally I
like Windows and I own a number of Windows machines.

On the other hand, the Android ecosystem is getting better quickly, and the
main thing that threatens it is kneecapping on the part of vendors.

For instance, the Kindle Fire is a good product line but it doesn't give you
access to Google Play. Amazon won't let you watch Instant Video on stock
Android devices, however, which just drove me to get a Netflix subscription.

Microsoft Office 365 Home is a great deal at $99 a year given that you can run
Office on up to 5 Windows computers and up to 5 mobile devices... With the
caveat that Microsoft doesn't offer a complete version of Office for Android.

CNBC lets you watch live TV on a iPad but not on Android. In many cases you
see that vendors see Android as a threat but don't see iOS as a threat
precisely because the iOS is perceived to be a niche market and that Android,
in the long time, will eat everything by being cheap.

~~~
Someone
_" CNBC lets you watch live TV on a iPad but not on Android. In many cases you
see that vendors see Android as a threat but don't see iOS as a threat
precisely because the iOS is perceived to be a niche market and that Android,
in the long time, will eat everything by being cheap."_

I would think that "with iOS, we have a place to go if people start cracking
our software" plays a part, too. Why would CNBC see Android as a threat?

------
mpg33
They need to take Windows 7 and keep developing that as separate Enterprise
OS.

~~~
mhurron
No the base of Windows 8 is solid. Simply not having that Metro interface,
making metro the new API that ran within a traditional desktop would have been
just fine.

From that, just create an interface for Windows tablets that is similar to the
existing Metro interface as it does work there.

~~~
breakbread
It still blows my mind that they didn't at the very least make Metro optional
for Professional and Server SKUs. Or, better yet, off by default unless the
setup detected a device with a touch panel.

------
Pxtl
What I'm hearing is that the massive break between WP7 and WP8 won't be the
last of its kind - the inevitable consolidation of WinRT and WP8 into a new OS
will require deep-enough changes that I doubt we'll see the OS released on our
existing devices.

I'm also disappointed to hear how much legacy code lives in the Win8RT/WP8
platforms - I thought they were supposed to be a clean break.

~~~
m_mueller
I'm sure it will go over well with customers and developers when their devices
/ code once again won't run anymore with the Windows 9 OSes. I doubt MS would
be as big if they'd made this mistake back in the Windows 2 through 4 days.
Once the upgrade situation is worse than on Android you know they're in
trouble.

~~~
Pxtl
I'd assume all the Windows RT + .NET Compact code would be just fine, it's
more the physical devices that would be the worry.

------
vparikh
Microsoft needs to stop trying to create an OS - just throw in the towel. Take
BSD or Linux kernel port WIN32 on it and be done with it. They make almost all
of their money on Office and Exchange anyways.

I mean this is what Next/Apple essentially did with BSD correct? Took BSD and
created their own UI/services layer on top of it.

~~~
mhurron
No, the BSD part of OS X/NeXT is just that, a part of the OS. OS X is not just
a pretty face on FreeBSD.

------
Aardwolf
"two operating systems: a locked down mobile-oriented one and a full-strength
one for tasks that need full flexibility."

Why a locked down one? Why not a full-strength mobile OS?

~~~
wodenokoto
Because expectations and demands for stability in mobile devices are still
much higher than on laptops and desktops.

If I start a game that requires too much horsepower on my PC, then sure, maybe
the thing freezes or take a long time to get responsive and if I recieve a
skype call in that instance, I actually expect it to fail.

Not on a phone. No matter what I am doing, I expect SMS's and phonecalls to be
accepted. No excuses.

------
alisnic
Why Microsoft really needs is to stop and start again from a garage. They have
transformed in a weird-ass monster that is slowly dying.

~~~
jspc
Windows needs to be restarted from a garage but other arms are not doing too
badly/ not dying quite so badly. Games are a good spinner for MS; Office,
exchange and AD are still ubiquitous for offices and they may even make that
Azure mess into a reasonable product (Especially if they keep targeting
transcoding based industries)

------
yeukhon
The section title paused me for a second.

> A different CPU does not an operating system make

------
fit2rule
What Microsoft needs to do, is abandon its secrets and OS property, and
participate as the perfect corporate partner, in the open-OS ethos. There is
no longer any good reason for an OS to be anything other than a public,
common, property - available to all for use and/or modification.

The proprietary OS vendors are still holding on to their installed customer
base, and must of course continue to support bad technology decisions. But on
the other hand, in the "what shocking thing should Microsoft do next to prove
that it kicks ass and is still relevant in the 21st century"-Department,
wouldn't it be fabulous if The New Guy, given the reigns, decides to send the
troops on a prolonged engagement far, far away from the "safety" and
"sanctity" of corporate property.

~~~
300bps
_What Microsoft needs to do, is abandon its secrets and OS property_

You provide no support for this statement, so we're left to ask what you mean
by it. What is your meaning? Before you answer, please look at this:

[http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-
share....](http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-
share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0)

That shows that Windows is about 91% of the desktop operating system market.
On what do you base them as needing to prove "it kicks ass and is still
relevant in the 21st century"?

In fact, the one operating system on that chart that supports an "open-OS"
ethos takes up less than 2% of desktop operating system market. I would think
_that_ operating system would be the one that needs to prove its relevance as
we are almost 14 years into the 21st century.

~~~
scholia
Somewhat sobering to remember that Linus released the first Linux kernel
before the first beta of Windows NT (1992).

