
Gartner: Windows is collapsing - foemmel
http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9916717-56.html?tag=nefd.top
======
mynameishere
I've still never used a vista machine. MSFT should probably take a cue from
apple and make more-or-less meaningless updates to the OS and call it a new
version. Charge 50 bucks for an upgrade, but do them every year like
clockwork. You have _de facto_ subscription software at that point.

------
gscott
Usually every upgrade of Windows makes sense. Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 to
Windows 98 were logical but then Windows ME didn't make any sense as it didn't
improve much upon 98. Windows XP made sense as it was a real improvement but
the move from Windows XP to Vista didn't gain any real benefits to the end
user and since you are only as good as your last product, MS is getting a
great deal of blowback.

Windows Vista to "Windows 7" may make sense if Microsoft is rewriting the core
to handle legacy apps differently then installing 2 gigabytes of unneeded
files. If they scrap out the high level stuff that manages DRM, scrape off the
extra crud they added, they will be fine again and Vista will be in the past.

------
morbidkk
I am convert now; using ubuntu linux full time on laptop & desktop both.(I
just posted the same here <http://ketankhairnar.blogspot.com> )

Actually linux still has to go long way and programmers have to contribute
more not only by improving the desktop experience(which distros like
fedora/debian are doing); but also by showcasing alternative approaches like
ubuntu/fedora and its usability to other people who are lost into windows
world.

I know this shift is happening faster than ever before. I may not do
significant contrubution on development part but surely would make people
around me aware of alternative (which in turn would make lot of people happy
about hardware/cost and performance )

~~~
Tichy
Why do you think it still has a long way to go? It works fine for me (also
Ubuntu) - more than fine actually. So fine that I don't want to use anything
else atm.

Sure, there were some rough spots in the beginning (solve them once and you
are done), but every operating system has them. Overall Ubuntu seems more
usable than the alternatives to me (unless you can wrap your mind around the
Apple way of thinking maybe - I can't).

Everybody is laughing, but I'll say it again: the single coolest move
Microsoft could make would be to switch over to Linux. They could provide a
fancy theme (they are actually reasonably good with user interfaces, having a
research lab and all), port their applications to Linux, and everybody would
be happy. I don't think Windows itself is the big moneymaker, anyway. Rather,
I suspect they tend to pay people for using it, so they could save money by
moving away from it.

~~~
cturner
> Why do you think it still has a long way to go?

Have a play around with keyboard shortcuts and try to get WindowsKey+E to open
your home folder. The bugs in keyboard shortcuts has been an exercise in
balloon squeezing for as long as ubuntu has been around.

Another - audio. On a default install to my laptop sound didn't work at all,
and now I can only play from one device at a time. I don't have these problems
on my Apple.

Much as I love my ubuntu, it simply doesn't compare to the level of polish in
XP, Vista and OSX.

> I don't think Windows itself is the big moneymaker, anyway

Why do you think that? I think that Windows is an spectacular moneymaker.

> Rather, I suspect they tend to pay people for using it, so they > could save
> money by moving away from it.

Not sure what you mean by this. Can you rephrase?

~~~
Tichy
Can't comment on your hardware problems, as I don't have them.

Windows: maybe I am wrong, but I would suspect that Microsoft pays PC vendors
to put Windows on their machine.

~~~
cturner
If Microsoft were paying people to take its product then it wouldn't have a
business model :) What causes you to think that they pay other people to
distribute it?

~~~
Tichy
They sell lots of other stuff, for example Office. I think if Microsoft were
not paying the vendors, more vendors would offer PCs with Linux or without any
OS at all.

Weren't the first Linux PCs by Dell even more expensive than the Windows
variants (I am not sure if I remember correctly)?

~~~
cturner

        I think if Microsoft were not paying the vendors, more vendors
        would offer PCs with Linux or without any OS at all.
    

They're totally not paying the vendors to install Windows. The reasons the
vendors don't offer linux is because in the past when they've done it they've
done a really half-assed job of it, and as a result sales have been bad, and
they've been burnt.

    
    
        Weren't the first Linux PCs by Dell even more expensive than the
        Windows variants (I am not sure if I remember correctly)?
    

I remember that. This is all speculation: perhaps their OEM agreement with
Microsoft said that they had to pay costs for Windows for each machine they
shipped (regardless of whether it had Windows or not), OR maybe they paid
RedHat a per-license deal for the linux and the margin on redhat installs was
greater.

