Microsoft still has more OS tricks up its sleeve
Summary: Over the past couple of days, there's been much made of Gartner Group's prediction that Windows Vista will be "the last big release of Windows." That's a pretty sweeping and vague prediction. Me? I think Microsoft still has some big-bang OS releases in its bag of tricks.
Over the past couple of days, there's been much made of Gartner Group's prediction that Windows Vista will be "the last big release of Windows." That's a pretty sweeping -- and vague -- prediction.
How is Gartner defining "big"? And what will count as an "operating system release," going forward? Will a service pack count? Does a rollup of hotfixes and new features constitute a new Windows release?
What about Microsoft's so-called "Cloud OS" project? Or Microsoft's ongoing moves to modularize Windows (as further evidenced by its patent application for a pay-as-you-go OS)? When elements of what used to be part of a desktop-based version of Windows debut as services, does that actually make an operating system release "smaller," in terms of size and/or importance?
I hear there are other "big bang" OS projects in the works, too. There is allegedly a cross-divisional "many core" effort underway at Microsoft to meld together the Microsoft Research "Singularity" OS project with Microsoft-developed hypervisor technology that will be able to accommodate massively parallel hardware and software.
Singularity, as Microsoft watchers may recall, is a non-Windows-based microkernel that Microsoft researchers have written from scratch as 100 percent managed code. It is being designed, from the outset, to minimize internal subsystem dependencies. On the product side of the house, Microsoft is expected to release a test build soon of its hypervisor virtualization layer, code-named "Viridian."
Will the resulting Singularity+Viridian code count as a "big bang" OS release when and if it finally goes commercial?
Bottom line: It seems a little premature to claim that Microsoft is done with major Windows releases. Even if the Redmondians further blur the lines between service packs and full-fledged OS updates (as they seem intent on doing), Microsoft and its hardware/software/services partners aren't going to let go of the concept of the big-bang OS update any time soon.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Occam's razor and the end of service packs
Service packs end, replaced by RollUps which can occur more frequently because of the internet.
New versions of Windows are issued at 2 year interviews, satisfying everyone's need for profits.
Given the length of time required for major changes, there will be SE (as in 98SE) versions mixed with the groundbreaking releases.
XP SP 2, for all its enhancements was not a major change to users. It's an early example of an SE release, though without the new features other SE's will require to increase sales. That was Mr. Allchin's choice at the time, and probably the right one.
That description is consistent with what Microsoft is saying and doing, as I know it, and allows a profitable way forward without major disruptions.
Other views of Microsoft's intentions appear to have the presupposition that other ways of selling software will become dominant. But that's not necessarily what Microsoft expects.
Why would that satisfy profits.
Seems to me that they get the money with every PC sold reguardless of if there is a new OS be it a point release like an SE verion or even a full blown new version like Vista. So wouldn't make more sense to let the profits role in for half a decade saving on the R&D costs of constantly upgrade where you don't see any additional profits?
i like having the latest software technology
Thought they tried that
I remember having 3 version of Windows 95 then 2 version of Windows 98 and then ME. I used the first version of Windows 95 on 386 PC, then Win 98 on Pentiume 200 computer. I can tell you I didn't fork out for upgrades and other people I know didn't either. We just got the upgrade with the new hardware. Why fork out $100 for an upgrade that a service pack for the old version gave you anyways. I mean have Windows 98 or 98SE on the spash screen meant nothing.
Most people skip a few versions like going from Windows 95 OSR1 to Windows ME or even XP.
RE: I like having the...
PS I run networked 3D renderers on 3 different WinTel machines, one is a quad core, where is is the "open source" app that does that?
XP was an SE.
Singularity wont go commercial
Another foolish Gartner prediction ...
Microsoft will continue to own the desktop.
The company has to improve its products to sell more than would be obtained only with sales on new hardware. Why even improve the hardware if the existing hardware and software work well enough and nothing better is available?
But you're right that Microsoft is competing with Sun, IBM, Apple, and Linux, as well as Oracle and others with markets the company wants to enter or in which it wants to advance.
Microsoft is far from finished with expansion.
Open source in the commercial (pad) arena is represented by a number of comparatively weak competitors and stronger companies using it strategically. It's finally a target of the sort Microsoft can attack.
For Microsoft, you may well be right that "The best is yet to come."
Nix is an OPPORTUNITY for MS ...
I don't know
They certainly have tricks up their sleeve
I know best what I see in front of me. And what I see is that my personal business network runs just zippy-skippy without any MSFT products. When I go to a customer site with Winders it's like running in sand.
There's another consulting team here...one with three letters in their name, I won't say which one. There are five of them tasked with setting up a .NET server and clustered SQL Server to support an app that gets maybe a couple million hits a day, with roughly 4-5 million records. A fairly modest system by modern standards. To track all the patches and configuration changes is taking them eight days to stand up the environment. Five people x eight days, plus hardware support, connection management and overhead. Do the math.
I run my personal systems on OSS that get a lot more traffic, way more records and took me less than a full day to set up and configure. Then imaged the entire setup so I could recreate it in case of a system disaster.
Windows systems require near constant tweaking and patching. My sites I have to keep written SOP's because it's so rare I ever have to tweak them that I have to make notes otherwise it's new every time.
I know what I see and what I see says OSS solutions are a better value. You can only hold out against that math for so long, even if you're MSFT.
so i'm not the only one with a binder full of
So where is.....
Also, the Gartner Group is known for making predictions in a bubble. This one is no different.
Too many decisions
OSS is its own worst enemy in many cases. How many distros of *nix are out there...a couple hundred with various levels of support, etc?
Until the *nix community gets together to form a singular offering that can compete with MS' ease of use it won't make many inroads into the mainstream. The fundamental issue is that programmers or artists seek credit for creating something amazing, and that can't be done when you're trying to be unique in a singularly focused team environment.
Large companies that get behind a particular version of *nix will ultimately drive the wedge further between a standardized *nix offering since they will make that differentiation part of their business model.
Will MS ever release a virtually free OS? Not until *nix is consolidated into a mainstream threat, but thanks to individual OSS contributors and for profit companies that won't happen for quite some time.
As for the subject, people complain that MS is a monopoly; however, if you can get an OS for free then how is it possible to have a monopoly when the substitute is free? Virtually every city has a bare-bones computer store that will sell you a box with no OS on it, so why is it that people say they have no real choice? This can't be further from the truth. If you ask the OSS community which is the best version of *nix to get you will get an array of choices...that's not what people want to hear, and they certainly don't want to sit and compare each distro, research which has better support, updating drivers, compatibility issues, etc. They want a plug and play box, and until OSS can provide that via a simple decision then MS will continue to be the best option for 90+% of users.
Billions Of Tricks
They are presently in a quandary as to how to compete with a free product (open source), but they have enough money to weave a web of deception (wittness their Novelle deal) until they have complete control of the software market, in the US if not the world.
The general population is brain-dead from watching tv. They won't believe anything unless they're told by CNN, NBC, ABC, or Microsoft.
Rage Against the Machine
No one goes to "Best Buy" to purchase a machine they then have to install an OS on. PERIOD
The average PC buyer looks at cost, not the "learning curve". PERIOD
Wake up, and smell the dollar...
MS will dominate till someone else replaces windows and windows apps on 90% of machines. PERIOD
Why Rage Against the Machine?????
As long as there is someone to copy ....
I'm all for a new kernel
- John Musbach
RE: Microsoft still has more OS tricks up its sleeve