Steven W wrote:You guys seem to be dancing around something that's been in the back of my mind too. Would it be such a horrible thing if Microsoft actually let Windows as we know it just die? I'm not saying immediately, but over the long haul.
Windows is far from dead, as you can see how the poorly-reviewed and controversial Windows 8.x still made a splash.
- Russian-model-with-athletic-body-splash-in-the-sea-naked-16.jpg (123.29 KiB) Viewed 5554 times
Microsoft claims over 200 million licenses sold, but with so many big businesses having cooked their books and released phony numbers in past history, it's up to each individual to believe or not believe this number. Does anyone here remember Enron? And, of course, a fraction of those 200 million licenses sold are actually copies in use. As long as Windows is making a profit, it makes sense to keep it going. Microsoft has to be careful how much money they pump into it, because it could just drop off fairly quickly one day. I wrote that I thought Windows will become more irrelevant and its future looked bleak, but there's still money to be made. There's no need for them to kill it off, as it will just die by itself when the time comes. I think we have reached the tipping point, as it looks like Microsoft is continuing to make poor management decisions, and is taking forever to fix Windows 8. They should have just released an update to turn all that lame shit off and give people a Start menu. I guess that was too much to ask for.
Steven W wrote:Switch to a BSD kernel, develop a interface for a phone or perhaps start with ASOP, then add features to it for a full PC, more features for a full server. I realize it might mean the end of a lot of people's jobs, but that is probably going to happen in the long run anyway. It just seems to me that unless they do something drastic, they will become irrelevant.
I agree with you here, because MS can save money if they switch to a BSD kernel -- which may be something that will be needed in the future (cost cutting), as Windows continues down its rocky declension. They could drastically downsize their kernel development department, and reap all the benefits of the BSD kernel. However, you can imagine how much pride-swallowing would have to occur for this to ever happen. Plus, the Windows kernel is actually quite good. It's other elements of Windows that have issues. I have read that Linux and BSD manage memory better over the long haul than Windows, which is why you see Linux and BSD servers having not been rebooted for years. I don't hear the same stories about Windows servers. I don't know if this is true or not, but it seems pretty believable to me with all the eyes on the Linux kernel, as devs constantly optimize it. That's the big upside of free and open source software projects that attracts a lot of attention; something that Microsoft could not do, even with all of their billions of dollars. The open source development model for software development is just better. Period. Yes, there are some crappy open source software titles which are practically dead or that have very little developmental efforts happening, but that isn't any metric to measure the entire spectrum.
Non Hic wrote:The other issue is also the fact that they are trying to lock Windows down.
True, but whether you like it or not, most Windows users
want a locked down OS. People love their iBads, and love how everything is controlled by Apple, and love their little walled gardens. They love being able to easily buy apps, and don't even know what side loading is, nor do they care. They have their credit card number stored on file, and buy stupid apps when the commercials on TV get boring. People are sick and tired of the old way of doing things on Windows, and the app stores are the new big thing. Consumers are screaming for more totalitarianism and feudalism; they're sheep and like being controlled. Consumers will take a locked down device. Devs will not. The math is easy: no devs, no apps, no platform. Get your dumbass head out of your ass Microsoft. Wake the fuck up and smell the coffee! The more MS alienates developers, and the more they piss off power users, the more people will switch to other platforms due to the lack of applications and cost savings I earlier wrote about. Microsoft can delay the inevitable, but not stop it. There should be a separate version of Windows for power users, or an option to tick to allow side loading. Windows' insecurity makes it lose market share, so there is an upside to locking it down. The point I'm trying to make is that Windows needs to be locked down, just as GNU/Linux and BSD are. Put a password in, and it lets you be root. Windows is trying to put you in a play pen and throw the key away. That's stupid, and isn't the way to do "security". Let consumers have their beloved walled garden, and let devs have it their way too. Let there be an installation option to install or not install the crapp store, although that would take away from the foisting effort.
However, I will never use an OS with a built-in backdoor in the app store! I have control over _my_ software, not you Microsoft! Fuck you!
- vitter_baby.jpg (20.04 KiB) Viewed 5554 times
Non Hic wrote:Bottom line is that most developers (sane and educated ones) develop for a platform which is most open. Just compare Android to iOS/Windows Phone. The only reason is its openness because anyone can write something, anything, and distribute it the way they want, including using the locked-down Google Play. There is no such openness in iOS or Windows Phone and Microsoft forgets that the reason they got big in the 1990s was due their openness.
Dont you think these devs are happy, and are working towards a cool project that isn't a dead end? I mean, look at the building and the small statues. It just looks fun and devs have a future to look forward to:
- 8131445279_5cf6cd267e_b.jpg (427.25 KiB) Viewed 5554 times
Here's a statue Microsoft should have out front of their Windows mobile devision, although there would be a nail which the hammer contacts:
- John-Henry-Statue.jpg (131.02 KiB) Viewed 5554 times
Non Hic wrote:I had to wait and collect my thoughts before answering you on this. Look, first of all, we must agree on the term "PC". Remember that "PC" means "personal computer". In that context, there is no such thing as "PC is dying". I guess by "PC" you mean the big tower desktop computer. That's true, that is "dying" but it doesn't mean "PC" is dying. For example, Microsoft Surface is a full "PC" with full Windows on it.
The tower type computers won't die, they will just just sell less. They may reduce in form factor too. There will always be a need for the power that gamers and power users need, and the performance gap will always remain between tablets and desktops. Think Moore's law and heat. Also, storage, video cards, and easy upgradeability. All things a toy tablet or laptop doesn't provide. Even if tablets get so fast that the performance difference is negligible for most apps, you still have users running scientific applications like
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org or SETI@home. The future of gaming also needs extreme power. The whole "PC is dying" mantra is a marketing tool, and definite misnomer.
