Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from

Forum Moderators: bill

Message Too Old, No Replies

Is Windows Near The End Of Its Run?

3:02 pm on Oct 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Administrator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month Best Post Of The Month

joined:May 9, 2000
votes: 236

Windows Vista and Office 2007, according to industry analysts, may be the last time Microsoft can really cash in on these lucrative personal computer products, as software is increasingly distributed, developed and used on the Internet.

Friday, Microsoft announced that Vista would be shipped in late January and expressed confidence that it would pass regulatory scrutiny.

In fast-growing consumer markets, Microsoft is playing catch-up. It trails well behind Google in Internet search. Next month, Microsoft will introduce its Zune music player, in an uphill effort to take on the Apple iPod.

Is Windows Near The End Of Its Run? [news.com.com]

This NY Times article is thought provoking.

3:48 am on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Dec 29, 2003
votes: 0

>> Microsoft has one of the most solid codebases on the planet

thou shalt not praise microsoft--ever.

People bashing MSFT every chance they get think it's still hip, but it's actually old. Look at it the same way when people show off their cellphones these days. Guess what? Everyone has one so it's not "cool" any more.

4:58 am on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 7, 2003
votes: 0

Gee, and I thought it was because computers need an operating system. :-)

If it were only that, there are plenty of alternatives to choose from.

Where is GoogleOS?

I don't think we need another OS.. the existing choices seem to cover everything that is needed in an operating system.

I think the so called demise of MS is much over hyped, yet I keep hearing about it.

I agree.. as much as I would personally like to see Microsoft go away, I don't see it happening any time soon.

Ubuntu is pretty cool, but sadly cant run everything I need, so for now its XP...

How odd.. I run Linux because Windows can't do everything I need.

1) case-sensitive filenames (ok, that may be a personal gripe).

Yes, it's a personal gripe :-). Windows is actually one of the few operating systems that is case-insensitive with it's filenames. The standard is to be case-sensitive.. and it makes logical sense, because "a" is not "A".

2) it's free(ish).

Being free definitely has its pros and cons, and this is one of those cons. Because of the lack of marketing dollars available, spreading Linux is a challenge.

Linux is great if you love to tinker with your hardware and lots of time on your hands. The last XP install took me all of 30 minutes. Suse took several hours.

It took hours to install an OS? Were you installing it from floppy? :-). I generally use Slackware (not the most popular choice) but recently switched to Kubuntu for my desktops. Never having touched it before, I installed it in 45 minutes the first time (I was curious, so I read all of the dialogs). On latter machines it took much less time.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I built all four machines and picking a Linux Distro took several hours just by itself to make sure my hardware was compatible.

Two points:
Linux is Linux.. if your hardware works in one distribution, it will work in the rest. Some distributions may come with additional built-in support that make certain tasks or installing certain hardware simpler, though that doesn't mean you need to choose your distribution based on your hardware.

Second, any modern distro will have by far more hardware support than XP, so to say that XP installed cleanly yet you had to tinker with Linux is puzzling.

I installed my new flatbed scanner on my desktop system by literally plugging it in and using it. I didn't install or configure anything, just plugged it in and used it. You can't do that in Windows.

Think of the users your IT departments have to deal with...

There's a one-time learning curve, perhaps a difficult hurdle, then relative smooth-sailing from there. As an IT person, it would be a dream to have an entire company running nothing but Linux. Do you know perfectly I could lock down exactly what access I wanted, and how easily I could streamline? I'd never have to worry about machines being infected with anything, and the amount of time I'd have to spend repairing things would decrease significantly. I guess the only downside is that I'd probably be out of a job doing that, which I suppose is why very few IT guys recommend this course of action.

I'm not sure where you purchased your rose colored glasses but Firefox has some serious issues that I won't go into to avoid threadjacking.

These "serious issues" are theoretical (yes, the issues themselves exist, but the damage they cause in the real world is relatively small). You can quote claims that a specific security hole might cause vulnerability X, but here's what I know from experience:

My company repairs computers for many in our geographical area. We're one of the few brick-and-mortar stores in the U.S. that build and sell Linux systems, though we fix mostly Windows computers (because that's where the problems tend to lie). Because of this, we have a good mix of Windows and Linux users. Our Windows clients visit us regularly to have their machines purged of viruses/spyware because their machines are almost unusable. We don't have this from our Linux clients, or even our Windows clients running Firefox.

You can take a Windows machine with IE and all current patches, browse the web for a bit, and easily become infected with something. Doing the same thing on Linux (becoming infected with anything) would extremely difficult.

I say it's because Linux and Firefox are more secure, others argue it's because Windows has such a dominant marketshare on the desktop that they're the target. But really, who cares what the reason is?

If there's a shooting spree in the street and you don't get killed, do you really care whether or not it's because you're wearing heavy-duty armor or because no one's shooting at you; or are you happy not being dead?

If Linux ever gets a large marketshare on the desktop, then we'll see. But if that never happens, it won't bother me. I don't care what the rest of you use, I'm happy knowing that I'll never get a virus or become infected with spyware while the rest of the Windows world can keep buying their antivirus software, keep scanning their systems with AdAware/Spybot, and continue running defrag on a regular basis while I do absolutely nothing to maintain my computer and it keeps running just fine like it has for years.

5:01 am on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 25, 2005
votes: 87

thou shalt not praise microsoft--ever.

I didn't praise them, I just said they had their act together in ways the Linux crowd doesn't.

If that rains on your parade, oh wah.

11:22 am on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 8, 2005
votes: 0

I must say Vista is the best and most stable OS from Microsoft I have used even though its not technically finished yet...

I love Linux but I find myself using my Vista machine even though the software is only a beta. Its a pleasure to use it, Media Center built in, graphics are brilliant and the security seems pretty good from what I can see.

Microsoft have done a good job on Vista although it pains me to say it, lets just hope they release some of the code so people can develop more applications for it.

11:23 am on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member kaled is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 2, 2003
votes: 0

incrediBILL, whilst I don't doubt your credentials, I cannot see any connection between your comments and the text you quoted.

Are you suggesting that every employee at Microsoft is an expert at Windows - that's not likely.

Are you suggesting that because some people at IBM were unfamiliar with OS/2 it somehow made it inferior?

I've never used OS/2 but the fact remains that it was widely respected as a stable 32bit platform and it preceeded Windows 95 by many months. It is also a fact that it was never a huge cash-cow for IBM but if they could have made it the ubiquitous desktop platform, it would have been a very good move. Given that it ran most Windows software at the time, it would have been a painless migration for Windows users.

Sorry, nothing you said even comes close to "bursting my bubble" for one thing, there's no bubble currently existing to burst.


12:17 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member play_bach is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 20, 2005
votes: 0

I remember seeing Larry Ellison on TV several years ago predicting that the desktop computer as we know it would someday be replaced by a box that just connected to the Web - all the apps and computing power would be online.

Now with Web based email clients like GMail and Yahoo! offering 2+ gigs of storage (no more desktop email for me since early 2004!) and sites like Google Docs [docs.google.com...] (do I need Excel and Word anymore?), seems like Larry's prediction is coming closer to reality.

[edited by: Play_Bach at 12:49 pm (utc) on Oct. 17, 2006]

2:23 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 21, 2002
votes: 0

In the real world the "best" solution doesn't always win. The first IBM PCs did little more than a BBC Acorn but industry bought IBMs because they had the clout and were seen as a sold player - in those days there was a saying that no IT manager ever got fired by specifying Big Blue.

The same today. In the corporate world, managers will stay with the crowd and buy MS operating systems for desktop PCs. It takes a brave individual to put his career on the line by specifying another OS - the buck stops with him/her if things don't work out. A non-MS operating system would have to be amazingly better to have any chance of taking off.

There is also the question of industry standards, and MS has that sewn up. No one releases a new ap unless it runs on XP.

Take Europeforvisitors example of toilet design. Even if someone came out with a new technically-superior concept, they would have difficulty marketing it. The outward appearance of a toilet may change with fashion, but the internal parts are now an industry standard and are carried by every builders merchant or plumber. There would be immense resistance to change.

1:03 pm on Oct 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Sept 13, 2006
votes: 0

I just did a clean install of windows 2000. They just completed fixing it and patching the security holes. Windows 2000 is now ready to cruise along (without [the need for] support) until its end of life in 2011.

... clean install of windows 2000. There were 4 service packs, so I just chose the latest one -- sp4 and ordered the cd (56k modem here folks). Service Pack 4 installed and rebooted like a champ.

... clean install of windows 2000. Then I installed the Baseline Security Analyzer to make sure there weren't any hacker holes left in SP4. There were. 68 security updates to download and apply, these not available on cd :(

*** Welcome Windows Vista Users ***

We wish you many happy hours of updating!

This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38