Microsoft's 'big bang' could be its last

Vikingod · Oct 27, 2005, 09:25 AM

When Microsoft releases its SQL Server 2005 database on Nov. 7, it will have been five years since the last version debuted. If Windows Vista arrives as scheduled next fall, it too will follow its predecessor by five years.

That's a pretty long time to make customers wait for a new release. Too long, concedes Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.

"We just can't make our customers wait three or four years for the things which should have been on more interim cycles," he said at last week's Gartner Symposium/IT Expo in Orlando.
___________
Read More / Source: ZDNet

Matth · Oct 27, 2005, 11:44 AM

Microsoft are in DEEP trouble if they give people a chance to realize that they don't NEED a new operating system or an office upgrade every couple of years.

The problem is, at leats in the OS side, do they really have anything new to sell us.

Sure, we went from DOS to Windows, and saw that GUI was good.

The evolution of Windows was painful, and it would have been better if a clean break was made then.

Only with Windows 3.0 was the graphical metaphor reinforced, and 3.1 resolved the problem of frequent "Unrecoverable Application Errors" by changing their name to "General Protection Fault" ... seriously though, 3.1 was significantly more robust.

Then we were invited to "Start me up" in Windows 95, and stop it with the Start button as well. The graphical metaphor was more or less complete, and those still using Win3.1 could look on with envy, or load CALMIRA and pretend... http://www.calmira.de/

Win95 also introduced 32 bit code, though actually a mishmash of 16/32.

Bugs were fixed, Fat32 for larger drive partitions added, and we arrived at Win95B/C or "OSR2".

Win98 was what OSR2 should have been, and many consider it to be no more than a polished evolution of OSR2, though it needed further polish in the shape of Win98SE.

Windows Millenium, the unloved OS - overpriced as an upgrade when many regarded it as Windows 98 3rd edition, and a notorious breaking point for a lot of older software. As I understand it, this was the start of the convergence of the NT and 9x cores.

Windows 2000 - the "professional", more NT styled implementation of the NT core (internally, NT5 ?).
Windows XP, the NT core with a friendly "home" face.

Question is, will they have as much trouble moving users on from XP to Vista, as from 98SE to XP - 98SE works, and works well, as well as having inherent immunity to many of the attacks directed at XP.

The burning question, is Linux the ultimate inheritor of the PC OS crown?

Vikingod · Oct 27, 2005, 11:52 AM

I think linux could take the helm, but its way too technical and geeky than the average user will ever want. The best thing windows has always had going for it is that its in one companies hands, not the hands of every developer and tech savvy college student making their own versions as they see fit. People like simplicity. vista does not excite me, AT ALL. I will not be upgrading unless I see some MAJOR improvements for Dual core processors and 64bit applications. So far, other than a fancy new GUI, after you get through the bull shit, its XP+, certainly nothing I care to shell out a few hundred for.

Matth · Oct 28, 2005, 11:19 AM

Precicisely... I've upgraded Windows twice - once because I needed CD writing software that was practiacally unheard of in Win 3.1, and rare/clumsy in DOS, and then to XP that came with a new system, though if it hadn't been a new one, I'd probabably have succumbed to an upgrade, rather than re-installing to repair terminal Windows rot in Win98SE.

I'm not so much thinking of Linux winning because it's better, though its design resists the kind of malaise we've all seen in a badly used Windows system, but of it possibly being the only game in town when people realise that Microsoft are just taking them for a ride.

Microsoft is like the Roman empire, strong only as long as people believe in it, and I'm sure I can already hear nero fiddling in the background.

Microsoft, as a typical US corporate, are in essence, in complete opposition to the way I would like to run my system, at least the OS side of it.

I want it to be finished, reliable, stable, and to do what I want it to without paying more.

THEY want to keep selling me upgrdaes, even if it's just to fix their own bugs and security holes, or hyping features that I've never needed before.

Contrast with Linux, where the commercial viability is based more on service and support to those who could not contemplate running without it, or selling versions with features that are not under the GPL licence.

Maybe I've got Microsoft wrong, and maybe their business model would not be broken by the failure to keep the upgrade treadmill turning, but they sure as hell don't have it all their own way like they used to, when every new version was sorely needed because the old one wasn't much good!

Oct 27, 2005, 09:25 AM	#1
Vikingod Int'l Fish Liaison Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: By the light of lamp I sit and type... Posts: 16,149 Rep Power: 85 System Specs	Microsoft's 'big bang' could be its last When Microsoft releases its SQL Server 2005 database on Nov. 7, it will have been five years since the last version debuted. If Windows Vista arrives as scheduled next fall, it too will follow its predecessor by five years. That's a pretty long time to make customers wait for a new release. Too long, concedes Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. "We just can't make our customers wait three or four years for the things which should have been on more interim cycles," he said at last week's Gartner Symposium/IT Expo in Orlando. ___________ Read More / Source: ZDNet __________________ *How You Can Help DriverHeaven By Using Digg*

Oct 27, 2005, 11:52 AM	#3
Vikingod Int'l Fish Liaison Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: By the light of lamp I sit and type... Posts: 16,149 Rep Power: 85 System Specs	I think linux could take the helm, but its way too technical and geeky than the average user will ever want. The best thing windows has always had going for it is that its in one companies hands, not the hands of every developer and tech savvy college student making their own versions as they see fit. People like simplicity. vista does not excite me, AT ALL. I will not be upgrading unless I see some MAJOR improvements for Dual core processors and 64bit applications. So far, other than a fancy new GUI, after you get through the bull shit, its XP+, certainly nothing I care to shell out a few hundred for. __________________ *How You Can Help DriverHeaven By Using Digg*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Inside Microsoft's Next Big Thing	Dom	News	0	Jun 10, 2004 11:07 AM
Microsoft's new Office suite may be a gamble	Dom	News	0	Aug 7, 2003 08:32 PM
It's all about Longhorn at Microsoft	Dom	News	0	Jul 30, 2003 10:33 PM
One big CLICK when comp start (3530 and 3531)!	diviner	Bug Reports	8	Jul 2, 2003 06:38 PM
Microsoft's big PC plans	NewsFactory	News	1	Mar 11, 2003 01:27 AM

Oct 27, 2005, 11:44 AM	#2
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,198 Rep Power: 56 System Specs	Microsoft are in DEEP trouble if they give people a chance to realize that they don't NEED a new operating system or an office upgrade every couple of years. The problem is, at leats in the OS side, do they really have anything new to sell us. Sure, we went from DOS to Windows, and saw that GUI was good. The evolution of Windows was painful, and it would have been better if a clean break was made then. Only with Windows 3.0 was the graphical metaphor reinforced, and 3.1 resolved the problem of frequent "Unrecoverable Application Errors" by changing their name to "General Protection Fault" ... seriously though, 3.1 was significantly more robust. Then we were invited to "Start me up" in Windows 95, and stop it with the Start button as well. The graphical metaphor was more or less complete, and those still using Win3.1 could look on with envy, or load CALMIRA and pretend... http://www.calmira.de/ Win95 also introduced 32 bit code, though actually a mishmash of 16/32. Bugs were fixed, Fat32 for larger drive partitions added, and we arrived at Win95B/C or "OSR2". Win98 was what OSR2 should have been, and many consider it to be no more than a polished evolution of OSR2, though it needed further polish in the shape of Win98SE. Windows Millenium, the unloved OS - overpriced as an upgrade when many regarded it as Windows 98 3rd edition, and a notorious breaking point for a lot of older software. As I understand it, this was the start of the convergence of the NT and 9x cores. Windows 2000 - the "professional", more NT styled implementation of the NT core (internally, NT5 ?). Windows XP, the NT core with a friendly "home" face. Question is, will they have as much trouble moving users on from XP to Vista, as from 98SE to XP - 98SE works, and works well, as well as having inherent immunity to many of the attacks directed at XP. The burning question, is Linux the ultimate inheritor of the PC OS crown?

Oct 28, 2005, 11:19 AM	#4
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,198 Rep Power: 56 System Specs	Precicisely... I've upgraded Windows twice - once because I needed CD writing software that was practiacally unheard of in Win 3.1, and rare/clumsy in DOS, and then to XP that came with a new system, though if it hadn't been a new one, I'd probabably have succumbed to an upgrade, rather than re-installing to repair terminal Windows rot in Win98SE. I'm not so much thinking of Linux winning because it's better, though its design resists the kind of malaise we've all seen in a badly used Windows system, but of it possibly being the only game in town when people realise that Microsoft are just taking them for a ride. Microsoft is like the Roman empire, strong only as long as people believe in it, and I'm sure I can already hear nero fiddling in the background. Microsoft, as a typical US corporate, are in essence, in complete opposition to the way I would like to run my system, at least the OS side of it. I want it to be finished, reliable, stable, and to do what I want it to without paying more. THEY want to keep selling me upgrdaes, even if it's just to fix their own bugs and security holes, or hyping features that I've never needed before. Contrast with Linux, where the commercial viability is based more on service and support to those who could not contemplate running without it, or selling versions with features that are not under the GPL licence. Maybe I've got Microsoft wrong, and maybe their business model would not be broken by the failure to keep the upgrade treadmill turning, but they sure as hell don't have it all their own way like they used to, when every new version was sorely needed because the old one wasn't much good!