End of "All-In-One" Microsoft OS

Windows is being forced to become more like *NIX everyday. The CLI commands are growing so that repetive GUI based tasks are becoming easier. There is much more scriptable access to the innards than I ever knew existed in NT. Being a black box is becoming more of a detriment to Windows now days. *NIX has been modular since day one. It can be run with or without a GUI. There is a choice of GUIs. It will fit on a a floppy, on an eprom or on a big hard drive in a supercomputer. Scaling a system up and down can be done in a few minutes without a reboot. Try that on WinServer 2003. You have to hang around till the network is not being used to do the obligatory reboots. Just my opinion but Windows is made up to a large part of bits of code bought from a bunch of sharp, but proprietary developers while *NIX is made up of code that is to a large extent open and constantly growing naturally and organically.

So if MSofts thinks *NIX is so good they have to copy it........

It may be that the ODF, Open Document Format may eventually be most damaging to them, in that they lose their ability to lock in users to MS Office.

Face it, most people with MSOffice do not use 90+% of the features in the 'suite'.

ODF plus GPL'd open OS is a formidable challenge to MS long term.

Crappy undocumented, glitchy code doesn't survive in Open Software.

Bo

T> Windows is being forced to become more like *NIX everyday.

Well there certainly seems to be plenty of crappy, undocumented and glitchy code is everything SW Corp offers.

The problem is Open Source software is much worse.

Most Open Source software is worth exactly what you pay for it- NOTHING. The vast majority of open-source applications are just pure crap. If Open Source was worth anything then Linux surely would have gone somewhere in the last 10 years.

The few decent examples that buck the trend are Firefox and Inno Setup. Open Office is a decent also ran but is still a piss-poor substitute for MS Office.

ODF is going absolutely nowhere. GPL can't even get agreement on an updated license.

I'm not a huge fan of Microsoft but don't hold your breath.

The idea that you can establish an economically viable business entity by giving away your intellectual property is just plain stupid on it's face.

UGNX and Pro/E (at least for the time being) both support Linux. If Dassault'd

smart instead of trying to bed down with Bill to get Catia V5 humping ... I'm going to keep hoping.

Are we talking about the operating system or applications here? I thought it was the OS. And the LInux OS is stable. I have been running it for years as a file server with nary a hiccup using SAMBA.

If we talk about applications, I have a shelf full of crappy, undocumented Windows applications that I DID pay money for. There are probably more of those than the Open Source variety. And they frequently come from well known companies like Symantec and MicroSoft. And unlike opensource, if they become obsolete or orphaned there is absolutely nothing you can do about it whereas an opensource application can be updated by anybody who cares enough about it to do so.

When I use a Linux application I look for applications that are supported and work. This is called shopping around. SAMBA, OpenVPN, SmoothWall, mySQL, Apache, etc. are examples of Linux apps that you may have used and not even known it.

And finally, proprietary apps, especially the kind used in an enterprise generally come with support maintainance that must be paid for and that are frequently worth little in day to day activities.

Tim Markoski wrote:

We are primarily talking primarily OS's.

NO DOUBT LINUX is mainstream for some things at this point. Part of the reason has to be that if you really need a function, you can get it implemented in house or with a consultant, and don't have to wait for some megalithic corporation to do it on their time frame.

UNIX is also mainstream, and mostly open, so again, if you need a quick code change for your use, it can be done.

Microsoft's Windows would have been great, but they failed to keep to their promises to industry to provide an "Industrial Strength OS". A friend who used to work as a CEO of a company working on applications for the auto industry got badly burned when MS said they would deliver and then didn't, and code crashed and MS wouldn't fix it. I think it he knew MS wouldn't have delivered, he would not have sold his customer on MS's OS.

Symantec sold me and my business copies of what was arguably the best outliner on the Mac OS in the 90s, MORE. It could do outlines & slide shows from your work, letters, etc., and, as they say, "Just Work". Somewhere along the line, not only did they NEVER promote it, they then stopped updating it.

Finally a company in Oregon recognized the need and started INSPIRATION and made it for Windows & Mac, and it is a truly wonderful basic outliner with ability to show them as Tree charts, and then released a version used in grade schools as KIDSPIRATION. MS Word's handling of Outline formatted text is about as clear to me as Arabic, and I am not a newbie at using Windows apps. INSPIRATION is an app you can use without reading the manual, and exports perfect outlines to Word format, or PowerPoint in seconds.

Megalith Corporations have a function, but I am beginning to wonder about their ability to survive in software.

CAD is such a specialty software with low user numbers compared to an OS, that I can NOT see an app like SolidWorks being "free". The people putting in programming hours have to get paid one way or another, and CAD is literally only in its adolescent stage at best.

UNIX and Linux are arguably more mature, and the companies that make money off those OSs do it with customization and training. That seems like it is a supportable business model.

Windows? Yes in the short run, as end users are too afraid to leave (like those in pre-WWII Germany). Long run, I do wonder about Windows, but I will find a way to do it without hiccups as long as I use SolidWorks. That may mean sticking with XP Pro SP2 and SWks 2006 or

2007 for the next 4-5 years, but that is just fine with me. I'm not going to VISTA if it wastes lots of my time.

Bo

T> Are we talking about the operating system or applications here? I

I noted " I'm not going to VISTA if it wastes lots of my time. "

If enough SolidWorks users say the same thing, SolidWorks is going to have to support XP Pro way long into the future, and update code for two versions of MS's OS, XP Pro & Vista.

If I read the news report right, Vista is going to be a moving target for applications at least until somewhere after 2010.

Will SolidWorks support another OS? Not likely, but then their programmers are already running Alphas, Betas of VISTA, and know of the published roadmap for VISTA, and know of the prior MS plans and how well MS did or DID NOT succeed in achieving results.

At this point I don't care. All I want is a bullet proof PC to run SolidWorks. I have that now, though with restrictions I don't like (XP

• SWks + MSO = one trick pony).

I don't care what the next OS I use is named, and I don't care whether it runs on a free OS or one I pay for as that OS cost, even from MS, is

Linux has done fairly well on the server side. It actually excels there. As a desktop OS it is an abysmal failure. For all the hype and hyperbole from the Linux crowd, they have yet to provide anything that comes close to supplanting Windows on the desktop.

MySql is actually quite robust has actually been more of a threat to Oracle than MS.

Neither of these gets to the point of products that make for a viable business plan.

We live in a Capitalist Society. Open Source is NOT an economically viable business strategy. You can not turn a profit by giving away your intellectual property.

We can speculate on the demise of MS. When it does happen it most certainly won't be because of Open Source software. It will be because of a complete paradigm shift in technology.

...

Finally someone who can speak rationally about what is for others an apparently emotional issue.

Well said. I fully agree.

I will agree that in the U.S. Linux is a desktop failure in terms of market %. 3rd world markets are starting to go to it because of cost pressures, and the improving GUIs are apparently acceptable to those users (Ubuntu variant in India last week w/R. Stallman's help along the line of Spain).

Since I use 2 desktop OSs day in and day out, I can truthfully state that the Mac OS X is far and away my favorite, soley because:

I CAN ALWAYS COUNT ON OS X TO DELIVER W/O DOWNTIME.

There are people in this group that say I am a Mac zealot, fanboy, machead. That is like someone saying SolidWorks users are 'SolidWorks Step and Fetchits'.

I use what works for me to get the most done in the least time, and that means SolidWorks for 3D CAD, & PowerCADD for 2D CAD (Mac OSX).

Given the current trends where people are more and more recognizing what OSs are more efficient, I predict:

1. Linux in servers is likely to continue to grow market share.
2. UNIX in various corporate, engineering, scientific and mathematical uses will continue to grow, because it is so stable, well known, and has such a large program & programmer base.
3. Mac OS X in desktop end user uses is likely to continue to grow market share.
4. Windows OS in server, desktop, hand held PDAs, ebook, cell phone, embedded devices, media center, et al, is simply unclear to me if they can continue to grow doing it all.

When you have been King of the Mountain for a decade and every fawning person around you keeps telling you, "We are the best" (or similar), and you have the billions to "do everything", you start believing you can "Do It All." Bill Gates is smart enough to be leaving near the top. I get the feeling Ballmer will push and grind until he has a heart attack on stage in mid leap. There is little precedence in history of software to guide MS's CEO on how to "Do It All.", except to note that IBM could not do so.

Bo

Tim Markoski wrote:

I think you are confusing success in numbers with functionality. There is in fact a GUI for Linux that looks and feels just like Windows. The average user probably wouldn't know the difference except that it would be snappier than Windows on the MSoft OS, especially on slower hardware.

MSoft spends millions on marketing, millions on getting developers to port over applications and millions in getting Windows installed on new computers. Linux doesn't.* So what Windows has over Linux is perception and that is about it. If MSoft decided to become another RedHat you would see Linux on every computer in the country in a year. In fact it is scarry to think that MSoft could do what Mac did and put a *NIX OS under their desktop.

MSoft as a desktop OS has serious technical drawbacks in administration, performance and stability that while very real will not be seen or understood by ordinary users.

Tim Markoski wrote:

Linux does well in many places other than servers. Lots of embedded apps, routers, firewalls, NAS, etc. If you have a Linksys router chances are you are running Linux.

*Maybe this Christmas we should see a Penguin inside commercial.

I don't know the GPL licensing issues, but suspect that Linux requires whatever you put with it remain open also, but that is from my non-legal type opinion.

Without MS being able to copyright and protect MS's Desktop GUI code in number of ways, I don't see an M&Ms chance in hell that MS would use Linux.

#1 reason is MS truly believes they know how to build a better system.

Ultimately, the marketplace buyers of products will decide who wins, places and shows.

Bo

I'm not confusing anything.

The issue is TCO ( Total Cost of Ownership) It's an absolute fact that the TCO for Linux system administration in an enterprise is substantially higher than Windows. The initial implementation is cheaper but the maintenance is a killer.

The fact is that MS Bashers (I consider myself one to a lesser extent) who extol the virtues of Linux, UNIX and Mac ignore the obvious in front of their own eyes.

Linux is a failure as per what it's own disciples have been predicting for over 10 years. It has not achieved any desktop traction and is destined to be a miserable also ran on the desktop. Linus T is also one of the main reason why GPL 2 simply won't be used for it. Linux isn't going anywhere on the desktop because you can't make a profit by simply providing a Linux distro. The closest to achieving anything toward this is Linspire (formerly Lindows)

UNIX is NOT superior in terms of security or administration. It certainly does have some advantages over Windows Networks especially for large WANs. However, UNIX is the OS that was routinely hacked at all levels in the past. The DOD and Clifford Stoll can tell you something about it. Steve Wozniak and his Apple buddies were Blue-Boxing International phones calls for free. These are only the most obvious intrusions.

All the Mac zealots heap praise on Apple and Macs in particular in spite of the fact that it is the epitome of a proprietary, CLOSED system and has been since day one. Apple Corp. treats 3rd party developers like the spawn of their red-headed step children.

Boot Camp now provides dual-boot capabilities on Mac hardware and some interesting things have happened as a result. Benchmark tests show that WindowsXp outperforms OSX on the same hardware.

Tim talks of TCO for an "enterprise", but my whole issue is software used by an individual designer or small group, where by default, most people have to do all their own software & OS maintenance.

I simply don't know what Linux might be, but I can tell you that maintenance and training costs between Mac and Windows is not in question, as even the Windows admin/tech trouble shooter guy next to me admits he owes his ENTIRE income to the excessive maintenance required of Windows systems.

If I lock down Win XP w/o network and Internet connections, I can get it up to Mac OSX's level of up-time. But an OS like Win XP shouldn't be restricted like that to keep it up and running.

Tim noted the closed vs open systems, but end users rarely care, and I don't care what is open source and what is not. All they want is things to be easy to use and stay up and running without all the fuss and time.

I couldn't care which OS is "faster" as they are all fast enough for my work.

It is VERY POSITIVE, that I can now run Win XP & Mac OSX & Linux on my same Mac Book Pro, though I don't have an application which requires I run Linux, so I don't.

For me to use Windows 100%, Microsoft is going to have to make a massive improvement in ease of use and reliability on ALL levels. Otherwise, if it continues with the inefficiencies, I'll stay with SWks

2006 or 2007 running on XP Pro on my Mac till hell freezes over (read retirement).

Bo

Tim Markoski wrote:

I know something about TCO because we just added $10,000 to the cost of setting up a server by going to Window 2003. Instead of Novell Linux we had to go for Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000 and enough CALS to choke a horse. SQL Server 2005 is the current version so we had to pay extra for the obsolete but stable version. In addition to the cost of the software (which was still higher than the extra hardware needed) we had to upgrade the intended server with two RAID 10 arrays and a dual Opteron setup to keep up with SQL Server. In addition to the $10,000 for the Windows "upgrade" we have to fork over $2,000 more for backup software. And we now have to hire someone to run it because nobody understands it, where the Linux system was easy to understand.

As far as the cost of system administration I have seen the White Paper MicroSoft paid for. That paper only had a 35% cost increase for doing common maintenance tasks. I find that hard to believe because I have spent time trouble shooting NT, XP and Linux. I would far rather trouble shoot Linux because it is so much easier to figure out what is going wrong.

And when we installed the Server 2003 OS and SQL Server it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that the time spent waiting for reboots on the MSoft side was about equal the time to install the Linux system.

I know people with tight budgets for their enterprises and they run Linux.

As far as security when we look at virus lists by OS, Microsoft is invariably in the forefront by shear numbers. Has Linux been hacked? Yes. Has Windows been hacked? Yes. But Windows is a virus magnet.

I will probably get a lot of flack for these comments but here goes:

If we give "constructive" criticism about some of our issues about SW, there is a chance, (thought very slight) that SW may actually get enough complaints that a problem will get fixed. And someone else may actually have a work around etc. but, to moan and groan about MS in this forum is probably a waste of time.

Then there is the question as if somone is having major problems with SW on Windows the problem is probably the graphics driver the server, (if there is one involved). My experience with Win2k is that it was fairly stable and now that I have upgraded to XP, I can see that MS has made a considerable effort to improveme the OS. There are plenty of things about MS that I don't like either but the overall trend is that every operating system has been a big improvement over the previous. And the stability has improved.

Probably the biggest issue in the arguments that has been missed is the cost. Here we are, (SW users- hopefully) and we are paying $4000+ for the software and then we have to pay an average of $100 per month and SW isn't always stable and there are tons of known bugs and has a major upgrade every year, (where many of the known bugs don't seem to get addressed) and now there is all this complaint about a piece of software, (the OS) that is in the few hundreds of dollars range, is fairly stable, etc. etc. and apparently MS does listen to it's client base and has been making very good improvements. I am definatley not a MS fan but the issues with SW compared to MS are so much more important that this forum should probably focus on SW issues.

And if the arguments are taken to their logical conclusion, what is being suggested is that SW should take part of the programming resources and have them direct their efforts towards SW working on other OS's. Personally, I would much rather have SW keep thier programming resouces focused on resolving SW issues. At least until a few more of the SW issues gets resolved.

Ed

Ed, I think you are right.

MS Win XP Pro is manageable, if companies and people DO manage it right. And there are several ways to do it, depending on who you are, but lots do not do it in an organized manner.

If MS botches the next release, though, there may be a lot of customers who drop out of the upgrade cycle and that could impact SolidWorks. So the OS will impact SWks. I doubt MS will flop on VISTA, but they are going to have to make a danged good compelling case to get a lot of shops to upgrade, if what I hear is true. Lots of skeptics out there right now who say "Show me."

Stability so that work can get done reliably is imperitive. I hope SolidWorks makes the right choices.

Bo

Ed wrote:

Ed, you're correct.

The biggest one for me would be if SW Corp would stop the completely unethical practice of charging for maintenance on broken software that is never fixed.

It takes SW Corp a MINIMUM of 4 service packs to have a stable release.

Yet we are still required to pay a fee for software that doesn't function as advertised.

It would go along way with end users if they abandoned their unrealistic release schedule and only release a new version when when they have it where SP4 is now. Paying customers shouldn't be used as Beta testers.

Getting pack to the original topic thread:

I think that the "demise of Microsoft" is extremely unlikely and that the referenced article is more sensational than realistic. An operating system is a tool to use your computer. And for the average joe MS does a good job. I use Linux on my webserver and WinXP on my home desktop. WinXP is a big improvement of 2k, which was an enormous improvement over 98, and I am running a beta of Vista64 which I think is an improvement over XP. As long as Vista addresses the major shortcoming of XP, security, and also increases the stability, I see no reason why it will not continue to succeed on the desktop.

I would agree that Apple has done very well with the migration to OS-X and that they will take market share from MS by leveraging the power of the iLife suite. It addresses end users needs very well. But to think Vista will not be after the same market is foolish. If MS continues to copy what Apple does well then they can count on their massive user base to stay put instead of migrating. Generally it takes a big difference to get computer-naive people to leave what they know.

To suggest that SolidWorks or any major software company will not support Vista is silly. Let's be clear that EVERY home PC sold within a year will be offered with Vista and no other choices. Do you see no OS or Linux offered as an option from Dell, HP, or Lenovo? Perhaps on their business lines, but I would bet most of those ship with MS anyways. Any software maker who does not support Vista will be digging their own grave. Before you can drop the most dominant operating system on the planet there will need to be a paradigm shift where you see a huge chunk of users migrate somewhere else. Even then you would probably have to support both players awhile until one completely died. This is why I think that referenced article is silly. Big business moves slow. You can't take a company the size of say Fidelity which is completely reliant on MS and applications that run on MS to move to a completely new operating system and completely new applications in five to seven years which is the typical lifespan of an MS operating system.

I'm afraid MS is around to stay and as l> I have noted my displeasure with MS Windows, and its obvious drawbacks,