next »

[isthisthingon]

Interesting article: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/012510-life-after-windows-what-happens.html?source=NWWNLE_nlt_daily_am_2010-01-26.  A few key points that should cause you to think twice before asserting we'd be better off without them.  Here's a few samples:

Such thinking is naïve, at best [we would be better off without Microsoft]. Rather than freeing IT, the demise of Microsoft would plunge the industry into an apocalyptic tailspin of biblical proportions -- no visions of hippie utopia here. The withdrawal of the Redmond giant's steady hand would cause today's computing landscape to tear itself apart at the seams, with application and device compatibility and interoperability devolving into the kind of Wild West chaos unseen since the days of the DOS big three: Lotus, WordPerfect, and Ashton-Tate.

 

And don't believe that the Web will somehow mitigate the impact of Windows' demise. Although Google talks a good story about supplanting traditional compute models with a Web-centric paradigm, the truth is that the folks from Mountain View are no less sinister when it comes to grandiose plans for world domination. If anything, the rise of Google -- or any dominant cloud-computing player -- should be perceived as a potential threat to IT independence.

 

Basically, you can kiss consistency good-bye. With developers free to create their own interface primitives, many arbitrary decisions will worm their way into the larger UI consciousness. Steps to complete even basic tasks -- for example, manipulating and formatting lists of data -- will vary widely among implementations. And while common Web metaphors (hyperlinks, form fields) will continue to function as expected, more exotic constructs -- like the Webified version of a tools palette -- will take on increasingly diverse modes of interaction. You'll still click on things (or, more likely, touch them on screen with a finger or stylus), but the resulting actions will be anything but predictable.

So don't mess with Microsoft umkay.

 

(btw -  !)

[perkiset]

To a limited extent, I agree with the premise.

IMO there must be a crappy baseline for all other things to come from. It is arguable that Apple is continually working hard to be better than Windows (a good thing) and that KDE and GNOME exist to take advantage of what training Windows has done to the world, but to offer a free and more configurable alternative.

IMO there must be a way for the great unwashed masses to be able to cling to something that works. Albeit works at times, and at varying levels of efficiency, but still works. Although I disagree that Windows has promoted application consistency - in fact, it AMAZES me how much app developers seem to create new and innovative ways of baffling their users - I concede that Windows has made the business world of computers accessible to great numbers of people that it might well not have otherwise - or at the very least, might have taken longer to have grown to its current point.

I don't believe that a massive reboot is a good thing. I don't like Windows, but it does what it does pretty damn well. I've had to become re-accustomed to it of late, and I am reminded that in certain circumstances it is *absolutely the right tool for the job*.

Fortunately, I don't think we need to reboot, because if other operating systems are strong enough to overthrow it, then they are ready for prime time. If not, then the world is not ready for them or they simply do not provide *enough difference and benefit* to overthrow. I no longer believe that Windows has an enforced or defensible monopoly - I think they hold on now simply because of their ubiquity. As that changes and the global fabric evolves, they will need to get way better at their job or they'll lose pole position.

[kurdt]

I agree also that Microsoft has it's place. It's like if everything is roses, then you truly can't appreciate roses for what they are worth. There needs to be shit like Windows & Microsoft so we can truly appreciate better solutions.

[isthisthingon]

I would agree that if magically Microsoft Windows never existed in the first place things would be totally different.  However, if Microsoft gradually faded into extinction these gloom and doom claims are patently ridiculous.  Goodbye and thanks for all the fish.

I'm using XP from my office at work right now.  We've paid for it, I use it here, it works well as a business appliance and that settles it.  Unless Monoposoft found a way to disable my work OS, this tool works great and will continue to work great moving forward.  No need for major changes or for Microsoft to exist for any reason other than to hopefully produce some pretty good software 

[nop_90]

Like everything history repeats itself.
The MS of the past was Standard Oil.
John D Rockerfeller was the Bill Gates of 100 years ago.
And one thing that both men have is "vision".
And Standard Oil is still alive and kicking
I suspect that MS in one form or another will be alive and kicking, Apple I have my doubts

And the analogies are very similar.
When John D entered the oil refining industry it was a Mom and Pop industry.
Literally anyone could setup a refinery, cook off a few barrels of kerosene (the main product of oil was kerosene, gasoline was a waste product). and away you went.

Buying a kerosene in those days was literally dangerous. You had no idea what you where getting. Maybe the kerosene had been improperly refined, and contained gasoline, BOOM goes your house.

Under John D, quality and price of product increased dramatically. He then did research into other petrolium based products. You could even argue that he helped the environment. Less wastage of oil, etc etc.

Before MS. Everyone and his dog would start a PC company. You had no idea if you bought a computer, if the company would still be in buisness the next week. A PC back in like 1980 was expensive, like $2K. Probably in todays $$$ like $5-6K. All of the systems where incompatible.

All the people who fuking whine about M$, well just think back to how things where in 1980.
Today because of M$ almost everyone in the world can afford a PC. (3rd world booming buisness in "surplus", buddy goes to the market, buys a puter for $100-200 and his family has a puter).

Yah everyone slams John D and Bill Gates.
Honest WTF has apple done to make the world a better place, besides throw some money out to look good.
John D with his charities literally changed modern medicine, and medical research.
Bill Gates is literally helping save the 3rd world. Malaria is a killer. Most drug companies are not interested in researching better medicines/treatment for malaria. Bottom line, most of the market for malaria meds is for poor black and yellow people who can not afford to buy meds. No money in malaria meds.

I am not saying John D or Bill Gates are "saints", they where men with vision, who are attempting to change the planet to make it a better place. And no there are many things i do not like about M$, on the other hand, I am a pragmatist.

[isthisthingon]

Bill Gates turned philanthropist, film at eleven 

Yes, Bill does a hell of a lot more now than Steve Jobs in terms of giving money back to society.  But with 80 billion that's not hard to do.  But Bill Gates doesn't even work for Microsoft anymore.  And this is not to slam Microsoft but just to point out that if they went away now we would all make it through somehow, I have faith

Same goes for Apple, Google and IBM.  If any one of them fell there would be replacements ready to fill in the gap, imo.

[perkiset]

Actually we're on exactly the same plane here ITTO - my point was that I don't think M$ has a lock on things any longer - and when another OS is really ready to overthrow, it will. I have no worries NOW about Monoposh!t fading away because there are viable alternatives, and truly, if it does it means that something else is doing a better job.

[nop_90]

Giving money back to society.  But with 80 billion that's not hard to do.

It is not giving money back to society.
Actually in quite a few cases giving back money can be actually harmful in the long term.

Most so called  charities either are throwing out $$$ so they look good, or in some cases, especially with religous organiations throw out $$$ to get the sheep dependent on them.

Rockerfellers vision, and why his philanthropist organizations are still successful today, because they where designed to be self sustaining.

Actually we're on exactly the same plane here ITTO - my point was that I don't think M$ has a lock on things any longer - and when another OS is really ready to overthrow, it will. I have no worries NOW about Monoposh!t fading away because there are viable alternatives, and truly, if it does it means that something else is doing a better job.

And if/when that day comes ironically it will only be possible because of Billy Gates