Van Tan, however, believes that neither vendor is likely to emerge as the dominant player. "It's not a question of who is going to win the war as neither of them are going to disappear in the next 10 days. The important question is what the balance between the two companies will be and we think it will be closer to 50-50 or maybe 45-55."
At the moment, he says, Microsoft with its .Net infrastructure "is still the challenger", but how this might change is very difficult to forecast into the future.
Nonetheless, there is a third — and currently more pressing — business reason as to why Longhorn is a crucial product for Microsoft, and that relates to revenues.
Macehiter explains: "One of the biggest challenges that Microsoft faces, and it's something that Gates has admitted, is the competition provided by its own installed base. Microsoft has to provide customers with compelling reasons to upgrade and that means increasingly getting them to sign up to the Software Assurance scheme because it provides it with predictable revenues."
Software Assurance is a software maintenance programme by which mainly enterprise customers pay a set annual fee and receive upgrades without having to pay extra as part of the deal.
The issue is, however, that, while such contracts last for three years, Microsoft released its last desktop version of Windows for the desktop, XP, in October 2001, and its last server product, Windows Server 2003, in April 2003.
As a result, points out Annette Jump, a principal analyst at Gartner: "Many of the support deals run out in 2006, so Microsoft can't really stretch the gap any more as it would start to have an effect."
While this is not so much an issue with small businesses, it an important consideration with mid-sized and large customers, she explains, because "they assume that they'll at least get something new. But if they don't feel they've had much value over the last three years, the danger is that they won't renew their enterprise agreements".
This feeling is particularly marked in Europe, she adds, which, over the last six to nine months, has led Microsoft to try and "add value through initiatives such as training and support to persuade companies to sign up again and in some cases, it's even been reducing prices".
Therefore, Microsoft will hit its 2006 deadline to ship the desktop version of Longhorn at any price, followed by the server version in 2007. According to Quirk, the client release is expected to appear in the second half of next year, and the server edition a year later.
But as Macehiter concludes: "Microsoft has been deliberately vague on what's in Longhorn and what's not. To hit its dates, it doesn't want to commit to functionality, and it will compromise, drop or reduce the scope of that functionality if it impacts on its ability to deliver. It's a very important issue for Microsoft and it's being very pragmatic about it."
Talkback
Battle? what battle, Linux already won on my desktop/workstation...
Isn't the "integrated infrastructure" found in Windows one of the architectural shortcomings of that platform from a security perspective?
Won't tigher application and platform subsystem integration lead to more risks of a similar nature, as well as making patches against selected elements more and more difficult to implement?
Microsoft have a big problem. If Longhorn is significantly different from previous versions of windows it will require training of users, and it may cause incompatibilities with existing windows applications.
This is the same problems as you would face if you switch to Linux. But Linux have the advantage of being free, giving the user full control of their OS and many of their applications. The GUI of Linux is also improving rapidly. A couple of years ago the development of the free desktop only was a technical matter. Today usabilty experts get more and more involved, the days of the "make it hard to show how smart we are" attitude is long gone. Usability is now cool. Currently Gnome, is a very usable desktop, and before Longhorn is out there will be two more releases of Gnome that will improve the usability of the Linux desktop even further. This means that an upgrade to Linux may be a better choise than Longhorn.
On the other hand, if Longhorn it isn't significantly different why should users upgrade? Most business users needs were covered allready in windows NT4, win2k made it a little more stable, winXP made it a little more beautiful, but I doubt that any of these upgrades gave the users any significant return of investment. The same will probably be true for Longhorn, and by now users know it.
The logic used against MS is hilarious.
'If Longhorn is too different, users will have to train! That's BAD'
'If Longhorn is too similar, why upgrade? How AWFUL'
Course, that's how Linux is... between v. 6 and 7 of Red Hat, I discovered vast differences, but they both had similarities: wiping my hard drive of all useful information behind my back!
C'mon guys. Believe me, for evey argument you've got against MS, we've got one better against Linux.
No, what is hillarious is your outlook on life.
It's comments like this that divide the men from the boys, as an external consultant, I spend 70% plus of my time fixing problems with Microsoft installations (not originally installed by me), we have found the majority of problems are instability, un-documented bugs, poor workrounds, software/hardware incompatabilities, upgrade issues left right and centre, and although there are problems with Linux abd Novell, they are no where near the percentage of Microsofts ( even when used with the recomended hardware lists supplied from Microsoft itself). It is good to see an alternative OS for both the server and desktop that can now truly challenge Microsofts offerings big-time.
Sorry my comment was in relation to :
The logic used against MS is hilarious. 'If Longhorn is too diff..........
Hey highschool boy...
'If Longhorn is too similar, why upgrade? How AWFUL' - Then why have microsoft had to FORCE business's to upgrade to SP2... does it sound like every business is wanting a new upgrade/os's??
Your theory is ok in a company with 2-3 computers where upgrade costs are a few hundred $$, but large corperations/governments with 10,000-100,000 computers need more than a new fancy looking os before shelling out millions of dollars, and they hear the new microsoft security plan/initiative every day.....(followed by the news the next day that it has been cracked)
Granted Microsoft is the most sucessfull os so far, but look back in history... Every major IT company that held the top-spot has fallen off the top-spot, dont think it couldn't/wouldn't happen....
"Course, that's how Linux is... between v. 6 and 7 of Red Hat, I discovered vast differences, but they both had similarities: wiping my hard drive of all useful information behind my back!"
No, that's not how Linux is, that's how *Red Hat* is. Maybe if you tried a better (much MUCH better) distro like Debian you would see the true power of Linux instead of what one company (and the worst distro of the bunch IMNSHO) can show you.
Sure, Debian is great, but it's minimalist to the bone. Linux-gurus may not have a problem, but most everyone else will. Even Mandrake's installation, as easy as it is, is still too confusing for most users these days; and to cut-short the "their stupid anyways" comments-ease of use is what counts. For example, the computer "idiot" installs Linux, and a random piece of hardware is unsupported, they don't know, and problems occur. What are they to do? One of the security "benefits" (actually present because too many distros are too lazy to make a fix) is that so much software must be installed by entering commands much like DOS. Most windows users are too illiterate of computers for stuff like that. Linspire has much of that problem fixed, but they're pay-only. Why would I pay so much money a year for upgrades?
Here's another view. Even Mandrake costs money monthly to make it uber user friendly (that is, if the person can get linux to hook-up to the internet to download anything). The end-cost per year will often end-up being the price of a Windows upgrade, so why switch? Most often I hear Linux users complain, whining "if hardware vendors would just make compatible hardware or drivers..."
Well, gurus know what to buy, newbs use what they have, or it's too expensive. And frankly, to businesses, it's not worth the extra effort. Now, before I get flamed, here's a revelation: "I use Linux." I like that I can get it free. I don't like that there's no gui-install: it's annoying as hell. It's also annoying that Mandrake offers no guide on how to use easy-urmpi to install jack. If it hadn't been for my older computer being too puny to handle newer windows I would have switched back. I have to admit, it's practically worthless right now-it won't hook to the internet, it won't do a lot of things, but unlike most users, I have patience (and user-friends) to learn. As long as Linux ends up being more time-consuming as well as almost as expensive as a Windows Update pack, it's going nowhere "huge." People will pay oodles for convenience (say, for example, for an over-priced, restrictive device like the iPods). I love that linux is open-source enough that you can use it on practically anything with some kind of chip, but the convenience isn't quite there for average computer users. I point this out and get flamed and receive retorts like "screw 'em," but that's the problem with techies-they have a sort of contempt for those who don't give a rat's *** about anything tech and expect it to work; but it's that majority that will pay the bills to make more. Enthusiasm rocks-so did BeOS for its time; (but guess what?). If you only have enthusiasts working on seperate components, it's hard to get a unified function, look, and feel. To my fellow Linux-users, stop whining, shut-up, and demand change and develope a better distro that's quickly successful, cheaper, supports everything, etc. Otherwise, deal with the drawbacks, and stop acting like the famous "Mac snobs. " (which my Mac-obsessed buddy Dan acknowledges too). On another note, it's hard to claim windows sucks so badly when it has to deal with backwards-compatibility and the fact that frankly, most crashes aren't the fault of windows. Usually it's third-party drivers or software. Windows is "dumbed-down" as well for user friendliness, while Linux till more recently didn't care. Linux may be faster and "bleeding edge," but only because it has the advantage of being worked on with newer knowledge, no major expectation of backwards compatibility, etc. etc.
So now that I'm done with a stupid rant:
Again:
Stop whining, stop making excuses, stop pouting, and bitching, hissing and scratching. Don't become like "Mac snobs" which it seems almost every linux user does, and if you're going to bitch, at least know what you're talking about. Just for the fun of it, here's my whine: "A better M*#$#%((&((##$ file-system!!!!! I know of a guy who used part of Windows in his sy
oops, it cut-off the last part...
...part of his system. Meaning? No "mounting" of drives, no commands to search around the computer, and so on. That would rock! But that's illegal and he can't distribute such a piece of work. That's extensive as heck, and I have no idea what he had to do (or hack) for it, but man, that's great. I'd love to have worked on something like that, but my programming knowledge is limited to Java (which chemotherapy fried-out of me) and I'm soooo peeved I can't remember anything now that I don't know if I want to go back (can't till I go to college anyways). I wanted to move on to C (and beyond) and start learning the kernel eventually. Oh well, you can flame me now. :)
For everyone's arguements the facts still stand for themselves. You may purchase Server 2003 w/ 50 user licenses for around $650.00. Alternatively you may purchase Redhat Linux for around $39.99 which can be configured many different ways, and possesses unlimited user licensing.
Here's another fact, if you do an upgrade install of ANY OS and you neglect to backup you files and software until after upgrading. Then you're practically begging for trouble there junior.
How about this hubbub about thin client deployment? For fast client deployment the best way is to install your clients through a network. Speedy deployment relies equally on hardware as it does on software. For example; if your network consists of using 802.11b wireless you have a total throughput of 54Mbps and a range of 30 feet before requiring a repeater. Now regardless of what client type you're deploying, you will not deploy faster using 802.11b than someone using 100BaseTX Ethernet using CAT 5 cable; 100BaseTX has a throughput of 100Mbps as well as a range of 100 meters before requiring a repeater.
As for the software portion of this rapid deployment hubbub. Why would you want to do fresh installs on every box in your business? Especially when you have applications such as Norton Ghost (or even better, a free open source equivilent) with which you can create a ghost image of an install, then deploy that image through your network thus deploying your clients in 10 minutes or less. Heck even using a LiveCD version of Linux will install even faster (less than 20 minutes) on the initial machine that you create your deployment image on.
Security is also another issue here, Longhorn has been stated to be more secure than Linux. Now if this were true would there already be pirated copies of Longhorn available in Maylasia? Furthermore, you may or may not know this but if you pay close attention to your Windows box via a third party firewall. There are applications that are inside of the Windows OS that continually attempt to access the Internet. These apps are attempting to contact an outside party (much in the same way as spyware) for God knows what reason... Longhorn as well as Windows Genuine Authentification (WGA) will make this spying process even more pronounced. Linux OSs don't have embedded applications that do that.
Bottom line here is look into the actual facts folks. Linux saves total cost of ownership, and is just as good if not superior to Windows.
John B.
Well put arguments there buddy however, a short retort is in order. Certainly there are many Tech's that are in fact snobbish. This comes from having to reiterate over and over again simplistic things such as "make sure your antivirus software is up to date and working properly" to users. Seeing as I'm a tech myself you're probably rolling your eyes at this. However, people are not allowed to drive a vehicle without knowing at least some basics such as putting gas in the car or you'll be stuck on the side of the road. In fact you need to know how to navigate on the roads before you're even allowed to drive. The same should apply with computers. I mean why have a piece of equipment if you're unwilling to learn anything about it. There is tons of support out there for Linux distros, both in the areas of information and hardware. All anyone needs todo is look around the web. Now, I'm not sure what flavor of Linux you're using, but you could try any version of Knoppix Linux. If you boot with the ICEWM window manager you will see a great similarity to Windows. Furthermore, there are modems which work great with Knoppix, and there is a simple method for a "GUI" install. FYI the reason why most Linux distros don't support many modems is a security one. Linux distros are designed to connect to the Web through a network card. This is so you can connect to a firewall/DHCP server to give you better protection while connected. Also setting up a hardware firewall, router, or DHCP server is simple and cheap. Just take an old computer and run Coyote Linux or similar distro on it (Coyote turns a computer into a firewall/router). Lastly, if you don't like to pay for updates then I highly recommend Knoppix. Klaus Knopper is continually creating newer versions all of which run great on old and new machines alike.
I do sympathize with you in that there are many who need to stop whining... Some thoughts from someone who knows what their talking about.
With longhorn history will probably repeat itself again, and things will change just to be the same again.
I don't think that neither Linux or Longhorn are going to 'win', I believe longhorn will stop Linux growing market on the desktop (for some time) and maybe help it kill the rest of the unixes, but Linux will still be there, and that'll hopefully make the competition interesting.
If you think it twice Linux exists because of Windows, because many people was fed up of old unixes snobbism and the Windows (9x) sloppery. And now, on return, Windows evolves just because there is Linux out there. They complement each other in some ways.
I am a software engineer, I use Debian both at work and home, everybody else around uses Windows. I can understand them:
- They don't need to "mount -t vfat..." to access their pendrives.
- They can grab the cheapest hw at any shop, it will work for them.
- They wait 25s for their laptops to be ready for use, while I have to wait 1min and a half. (I really plan to work on a multithreded init script myself, this really makes me nervous).
-They can put their laptops to sleep, no matter ACPI or APM, they don't even know what APN or ACPI are.
- They can use many programs that have no equivalent on Linux or that are much less user friendly in Linux.
- And hey, at the end of the day it's "free" after all, I mean nobody in Spain pays a penny for a Windows or Office (Linux would be king if they had to).
- Apps start up faster, C++ GUIs is not the best thing to see on Linux, KDE is still quite heavy to startup. Did you ever compared OpenOffice Writer vs Word? or Firefox in Linux vs IExplorer startups?
- Viruses are fun. I will be doomed when my debian gets its first one, I really assume it can't and that is dangeous from a security point of view. No viruses means that you are a too small market, not interesting enough.
- (Re)Installing the system every 6 months because it is too junked (Windows) or because you just changed distribution (Linux) is just the same.
Sure, Linux is closing the gap:
- Installation IS NOT more difficult, depending on the distro it can even be easier. The only disadvantages here are that Windows usually comes preinstalled and does not want to share the harddrive.
- Some of the complains here will probably be solved sooner or later. I think of ACPI4Linux and Project Utopia (I really look forward to them).
- Some others are already been fixed on modern kde 3.4 and gnome 2.8.
...etc
But when longhorn arrives, gap filled completelly or no, Linux will find another gap to close again. Users like me won't change back (at least at home, I might be forced at work), and users like my mother will eventually demand to get a longhorn installed just to browse the web and use skype, just because it boots up faster (than that "extrange linux thing") and she already know it...
Things will change... just to be the same again.
Linux and Mac tech snobs are never going to get it.
The pc market is never going to be driven by excellence. The success of Microsoft is proof of this - they were never concerned with technical excellence - only market dominance. They don't care about innovation - they are mostly about aquiring and rebranding entire products (they bought q-dos and repackaged as Ms-dos) and ideas (the gui idea came from Apple).
Microsoft sucks, but Gates understands the market. He understands the way the average pc customer views the pc - more like the sewer system or plumbing - users don't want to think about it, they just want it to work.
Techies don't get it - they think of an os more from it's tech excellence - like a powerful machine. They have more of the 'ivory tower' mentality - they think the whole world doesn't get it -- when it's them who really doesn't get it.
Open source/Linux will never overtake MS anymore than a soup kitchen will overtake McDonalds. Linux is for hobbyists, not anyone seriously concerned with stability and productivity. Linux stands a chance in the server market, only because of IBM's big name and support - exactly why people buy MS and exactly why open source supporters are wrong about what customers want.
Customers - both business and home- like universality and familiarity - especially when it comes to something complex like computers. They will choose to pay a measly $100 dollars for an os as opposed to having to invest hundreds of hours learning how to use an os. Why use a constantly changing, multi flavor, designed-by-millions-of-script-kiddies os when you can use one designed by business minded adults that rarely changes ? Ease of use and reliability trump technical excellence in this market - that is just what the market says - the truth - whether techies want to listen or not.
The only way MS is going to be taken down is when the paradigm shifts. It will happen when the os is no longer locked into the choice of apps and hardware. It will happen just how MS took over the desktop market when the PC became independent of manufacturers. Only then will we truly get great operating systems - when there is real competition among real companies (no open source bullshit - public/free is always inferior to private/profit driven).
Vishnu, that's just bull. Gates doesn't care about if Windows works for customers or not. Or haven't you been following the news the last ten years? But you're right that he understands the market. Namely that if you give customers no other choice they're left to swallow whatever you give them (at premium rate).
Take taxes for example. Sometimes I wonder how they get away with it (given that some people are re-elected year after year or promoted into high pay, low effort jobs). Microsoft is no exception to that rule.
Vishnu's just mad because his job got outsourced back stateside (;. Besides, in my opinion to infer that unix/linux/bsd/darwin is inferior, or to outright claim it is just assinine. I've been an avid user of unix variants for coming close to a decade now, and I can agree that it's not for everyone. FreeBSD is definately not for joe user. Joe user buys what he knows, and what's easy. However, you seem to make the mistake of correlating user friendly with better product. Because of how vastly superior unix variants have performed for me, you couldn't pay me to go back to windows. How many windows users out there can honestly tell me they've gone 8 months consecutively without needing to reboot? How many linux machines got hit by the dcom worm, and what were the machines microsoft set up to protect their website during the attacks running? XF86/Xorg depending on the window manager you're using will typically only use 20-32 megs of your RAM, leaving the rest free. Try running XP on a DX2 66mhz. Console mode flies. X is pretty sluggish, but the machine is still operable to it's full potential. While I agree most users really wouldn't take to linux as per its complexities, to call it inferior for being an open source initiative is just plain stupid.
I just have to say this: linux saved my computer. With it on it can run for days, i have never seen it crash. With win98 it crashes within a night's sleep. And that while i made it as lean as possible. It's the famous memory leak that does the trick.
So Vishnu, talking about stability?
I don't think you're speaking out of experience here.
Maybe XP will do a better job, but do you really seee that running on a 933 mHz? I don't think so, plus XP will never be my OS.
Sure, Linux maybe too hard for some people. But i guess you never saw live distro's running from CD.
So there :) .