Windows Collapsing Under Its Own Weight - Gartner 21 comments
Larry Dignan
From ZDNet:
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Microsoft’s (MSFT) Windows juggernaut is collapsing as it tries to support 20 years of applications and becomes more complicated by the minute. Meanwhile, Windows has outgrown hardware and customers are pondering skipping Vista to wait for Windows 7. If Windows is going to remain relevant it will need radical changes.
That sobering outlook comes courtesy of Gartner analysts Michael Silver and Neil MacDonald. Half of a full room of IT managers and executives raised their hands when asked whether Microsoft needed to radically change its approach to Windows. “Windows is too monolithic,” says Silver.
Silver also gave another anecdotal point to show the conundrum Microsoft is in: Clients are calling him to ask whether they should skip Vista entirely and wait for Windows 7, which promises to be more modular and potentially lightweight. Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has also found an impact on Vista from all of the Windows 7 chatter. Silver’s recommendation: Go with Vista but on an attrition basis. As XP PCs die, replace them with Vista PCs.
MacDonald argued that Windows may need multiple kernels to support increasing demands from customers and hardware makers. “One size doesn’t fit all,” says MacDonald. For instance, look at the various demands an OS has to deal with:
If Microsoft’s response is to become more complex, Windows’ fall will accelerate. As Windows stands today, it’s already too bulky.
So what does Microsoft need to do?
For starters, Windows should create versions for specific uses. These modules would be able to swapped out depending on the customer. From Gartner’s presentation:
The more interesting question here is whether one OS can address both architectural requirements. Microsoft believes that it can take its core Windows software offering and package it to address these different architectures. But can this same approach be extended to embrace cloud computing and real-time architecture demands?
Also see: Jason Perlow: If I were to design Windows 7
Mary Jo Foley: Why Windows 7 might go to pieces
Multiple Windows–that will be virtualized, of course–will screw up Microsoft’s business model. “Microsoft doesn’t like anything in between Windows and the hardware. Ninety-five percent of its revenue comes from OEM’s,” says MacDonald.
Regardless of the pain for Microsoft, the software giant needs to shorten development times and innovate on an ongoing basis, make its experience consistent between platforms and solve compatibility problems among various flavors of Windows.
A few key redesign ideas from Silver and MacDonald:
Windows should be able to be tailored to specific applications. MacDonald questioned what the OS will become once applications are virtualized. Do you need a full OS everywhere? No. The job of an OS may be taken over by the hypervisor. Stray thought: Taking that logic further, perhaps VMware (VMW) becomes the real OS.
Better security. MacDonald says Windows should link identities to applications so software doesn’t act abnormally. For instance, Notepad would be limited to inputting text. Why would notepad.exe have rights to network ports, the registry and scan a file system? Notepad should be assigned an identity and limited to a specific use. “Microsoft doesn’t do this today,” says MacDonald. “It would require significant kernel changes.” MacDonald added that few operating systems limit what applications can do. The one software project that takes this approach is the One Laptop Per Child project.
Make migration to new versions easier. Application packaging takes forever, says Silver. There’s also the problem of “Windows rot.” Windows rot is what happens to a machine after running Windows for three or four years and it gets slow and barely functions. The fix is to reinstall everything and rebuild the PC. That’s a manual effort that takes too much time.
Simplify licensing to focus on specific devices. “Licensing is too difficult for mere mortals to understand,” says Silver. The problem: A version of Windows is tied to one PC. The way people work today will require a licensing do-over, argues Silver. From Gartner’s presentation:
It is possible that several entities will own different hardware and software components on a single machine, and there needs to be flexibility in ownership, management and movement of the assets. Microsoft Windows and Office licenses are ultimately tied to the device and not to the user, which makes no sense in a world in which a user’s work space migrates between multiple devices.
“Something as common sense as ‘I’d like Office to go with me’ doesn’t work under current licensing,” says MacDonald.
The bottom line for Gartner is that Windows needs to be replaced, lock-in needs to end, and product schedules need to be more predictable. Windows should also be more manageable. The Windows user experience will become less integrated to become “a composite adaptive work space,” which means in English that some applications will be tied to location and the user’s identity.
All of these items are good ideas that are very academic. Will Windows 7 become this adaptive thing that Gartner describes? Probably not. Gartner argues that Microsoft should use virtualization to solve the backward compatibility issue plaguing Windows. Will Windows 7 jettison its current kernel for multiple versions? Not likely.
Some of these changes may happen, but the move will be gradual at best. I agree that Windows has too many legacy constraints with reverse compatibility, but what would happen if Microsoft did a clean break from older apps? Meanwhile, these “legacy constraints” have also provided billions of dollars in revenue for Microsoft. One of the reasons Microsoft has a monopoly is because it still works with older stuff. If Microsoft did a clean break it would give you an excuse to pick a new operating system.
Windows clearly needs to change, but the question is really timing. How fast will Windows collapse under its weight? It’ll take longer than folks think.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 21 comments:
My take on Win 7 is that it still ain't UNIX-based, so don't expect adequate performance, security, or stability. And there'll probably be 15 slightly different, confusing versions! It won't solve their problems.
@coeus89 ... the problem with Vista is that it does not have compelling new features, it is slower, it is more complicated to use. MSFT spent years and a small fortune to develop it and it's a complete mess. MSFT has not produced anything really decent or outstanding for quite sometime and now even the bread and butter corporate customers are refusing to take the "scheduled Microsoft tax", simply, because there is no obvious value in the newer versions.
At the same time Linux is making more and more progress - facing the same hardware, user needs.
And finally MSFT on the Internet - well, they just never made it there, no matter how hard they tried or how much money they spent. The money MSFT accumulated in the past covers the more and more obvious: Microsoft has lost touch with customers, even with the new directions of the industry.
Ballmer clings on to YHOO as a castaway to a lifebelt.
However: too little, too late, and won't work. That's the Microsoft way.
As long as they don't make driver registration onerous, they could succeed. Also, for performance reasons, they would have to provide the ability for drivers to hook to a kernel which may actually have to use some - dare I say - hand-tuned assembly code. Just because you have the space and the processors are getting faster doesn't mean that you should expand the bloat of the OS an applications to stress test the newest, fastest machines. Remember when Word fit on a single 1.4M floppy? Modular can be a good thing, if it's done right.
the hooks and holes left in it over twenty years so everything will run on it is why its so easy to hack. they have to accommodate good and bad code from manufacturers.
its time to get a mac folks ! why wait foe windoze 7 when OSX is her today Microsoft will never get it right.
[1] Operating system
Linux has come a very long way, and may grow when MS cuts off support for XP. Since Vista uptake has been very poor and well below its own expectations, MS will have to make a smart business decision about XP.
[2] Advertising
The yahoo acquisition reminds me of HPQ buying Compaq. It didn't really help HP but it did take out a competitor. Maybe this is what MS needs to do to gain market share
On the plus side:
[3] SQL 2008 - 2005 was already a very good release
[4] Visual Studio - MS is giving away the studio edition to students. I repeat, giving it away! They have taken a page out of open source and are trying to get young bright people to use this development tool.
[5] X-Box360
The growth is in gaming consoles. Halo 3 was a big win.
Just switch.
;-)
App bloating isn't a MS only problem. Mac updates aren't coming out less frequently. You can't run any of the 700 flavors of Linux without tools to manage its ever growing updates and complex interactions with other systems, and virus defs, and on and on. The world IS getting more complicated, and all systems, MS or not, have to adapt.
Gartner and a prior reader were correct about specific adjustments.
- Licensing needs to promote user mobility vs punishing it.
- Specialized versions, maybe even concurrently running on the same box might simplify some specialized server applications, but not likely the "gotta run everything on one desktop" crowd
- Virtualization does create separation between the hardware and operating system which we like. We run upwards of 15-20 virtual machines per computer. Certainly the more you run, the more demands on the hardware. We buy lots of new machines as a result, and the economies are absolutely compelling. ROIs of a month or two. The author's "too big for the hardware" chart seems irrelavant to anything.
But these are technical things, and people have choices.
As an investor, my question is more like..
What is Microsoft doing right ?
I want to know who the wiinners are.
How is it, that with Sun's free office clone, and myriad fine choices for hardware and O/s.... Why do people, and corporations, overwhelmingly vote for Microsoft with their dollars ?
Don't care about technical snits, whether the O/S and apps run on Intel, under VM, or on a 20 year old Tandy. I want to guage Microsoft's ability to generate earnings going forward.
Gartner didn't say "Windows is collapsing under its own weight". They said Windows is monolithic. That comes with being the dominant operating system, across virtually all end user applictions, for two decades.
I suspect Microsoft is working to overcome the issues that come with success so they can continue growing.
Like it or not gang, Microsoft is wildly successful. We might as well focus on why, not why not.
To was_fred and the others: Classic apps DO run on Mactels running 10.4.x under Rossetta Stone (I am using them on this MacBook Pro!), but I am not sure about Leopard.
To rampman and his fellow Windows lovers and fanboys - the ONLY reasons MS ever took the lead from Apple and other innovators was that Gates made the decision to license, and tied his fortunes to Deep Blue's Deep Pockets and powerful sales team. They had a fairly good WP (Word - originally made for Apple!), and later other good office apps - but their OS was always lousy. (And I would know - I ran it from DOS 3.0 forward!)
Also, Google's FREE office apps are making serious progress, as is Linux and other Open Source stuff - and Apple is gaining market share by the minute! (Much of this thanks to Vista!)
Windows is going down the tubes - it may die hard, but unless they totally change their model and M.O., they are going down...
It all adds up to that one should help ones customers to be more competitive and not compete against them.
You would think that MS would have the ultimate in backwards compatibility. After all, they never really changed anything. Look at all the immense changes Apple has been though--but their backward compatibility is FAR better than Microsoft's!
Microsoft's only real customers are IT and the box shifters at Dell, HP, etc... There is no innovation, whatsoever, in the entire PC market.
For Microsoft to survive, they might start listening to the people for a change. That will never happen.
I can't believe someone actually brought up HALO. That was nothing Microsoft did. They BOUGHT that from Bungie, which was a Mac programming company that had just prior to that, starting releasing PC versions.
Office is what Microsoft does well? You have to be kidding! It's a mess. They change it willy-nilly on every iteration (as if that was an improvement to move things to different menus. There were TONS of great word processing programs at one time. But MSFT killed them all off with it's monopoly. Word/Excel are not great, powerpoint was never even the best of it's class. The only thing that makes them so pervasive is that they tend to give them away with the Microsoft OS.
Textbook monopolists!
2: Microsoft has enough marketshare to weather the temporary bad press and loss of marketshare. It probably has had this planned from the beginning. If anything, Vista is probably doing better than planned. Once XP is off the shelf, it is going to be all the way with Vista. Sure OSX has gained a fair bit (and Linux a surprisingly only tiny bit), but at the end of the day, if the hardware manufacturers only support Vista, then corporates, and therefore all of us, will have Vista shoved down our throats whether we like it or not.