OSNews

"If it comes to pass it will surely sound the death knell of the entire Windows platform."


Ok so I don't really hope the Windows platform goes away completely. There should always be competition. However I'd love to see OS X -- or something even better -- take over as the mainstream platform. It would also be nice to see FOSS operating systems triple in use, especially in education and research areas. It's going to take a major blunder by Microsoft, like the one this article predicts, to make that happen.

Personally though, I just don't see it coming about this way. Computing trends are slow grinds and when it does come time to see a shift in the way we use computers, Microsoft may not even be the company it is today. They may well be a small player overall and possibly out of the OS market completely, focusing on hardware and support software only. They already are trying to think ahead with the Surface project, and the time may come where they only design and sell interfaces to the computers of tomorrow.



Edit: Forgot there are no blockquotes allowed again...

Edited 2008-04-06 10:18 UTC

I'm not a fan of this subscription based Windows.

Windows Product Activation is perfect for enforcing subscriptions but in my opinion its just opening the way for...
1. More activation issues. (For Windows XP I had to use the call centre to activate my legally bought retail copy of XP after a mother bored failing).
2. More expensive in the long run.
3. Why upgrade Windows when users will have to renew the subscription each year.

Why don't Microsoft take one of the following options...
1. Make windows cheaper and release a new version more often.
2. Make Windows free and charge for support.

Edited 2008-04-06 10:53 UTC

with the destruction of microsoft the 2 most heavily used operating systems will both be UNIX based. Is anyone else wondering about the implications of this? I mean sure unix was good in the 70's/80's but surely other system designs should be given a chance? I don't think microsoft is the way forward, but I'm not so sure that linux and mac are the best way either. Do people think that other operating systems will be able to rise up to challenge *nix style systems, or will we be stuck with *nix platforms forever?

Edited 2008-04-06 11:19 UTC

One) I don't see how this would kill Windows. Cut into MicroSoft's revenue stream yes, kill it no. Too many companies use Windows now, and they are in no mood to pay for complete retraining of their work force.

Two) The more important question for MicroSoft is can they control the modules loaded. Perfect example right now is the Web Browser, FireFox is eating into MicroSoft's share of the market, but most people are lazy - it is hard to believe that FireFox will own more than MicroSoft of the general market when IE comes with each and every machine.

Even when given a choice of suppliers for different modules most people will want the one-store-shopping of going to MicroSoft's site.

Yes, technophiles who want computers that do everything will hate this because it will drive up the cost of buying an operating system.

But it will probably end up being a great thing for hardware vendors and most consumers.

Hardware vendor will love it because it will allow them to differentiate their systems based upon the components loaded. Want a low price model, then just load the core. Making something with limited hardware resources like the Eee, then only keep the resources that would perform well.

It would probably work out nicely for the consumer too. How many people would buy a new version of Windows every two years? Relatively few. If you tried to force upgrades by changing the API, software developers would ignore the API of the new release because most people will be using the old release. Which further negates the reason to upgrade. On the other hand, Windows XP looks pretty bad compared to a recent release of Mac OS X or Linux. So why not solve the situation by upgrading the core on a regular but infrequent basis, while upgrading the ancilary stuff frequently? Consumers who want upgraded ancilary stuff can upgrade as frequently as they want, so Windows looks relatively up-to-date without loosing customers to other software houses. Customers who are happy with the status quo will have less pressure to upgrade.

As for charging businesses more, I don't know how well that will work out for Microsoft. While I can see a business being willing to pay more for a new system, it would provide an extra disincentive for them to upgrade. That, and if they don't use custom software, they may look towards alternatives more keenly.

Too bad it will still take Microsoft 20 years to die even after the life support is yanked.

Just because an operating system is modularly programmed it doesn't mean it has to ship in a lot of different versions...

Everyone knows that to compete with better operating systems, Microsoft has to modularize. We also know that Microsoft will do whatever it can to maximize its profits through deals with OEMs, big corporations, and schools. The home user (i.e., you and me) will be the big losers of this spectacle of shear greed that will ensue as Microsoft tries to provide the core OS along with a myriad of subscription based or otherwise 'PLUS!' pack style features. Anyone who has purchased a car knows that the one must-have feature is always buried in the option package that has all the crap too. As usual, this will prove to be a disaster for Microsoft and everyone else too.

Windows Game. The stripped down version for gaming. But the Xbox group will never let this get off the ground as it would directly compete with them.
From what I hear about the infighting between various departments inside MS, I doubt they would let a potential successor arise. With a dedicated gaming version you could run an emulator for your old Xbox games and not have the expense of the hardware development that a consul has. And considering the poor quality of the Xbox hardware and the sizable cost of development and production, this could cause a dramatic shift in funding.

So, modular Windows sounds good, but I think internal politics at MS will ensure it does not work.

Nobody really can say now what win7 be like. And I always thought that modularity in win7 would be all about a programming concept not marketing. ie. having the OS more extensible, more resilient. Like, with w2k3, MSFT couldn't upgrade a thing in IIS6 without shipping a new kernel (ie. with a SP or R2). Now, with w2k8, IIS7 can be upgraded, without in-depth core changes. That's the modularization I'm talking about.

Although MSFT really made a bad choice with the plethora of Vista Versions, it doesn't mean they will stick to it (or even push it further) with win7.

I hope that as subscription-based office and vista versions are things that will never come back when win7 is up.

BTW. The article says that vista and w2k8 are making first steps with modularization with roles. But w2k3 had roles too, so it's been there some time now.

It is interesting to see if other vendors are going to be allowed to write modules for Windows OS, which will compete with Microsoft's own.

What will these modules look like ? For example. let's assume that there is a module for web server. Does it mean that TCP stack is going to be rearranged in a way that no incoming port 80 connection is going to be accepted unless web server module is purchased ? Or the owner (user) can install and use Apache without purchasing the module ? Or Apache foundation can write their own Windows module wrapped around Apache HTTPD ?

Where should I begin and where should I end?

Firstly, I think the author could have been more attentive to the difference between a more "modular" business model and a more modular approach towards software design (which I think is a good thing in most situations). Developing modular software is not the same as changing the granularity of the software sold.

Secondly, mainly relying on discriminatory pricing to explain the effects, he neglects one thing. Most users (I am not talking about the average OSNEWS or Ars Technica reader) has already been "overshot" by the featureset in modern operating systems. A tendency towards only paying for what you actually use, could in fact result in a downward pressure on pricing - given enough competition of course.

I think it was an interesting, but very flawed article.

Edited 2008-04-06 13:31 UTC

Clearly this would be an excellent way to market Windows.
Someone buys a cheap PC, with a cut down version of Windows, and upgrades the system as they upgrade the hardware.

Buying a gaming PC, great, you dont need anything for user support and a load of help files and tutorials.. Buying and office machine ? great, you dont need directx etc

So, when you do make the move, you can get the needed parts as and when.

Now, if Microsoft will implement something like "update-manager -d -c", then moving from Windows 7 to Windows 8 will be as simple as paying the charge and clicking the link.

The more you don't include by default, the more opprotunity you give things to break in the future.

The more you don't include by default, the more your customers will resent everything else they have to pay for later to just run some shareware.

Oh, here's something else to mention -- how will their install media work once you have umpteen functions on that disc that they may or may not have been purchased? Will they have to enter one huge key which will be decoded to determine what they get, or will they have to just enter one key per function? Or just one disc per function?

I don't think this will be "The End Of Microsoft" -- people have been heralding that even longer since they've been heralding "The Year Of The Linux Desktop" -- but I do think this is going to blow up, horribly and expensively, in their faces. If Windows 7 goes to modular/subscription, I guarantee Windows 8 will be back to the sane software development and deployment model.

Microsoft has an obvious problem on their hands. They have attempted to differentiate their software business so much that they can't make a change in one area without affecting another. The problem is that it will be very difficult to find the decisions that will be beneficial in all aspects of their business.

So, who should Microsoft compete with? Should they compete with Mac and Linux? Should they compete with Google and Yahoo? Should they compete with someone else? Is Windows still as valuable today as it was in the past, or should they shift their focus to Office or other products? Should they offer a free consumer version to retain mindshare while asking a larger premium for a commercial license (maybe through paid support) in a manner similar to what some Linux companies do?

Companies like Google and Yahoo have shown that the internet is a very attractive place to be in business. The possibilities for success can be incredible. Unfortunately, predicting success for an internet strategy can be difficult. The internet does provide a vehicle for marketing subscription based services though. People don't inherently think that they own what is on the internet.

Regardless of what the internet has to offer Microsoft, Windows and Office have been major contributors to Microsoft's success in the past. If they move toward an internet-centric business, does it weaken Windows by moving their strategy away from core strengths and opening them up to competition that is already strong? If Microsoft doesn't go with an internet services approach, will they be able to continue to compete with Mac and Linux in the face of antitrust concerns?

Businesses and consumers alike have begun to realize that single-source practices can have more than short term effects in the computing world. By relying on a single vendor for the majority of software needs, companies become increasingly dependent on that vendor due to the potentially high costs of changing vendors. Should Microsoft become more flexible and open in an effort to ameliorate corporate concerns of software lock-in. Would that flexibility simply hasten moves toward competitors' offerings. Will it matter what Microsoft does if companies decide to adopt a policy to limit the potential for lock-in?

I don't think that the majority of consumers or businesses will abandon Windows in the near future, but the poor response to Vista does not bode well for the long term outlook of Windows. At least, I would say that unless Microsoft is very savvy about how they develop and market Windows 7, Windows' marketshare could actually drop below 90% within three years.

Think this could be a good thing for power users. Generally, the only thing we need Windows for are the 3rd party apps, so the first thing we usually do when we install Windows is turn off UAC, turn off system restore, turn off search indexing, and other stuff we don't use. Imagine not having to pay for any of that crap .. it's gonna be cheaper for us Just as long as they don't screw with the APIs to make life harder for developers. But I really don't think they're that stupid.

I don't see that Windows would die, but it would lose ground. People might actually get what they want. Looking at the various retail configurations of Vista, most people probably just walked away in confusion. Being able to buy a basic configuration for home or business and then, being able to add pieces would be ideal for many.

Of course, those who constantly feel entitlement to everything will complain that they bought the whole thing and Microsoft is forcing them to pay more but who really uses everything?

I'd like to see a better selection of operating systems, as we had in the 1980s, with the hardware and software of today. If Apple and Microsoft had more equal shares, the various Linux and BSD distributions could gain ground and the focus might become application software instead of which operating system is better.

We need Windows a while longer, if only to keep Apple from taking the monopoly position.

Where it might be a cool idea in concept, trust the fact that it boils down to money! It would be just another way to make huge bucks and track system use. Could you imagine this later down the line? You buy the gamer module, you decide to check your email, message pops up and says "please purchase the email module". Where this may seem far out, there is no end to greed, and we know what company has shown they love greed!

A very modular OS might be a good or a bad thing as there are many different ways to implement it. Now Windows 7 or its modularity is just pure speculation still, at least outside of MS development labs.

Also the last page of the article mentions lots of potentially good things in modularity although the point of view may be rather sceptical in general.

I guess it all boils down to the goals that the OS manufacturer tries to achieve with modularity. Is it mainly just a new way to get more money from customers, or are they truly trying to listen to and serve the customers better? Of course, those two goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But one thing is sure: pissing off customers is not good for any company in the long run, including Microsoft. Once people lose their trust in a product line or a company, it can be hard to get that trust back.

Microsoft is already suffering from some symptoms of customer distrust, so they should consider their decisions carefully if they don't want to lose more friends.

Edit: The interesting question we could ask is why an IT site like Ars, when writing about the (maybe) modular future Windows design, tends to fear for the worst rather than hope for the best...? What has happened? They are not alone but IMHO you can read pessimistic comments about the future of MS Windows also on many Windows-centric IT blogs, news sites and forums. I would be a bit worried if I worked at Microsoft.

Edited 2008-04-06 19:17 UTC

Modularisation is a term Microsoft used to describe pretty much every version of Windows since 2000. Nothing to see here. Move along.