OSNews

The limit they had was 640 kB. But yes. There are videoclips on youtube showing people firing up a mac classic, launching claris works, type some stuff, save it and turn of the machine (I think it included that part aswell), and then compared to a new machine, and the new machine are SLOWER. Sure the machine are like hundreds of times faster, but the software have become so much bloated that you don't get more stuff done anyway. And it will probably remain that way, coders like to add whatever fun stuff they can because the system allows it anyway. It's not like we NEED bouncing icons in the dock, or 3d effects when switching windows, but the hardware are there so someone will make use of it.

Coders like to add? I see you haven't had the pleasure to work in a corporate setting:)

You know nobody can ever provide proof that he said that. Futhermore he is recorded saying we will eventually need to move to a 64bit memory system long before this phrase was atributed to him.

I've seen him say it in a video.

Edited 2008-04-18 04:00 UTC

"The 640kb should be enough for anyone" quote is just an internet myth. He never actually said that. And in his defense, why would he say such a potentially unprofitable thing anyway. :-)

Umm, maybe because that was the limit of the operating system he was selling, and he was not selling hardware?

Yeah, I think you're right that the desktop OS isn't going to die soon. On the other hand, he seems to be focusing very heavily on enterprise uses, which are often filled with hundreds of drones using a single application (which are increasingly web based).

Appliances are popular in business, and that is what Novell cares about. Just like RedHat, who earlier said they aren't very interested in a consumer OS.

Keep in mind that web apps are slowly becoming less browser-based. I think a lot of Office apps are going to be handled perfectly by web apps in the future.

As you said, desktops will be left for the apps that actually require it. Fast CPUs, lots of memory and fast disks are for photo/video editing, gaming, etc. Even then, you get better performance on systems (appliances?) that are solely meant for a single task, like your xbox or ps3.

how can the desktop die? ok, people would rather play games in front of their tv because the screen is bigger. But you won't want to read text on them and that's the case with smartphones and pdas as well because the screen is too small.
The best mobile device and gaming console will be the one that recognizes the need to work with the pc instead of trying to knock it off.

I would rate up your comment if I hadn't already posted in this thread.

SuSE is dead to me.

everything else supplied by google and similar?

In the fukced up IT culture as it is for the last couple decades, appliances are the worst possible thing that could happen. With complete platforms some of us can at least help themselves, with locked down crap offered by major players we are simply their monkeys.

I understand that from the big player's perspective it sure looks like they got him by the balls, and maybe they do. But if distributed methods of addressing and indexing catch up, everything could turn upside down again.

The OS market is dead.

It is not dead and will never be. Consumers will always need an OS to use because not every software can be provided to them via network. In the future everyone might have free access to the internet but atleast as long as that isn't the case people will need local installations of software. And even if everyone did have high-speed, high-quality connections I still doubt f.ex. games would be a good idea to be provided over the networks..And what about the security issues? Atleast I wouldn't want to work on something very important on an app that is run over the network.

In the business world the situation is more or less the same. Even if it was possible to run any single app over the network businesses would most likely wish to run a server of their own for delivering the needed software to the clients and for that they'd still need a server OS. And again, some clients would still probably need offline installations too.

You're awfully out of touch with normal users if you think they're remotely bothered about the OS they use. They are bothered only about what they can achieve with it.

As for saying 'the OS market is dead'. Well, all I can say is being able to mod OSN staff down is really the ticket here.

Edited 2008-04-18 12:42 UTC

You don't seem to understand. When we say "it's dead", we mean that it's something that will still exist, but it won't bother the normal user

People have said the same thing about televisions, cars, computers in general and so on and so forth. Not going to happen. And, the OS market is driven by what businesses want, not by home-users, so you just can't declare OS market dead if home-users don't care what OS they run. Besides, home-users have never cared about it as long as they get to do what they wish, and if they have some specific app (like my sister specifically wants MSN Messenger) that it runs on the computer they own. That brings another point why OS market will not die: I just simply will not believe that all software will run on any available OS. There will always be some OS which is not supported, and as such there is always market for the supported OSes. You can't deny that.

Just like no one cares about the firmware inside the latest Bluetooth headset or even your TV remote control

Difference: you use those only for ONE specific purpose. Computers are used for gazillions of different uses AND people install applications on them to further expand the uses of the computer. This would be a valid example if computers were really only appliances, used only for a few very specific tasks. But since that is not the case your example is moot.