“When Windows 7 launches sometime after the start of 2010, the desktop OS will be Microsoft’s most ‘modular’ yet. Having never really been comfortable with the idea of a single, monolithic desktop OS offering, Microsoft has offered multiple desktop OSes in the marketplace ever since the days of Windows NT 3.1, with completely different code bases until they were unified in Windows 2000. Unification isn’t necessarily a good thing, however; Windows Vista is a sprawling, complex OS. A singular yet highly modular OS could give Microsoft the best of all possible worlds: OSes that can be highly customized for deployment but developed monolithically. One modular OS to rule them all, let’s say.”
If Windows 7 is actually released by, let’s say, mid 2010, then Vista has its days counted and will really go down in history as Microsoft’s most infamous release.
No sane network manager will allow a migration to Vista knowing that Windows 7 is just around the corner. My impression is that Windows 7 is likely to be what Vista should have been.
By the time Windows 7 is released, Microsoft may find a much more complex IT landscape with both significant gains by Linux and Apple on the desktop, although not necessarily the same “desktop”.
I know that my colleagues at different companies and I are keeping an eye not only on Microsoft’s next release, but on what Novell, Mandriva and Canonical are doing with desktop linux.
Yes, there is definitely a good possibility for Linux and Mac to steal some desktop market share. But thats probably not going to happen. Macs are too expensive, especially if most people buy cheap crap rather then spend the extra 100 euros for something good. And Linux, it has a long history of not paying enough attention to the desktop details, ultimately putting average users off.
But then again Microsoft is giving people lots of reasons to switch.
XP and Vista each came with a new interface, forcing people to relearn things they already know.
Vista 64 needs signed drivers, this is expensive and I blame it for the lack of 64bit drivers.
People don’t like or understand UAC.
Backward compatibility in Vista isn’t all that good.
Talk of turning windows into a subscription based operating systems makes people uneasy. We’ve heard it before with XP. People and Businesses didn’t like it.
And so on.
But back to the article, whats up with the “modular operating system concept” patent? I don’t see how this is different from how Linux works. Just because people have to pay for the extra modules doesn’t make it a new idea and it shouldn’t be patentable!
“Linux, it has a long history of not paying enough attention to the desktop details”
Which is to be expected, since “Linux” is more about development of the Kernel than the desktop.
Maybe so.. but how is your attitude going to help Joe User when he wants to move away from Windows ?
Dude, I know Linux and have slowly switched over to only open source apps but still mostly use Windows out off convenience because I, like most humans, am lazy. Believe it or not but so far only one person has come to me because they wanted to switch to Linux and that didn’t go so well (Linux on a laptop with wi-fi about 4 years ago, cheap hardware).
From my dealings with Joe User I can tell you that many of them don’t know what an OS is, that Microsoft isn’t a PC manufacturer or that MS Office isn’t free.
I don’t care about the average user right now, I care about myself, because I am unhappy with Windows. Like I said, I’m lazy, and while I can set up X.org, install a boot loader, configure my NIC so that I can get on the Internet, I don’t want to. I don’t want to have to deal with this crap because an installer has a bug or because an upgrade went wrong.
Do you really think that if I wont move my ass that Average Joe User will?
You are right.
Broad Linux adoption on the Desktop will happen only when it comes pre-installed AND the OEM feeds his knowledge upstream to the distributions he ships, so that upgrades go through painless.
I see this happen with Dell at the moment. Here Linux is less prominently advertized than Windows, but that may be due to lack of support staff they may have, so that selling too many Linux boxes would result into a collapse of the support system.
I hope, that over time, Dell will move their Linux offers into the normal store, as an option to choose from.
Well now you’re just nitpicking. Yes, I mean Linux distributions but I won’t get into the habit of saying tings such as “Gnome or KDE based GNU/Linux distributions,” its just much to long. I say Linux out of convenience, like every other normal person too.
Edited 2008-03-24 01:33 UTC
This is changeing rapidly, I did some testing of Linux distros last weak. Some of them offerd the best user experience I have seen in a long time. Espesially OpenSuse 10.3 was very impressing.
I also looked a little on beta versions to get an idea of where things are heading, and one thing is clear GNU/Linux in one or two years time will be nothing like what we see today. Many distros experiment with ways to boot faster, to get fine grainded management policys, another thing is significanlty improved connectivity with other systems through the new gvfs.
On top of that there are projects like freeIPA (a sort of AD for Linux) that will make Linux easy to manage. I’m sort of surprised that this hasn’t happened a long time ago, as all of the tools behind freeIPA has been around for years.
Then there is KDE4, but even though they have made a lot of progress lately it will probably not be ready for Joe Users desktop in time to have much impact on the next version of windows sales. The currently released versions is more like impressing developer previews than things users actually would like to use for real work.
However, in the long run KDE4 could be a very serious threat to windows as it through its cross platformness of its framework can atack windows in it home yard.
I think it was Scott McNealy who pointed out that Salesforce.com business model will be the future – it appears that we’re going back to centralised computing, be it in the form of web services served over high speed internet connections.
We have IT people here wanking over the idea that their precious servers and workstations with 4 screens hooked up (and paid for by the company under the claimed “I need it for work!”) will be taken away – but for the person running the business (and paying the IT workers wages); IT is a cost centre, it doesn’t generate anything directly for the business. Anything that can reduce the cost and complexity of IT spending will be embraced. Anyone surprised, therefore, at the number of new data-centre’s being on the drawing board by Microsoft?
The move is away from a world dominant by fat clients – we’ll have the same people here fighting tooth and nail to keep their ivory tower in tact, but eventually it’ll change – whether they like it or not.
But the same is true for every company department except sales. Accounting doesn’t generate any income, neither does administration, for example. Just because it is hard to quantify what a department contributes does not mean it’s unnecessary.
I never said that they were unnecessary, I said that those in IT should realise that they’re not the centre of the known universe. They are one cog in the machinery of the business – some people IT think that they’re the only ones who matter hence their defensive nature when it comes to changes. Changes which challenge their ‘power’.
Indeed, you said no such thing. If that is what you meant to say and believe, then, as respects Internet companies I for one would beg to differ.
Further generalization seems unproductive, as many IT operations do bring in income at their organizations.
Good day.
True that. Many IT people completely fail to understand that IT is a support function who’s only purpose is to help the core business make a profit.
Granted, there are companies where IT is the core business but those arent the majority.
>IT is a cost centre, it doesn’t generate anything directly for the business
Thanks for espousing the numbering one wrong-headed stupid thing most people in management “know” about computers and IT.
The opportunities for technology to improve business productivity are vast and broad. If you would let your geeks and developers loose and actually let them work on the problems that affect your business you might be shocked how much good your IT investment could do you.
You may as well say:
“Bugger all of these damned people we have to pay for, can’t we find some way to do business without them?”
Of course this idea is popular is business as well now, and leads to such wonders as the US H1-B program, outsourcing, offshoring, and layoffs that start with the competent (who make more) and work down to the less-well compensated. And then management moves onto another project with a bonus for cutting costs, having destroyed your ability to actually do business.
Why do you even have employees^W computers if you don’t find them valuable?
Seems you are not aware of ITIL and that it is a de facto standard and is used in many many organizations. I work for a company that treats IT as business-enabler and a not cost-centre (actualy ITIL defines 3 financing models for IT) and really the top management says that they can deliver the mission and compete just THANKS to excellent IT that is being provided for them. And note, it’s not a company anywhere near IT.
Very informative article.
If it does prove to be true then I think the desktop landscape is going to get very very interesting in the coming years.
I’m sorry, but:
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. –Henry Spencer
Microsoft is doing a terrible, albeit successful, job on the OS landscape. The unification of the Windows platform came with the advent of Windows XP, because Windows 2000, as great as it was, wasn’t really planed as an end-user OS. XP brought NT technology to mainstream.
Unfortunately, people are forgetting that XP wasn’t that great either, with SP2 being the lifeboat that XP needed to survive. A default XP installation is not very usable and it’s certainly not functional comparing to a modern Ubuntu desktop, for example.
Windows Vista had the potential to be the peak of the Windows platform, just as MacOSX was the building block of the modern Apple. Instead, Microsoft’s choice was to dump Windows Vista as a mere “technology preview” and pump Windows 7 as the great, true, desktop. I’m not convinced at all. None the less, I still believe that Windows Vista will make XP obsolete after a couple service packs.
I’m really, really, skeptical that Microsoft’s managers can put a truly modular, truly flexible OS on the market.
In other news, Windows 7 is trying to do what GNU/Linux has been doing for years.
Edited 2008-03-24 00:17 UTC
Well obviously, given you’re comparing 2008 OS (Ubuntu) with a 2001 OS (Windows XP). The SP2 came out Aug. 6, 2004, so even compared to that there’s coming into four years of difference.
That’s cos Microsoft doesn’t bother to update it’s operating systems…this is why a proprietary system doesn’t work – if you want updates and improvements, you have to buy a new setting. With O/S, things just happen. You don’t only get bug fixes when you do an apt-get update on Ubuntu etc, you get newer versions of applications. For free.
Dave
That really have zero relevance to the comments I was responding to. The comparisons being made were ridiculous.
Incorrect. Windows 2000 was designed to be a replacement for the 9x series – which is the reason why in 98/SE/ME, it used the new driver model – to have a driver model which could span across the 9x and NT series, and thus boost the over all driver availability (which is one of the things which held NT back (along with application compatibility etc)).
The fact was, Windows 2000 was running late, it was 5 years in the making, Microsoft decided to cut its losses, it shipped Windows 2000 as a corporate desktop/workstation/server operating system, and Windows XP was marketed as the unifier – it provided greater application compatibility and improved hardware compatibility as well. It was the same story as they did with Vista, it was over promising, taking longer than it should have, and eventually having to cut their losses.
As for Windows XP, personally, it was a rushed job; there were bugs in the installer (press enter on a blank/free space and find it is assigned to D: rather than C:) and bugs throughout the operating system – not including the fact that every single application in Windows used a different toolkit – which became obvious if one applied the theme ‘bliss’ only to find that certain applications didn’t/couldn’t take on the theme properly.
Windows Vista is just as bad; a complete failure, and quite frankly, the only rescue is for a MacOS X approach of throwing out the old, basing it on an established code base (say OpenSolaris or even a *BSD of some sort) and then providing compatibility through a VM – because until they make that big leap and start a clean, we’ll see the same crap re-hashed over and over again. A system full of compromises that fails to deliver and under perform.
I don’t think it is helpful to say that XP can’t compare to a modern Ubuntu – there is a 7 years between them. Actually, I am not sure what Ubuntu can do for the average surfing, letter typing, emailing end user that XP cannot – except for you can play games with XP. That goes to show you how good XP still is, because you could do these things years ago with XP. It is not all bad, you know….
OMG! What exactly is “modern” in Ubuntu – both from the other distros point of view and Windows-world point of view ?
To be totally honest and serious – Now I’m looking on my shelf, where white-green-blue box (still shrink-warped, except one end – that’s my habit of ‘damaging’ boxes as low as I can) with good old Windows ME stands – and I must say I will prefer to use it again (even with only 512-768 MB of RAM it supports!) than to “come back” and “fighting” with everyday suprises and obstacles in Ubuntu.
When I started using XP (moved from 98SE) it was on SP1 stage and yes – there were BSODs and crashes from time to time but since SP2 they are long gone. And nothing could beat one of craziest and stupidest bugs introduced to Ubuntu (it was 7.04 I think, not fixed in 7.10) when you click on Firefox icon and wonder – it will start properly or do not start at all, forcing you to click again.
… that Windows 7 *does* use subscription.
That’ll just push more and more people onto other OSs, be they Linux, BSD or whatever. Keep up the good work, Microsoft!
Why do you care what other operating system people use? That seems kind of pathetic to me.
Because microsoft does what it can to make my life much harder as a software developer. They want you to do things the Microsoft way or go the highway.
I agree. The best day of my life was the day I said to myself, “self, you are no longer going to program for Windows or attempt to accommodate IE’s pathetic lameness.”
I have enjoyed programming a lot more ever since.
Edited 2008-03-24 04:21 UTC
Can you expand on what relevance that has on what operating system other people use?
Windows will be released 2012 and it will suck even more than Vista (atm) compared to anything that is out at that time.
Most Lemmings will love Vista by then and all others will be using (K)Ubuntu 12.4 or Fedora 18 or something (Some might use MacOS X)…. I hope my Arch will never have to be reinstalled though
( I have to bookmark this and see if i was right )
It’s pretty funny to see people make up prognostications on what “microsoft might do” in release X+1. There’s no evidence that I can see of Win7 being a subscription based OS or something sold piecemeal in modules (except in the embedded versions, which have been modular since XPe). Someone makes something up and everyone rushes up to say how “Microsoft is making a mistake” or “Microsoft is marketing Windows7, must mean Vista sucks.”
The truth is, this is someone’s guess based on someone else’s guess (Mary Jo Foley reportedly cruises around Redmond trying to eavesdrop on Microsoft conversations so that she can write these juicy articles). There are cool things happening in WIndows7, but no one is talking externally about it at this point.
“Modular OS,” or “single code base.” Why is it that Mickey$oft comes up with this stuff and it’s news? The unices have always been single code base, always.
There aren’t multiple versions of Solaris, BSD or Linux for that matter, unless you’re changing processor platforms.
I use FreeBSD on Soekris firewall appliance, on my FreeNAS box, my laptop, and eight way servers at work – same code base for crying out loud. Been that way for almost thirty years!
Next we’ll hear about how Windows 7 is headless and doesn’t need a gui – that’ll be news too. All that money, all that man power, the shear amount of resources Microsoft has at it’s disposal and the garbage they sell to consumers is absolutely criminal.
Edited 2008-03-24 00:40 UTC
Perhaps it’s news because it actually appears to be following some form of good development practices by modularising it?
I for one would like to be able to purchase only the parts of the OS that I’ll actually use, rather than paying some huge price for an OS with many parts I don’t use at all.
[p]There aren’t multiple versions of Solaris, BSD or Linux for that matter, unless you’re changing processor platforms. [/p]
Uhm, there are at least 3 different codebases for BSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD. There are multiple codebases for GNU/Linux, depending on the number of distributions in existence. Each Distro may only have one codebase per release, but each release has it’s own codebase.
Many Distributions have Free and for pay versions of their software, such as Mandriva. Others support incubator distros like Fedora. Ubuntu has multiple editions, Ubuntu (Gnome), Kubuntu (KDE) Xubuntu (XFCE)
So you see, even with OSS, it’s not all cut and dried
I’m a little lost at this. Microsoft is a Marketing company. I would love this to be a reality…but it would damage its own market penetration, in what its traditionally been known for, its OS/Office combo. But in today’s world this Market is weak compared to the Internet/Communications/Standards, the alternatives to Microsoft’s offering of “Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows Mail, Windows Firewall” etc etc is weaker than the alternatives however you argue it, and chances are in 2010 it will be the same, and possibly more so. Even their initially uncontested OS/Office combo is looking weak compared to alternative offerings.
Is Microsoft going to back off its tower of cards offerings of browser…which means any control of the internet, when its prepared to spend $44 Billion on Yahoo.
Is it going to back off its castle in the sand offing of a media player…after investing so heavily in competing with the the iPod and all the time and effort it spent extending a format war, to promote its own premium content, or how it crippled its main golden goose for DRM.
And this is with its market share being eroded by not only its competing competition in its OS/Office market but by products available released 7 years earlier.
That is without even talking about all those people who like to BUY a product not just rent it, and do with it what they want. Anyone who is going to go down that route with Microsoft already has….because it makes it easy for their accounts departments to cost for the year.
Hell if they were serious; and through around some real evidence of interoperability that the EU and others keep asking for, and either got so screwed over by legitimate[sic] patent owners, that even they would lobby for reforms. I think I would have stains in my underwear.
This would be a great move for everyone….even Microsoft if they had an intention of producing quality products again[sic], but the cost could well be their monopoly however strongly they are entrenched in the consumers mind.
I really don’t want to go to linux. I refuse to go Mac, because I don’t like Apple’s hardware. Linux and BSD lack a certain polished feel to me. So I’ve always happily used Windows, and much to my difference, when properly maintaining them, they’ve worked fine for me. I love using Vista on a daily basis too, which again puts me in the minoity.
However, I’ll be forced to do something if they switch to a subscription based service. I can see it now turning on the computer. “Windows cannot validate your subscription” nag nag nag, all when for some reason, a glitch occurs, and it can’t check my status against their server. I can’t loose prodctivity like that.
I’ll happily pay even extra for a regular OS, but this will drive me to alternatives.
EDIT: And this isn’t even mindful of the fact that I prefer to PAY to use the software as long as I like, not every so often. Suppose I can’t pay right when my subscription is up?
More importantly, suppose I need it down the road, after Microsoft decides I must upgrade, shelling out additional money for Windows 8, plus then yearly renewals for that. Hell, until about two years ago, I was still running Windows 98 in VMware for certain apps I needed. Now that I’ve moved to 64 bit Vista, I still use an Xp VM, for all of my 32 bit stuff that may not migrate. (My NetMD Minidisc player will never have 64 bit drivers, and I love this thing.)
Edited 2008-03-24 00:53 UTC
I think the market will judge them appropriately.
I really cannot see the majority of people being happy to keep paying for something they’re already purchased.
The only hope I can see for this surviving would be if the regular non-subscription price is split into parts which you just pay off quarterly and then by the time you get to ‘the end’ a new version of Windows is available which you receive and just continue to pay that on-going fee.
The question then will be how much value the newer Windows are and what happens if you don’t want to upgrade.
a year ago, everyone was talking about google building an os, even though it was absolutely wild speculation and conjecture.
Just cause someone writes an article and publishes it on the internet doesn’t make it true.
“linux has a long history of not paying attention to desktop details”
I really do think Linux (and bsd) has made huge strides in this, kde 4 is looking to be the polished and complete desktop that many have been looking for for quite some time.
While KDE and Gnome may not be right at the level of windows or osx, in the last couple years they have really made massive improvements and are coming up on windows and osx fast. In many respects they have surpassed windows and osx, in others, they are catching up at an amazing rate.
I really do believe that KDE and Gnome will soon be at a level that any current windows user would have no problem using.
About modularity, It’d be nice if it were a micro-kernel-based OS (reliability, stability, resilience) – I don’t belive in module subscriptions. It has been tried out already as not so good. However, an OS modular enough (think of Apache or IIS7) would be nice to only use the code paths you need (increasing security and performance) and to be able to more easily extend the software as in Linux. Think of modules like kerneltop, fuse, vmware.
About vista hatred. On what substance can anyone say that windows vista will still be a bad os in 2010? I mean, XP was slow too when it appeared, then it got 2 Service Packs and everyone loves it now. Do you think that in 2010 your computer running vista will be as fast with vista as with windows 7? I guess it won’t. Microsoft OS version + 1 always is slower ON THE SAME HARDWARE.
I am not a msft evangelist. But I think that in 3 years:
– Vista (ie. microsoft, ISVs, IT engineers) can improve application compatibility using ACT (shims and the like) so that more and more software actully runs on it
– just like with XP, a lot of software will be fixed/rewriteen (because company’s make money on … writing new software)
– driver problems will be a less of a problem because actually to get a WHQL driver now for vista, you need to supply both 32 and 64bit versions of them
– the hardware gets better and better – so just like with xp – you’ll love your vista on a 8-core machine with 8GB of ram costing the same you paid for your current box.
– UAC is not that bad, come on. It’s not a security feature. It’s a way to run apps with least privilege and to spot software that’s doing the wrong things, like storing
application data in registry and requiring admin privilege to do that, instead of using eg. isolated storage or AppData folders
I’m not using vista, but probably in 2010 I might be and I belive that waiting years for mythical windows 7 with an unsupported XP is not a good thing for any “sane network manager” as Porcel rights.
The thing is, that if you use windows, you have to play their game and be a big boy about it.
Edited 2008-03-24 01:11 UTC
What are you talking about?
WinXP will have security updates until April 2014, per microsoft’s published EOL.
And my networks are primarily made-up of linux servers and clients with the occasional Windows and Mac, so I am not exactly too worried about Microsoft cutting support for XP, but providing security updates for a long time is one thing that Microsoft is pretty good about.
Ummm… yeah….
So where is my SP5 for Windows 2000? Why did Microsoft expect us to pay through the nose for a stupid DST fix? Do you really think that Microsoft won’t use its integrated kill-switch to kill off Windows XP just as soon as it decides its the only way to get people to move to Vista?
I mean jeeze….what did you think WPA (and now WGA) was really about if not providing Microsoft with a way to artificially EOL Windows XP in favor of their current offerings, whatever they happen to be at that time?
–bornagainpenguin
Exceedingly stupid post. The number of Windows users in the United States must closely approximate the number of registered voters in the United States. There might be more Windows users than registered voters. If MS were ever to use a “kill switch” – and I am not even going to get into the question of whether there is such a thing, or how the use of such a switch would be patently illegal in a way that, for example, being a monopoly is not – then every Windows users – XP users and all other Windows users too – would be up in arms, and every legislative body in the USA at every level of government would quickly and immediately move to protect the interests of the vast majority of its constituents.
And what do you think would happen if MS engaged this “kill switch” and killed an XP network in, oh, let’s say, a HOSPITAL. Not only would MS be sued out of existence many times over, but plenty of MS execs would very likely end up with prison terms…. Or possibly you think that MS is going to investigate every one of the many many tens of millions of XP installations, evaluate its “criticality” and the selectively decide which installations to “kill”?
And when are they going to use this “kill switch” in order to, as you say, get people to switch to Vista? In 2009, when Vista is still on the market and XP is still scheduled to receive 5 more years of support? Or in 2014 when XP support ends and Vista has been superseded by Windows 7 and is not even being sold? Or when, exactly?
(Oh and perhaps you could explain the difference between a product being “artificially” being EOL’ed as opposed to being “naturally” EOL’ed.)
And like registered voters in America, how many of these people have educated themselves on the issues and actually y’know….vote?
The average Windows user is the same kind of person who goes out and buys another copy of Windows retail–because the Microsoft Representative on the other end of the phone tells them their copy has been flagged as illegal. They don’t know enough about the issues to ask about false positives in WGA. They don’t know enough to call Microsoft on their bluff. They just nod their heads and buy that second (or third or fourth…) copy.
Ummm…. yeah. The same government that punished Microsoft so severely at their last trial? If you believe that, I’ve got a bargain for you! No checks please, small bills in none sequential order…
A hospital running Windows XP on critical and essential systems has far more to worry about in their own potential liability than any case of Microsoft shutting anything down…
Yet we somehow trust them to know which systems are infringing on their copyrights…
LMAO…are we talking business support here or home user support? There is a huge difference. Just ask the businesses whose lifetime support still required them to pay per incident to the tune of several thousand for a simple daylight savings time fix! I suppose in your world home users have thousands of dollars to throw around for patches like that….
Oh and how quickly we all forget! Anyone remember service pack 7 for NT 4.0? Oh wait–we got a rollup instead…. How about SP5 for Windows 2000… you mean we got another rollup?? But Windows 2000 was still supported, its EOL was still overat least a year or two away….
Doesn’t anyone remember that old saying? Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me. Fool me the third time? I don’t ^%#% think so!
Sure. I mean that there will be rollups released instead of service packs. I mean these rollups won’t even have the minimum of regression testing done on them to ensure these don’t break the system. (And where have we heard that one before?) I mean that suddenly manufacturers will not ship drivers for older versions of Windows due to pressure from Microsoft, never mind in the past these same manufacturers had no issues shipping with drivers for nearly every version of Windows….
As the poem says, the EOL of XP will come not with a bang, but a whimper. One day you’ll go to reactivate only to discover the servers you once used are no longer available. You’ll call only once you get by all the nonsense about installing copies on multiple machines and etc etc…they’ll tell you you need to upgrade to the latest version of Windows, this one has been EOL’d.
Then you’ll watch as on the thirtieth day as your system is no longer able to boot into Windows XP because you’re unable to activate….
–bornagainpenguin
Modular Windows is a new thing? Are they calling this inovation? I thought this news was about a linux ditro. I Can’t imagine shomething like “apt-get-paid word-2009” or “apt-get-paid update ie8”.
Just marketing fluff. We will see when they actually do make it…
The promise train is starting again.
I suddenly feel like I’m in 2003…
To become more modular than it’s current state, windows has to change a lot. Mainly the way software is installed has to completely change. Apart from .msi packages, windows still lacks proper package management.
Until windows gets something like dpkg/pacman/rpm, this isn’t going to happen. Things may have changed now but the last time I used a windows machine in 2004, there was no really clean way of installing/removing software. Software would always leave some files or registry entries behind.
I’m still waiting for the EU to pull up reports of how (according to Bill Gates) IE was so integrated into Windows it was irremovable without destroying the whole. I’d love to know how they can line up that claim against their current modularization attempts?
–bornagainpenguin
Looks like they truly want to eek out every last penny of their legacy and future by tiering their OS.
I’m sorry, what was that about “Apple Tax” again?