Tax .Net
If Microsoft can control the hardware it means they make money from it, it doesn't matter if you are running Windows or Linux, MS will still get their pound of flesh. Microsoft are and always have been in it for the money, this ensures that even if Microsoft loses their Operating System dominance they'll still make plenty of money. Of course other Operating Systems will need to access the hardware to operate and this will be arranged by licensing a piece of Microsoft code. Run Linux and you'll not only pay the hardware tax but you'll also pay Microsoft more for the pleasure of running Linux.
Having said that this may prove problematic for Linux. If running an OS involves adding NDA's code to the OS, BSD licensed software will not have a problem, they can work with closed source code. Linux on the other hand is covered by the GPL, the GPL like any other license has terms and conditions which you are not free to break. If running on MS hardware requires including NDA'd closed source code this may break the GPL and Linux may not legally be able to run on a Microsoft computer[7]. This will not be the fault of Microsoft, it will be the fault of the GPL - free software is not quite as free as one might think, if the GPL was truly free there would be no terms and conditions to break [8] and there would be no problem. I expect this will not really be a problem however, the answer will be a binary driver of some form, but again you'll have to pay Microsoft for it.
Could this work?
If Microsoft actually tried this would it work? This is a difficult question but Microsoft are probably the one company who could do it. Microsoft's attempts to get into other markets have to date met come up with pretty feeble results, but in the computer industry when Microsoft say Jump the only answer they get is "how high?". Microsoft have the power, the determination and the staying power to actually do something like this. But, is even their power enough?
IBM, Intel and even Microsoft have all tried to get the market to change and have never succeeded. However conditions are different now and Microsoft have the technology to force this on the industry if they want it or not. The combination of the .NET CLR, VirtualPC and the lessening need for performance means the industry can jump. The CPU itself is becoming irrelevant, what is relevant is Palladium, because this is the part Microsoft own and most likely the part they want to put in every desktop computer on the planet. It's meant to be a protection system but it'll probably be hacked so it doesn't matter if it works or not, what matters is that your PC includes it and you pay the tax.
And then of course you'll have to pay next year, and the year after that. With hardware in the PC Microsoft will be able to charge you rent for your own PC. Who needs upgrade fees when people are not upgrading as they used to, charging them rent instead is equally lucrative and you don't have to pay for R&D.
Now I don't know if this is what Microsoft are actually planning but consider the facts:
.Net CLR
VirtualPC
X-Box 2 with non x86 CPUs
Longhorn's highly expensive extended development.
Palladium & Microsoft's apparent openness with it.
A lessening dominance of the industry.
Slowing upgrade rates.
Microsoft's money supply is increasingly under threat and they need to do something about. Microsoft have motive and opportunity.
Then, Chaos
If Microsoft can get the hardware they want into standard PCs and switch to another processor architecture the result on the PC industry will be chaotic to say the least. Other companies will attempt to jump in with alternative solutions with different processors most likely running Linux. Linux however still has the problem of being overly and unnecessarily complex, it's ready for many users desktops but clearly not ready for all of them, it needs to get a move on to get ready in time. It's not necessary to remove the complexity, just hide it from casual users, a user should be able to use Linux without ever having to use the command line, if OS X can do it...
There is the distinct possibility such a drastic move could backfire for Microsoft and give Linux and other Operating Systems the chance they've been waiting for. On the other hand it could also backfire in other ways, if entire PCs can be emulated couldn't the Microsoft hardware also be emulated? Would you need to pay the tax then?
It seems there are some battles ahead in the computer industry, could we end up some day running Windows on a PowerPC PC, part of which we've leased for Microsoft? I can't say I know the answer to that but what I do know is that the answer is irrelevant.
Even If Microsoft win their battles there is another battle they will lose. This one which will change the technology industry forever. The challenge will come out of nowhere, it will be laughed off by most of the industry, the very same industry it will go on to replace. It will win because it will strike at the very economic rules and assumptions that this entire industry is built upon.
Stay tuned for Part 3...
---------------
References & Notes
[1] Opteron does very well on SPEC with the Intel compiler, but requires a flag Intel have disabled.
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm...
[2] Prescott improves on SPEC but not much else - according to Intel!
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13851
[3] Early samples of future Intel CPU "Tejas" use 150 Watts.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040111115528.html
[4] A Register reader points out how Itanium isn't so great outside of SPEC marks.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/35154.html
[5] Wolves in CISC clothing - x86 CPU Emulation
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT122803224105
[6] Microsoft and Chips
http://www.mdronline.com/publications/mpw/issues/mpw114.html#item2
[7] That's not quite true, you would be able to run Linux but would not be able to distribute it.
[8] The GPL is Free as in "out in the open", it is not Free as in "unrestricted". This difference is not made clear by the FSF.
Copyright (c) Nicholas Blachford February 2004
Disclaimer:
This series is a purely personal work about the future and as such is nothing more than informed speculation on my part. I suggest future possibilities and actions which companies may take but this does not mean that they will take them or are even considering them.
- "Future of Computing Part 2, Page 1/3"
- "Future of Computing Part 2, Page 2/3"
- "Future of Computing Part 2, Page 3/3"
