OSNews

I would hazard a guess that if Windows were to decline by 50% over the next several years, the largest benefit would be to Apple simply because most people still think you have to pay for an OS, but Linux would also benefit enough that the split might be something like 46-36-13-5 (Windows-Mac-Linux-Other).

The mere fact that Apple is gaining mindshare at Windows' expense helps people to realize that a computer doesn't have to run Windows. And, the fact that Windows can easily be installed on current Apple hardware, makes it much easier for many people to understand that the major difference between Apple and Windows is a difference in software rather than hardware (Windows boxes can be designed well too).

This opens the door for people to ask if there are any other options. The obvious alternative to Windows and Mac is Linux, but many would argue that the BSDs and Solaris are very good alternatives as well. Of course, all of those fall under the category of being Unix or Unix-like, but I say that it would also make people more open to trying other systems.

If that were the result of Microsoft trying to modularize Windows for profit, I would be all for it. It would pave the way not only for an increase in *nix usage, but it would make the development of more alternatives increasingly likely. Competition would truly be king.

the problem is that apple is unlikely to license out their os to competitors.

its that one could shop around for the best offer in hardware, and still use ones software that have made the computer a home item.

still, there are some benefits for the home user in having a os locked to the hardware. and i have often found myself saying that the average user (if such exists) do not want a general computer, he wants a typewriter, media player/recorder and web portal device. at least thats the use i have seen over and over again, with the odd game thrown in.

so in many ways, said user would be better of with a combo of boxes hooked up to a single input and output. each box providing one of the features listed.

Well look at it this way. Look at when the Unix architecture came out and look at its prevalence today. That should tell you something right there. look at the scope in usage of *nix platform, look at the fact that MS themselves have licensed parts of the *nix platform to use in their own OS, look at the fact that MS is trying to do the same thing *nix has done for over 2 decades with windows 7. Modularity isn't a new concept, *nix has had this from the start. I'm not saying *nix is perfect or that every OS should be just like it but the proof is in the pudding and the *nix paradigm has been proven over and over again for more than 30 years. It has taken MS decades to come to the same technical conclusions that *nix made in the 70's.

There's so much more to Linux and especially Mac OS X that's not really Unix of yore that I think you are doing a disservice to these OSes by calling them holdovers from the 70s. Yes, the Mac OS X kernel is Unix-based, but even that is a lot different from the Unix you'll remember from the 70s. Almost the entire userland is not Unix, it is very modern and very different from the traditional Unix userland. That's where it counts these days anyways. The Linux userland is a more unix-y, but even so, it is still quite a bit more modern than you seem to be making it out to be.

I think at this point, saying that "all that will be left standing is Unix" is akin to saying "all that will be left standing is virtual memory based kernels". Yes, all mainstream kernels use virtual memory with paging. So? That's the solution that the the industry has adopted to solve the problem. Same with other Unix-y stuff. Even Windows got a lot more Unix-y with NT and later. A lot of things we take for granted as "how a system should work" were developed first with Multics and Unix.

Forgive me saying it out loud, but some of you people just need to get a cluebat and start hitting the wall at least. For far too many years has the consumer OS land been dominated by a single OS, and hey, a real minor number of people kept repeating that a varied OS landscape would be better. Now, that suddenly some people have woken up, and we start to see some light at the end of the tunnel - and we're still pretty far off to having a varied OS ecosystem (availability in itself means nothing) -, people pop up and start complaining that reducing the lead of Windows as an OS (reducing, not eliminating) will bring us doom, and we should have something, anything just not unix/linux-based OSes. It's just funny.

As regarding the subscription-based plans for Windows... my feeling about that are just skeptical. You see, even MS acknowledges that a very high percentage of the OS-income comes not from individual OS-buyers, but from OEMs and companies. For home users this subscription-based Windows will probably be a major pain in their proverbial behinds, and even more so if we consider that bugs and glitches in the respective services will take your patience by its neck, twist it around, spit on it and bust its face with a twenty inch steel-toe. For companies, well, I don't think a sane cio/cto will go into such a mess. I might be wrong, we'll see (unfortunately).

The problem with your argument is that you rely up CIO/CTO's to be sane.

That's funny stuff, right there.

I've worked for CIOs and CTOs of huge industries. I've worked with CIOs in several state governments.

I have yet to work with one who makes decisions based upon the precept that they're role is to solve problems with the least-complex, most effective, and cheapest technical solution. Using these measures as the means to selection would not only be sane, but would be rational, responsible, and likely lead to highly successful projects.

Instead, they read Dr. Dobbs, bow at the alter of Gartner, or do any combination of hair-brained, moronic, absolutely stupid, backwards, and self-defeating methods of choosing and selecting "solutions".

Honestly, these people are rarely sane, intelligent, knowledgeable when it comes to technology, and normally promoted out of the way at company X, where they use that high-ranking position to attain an equal position at Company Y, who realizes their inept, and promotes them out of the way, until they move on to Company Z.... and so goes the cycle.

I wish I were kidding, but I've seen it way too many times.

Haiku OS?