Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Jul 2012 00:28 UTC
Games Valve's Gabe Newall on Linux and Windows 8: "We want to make it as easy as possible for the 2500 games on Steam to run on Linux as well. It's a hedging strategy. I think Windows 8 is a catastrophe for everyone in the PC space. I think we'll lose some of the top-tier PC/OEMs, who will exit the market. I think margins will be destroyed for a bunch of people. If that's true, then it will be good to have alternatives to hedge against that eventuality."
Thread beginning with comment 528236
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Interesting but wrong
by Gullible Jones on Thu 26th Jul 2012 02:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting but wrong"
Gullible Jones
Member since:
2006-05-23

It wouldn't, but at this point Microsoft is Too Big To Fail - as in, they are incapable of failing, barring government intervention or the collapse of civilization. They have a self-perpetuating monopoly on general-purpose desktop computing; they will become obsolete when software itself becomes obsolete.

(And yes, that's a really stupid situation, and no, I don't like it and I hope it passes. But I'm not going to fool myself into believing that's likely, either.)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Interesting but wrong
by bassbeast on Thu 26th Jul 2012 07:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting but wrong"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

But both you and MSFT seem to be ignoring that big fat elephant in the room friend. PCs? Is a mature market because both AMD and Intel went past "good enough" and into "insanely overpowered" years ago and the average person? Can't even stress a 5 year old chip. Its a mature market where people don't replace until they die which with Ballmer flushing billions on his harebrained schemes simply won't cut it which is why they've posted their first loss in history.

Lets use my dad as an example, because while i could use one of my customers frankly my dad is the perfect example of the "typical PC user". He has 3 PCs, a desktop at work, at home, and a laptop, and his use cases are about as bog standard as they come. He runs quickbooks at work and on both the work and home units as well as the lap he surfs, watches YouTube, chats, reads his webmail, bog standard stuff everyone does.

About 3 and a half years ago I replaced his aging desktop with one of those "ZOMG $199 quad!" Tiger kits, its a 2.1 Phenom I quad with now 4Gb of RAM, about the lowest end quad you can possibly get, what have I found? he has YET to hit 45% CPU usage! I monitored him for over a month recently to see how it was doing and frankly he just can't come up with enough useful work to stress what is now a 5 year old chip. I found the same when I checked his Core 2 based Pentium dual at the shop, he's just not able to come up with enough useful work to slam that chip, highest he got was 60% when a tab hung.

So MSFT needs to accept they are the new IBM, a company with a mature market that while it won't go away will never be the big seller it was in the days of the MHz wars, or they need to spin off mobile, call it MetroOS or whatever, and let them innovate without being tied into the legacy of the desktop.

.

Reply Parent Score: 6

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The loss was from writing off an acquisition ... it is technical loss not a real one.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Interesting but wrong
by BushLin on Thu 26th Jul 2012 18:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting but wrong"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

I'm not arguing the crux of what you've written but MS only made a $500m loss due to writing off $6bn from a failed advertising venture.

Also, if you're measuring total CPU load across all cores then it's not surprising that your Dad's mostly single threaded software doesn't stress all the cores.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Interesting but wrong
by Fergy on Fri 27th Jul 2012 17:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting but wrong"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

he has YET to hit 45% CPU usage!

I find it hard to believe he only used 90% cpu power. Most of the time starting an app peaks your cpu to 100%. There is a big difference between having enough cpu power and having enough cores. Most users can use 2 cores one foreground and one background. But if you could have a single core 6Ghz i3 most users would notice if you couple it to an ssd.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Interesting but wrong
by phoudoin on Thu 26th Jul 2012 09:10 in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting but wrong"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

They (Microsoft) have a self-perpetuating monopoly on general-purpose desktop computing; they will become obsolete when software itself becomes obsolete.


Broken logic: they will become obsolete when *desktop* software itself becomes obsolete.
While I don't see happened anytime soon in office rooms, I see a trend replacing desktop computing with mobile computing in house rooms. Which will lead to a situation where people will not be anymore fluent in office desktop computing as they are today because they have a desktop computer at home running on the same set of softwares.

This could change a lot for Microsoft on the long term.
There is a reason why they want to push the squared Metro framework in the rounded Windows ecosystem, and it's not for the office customers, which are locked-down since long. The main stream customer, on the other side, seems to move away...

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Interesting but wrong
by Soulbender on Thu 26th Jul 2012 10:51 in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting but wrong"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It wouldn't, but at this point Microsoft is Too Big To Fail


There is no such thing but I'm sure plenty of companies over the years has thought exactly that. It is usually followed by spectacular, although not necessarily fatal, failure.

They have a self-perpetuating monopoly on general-purpose desktop computing; they will become obsolete when software itself becomes obsolete.


No, they will become less and less important as desktop computing becomes less important. It might even happen faster if they alienate their customers.
It's unlikely that they'll go away any time soon but plenty of once powerful companies have been reduced to small players.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Interesting but wrong
by bassbeast on Thu 26th Jul 2012 17:22 in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting but wrong"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

But you see that is where you and the pundits are wrong. its not that "desktop computing is becoming less important" its that everyone and their dog and their dog's rubber bone has a PC and since the rise of multicores frankly users simply can't come up with enough useful work to stress even a 5 year old chip.

I have many a customer on first gen Core duos and Phenom I triples and quads and frankly they just can't redline even these 5 plus year old chips, they just can't do it. There hasn't been a "killer app" in years and frankly the jobs most people use a PC for will feel the same on that Phenom I triple or the latest Intel monster, so why buy a new one? It certainly won't "feel" any faster, or let them get more work done when they aren't even pegging the chips they have, it'll just cost money.

So while I believe Win 8 is MS Bob the second coming I seriously doubt computers are going anywhere. Its just that the OEMs got spoiled by the crazy money they were making during the MHz wars, where a 2 year old PC would struggle to run the latest software. That just isn't the case anymore and without the thermal cycling that comes with pegging the chips these desktops and laptops are lasting longer than ever, that's all.

Reply Parent Score: 3