[MTBSoftware]

Dear PCWOrld,

I have been a subscriber to PCWorld for more than 12 years.
I've seen plenty of biased cheer leading for Microsoft before but new Editor Jon Phllips takes the cake.

In his premier Editor's Letter, he states that
"Like it or not, the new OS is our computing future, and we all have a vested interest in making sure it succeeds."

Pardon me but I find that statement to be offensive in its ignorance.
The most important advances in computing over the past several years have come from Apple and Google.
To make such a specious claim about Microsoft completely ignores reality.

In his most recent Editor's Letter, he states that "5 ways Windows 8 beats iOS".
He then lists his opinions which read read as if they came straight from Microsoft marketing literature.

As a developer myself, I'm a fan of the maturity and standardization that MS brought to the table.

However, I cringe every time I see statements like this from Editors and Tech writers pushing the latest MS product
as if they were Steve Ballmer's right hand.
Ballmer has been WRONG about almost every product he has made glowing statements about.

Review his past history and then ask yourself if Windows Phone resembles anything he claimed it would be
back as Win CE, PocketPC, Windows Mobile and now the new Windows Phone and Windows 8?
Every prediction that Ballmer has made about MS in the mobile arena has been completely wrong.
That's right. He has been wrong every single time he has made a prediction about MS in the mobile arena.

Windows 8 is a product that no one asked for, that no one wants and that no one will buy (in numbers that will be successful).
The new new Surface RT is already plagued by a 20% return rate.
I was looking forward to the new Surface Tablets but after reading the latest MSDN information,
I can only conclude that Microsoft via Ballmer has completely abandoned the Desktop platform.
They simply do not care.

The problem is that when Windows 8 fails, Microsoft will not be able to walk this one back like they did with Vista.
Windows 8 is the beginning of the end of Microsoft's dominance in the marketplace.
You can bet that a lot of companies are now reassessing their long-term commitment to the Windows Platform.

How can Mr. Phillips obvious bias given the reality of Windows 8 be allowed to go unchecked?

This post has been edited by MTBSoftware: 12 November 2012 - 10:58 AM

[waldojim]

In what way is the editor wrong though? Surely you don't think he spoke strictly of the mobile market? In the desktop arena, Microsoft owns the market. As there is no realistic alternative, it is in our best interests to ensure that Windows succeeds.

I would also suggest you reconsider your all inclusive phrasing.
"No one wants": Yes, actually I do. For good reasons. Namely because WMC is finally usable for me. Of course, the fact that it is faster, and lighter helps as well.

"No one wants": Actually, yes I do want it. As such, I bought it.

"No one will buy": They sold millions of licenses the first weekend. About half of them to OEM's, yes, but the other half of those multiple millions went to consumers, like myself. The surface tablet remains sold out. Obviously, somewhere, someone wants it.

I only say this, because it is quite small minded to claim that "no one" wants something based on your personal belief.

As to the idea that this will kill MS... Consider for a moment that people said the same thing when Windows ME was launched, and when Vista was launched. Microsoft hasn't gone anywhere yet.

[LiveBrianD]

Sure, Windows 8 won't kill them, but it will probably put a dent in their profits. Right here, two potential upgrades that they lost because of metro.

There's a reason I had no problem justifying upgrading to Windows 7 (although I waited a few months until I had built a new machine), but can't see any good reasons with 8.

[MTBSoftware]

waldojim, on 12 November 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

In what way is the editor wrong though? Surely you don't think he spoke strictly of the mobile market? In the desktop arena, Microsoft owns the market. As there is no realistic alternative, it is in our best interests to ensure that Windows succeeds.

I would also suggest you reconsider your all inclusive phrasing.
"No one wants": Yes, actually I do. For good reasons. Namely because WMC is finally usable for me. Of course, the fact that it is faster, and lighter helps as well.

"No one wants": Actually, yes I do want it. As such, I bought it.

"No one will buy": They sold millions of licenses the first weekend. About half of them to OEM's, yes, but the other half of those multiple millions went to consumers, like myself. The surface tablet remains sold out. Obviously, somewhere, someone wants it.

I only say this, because it is quite small minded to claim that "no one" wants something based on your personal belief.

As to the idea that this will kill MS... Consider for a moment that people said the same thing when Windows ME was launched, and when Vista was launched. Microsoft hasn't gone anywhere yet.

Try paying attention to what I actually wrote.
I NEVER said Win 8 would kill MS.
I said it marks the beginning of the end of it's dominance.

I also said that no one wants it and no one will buy it(in numbers that will make it successful).

Anyone who has used Win8 for any length of time knows that is designed for Tablets and the mobile market.
The Desktop is a kludge of an afterthought.
To claim Win 8 is the future of computing is the height of arrogance and ignores reality.

Microsoft has proven with Win 8 it is willing to give up the desktop.
Win 7 is simply better for the desktop. It just is.

It sure looks like Microsoft has given up the tablet market as well.
The surface is NOT sold out and suffers from a terrible return rate of greater than 20%.

It only sold out the pre-sale of the RT.
Anyone can go online and order to have it shipped today.
The failure of the Surface RT doesn't bode well for the Surface Pro.

Windows Phones will never get any market traction.
They tried for years and have failed each and every time.

Windows 8 is the future of computing?
We all have a vested interest in making sure it succeeds?
Please...
Only a complete neophyte or MS sales droid would make such a claim.
For an EDITOR to make such a claim is yellow journalism.

This post has been edited by MTBSoftware: 12 November 2012 - 12:29 PM

[brainout]

MTBSoftware, on 12 November 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

waldojim, on 12 November 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

In what way is the editor wrong though? Surely you don't think he spoke strictly of the mobile market? In the desktop arena, Microsoft owns the market. As there is no realistic alternative, it is in our best interests to ensure that Windows succeeds.

I would also suggest you reconsider your all inclusive phrasing.
"No one wants": Yes, actually I do. For good reasons. Namely because WMC is finally usable for me. Of course, the fact that it is faster, and lighter helps as well.

"No one wants": Actually, yes I do want it. As such, I bought it.

"No one will buy": They sold millions of licenses the first weekend. About half of them to OEM's, yes, but the other half of those multiple millions went to consumers, like myself. The surface tablet remains sold out. Obviously, somewhere, someone wants it.

I only say this, because it is quite small minded to claim that "no one" wants something based on your personal belief.

As to the idea that this will kill MS... Consider for a moment that people said the same thing when Windows ME was launched, and when Vista was launched. Microsoft hasn't gone anywhere yet.

Anyone who has used Win8 for any length of time knows that is designed for Tablets and the mobile market.
The Desktop is a kludge of an afterthought.
To claim Win 8 is the future of computing is the height of arrogance and ignores reality.

Microsoft has proven with Win 8 it is willing to give up the desktop.
Win 7 is simply better for the desktop. It just is.

It sure looks like Microsoft has given up the tablet market as well.
The surface is NOT sold out and suffers from a terrible return rate of greater than 20%.

It only sold out the pre-sale of the RT.
Anyone can go online and order to have it shipped today.
The failure of the Surface RT doesn't bode well for the Surface Pro.

Windows Phones will never get any market traction.
They tried for years and have failed each and every time.

Windows 8 is the future of computing?
We all have a vested interest in making sure it succeeds?
Please...
Only a complete neophyte or MS sales droid would make such a claim.
For an EDITOR to make such a claim is yellow journalism.

God help me, I agree with waldojim, even though I can't stand Win8 and will only keep it on ONE machine, just for the sake of argument. Not to mention, waldojim and I are at loggerheads on most topics here in the forum. But when he's right, he's right. Here, he's right.

Here's why. The audience for Win8 are most likely to be people new to computing, or casual users who want the MS cachet; or -- and this is a BIG segment -- people near retirement who still have to retain some minimalist connection to their businesses and computers which is greater than iPad can provide. There is yet a fourth niche, an amalgam of: those savvy enough to make the tablet do things like hook them up to their home or office computers so they can operate remotely; those who are adept at cloud computing; those who run their house electrics. Among these four groups, those who want a tablet they can type with easily, will want the Surface. Those who don't want to type, will prefer fingering their way on the screen. It's psychologically simpler to them.

Like you, however, I think Win8 is a disaster in the making, as it leaves out those of us who became accustomed to the faster and better ways of using a computer, pre Win8. Touch and mouse and typing, aren't well coordinated. The Start Screen itself is no big deal, but for those of us used to the OLD way, it's a nuisance: requires more clicks, strokes, etc. to do what we used to do. I could say more, but you know the complaints already: the wailing is all over Youtube videos.

So that means a market SHIFT, and I'm betting the business environment will go more to Linux. Google has a vested interest in wanting to get a good Linux desktop going, as do IBM and Canonical. Recently, HP has also weighed in. So eventually, Linux will be the business choice, while MS will be still operational, but increasingly SECOND PLACE. But a good second place.

Whether it becomes first place in consumer purchases versus Google and Apple, etc. remains to be seen. But I suspect it will be long around. Everyone I know who is over age 55 would prefer a Surface to his computer, if for no other reason than he has come to hate computers. That's a big market, us baby boomers. (I didn't do a survey, but I know my colleagues and customers well, many of them have been with me for over 20 years).

Personally, I will never be among the buyers; but if only to serve my clients, I have to learn this OS. Groaning the meanwhile. And, alongside Linux, which makes me groan as well.

In short, it's a dual-OS world coming up: Linux and MS. Apple? Well, who knows? They can already tap both other OS; so, they will be part of the game, too.

[smax013]

waldojim, on 12 November 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

In the desktop arena, Microsoft owns the market. As there is no realistic alternative, it is in our best interests to ensure that Windows succeeds.

There are realistic alternatives...the Mac or Linux. Yes, right now you might not be able to go to either and immediately get everything you can on Windows...but it is very possible that developers might decide to start "hedging" their bets by developing more for the Mac OS or Linux in case Microsoft does start to serious bleed market share. In other works, if enough people get frustrated with the direction of Windows, then they might start filling in the "gaps" in terms of applications available for the likes of the Mac OS or Linux.

Now, having said that, I seriously doubt that Microsoft's dominance in the desktop and "traditional" laptop market is going anywhere. At a minimum, Windows will be a dominant OS because LOTS of people will continue using older versions of Windows because that is what they have and what they have works for them (i.e. no one is force anyone to upgrade to Windows 8). This is a big reason why many businesses still use Windows XP...they now will likely stick with Windows 7 for a good long time. The other thing is that I bet that if Microsoft really does find that there is a Windows 8 blowback, then they will likely "tweak" things so that you can easily boot directly into the "desktop" and give an easy way (without third party software) to get a Start menu back. Or they might formally "split" Windows 8 into a tablet version and a desktop/laptop version. Of course, I suspect that when it really comes down to it, many people will adapt to Windows 8 and find ways to "work around" Microsoft's self-imposed hurdles.

I would also add that Apple is going its own share of things that annoy customers at times. There are many that are worried that the Mac OS is becoming to "iOSified" (me being one of them).

In the end, I really don't know what will happen, but I would likely putting my money on Microsoft maintaining their OS dominance for a while. The thing that will really challenge them will be a "cloud" OS (along the lines of Chrome OS), but that will not happen for while...we are no where near being ubiquitously "connect" to make a "cloud" OS truly viable in many situations. When network connections are ubiquitous, however, then a "cloud" OS will likely threaten Microsoft, unless they get to there first.

[MTBSoftware]

A Cloud service without indemnity for customers against theft of IP as well as data loss is a non-starter.

[brainout]

MTBSoftware, on 12 November 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

A Cloud service without indemnity for customers against theft of IP as well as data loss is a non-starter.

Yeah, that's what keeps me from it. And how can you price that actuarially, for insurance? Can't be done. My clients would kill me if I put stuff in the cloud. As it is, I don't even leave any addresses there, and remove email from the server every time I download (almost).

[smax013]

MTBSoftware, on 12 November 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

A Cloud service without indemnity for customers against theft of IP as well as data loss is a non-starter.

You are assuming that by "cloud" OS that I meant only "third party" cloud services. There could, however, be "cloud" solutions that are entirely "internal" to a company...and in fact there are. The last company that I worked for used Citrix such that people "phoned" into a central server system to run Windows and a variety of programs (such as Microsoft Office) on the server. In other words, employee's desktop computer was just a "dumb terminal"...Windows and the various programs were actually running on a server thousands of miles away (in my case). This essentially made the Windows (or in my case the Mac OS) running on their local computer essentially a "cloud OS"...i.e. it was enough to get them access to the Internet. Thus, in theory, something like a Chromebook would have worked (you would have to get the Citrix extension/program to run on it locally). I am sure there are other companies that use the same or similar thing.

Now, the major downside of this system is that you HAVE TO have an Internet connection. No Internet = you being screwed. This was not just a "if our Internet goes down" issue but also an issue for those with laptops who then travelled on behalf of the company (they tended to have local copies of programs as well). The other downside was that it was not great for "graphically intensive" programs. Thus, we ran the CADD software we used locally. The definite upside was that it was INFINITELY easier for the IT folks to maintain and likely more cost efficient since you likely could pay for fewer licenses for many programs (i.e. how many people in a business are REALLY using the likes of PowerPoint or even Excel at any one specific time...even Word likely could have a few less licenses).

Now, you are correct in terms of "third party" cloud services. Beyond the lack of ubiquitous (and very fast) Internet, there are certainly "issues" that "cloud" services have to resolve before they will be widely adopted. You mention two of them.

I will note that the first issue you mention is why I don't use current "cloud" services much...only for data that is basically non-confidential in nature...i.e. a VERY small subset of my data. And the second issue is why I only use so-called "sync" services, meaning my data is also on my local machine(s).

But that does not change the fact that likely in another decade or two, the odds are that we will be doing a LOT more in the "cloud". Thus, it is very possible that we will just have a "dumb terminal" type machine that we carry around rather than some "full, local" OS on a computer....ala along the lines of a Chromebook. But, we are a long ways from that with a number of issues that have to be "worked out".

[MTBSoftware]

smax013, on 13 November 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

MTBSoftware, on 12 November 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

A Cloud service without indemnity for customers against theft of IP as well as data loss is a non-starter.

You are assuming that by "cloud" OS that I meant only "third party" cloud services. There could, however, be "cloud" solutions that are entirely "internal" to a company...and in fact there are. The last company that I worked for used Citrix such that people "phoned" into a central server system to run Windows and a variety of programs (such as Microsoft Office) on the server. In other words, employee's desktop computer was just a "dumb terminal"...Windows and the various programs were actually running on a server thousands of miles away (in my case). This essentially made the Windows (or in my case the Mac OS) running on their local computer essentially a "cloud OS"...i.e. it was enough to get them access to the Internet. Thus, in theory, something like a Chromebook would have worked (you would have to get the Citrix extension/program to run on it locally). I am sure there are other companies that use the same or similar thing.

Now, the major downside of this system is that you HAVE TO have an Internet connection. No Internet = you being screwed. This was not just a "if our Internet goes down" issue but also an issue for those with laptops who then travelled on behalf of the company (they tended to have local copies of programs as well). The other downside was that it was not great for "graphically intensive" programs. Thus, we ran the CADD software we used locally. The definite upside was that it was INFINITELY easier for the IT folks to maintain and likely more cost efficient since you likely could pay for fewer licenses for many programs (i.e. how many people in a business are REALLY using the likes of PowerPoint or even Excel at any one specific time...even Word likely could have a few less licenses).

Now, you are correct in terms of "third party" cloud services. Beyond the lack of ubiquitous (and very fast) Internet, there are certainly "issues" that "cloud" services have to resolve before they will be widely adopted. You mention two of them.

I will note that the first issue you mention is why I don't use current "cloud" services much...only for data that is basically non-confidential in nature...i.e. a VERY small subset of my data. And the second issue is why I only use so-called "sync" services, meaning my data is also on my local machine(s).

But that does not change the fact that likely in another decade or two, the odds are that we will be doing a LOT more in the "cloud". Thus, it is very possible that we will just have a "dumb terminal" type machine that we carry around rather than some "full, local" OS on a computer....ala along the lines of a Chromebook. But, we are a long ways from that with a number of issues that have to be "worked out".

"Internal Cloud" is an oxymoron.
It's a completely bulls@#t term.

An internal cloud is nothing more than a LAN running dumb terminals.
Nothing new or innovative there at all.

Some innovation this "internal cloud" nonsense.
It's only taken us 35+ years to come full circle to dumb terminals running the modern equivalent of a VAX mainframe using less secure protocols.

[smax013]

MTBSoftware, on 14 November 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

"Internal Cloud" is an oxymoron.
It's a completely bulls@#t term.

An internal cloud is nothing more than a LAN running dumb terminals.
Nothing new or innovative there at all.

Some innovation this "internal cloud" nonsense.
It's only taken us 35+ years to come full circle to dumb terminals running the modern equivalent of a VAX mainframe using less secure protocols.

Yes, it might be a "BS" term, but it is still accurate. I was referring to "cloud" services all done using "internal" services (i.e. NOT relying on some third party companies servers)...something that many companies use today and have for quite a while. "Cloud services" are NOT just third party services such as Dropbox, etc...even though that is what most people think of. A company can easily allow VPN remote access to their own data servers and you can get the same effect as some third party "cloud" data server service.

And yes, using a LAN to access a server (for storage, to run an application, print to a network printer, etc) is essential a form of "cloud computing". You are not using LOCALLY attached (i.e. directly attached to ONLY your computer) resources.

And yes, it is basically a circling back to the days of VAX mainframes, etc...except on a broader scale. And as I said, we are now where near there yet. Until one can access one's remote server (either personally controlled or controlled by a third party) from ANYWHERE and ANYTIME, it will not really be viable. But, I have little doubt that we will get there someday...maybe before I fertilize some daisies somewhere.

[waldojim]

MTBSoftware, on 12 November 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Try paying attention to what I actually wrote.
I NEVER said Win 8 would kill MS.
I said it marks the beginning of the end of it's dominance.

I also said that no one wants it and no one will buy it(in numbers that will make it successful).

Anyone who has used Win8 for any length of time knows that is designed for Tablets and the mobile market.
The Desktop is a kludge of an afterthought.
To claim Win 8 is the future of computing is the height of arrogance and ignores reality.

Microsoft has proven with Win 8 it is willing to give up the desktop.
Win 7 is simply better for the desktop. It just is.

It sure looks like Microsoft has given up the tablet market as well.
The surface is NOT sold out and suffers from a terrible return rate of greater than 20%.

It only sold out the pre-sale of the RT.
Anyone can go online and order to have it shipped today.
The failure of the Surface RT doesn't bode well for the Surface Pro.

Windows Phones will never get any market traction.
They tried for years and have failed each and every time.

Windows 8 is the future of computing?
We all have a vested interest in making sure it succeeds?
Please...
Only a complete neophyte or MS sales droid would make such a claim.
For an EDITOR to make such a claim is yellow journalism.

I use Windows 8 EXCLUSIVELY in a desktop role (well... laptop too, but same role). As such, I can say that Windows 8 was designed not as a TABLET OS, as simpletons would believe, but ALL INCLUSIVE. And you know what? They did a good job doing it. Windows 8 Metro interface stays out of my way, only being pulled up when I want to use my new, fancy start menu. The rest of the time, it is Windows, and treated as such. Sounds to me, like the only ignorance here, is coming from those that can't see past their noses.

I don't work for MS, and hold ZERO loyalty. I just know where my money is. I know what I use to make my money every day. And guess what? That is Microsoft.

[waldojim]

smax013, on 12 November 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

There are realistic alternatives...the Mac or Linux. Yes, right now you might not be able to go to either and immediately get everything you can on Windows...but it is very possible that developers might decide to start "hedging" their bets by developing more for the Mac OS or Linux in case Microsoft does start to serious bleed market share. In other works, if enough people get frustrated with the direction of Windows, then they might start filling in the "gaps" in terms of applications available for the likes of the Mac OS or Linux.

Now, having said that, I seriously doubt that Microsoft's dominance in the desktop and "traditional" laptop market is going anywhere. At a minimum, Windows will be a dominant OS because LOTS of people will continue using older versions of Windows because that is what they have and what they have works for them (i.e. no one is force anyone to upgrade to Windows 8). This is a big reason why many businesses still use Windows XP...they now will likely stick with Windows 7 for a good long time. The other thing is that I bet that if Microsoft really does find that there is a Windows 8 blowback, then they will likely "tweak" things so that you can easily boot directly into the "desktop" and give an easy way (without third party software) to get a Start menu back. Or they might formally "split" Windows 8 into a tablet version and a desktop/laptop version. Of course, I suspect that when it really comes down to it, many people will adapt to Windows 8 and find ways to "work around" Microsoft's self-imposed hurdles.

I would also add that Apple is going its own share of things that annoy customers at times. There are many that are worried that the Mac OS is becoming to "iOSified" (me being one of them).

In the end, I really don't know what will happen, but I would likely putting my money on Microsoft maintaining their OS dominance for a while. The thing that will really challenge them will be a "cloud" OS (along the lines of Chrome OS), but that will not happen for while...we are no where near being ubiquitously "connect" to make a "cloud" OS truly viable in many situations. When network connections are ubiquitous, however, then a "cloud" OS will likely threaten Microsoft, unless they get to there first.

I don't see either one happening for very good reasons.

First Linux: Linux doesn't have the hardware support, the software support, or the right developers backing it to keep the OS updated, and stable. Interface changes are (seemingly) random and constant. For that matter, there is no consistent interface, and each desktop uses different libraries. Software has to be written for KDE, Gnome, and XFCE window managers, all using different libraries to render the final product. There is no common installation method any more. Shoot, there is barely a common file structure.
The end result coming down to the fact that Linux's strength is also its greatest weakness. Choice.

Now, Apple: This is easy, and falls into two distinct issues, one more serious than the other. First off, choice. There is a distinct lack of choices. Either you like what Apple has to offer or you don't. OS-X is not available for other machines, and likely never will be. So the college gamer who wants to play Citizens United on their 11" mobile PC, will instead either have to upgrade to a 15" Mac pro, or live with the graphics set to the lowest possible resolution and quality. Whereas, he could easily pickup the Origin Eon11-S and enjoy gaming at 720P with every detail cranked up! Second: Not everyone can AFFORD an Apple. $300 PC's are COMMON, yet you can't find an Apple product for $300 without looking at their iPod!

So the question here, is why develop for a platform that either A. is going to completely consume your company trying to make it work (Linux), or B. is going to continue to have a smallish market share?

I have a feeling what we will see when a Cloud OS finally hits, is MS will watch what others are trying to do, and make it work. Truth is, that is exactly what happened with Windows 8. They saw what Gnome was moving towards, and made it useful. Gnome has moved to a tablet oriented OS some time ago. The difference being, that the Gnome team obviously didn't know how to complete it. You end up with a mess instead. A finger friendly OS (With no organization in the 'start' menu as far as I am concerned) with non-finger friendly applications. Call it how you will. In the end, you still saw MS take that idea, and transform it into something that is at least usable.

[waldojim]

smax013, on 14 November 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

[/snip]maybe before I fertilize some daisies somewhere.

Hey now, we don't need any of that talk right now!

[ElfBane]

[/quote]
Only a sycophant would make the claim that Win 8 was designed to be all inclusive.
[/quote]


Well, it was designed to be all-inclusive (it that it was designed to work across platforms),,, it may not succeed at it very well, but in theory it was designed to do so.

This post has been edited by ElfBane: 16 November 2012 - 07:15 AM

[LiveBrianD]

To be honest, if Google developed a full desktop OS (Chrome OS doesn't count) , I think Microsoft would see a pretty serious dent in their market share. I actually wish they would do that so Microsoft would be forced to cut the crap.

[orlbuckeye]

smax013, on 14 November 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

MTBSoftware, on 14 November 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

"Internal Cloud" is an oxymoron.
It's a completely bulls@#t term.

An internal cloud is nothing more than a LAN running dumb terminals.
Nothing new or innovative there at all.

Some innovation this "internal cloud" nonsense.
It's only taken us 35+ years to come full circle to dumb terminals running the modern equivalent of a VAX mainframe using less secure protocols.

Yes, it might be a "BS" term, but it is still accurate. I was referring to "cloud" services all done using "internal" services (i.e. NOT relying on some third party companies servers)...something that many companies use today and have for quite a while. "Cloud services" are NOT just third party services such as Dropbox, etc...even though that is what most people think of. A company can easily allow VPN remote access to their own data servers and you can get the same effect as some third party "cloud" data server service.

And yes, using a LAN to access a server (for storage, to run an application, print to a network printer, etc) is essential a form of "cloud computing". You are not using LOCALLY attached (i.e. directly attached to ONLY your computer) resources.

And yes, it is basically a circling back to the days of VAX mainframes, etc...except on a broader scale. And as I said, we are now where near there yet. Until one can access one's remote server (either personally controlled or controlled by a third party) from ANYWHERE and ANYTIME, it will not really be viable. But, I have little doubt that we will get there someday...maybe before I fertilize some daisies somewhere.

What you are describing is a "BS" term and not accurate. The LAN environment you speak about differs from the Cloud and isn't cloud. The LAN you are talking about requries multiple levels of the organization. My company has servers that employees need to access which would require security to allow into our network plus security to access each application. The cloud all that is needed it the application security. The cloud apps will run in a web browser. All the servers are located at the host site. All upgrades are done at the site and basically they are done automatically. Cloud companies basically charge per user and upgrades are automatic. My company uses VPN to get to our internal network and IT emplopees and managers can use remote desktop to actually log on to their pc's at work. My organization also has to worry about non-employees accessing applications outside our networks but the data is located inside our network.


Cloud is being used today to eliminate some of the overhead in IT. Cloud is being used by IT department to cute server and server maintenance costs and also on security costs. I work in IT and my company is moving to a cloud based ERP system(Payroll, Human resources and Financial). Our 3 in house systems now have haeavy IT involvement with security, Integration and support. Well with the cloud integration is the only thing IT will be concerned with. We will not even be involved in supporting the product. What you described is not cloud its the same networking that has been around for over 20 years. VPN is rather new but it's using the same internal network as you do while at work. CLoud is accessing a network outside the orgaization eventhough that is blind to the user.

[orlbuckeye]

LiveBrianD, on 16 November 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

To be honest, if Google developed a full desktop OS (Chrome OS doesn't count) , I think Microsoft would see a pretty serious dent in their market share. I actually wish they would do that so Microsoft would be forced to cut the crap.

What do you mean If Google? They have no advanatge over anyone are far as an OS. Their are going in other directs with their OS devleopment. They have chrome which basically a UI running in Linux. Linux and apple are the MS competition with the desktop OS. What has happened in the IT world is phone and tablets have taken off and those use mobile OS's. Microsoft is attempting to integrate the desktop with mobile devices. Apple has a separate OS for it's PC and their mobile devices. Android is only on mobile devices. People are over estimating the OS affect in business. Computer are used in business to run software and as long as users can get to the software they need they don't need to know the OS. It staff does need to know it but not your typical worker. Microsoft is approaching this thew same way they did with DOS so mnay years ago. They won the early battle as they let Apple have the education market. They hit the business world. They believed the workers had MS software at work and that would affect what they bought at home. Micrsoft basically is using the RT is the group with the Android and IOS mobile devices (home entertainment devices) and the PRO for people to be able to do serious work on the road. MS dreams of dad getting a windows 8 pc at work that he uses productively. So when buying junior a device he will buy the RT for junior and the PRO for serious work at home.

I don't see anyone coming up with a new desktop OS. Linux is there and if anyone would take over the desktop market it would probable be Ubantu but I think we're head into a OS with smaller footprints and using more cloud like resources. I'm not saying that is better or worse (i do prefer the large footprint desktop) but I do see the whole industry moving away.

This post has been edited by orlbuckeye: 16 November 2012 - 07:45 AM

[orlbuckeye]

Windows 8 is using it's panels as application protals to the internet. Each one separate from each other and they are constantly active. These portals have less interaction with the OS then do the desktop applications.

[LiveBrianD]

What I mean is if they made a desktop OS (likely linux based) that had plenty of apps and was easy for the average guy to set up and use, Microsoft would seriously have a problem. OS X is limited to (expensive compared to the average computer) Macs, Microsoft is trying to put the metro BS in Windows, and linux distros tend to not be too user friendly. (although Ubuntu is actually quite decent in some cases) They definitely know what they're doing with phones, as otherwise how did they get the majority of the marketshare? (just updated my Nexus to 4.2 btw... the Photo Sphere feature is neat, though Daydream is a bit stupid... and anyway, the users on Verizon or Sprint will have their update held up for a while as usual for no reason - just the more reason to stick with an unlocked GSM phone)

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 16 November 2012 - 09:11 AM