[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Gartner Explains Why Windows Is Broken here

[MasterGuru]

Seems to me Gartner just wants their name in the news (well blogs anyway). I have no respect for their information. Also, the writer might want to check their facts and grammar. Poorly done. I guess CIO's these days are just business grads with little real world knowledge. That's a shame. Shame on this CIO and shame on PCWorld (and their MACWorld bosses).

[chipbennett]

The most interesting part of this article: the tidbit about 95% of Microsoft's revenues coming from OEM installs...

[Evildave]

The statements quoted in the article seem pretty dead on. Especially the point about the OS you're running not mattering so much as time goes on.

For instance, Java runs pretty darned well. Sure, it's Sun's baby, but so is OpenOffice.org and VirtualBox. Similar to Microsoft, Sun bought 'em all.

One of my favorite editor/IDE packages is jEdit. It works perfectly on every platform I have run it on. Eclipse similarly runs well, though I don't personally care for it. Tries to do too much 'for me', big, bloated, etc.

The 'Google Documents' Java applets work well enough, and they'll only improve with time.

As good standards evolve, even 3D intensive video games will simply run under runtimes like Adobe Flash/Air. The 3D and sound mixing is the stuff that needs the native performance, and once you virtualize that and wrap it in a fast runtime compiling interpreter, then there isn't much reason to stick to a native implementation of a game. Build once, run on any console or any computer that meets your minimum requirements. GL? DirectX? Console specific API? They won't matter. Game developers are desperate to get out from under the direct retail channel and the subsequent 'exchange' of their games and the nasty babel of potential platforms to build for and support. They get a hundred thousand copies at an exorbitant rate, can't afford to make more, and users start trading the games making shops like 'Game Stop' money. Profits all lost, another game company goes under. A web distribution model will fix it all. Just go to the game site with the browser, log in and play.

I do have to disagree with something in the article, too. Do give Vista a miss. Like an AMC Gremlin rusting in the showroom, Vista is a P.O.S. The new Millennium Edition.

[MasterGuru]

If I read what EvilDave is saying, I think he is saying:

I don't use Windows, but will fix it all myself.
How can someone who has not actually spent any real time with a product know it?
After ten years we're still waiting for Open Source to be anything but a hack tool for folks with bad sounding names in blogs, and we are still waiting for Apple to figure out they are no longer a computer company, but just a very small niche market of expensive electronics.

Yup, we'll wait on them...... and wait.....and wait............and wait.......

My games, both new and older XP games, run way better on Vista SP1 than they ever did on XP on the same machine. I can prove that. The rest is just knee jerk reactions from those who just likes to buck the system, IMHO........I can see your lips moving but all I hear is blah, blah, blah......blah!

But I do think he has really good point, I'm just not allowed to say where I think it is.

[Evildave]

Let me get this straight... accuse a professional computer game programmer since 1990 who has used Microsoft Windows since 1993 or so (Windows 3.1) after DOS that finally got sick and tired of Microsoft's garbage... inexperienced with Windows?

Wow. Yeah, that's me alright. Somehow over the last 18 years of professional Microsoft experience after even more years of Apple, Atari and Commodore experience, I missed out on all the best things in Microsoft's product line.

You betcha.

[MasterGuru]

Well this is great then, EvilDave. Please explain in a very detailed manner exactly how Vista makes gaming better. I am positive that your stated experience and absolute knowledge of the ins and outs of Vista will let you perform this task with great ease.

[MarioJP]

wow i used to like pcworld but now they are becoming "Linux Advocate" I like Linux and Windows. But these articles are "anti Windows" one article after another back to back geeze

[cryptodan]

The only reason why Vista is failing is due to the steep hardware requirements, and many of the low end computers simply cannot handle Vista, so people shouldn't be blaiming Microsoft. They should be blaiming themselves for not doing research about products they intend on purchasing. Another reason is that right now many businesses and corporations are happy with their XP Pro PC Loads, and are not willing to fork over upgrade costs to use Vista. I myself haven't bought Vista yet due to issues pre-service pack 1, but I can guarantee that after Vista SP1 is on CD/DVD then I will buy it.

To all those people who tout linux as being the best they are quite ignorant. The best is whatever operating system suits your needs. If all you do is email and web surf then any operating system will do. If you are a developer then maybe Linux/Unix is better suited for you. If you are a gamer then Windows is better for you due to it being both DirectX and OpenGL Compatible.

[samikey]

For too long, Microsoft has been allowed to pretty much do what they wanted. Because it was 'Windows', Microsoft automatically thought computer users would automatically get in line to buy it. Users are much more sophisticated today and recognize when a product is not worthy, i.e. Vista. Microsoft has basically been the 'only game in town' for too long and has taken the consumer for granted. Windows seems to only 'innovate' when felt threatened. IE6 would still be around if Firefox and Opera had not come onto the scene. The big bad beast from Redmond has become complacent and while others have seized the opportunity. VISTA can't compete with Leopard. Companies that upgraded to VISTA have returned to XP. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the product is less than acceptable. With MS scheduling Windows 7 for release in 2009, only 2-3 years after VISTA, they even recognize the inferiority of their product.

[CircuitMan]

Why can't we just all switch to Linux. If only more Windows programs would work on Linux, it would be the ultimate OS. Even Wine for Linux will not get some Windows programs to work. If we stopped buying the new versions of windows, and moved on to Linux, all of the major software companies would have to start making their software available for Linux.
Does anyone agree with me?

[MasterGuru]

Besides random posts in so called technical blogs can you please point us where we can see proof of your statements?

[MasterGuru]

My CEO is rolling on the floor laughing his a off, so, ummm, no we do not agree.

[CircuitMan]

Why do you not think that it is a good idea? I use Linux on one of my computers, and it is great!

[cryptodan]

In the Linux world there are way to many choices and there isn't a set package manager, and there are no standards as where config files get placed. Imagine a company or corporation allowing every employee to use their Linux/Unix Distro of choice. Now let me answer this question: There goes security out the window and network management would be non-existant.

In a windows environment you can use AD to lock down peoples accounts and what not, yes I know there is NIS and NIS in Linux/Unix but then again each linux distros keep their configs in different places, so how would a corporation populate NIS Databases with that in effect.

[CircuitMan]

But what if all of the distros of Linux developed a standard for software installation? Maybe I am getting nowhere, but I thought that I might through my idea out here.

[cryptodan]

I have discussed this with Linux Zealots and they have continued to bash me and ridicule me and accuse me of working for Microsoft. It will never happen. Seems me the Open Source Community would complain and think their freedom of choice is being taken from them.

[chipbennett]

I think it's a reasonable suggestion, cryptodan. Then again, I'm not a Linux "Zealot" but rather just another Windows emigrant.

There is a lot of inefficiency in having GNOME and KDE, RPM and DEB, etc. - a lot of resources doing a lot of essentially the same work. I think Linux will forever have to deal with this inefficiency, as I don't see the divergent camps ever consolidating.

[Evildave]

Why would I lie and claim that 'Vista Makes Gaming Better'?

Vista's horrendous overhead only makes PC gaming more expensive. Given Vista's spotty and disappointing performance on premium machines, games that target DX10 (and therefore Vista) will disappoint many users.

DirectX 10 being 'Vista Only' just makes matters worse for PC game developers. Game companies vying for the prettiest screen shots now have yet another 'scaleable' target to test against if they need to support DX10. They know the vast majority of their user base still runs XP with DX9. They HAVE TO support DX9 or their product won't sell well. On top of that, they 'have to' support DX10, or they won't be able to push it through to retailers who must see the prettiest things on the screen. This drives the development and testing cost way up, and guarantees only the largest companies like EA will continue selling their crap-du-jour on the PC while the smaller companies willing to make something new and different are driven out. I guess that's OK if all you like to play is Madden 2009, 2010, etc. on the PC, or other of the same warmed-over content regurgitated at gamers year after year, pretending to be something 'new'.

Consoles make gaming better. Most game development studios have weaned themselves from the PC to support consoles exclusively. Console games have vast audiences (compared to geeks who buy super-tricked out gaming PCs every couple of years) and above all a stable and reliable target to code to. PC games are followed by vast demands for technical support that saps whatever profit you could hope to gain. Three years from now, you'll stick a new PS3 game into the slot, and you'll have 100% confidence it'll run, just as new XBOX 360 titles like 'GTA IV' should run just fine now on three year old XBOX 360 consoles that didn't succumb to the 'Ring Of Death'. For the cost of a good PC video card, you could get a whole gaming console. For the extra cost of a good enough video card and a PC good enough to guarantee it will run games three years from now, you could buy all of the different new consoles available, accessories and some games for each, and still have money left over to buy a pretty good PC.

To a degree, consoles also make PC games 'worse'. The simplified controls needed for a console need to be designed in ahead of time, and that 'dumbs down' the PC gaming experience, and most companies targeting the PC are targeting console as well - because they HAVE TO. The section of the PC gaming market that needs things like 'DirectX 10' has been in steady collapse for years. On the plus side, consoles like the PS3 and Wii have keyboards and pointing devices available for them, so theoretically at least, if those peripherals caught on to a decent degree, maybe some brighter content would follow.

'Digital Convergence' as Bill Gates called it in his speech, heads off in a positive direction there. Games, HD movies, productivity (you can install Linux on the PS3), and no need for Microsoft to be in the loop at all.

http://money.cnn.com...01-23757558.htm
20.1 million Wiis
17.7 million XBOX 360
10.5 million PS3

{quote}http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=NAMAG0VHE3CUCQSNDLRSKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=205210375&_requestid=56954
Gates, in Las Vegas Sunday, boasted that Microsoft has sold more than 100 million copies of Windows Vista since the OS launched last January.

While the number at first sounds impressive, it in fact indicates that the company's once dominant grip on the OS market is loosening. Based on Gates' statement, Windows Vista was aboard just 39% of the PC's that shipped in 2007. {quote}

Of course, these raw figures don't translate to the PC gaming market. MOST PCs sold are the mediocre performing type that might run any new 3D splatter-fest shortly after it's purchased, but won't run some new things next year, and won't run much anything at all in two years. These people turn to web based games when they can't play new boxed games. The PC I bought at the same time as my XBOX 360 is universally derided as an 'antique'. Admittedly it was a cheap one, that has since joined the succession of 'old' PCs I've given away to family members, but lots of those 'big' PC numbers that stay in service are cheap computers. It doesn't run ANYTHING, and there's not much point upgrading it.

The PC gaming market isn't 'dead'. Just the elements of it that need tons of dedicated graphical horsepower running native code. The PC gaming market is steadily moving online.

That by in large means 'Flash' and other such virtual technologies are gaining ground. You go to a web site, bang, there's a game... or at least after a brief 'Loading' animation. From there a game creator doesn't run out of boxes on shelves. Doesn't need to make them. Just put up a web site. And then the game creator has control over the game. If it's a premium service, accounts and billing are simple, and you don't need to charge much to profit. If it's a free service, advertising can be had readily as soon as a user base is demonstrated, or a potential for a user base can be conned into someone. Astounding amounts of server capacity and space are available compared to only a few years ago for next to nothing. As built-in capabilities of browser standards like Flash grow, more content will move there.

Back on topic...

The sad, sorry thing for Windows is, it won't matter what OS you're running, wherever a browser plugin works.

The playing field is leveling. Microsoft is losing its grip on its monopolistic position. They'll continue to slip as they have for years, but they'll always be there. Just one OS among many.

So you bet that even today I still make games that run in Windows, but only insofar as I produce games that run on any web browser with the required plug-in. I don't discriminate against people who pay for their OS. If they have money to WASTE like that, they have money to give me.

[samikey]

Too many people are totally dissatisfied with VISTA. My wife works for a huge business that refuses to upgrade. They are staying with XP because of the problems with VISTA. With this kind of unhappiness, how can you not say that Microsoft is slipping? Not only is the public sector not happy, but also the private sector. With all the advanced promotion of VISTA, it was supposed to be the O/S of the future. Looks like the future didn't last too long.