Bill Gates leaves MS board

[Bud]

Shadowed by the coronavirus news, Bill Gates steps down from Microsoft's board. He still owns 1% of company's shares. Looking at what piece of shit Windows has become under the new management, to me life was better back in Gate's time.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bill-gates-microsoft-board-1.5497762

[Zero999]

Microsoft no longer needs Windows any more. They've moved on to other things. Google and Apple beat them to the smartphone market, so it was inevitable.

I suppose he's made more than enough money and no longer needs to work.

[Stray Electron]

Microsoft no longer needs Windows any more. They've moved on to other things. Google and Apple beat them to the smartphone market, so it was inevitable.

I suppose he's made more than enough money and no longer needs to work.

    that's been true for a long time.

    Microsoft is rapidly becoming an irrelevant company.  They missed the smartphone market and Windows is a rapidly dying piece of crap. I don't see any future for MS other than stealing their users' data and reselling it. Being a MS insider I'm sure that Bill saw that and that's why he's been selling off his stock for a long time.

[SiliconWizard]

Microsoft no longer needs Windows any more. They've moved on to other things. Google and Apple beat them to the smartphone market, so it was inevitable.

I suppose he's made more than enough money and no longer needs to work.

    that's been true for a long time.

    Microsoft is rapidly becoming an irrelevant company.  They missed the smartphone market and Windows is a rapidly dying piece of crap. I don't see any future for MS other than stealing their users' data and reselling it. Being a MS insider I'm sure that Bill saw that and that's why he's been selling off his stock for a long time.

I'm beginning to think the same, even that MS is bound to failure now over time. Looks weird - like it was once the company that just couldn't fail.

I also think that things were handled "better" when Bill Gates was still holding an operational role at MS (which now dates a long while back.)

[Zero999]

I don't think Microsoft will suddenly fail any time soon. I think it's more likely they'll just carry on as they are, without growing or shrinking much. There's no reason why the desktop is going to switch away from Windows and companies will always need desktop computers.

[MadTux]

Last good Windows was Win2k and XP, nearly 20 years ago, became more and more bloated crapware with every release since then.

Linux IMO has a bit of a bloating problem as well, but since it's modular and open source, you can at least choose less bloated Desktop enviroments, ie LXDE, XFCE or Mate, instead of KDE4/Cinnamon/Gnome3  bloatware. And you can compile an optimized kernel were you remove everything that you don't need.

Windows as a kernel with minimal or open source desktop enviroment wouldn't be that bad, but the desktop enviroment, especially Win8, is such a piece of crap, that I ditched Windows a long time ago, for that reason. And since it isn't modular, you can either eat their garbage or ditch it entirely.

[Sal Ammoniac]

There's no reason why the desktop is going to switch away from Windows and companies will always need desktop computers.

This. People have been predicting the demise of Windows for decades and it hasn't happened. They've also been predicting that next year is the year of Linux on the desktop for decades now too, and that hasn't happened either.

[SiliconWizard]

I don't think Microsoft will suddenly fail any time soon. I think it's more likely they'll just carry on as they are, without growing or shrinking much. There's no reason why the desktop is going to switch away from Windows and companies will always need desktop computers.

Note that I didn't say "soon", just "over time"...

Sure Windows is still widely used everywhere and it would take a long time before both users and software companies can switch to something else, so Windows itself will linger for quite a while.
But MS is putting all effort on their additional "cloud" services, and whereas it has worked for them for a while, there's a LOT of competition for this, and I don't think it will save them forever.

So I just don't really see a future for MS. I'm not saying it will shut down tomorrow. But if they don't come up with a different strategy, I think it will happen eventually.

[Zero999]

Many Linux advocates have been predicting Linux will widely replacing Windows on the desktop for over 20 years now and so far its market share has hardly increased at all. I can't see it happening any time soon, even with Windows being as bad as it currently is, it's not as bad as Windows 95 was.

[nctnico]

Many Linux advocates have been predicting Linux will widely replacing Windows on the desktop for over 20 years now and so far its market share has hardly increased at all. I can't see it happening any time soon

It is happening. Just not in offices where a Windows PC is nothing more than a glorified typewriter. Take these away and you'll see very high percentages. Linux is big enough in engineering that a lot of companies already have Linux support or are working on it.

[Karel]

Linux Desktop is gaining some inertia, but mostly from geek community and NUC/whatever Intel/AMD reference design community.

I see. So, that's why there are Linux versions of Cadence, Zuken, ADS (Keysight), Eagle, Microchip, Altera, Xilinx, etc. etc. ... mostly for geek community...

[james_s]

Microsoft no longer needs Windows any more. They've moved on to other things. Google and Apple beat them to the smartphone market, so it was inevitable.

I suppose he's made more than enough money and no longer needs to work.

There are several billion Windows PCs in service still though, so I think their virtual abandonment of Windows may be an error. Yes PC sales have fallen drastically but as I've been saying for years that isn't because the PC is dead, it's because the market is saturated and the product is mature, and many users never really needed a fullblown PC in the first place and now get by with mobile devices. The PC is still alive and well though and many, many millions of them will continue being used for the foreseeable future. They last a lot longer than they used to due to being a mature product but they do still require occasional replacement.

[james_s]

There's no reason why the desktop is going to switch away from Windows and companies will always need desktop computers.

This. People have been predicting the demise of Windows for decades and it hasn't happened. They've also been predicting that next year is the year of Linux on the desktop for decades now too, and that hasn't happened either.

That's because there is a HUGE library of "legacy" Windows software. Strangely Microsoft themselves seem to be doing everything they can to kill off the legacy stuff which is the vast bulk of the reason people run Windows.

The trend of making everything web based is making the OS irrelevant though, people like my mom have been using Linux on the desktop for several years now and barely notice the difference. More and more of these casual users are using mobile devices now which are not Windows either. I don't think Windows will just go away but I do wonder if it will remain dominant, especially given the way MS has all but abandoned focus on it.

[DimitriP]

So I just don't really see a future for MS. I'm not saying it will shut down tomorrow. But if they don't come up with a different strategy, I think it will happen eventually.

Eventually can be a really really long time.

[Marco]

The smartphone market is irrelevant, it's nice to have all that extra money ... but needing to download an extra app to integrate well with a desktop environment isn't a big competitive hurdle.

What hurts Microsoft the most is that they have no real identity except legacy and windows being the primary platform for their business applications. For nomal users windows can't offer the low cost and ease of use of Chromebooks, they can't offer the ease of use and privacy of Macbooks ... they can just offer endless configuration problems.

I think their biggest mistake was the xbox, it made them lose focus on ease of use and become too comfortable with the messy legacy way of doing things which PCs slowly evolved into ... something which is now killing them. The Chromebook hardware platform model is what "Made For Windows" always should have been and if they hadn't been distracted by the xbox they might have seen that.

[Zero999]

Many Linux advocates have been predicting Linux will widely replacing Windows on the desktop for over 20 years now and so far its market share has hardly increased at all. I can't see it happening any time soon

It is happening. Just not in offices where a Windows PC is nothing more than a glorified typewriter. Take these away and you'll see very high percentages. Linux is big enough in engineering that a lot of companies already have Linux support or are working on it.

Where's the evidence to support this? Quickly Googling shows Linux is just under 1.9% which is tiny, compared to Windows. I believe OS X has gained more than Linux, due to the crappyness of Windows 10.
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide

[Caliaxy]

I don't see any future for MS other than stealing their users' data and reselling it.

You mean like any other big tech company these days?

[Marco]

You mean like any other big tech company these days?

Except Apple, who is slowly gobbling up most margin on the consumer market. Data is worth a lot, but not that much.

If they manage to use their money to start beating Intel on desktop/servers with their own processor architecture and move more seriously into that market, the whole PC market would be in deadly danger.

[FreezeSSC]

Microsoft no longer needs Windows any more. They've moved on to other things. Google and Apple beat them to the smartphone market, so it was inevitable.

I suppose he's made more than enough money and no longer needs to work.

    that's been true for a long time.

    Microsoft is rapidly becoming an irrelevant company.  They missed the smartphone market and Windows is a rapidly dying piece of crap. I don't see any future for MS other than stealing their users' data and reselling it. Being a MS insider I'm sure that Bill saw that and that's why he's been selling off his stock for a long time.

They bet big on cloud and its paid off big time, they've made a huge turn around from the late 2000's early 2010's, dont see them going anywhere. 

[james_s]

I think their biggest mistake was the xbox, it made them lose focus on ease of use and become too comfortable with the messy legacy way of doing things which PCs slowly evolved into ... something which is now killing them. The Chromebook hardware platform model is what "Made For Windows" always should have been and if they hadn't been distracted by the xbox they might have seen that.

I was on the team that made the original xbox, it was incredibly successful at the time and supported a whole branch of the company publishing games. I'm not really sure where it has gone since then, I never had a 360 and from what I gather they pretty well bungled the XBone. I'm not a gamer anymore so I haven't followed that closely though. I don't think it was a mistake, it was very profitable, at least at the time. It was a whole separate division, not the same guys making Windows and desktop software. Microsoft is huge, internally it's more like a conglomeration of numerous separate companies, one group can have a completely different culture than another.

[james_s]

Where's the evidence to support this? Quickly Googling shows Linux is just under 1.9% which is tiny, compared to Windows. I believe OS X has gained more than Linux, due to the crappyness of Windows 10.
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide

1.9% of >1 Billion is a pretty large number of machines, and that's just desktops/laptops. Personally I'm still using Win7 on my daily driver but Linux on everything else and that's my path forward once Win7 becomes non-viable. I don't really care if it gains widespread adoption, heck it could even be an advantage if it stays somewhat of a niche for power users. Less likely to be a target of malware and viruses.

[mc172]

Last good Windows was Win2k and XP, nearly 20 years ago, became more and more bloated crapware with every release since then.

Pff, really? W7 is very nice and W10 is probably even better!
I've got W7 at home and like it because it doesn't assume anything that I don't want it to, but for work use where everything is set by group policy anyway W10 is very good.

[james_s]

I like Win7 a lot, very few complaints.

Win10 is a steaming turd, at least it was for the 2 years I had to use it at work. I have never encountered an operating system that felt so hostile toward the user, I felt like it was constantly fighting against me when all I wanted it to do was stay out of my way and let me get my work done.

[mc172]

That's the problem you get with either people that don't understand what they're doing (and the consequences of what they're deciding) setting policies, and/or people not giving people local admin rights because it supposedly sounds scary.
I was very reluctant to get "upgraded" to W10 at work (as I considered it a downgrade) but once I put my internal bias aside, and had local admin rights etc, it was better than W7. Until I hard deleted Cortana because it drove me nuts and as a consequence broke the search function...

[tautech]

Nutthing wrong with W10 at all, just the performance and stability benefits are well worth it.

[nctnico]

Many Linux advocates have been predicting Linux will widely replacing Windows on the desktop for over 20 years now and so far its market share has hardly increased at all. I can't see it happening any time soon

It is happening. Just not in offices where a Windows PC is nothing more than a glorified typewriter. Take these away and you'll see very high percentages. Linux is big enough in engineering that a lot of companies already have Linux support or are working on it.

Where's the evidence to support this? Quickly Googling shows Linux is just under 1.9% which is tiny, compared to Windows. I believe OS X has gained more than Linux, due to the crappyness of Windows 10.
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide

But this is including the glorified typewriters  A while ago there was a poll on this forum showing 30% or so is primarily on Linux and another 30% is using Linux regulary. I have several customers which are using Linux as their primary OS. Windows is only on a few computers used for administrative work. Even Altium is working on a Linux version.

[beanflying]

Start a topic INDIRECTLY about Microsoft and get 20 posts about Linux supposed superiority

Gates for all his pros and cons over decades is now 64 more than a few of us would hope to be retired by about this time so why not he can afford it 

[Bud]

Yes but it marks the end of the era, so to speak.

[james_s]

Nutthing wrong with W10 at all, just the performance and stability benefits are well worth it.

If it works for you then by all means use it. Personally I loathe it, I find the user interface absolutely fugly, the ridiculous mobile apps and promotional garbage that respawns frequently with the forced updates to be obnoxious, the way it "helpfully" removes software I installed because it thinks it isn't compatible, replaces working drivers with broken ones, updates whenever it damn well pleases, and many other things to be completely unacceptable. I hear they made the updates a little less obnoxious although one of the few friends I know who uses it still complains that every time he turns on that computer (runs his VR rig so not used all that often) he has to wait an hour for the stupid thing to install updates. Then there is the fact that Search is so utterly and completely broken, for such a fundamental feature that has been perfected for decades I don't even know how it manages to be so bad. I remember trying to find documents that I knew were on my laptop and it would start searching the @#%& internet for what I typed in. I got so fed up fighting with that OS that I swore I would never touch it again, it makes my blood pressure rise just thinking about it.

I spent a significant part of my early career working at MS and loved the company and many of the products at the time but now the only current MS product I still use is Office on my work Mac.

[james_s]

Sounds like they finally got the message and improved a lot. Unfortunately it's too little too late, you only get one shot at a first impression and they screwed the pooch royally, my experience with it was *so* horrible that it put me off on it for good. It was so bad that it motivated me to shift most of my stuff over to Linux and the Mac I have for work and I never looked back. Once I was pushed away I realized I don't really need Windows anymore except for all the old software that requires it.

[tautech]

Sorta forced to use W10 James for customer tech support otherwise I might still be on W7 like many others. Ran a dual boot of 7 and 8.1 for a while for the same reason so got a good look at 8.1 before 10 came along and waited a while till it was sorted and made a headlong jump to 10 exclusively.
Been the W way since 3.11 and used most but not all W incarnations along the way and if nothing else learnt, unless you keep with the times updating to a much later W version is hard.
10 does all it's shit in the background as far as I'm concerned as has little effect on my daily doings other than the odd rare reboot after an update which is pretty fast if your OS is on a SSD. 15-20s boot times leave all other W versions for dead IME.

[jancumps]

That's the problem you get with […] people not giving people local admin rights because it supposedly sounds scary.

[…]

once I put my internal bias aside, and had local admin rights etc, it was better than W7. Until I hard deleted Cortana because it drove me nuts and as a consequence broke the search function...

Didn’t you just show why not giving local admin can be a good decision?

[all_repair]

I don't think Microsoft will suddenly fail any time soon. I think it's more likely they'll just carry on as they are, without growing or shrinking much. There's no reason why the desktop is going to switch away from Windows and companies will always need desktop computers.

What I know is Each time when someone need to reinstall his machine, the chance he pays for another copy of his paid uSoft office is more than 50%.   For many I know, is 100% each time.

[Zero999]

Many Linux advocates have been predicting Linux will widely replacing Windows on the desktop for over 20 years now and so far its market share has hardly increased at all. I can't see it happening any time soon

It is happening. Just not in offices where a Windows PC is nothing more than a glorified typewriter. Take these away and you'll see very high percentages. Linux is big enough in engineering that a lot of companies already have Linux support or are working on it.

Where's the evidence to support this? Quickly Googling shows Linux is just under 1.9% which is tiny, compared to Windows. I believe OS X has gained more than Linux, due to the crappyness of Windows 10.
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide

But this is including the glorified typewriters  A while ago there was a poll on this forum showing 30% or so is primarily on Linux and another 30% is using Linux regulary. I have several customers which are using Linux as their primary OS. Windows is only on a few computers used for administrative work. Even Altium is working on a Linux version.

But this forum represents a small subsection of desktop users.

I agree Windows 10 is a turd and am currently typing this from a Linux PC, but that won't change the fact that Linux has a comparatively small user base, compare to Windows and there are no signs of that changing soon.

[Karel]

Quickly Googling shows Linux is just under 1.9% which is tiny, compared to Windows.

Because that number includes houesewives and gamers.
In engineering, that number is at least a ten times higher.
Even higher in software development.

[Electro Detective]

Billy G got Win10Doh'D on his home PC, like MANY others     and decided to get out while the getting was good

i.e. he knows it's a dud and isn't hanging around for any blow to his rep, or fingers crossed on Win 12   

Smart guys know when to do a runner   

[ggchab]

Today, Windows is simply an OS like any other OS and I don't think Microsoft is still making a lot of money with it. Many people moved for free to Windows 10 and its maintenance is probably very expensive. I would not even be surprised if one day, the kernel of Windows moved to a Linux kernel.
As for many other companies, the future of Microsoft is probably in services: Office 365, Sharepoint, ...

[beanflying]

Quickly Googling shows Linux is just under 1.9% which is tiny, compared to Windows.

Because that number includes houesewives and gamers.
In engineering, that number is at least a ten times higher.
Even higher in software development.

Show your evidence for this assertion or I call  And yet again Linux over Windoze is way off topic and has been thrashed to death so many times 

[all_repair]

What I know is Each time when someone need to reinstall his machine, the chance he pays for another copy of his paid uSoft office is more than 50%.   For many I know, is 100% each time.

Just happened to me. So I gave LO a try. To my surprise, LO has finally sorted out the Win10 sluggish issue and Win10 HiDPI issue.
So, no more MS Office for me.

BTW, each retail MS Office license can be activated 4 times on different machines, and no more than once per month.
For people like me who have a really bad luck with computers (bad pixels, bad memory, etc., all sorts of returns), the activation limit runs out pretty quickly.

Also just FYI, Office 365 can be roamed, so if you move form computer to computer frequently, 365 is not a bad choice.
As for me, I pay it, I need to own it. I ideologically repel the idea of subscription-based software.
But considering the activation mechanism essentially makes me not owning a perpetual license either, I'm saying goodbye to MS Office at all.

As for Windows, every computer from a big brand comes with a copy of it, and there are sorta illegal but working $15 Pro upgrade keys on the Internet, so $15 per computer change is acceptable for me.

For the average Joe, when they need to reinstall, they likely have lost the activation code, or didn't know they have to keep them at all  .

[Karel]

https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#technology-_-developers-primary-operating-systems

[Karel]

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/what_s-your-main-operating-system/

[golden_labels]

With Windows Microsoft was caught in the trap of misunderstanding that software development is not like any other industry. Pieces of software do not wear out if you use them a lot, so there is no demand driven by the need for replacement or repair⁽¹⁾. Once a given problem is properly solved in software, there is very little room for further improvement (compared to other industries) and if any occurs it’s rarely perceived by the customer as worth paying for. You can’t sell a copy of an operating system and hope the user will come to you after 3 years to get a new version: it doesn’t have 2× larger image sensor, it’s not 2× faster, it doesn’t come packed with three times more features, it’s not half as cheap to run. As long as there are some things you didn’t solved in your product, you may expect demand, but later you end up with a product you must maintain indefinitely despite no one wants to pay for it anymore. With hope that perhaps technological progress will create new problems to solve, and forcing the customers to pay by preventing them from getting updates for older versions.⁽²⁾

Companies like Microsoft are built on the belief many early programmers had: that software development is not different than other industries, but they can develop a product once and then forever profit from it with little effort. Reality has shown that that effort is far from being small, but at the time no one knew this. But software development is different. Some of the differences were patched using state interventionism and creating the artificial market. Some other issues were addressed by practices like cutting users off from updates, intentionally introducing icompatibilities, damaging official documentation, producing problem to solve etc. But one can’t make money forever by going against reality.

Though I would be happy to see the world without Microsoft, I doubt there are any reasons to think they will fall anytime soon. The company may simply do what they were always doing: buy a product at bargain price from another company, polish it a bit, rebrand it as their own, sell at much higher price, and if competition comes — just FUD or EEE them.

____
⁽¹⁾ Though Windows is somehow an exception and requires periodic reinstalls or at least heavy renovation.
⁽²⁾ Not to be confused with the general EOL of LTS versions, which is only about platform stability.

[Zero999]

(Attachment Link)

https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#technology-_-developers-primary-operating-systems

(Attachment Link)

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/what_s-your-main-operating-system/

Quickly Googling shows Linux is just under 1.9% which is tiny, compared to Windows.

Because that number includes houesewives and gamers.
In engineering, that number is at least a ten times higher.
Even higher in software development.

So, what's your point? I already knew that. Do you really think I didn't come across those statistics during my Google searches? Developers represent only a tiny percentage of the desktop computing market!

The only way I can see Linux increasing its desktop market share is by more causal users having their computing needs met more by games consoles, smartphones and tablet devices, than by desktop computers. If the Linux desktop market share increases, it'll be because the total number of desktop computers declines and it will be the Windows users who stop using them, leaving a proportionally higher number of Linux users, rather than more people using Linux.

With Windows Microsoft was caught in the trap of misunderstanding that software development is not like any other industry. Pieces of software do not wear out if you use them a lot, so there is no demand driven by the need for replacement or repair⁽¹⁾. Once a given problem is properly solved in software, there is very little room for further improvement (compared to other industries) and if any occurs it’s rarely perceived by the customer as worth paying for. You can’t sell a copy of an operating system and hope the user will come to you after 3 years to get a new version: it doesn’t have 2× larger image sensor, it’s not 2× faster, it doesn’t come packed with three times more features, it’s not half as cheap to run. As long as there are some things you didn’t solved in your product, you may expect demand, but later you end up with a product you must maintain indefinitely despite no one wants to pay for it anymore. With hope that perhaps technological progress will create new problems to solve, and forcing the customers to pay by preventing them from getting updates for older versions.⁽²⁾

Companies like Microsoft are built on the belief many early programmers had: that software development is not different than other industries, but they can develop a product once and then forever profit from it with little effort. Reality has shown that that effort is far from being small, but at the time no one knew this. But software development is different. Some of the differences were patched using state interventionism and creating the artificial market. Some other issues were addressed by practices like cutting users off from updates, intentionally introducing icompatibilities, damaging official documentation, producing problem to solve etc. But one can’t make money forever by going against reality.

Though I would be happy to see the world without Microsoft, I doubt there are any reasons to think they will fall anytime soon. The company may simply do what they were always doing: buy a product at bargain price from another company, polish it a bit, rebrand it as their own, sell at much higher price, and if competition comes — just FUD or EEE them.

____
⁽¹⁾ Though Windows is somehow an exception and requires periodic reinstalls or at least heavy renovation.
⁽²⁾ Not to be confused with the general EOL of LTS versions, which is only about platform stability.

Software doesn't wear out but hardware does and software will always need to be modified to run on newer hardware. Try installing MS-DOS and 3.1 on a modern machine and using it to post here and watch YouTube.

[rdl]

It's actually kind of funny, Microsoft generated so much bad press for themselves with the release of Windows 10 that many people were turned against it without ever seeing it or using it.

[nctnico]

Developers represent only a tiny percentage of the desktop computing market!

But developers and engineers (too) run very expensive software and have much larger budgets to spend on software and hardware. That is an interesting market to be in. And if that market starts to shift to a different OS then software and hardware providers have to move along otherwise they are going to lose sales.

[james_s]

Software doesn't wear out but hardware does and software will always need to be modified to run on newer hardware. Try installing MS-DOS and 3.1 on a modern machine and using it to post here and watch YouTube.

The cycle is much, much longer today though. DOS/Win3.1 on a modern machine is a HUGE gap, but you can install WinXP or Win7 on a new machine in a lot of cases and you can install Win10 on a 10+ year old machine. It may not be the most painless experience but it will work.

Hardware and software used to both evolve rapidly. I remember being able to upgrade my 2-3 year old PC and get something that was dramatically faster, I could do who categories of things that the old machine wasn't capable of. It's been a LONG time since I've had that experience, even several years ago when I built a new core i7 to replace a 10 year old Pentium4 the difference was not *that* dramatic. Today it's not that a big stretch to use a 10-15 year old system for productive work, while a 5 year old machine is absolutely fine for all but high end niche stuff. That would have been absolutely unheard of in the 90s and early 2000's.

[SiliconWizard]

It's been a LONG time since I've had that experience, even several years ago when I built a new core i7 to replace a 10 year old Pentium4 the difference was not *that* dramatic.

Yeah, well I also remember going from a P4 (with HT I think) to a i7-920. For computing-intensive stuff, the difference was very significant, but for more mundane tasks, it was almost unnoticeable. So yeah it all depends on your needs.

Another major point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law

which makes hardware upgrades progressively look like they are insignificant.

But we're still seeing major improvements with the trend to add more cores. Of course it's useful only for software making full use of that. For servers, the gain is obvious. For desktop computing, it will show only with very specific software such as video or 3D rendering, intensive simulation stuff, etc.

[nctnico]

Software doesn't wear out but hardware does and software will always need to be modified to run on newer hardware. Try installing MS-DOS and 3.1 on a modern machine and using it to post here and watch YouTube.

The cycle is much, much longer today though. DOS/Win3.1 on a modern machine is a HUGE gap, but you can install WinXP or Win7 on a new machine in a lot of cases and you can install Win10 on a 10+ year old machine. It may not be the most painless experience but it will work.

Hardware and software used to both evolve rapidly. I remember being able to upgrade my 2-3 year old PC and get something that was dramatically faster, I could do who categories of things that the old machine wasn't capable of. It's been a LONG time since I've had that experience, even several years ago when I built a new core i7 to replace a 10 year old Pentium4 the difference was not *that* dramatic. Today it's not that a big stretch to use a 10-15 year old system for productive work, while a 5 year old machine is absolutely fine for all but high end niche stuff. That would have been absolutely unheard of in the 90s and early 2000's.

For the PC platform that is true. I replaced a core i730 (IIRC) with a high end Xeon a couple of years ago and the difference in processing power isn't that much. In the last decade the best performance upgrades I have done where parallel RAID and SSD.

However on the ARM platform there is huge progress. For a project I'm working on I do development on the ARM platform itself. It runs all the tools and IDE necessary. I'll admit it is a bit slower but not immensely.

[james_s]

The main point is the issue of software "wearing out" is not really a thing anymore, it used to become rapidly obsolete but that has slowed to a crawl, hence the push toward subscription. They cannot entice people to shell out money for a new version every couple of years anymore because the software is mature, the 20 year old MS Office 2000 is still totally usable today, for the average home user who wants to write a document, print a newsletter, put their household budget in a spreadsheet, etc it simply does not matter. Going to subscription allows the company to keep extracting the money that would have previously been spent on new versions while not really having to deliver anything of substance. I mean what more compelling functionality can really be added to Office productivity software? It's a very mature area, it's a solved problem.

[nctnico]

Agreed. On the topic of MS Office: the older Office software works much better. Try to use style formatting in the newer Word versions for example. It is a total mess compared to Word 2003 and earlier. Learning a new UI is something I can overcome but a newer version being worse compared to the older one is just sad.

[james_s]

I stopped updating most software after being burned numerous times by newer versions that are worse than old ones. One of my pet peeves is the search functionality. Up into XP search worked very well, it would easily find any files I was looking for. In Win7 search is a lot more cumbersome and less effective, in Win10 search is worse than useless. I use a tool called "Everything" on Win7 and it works the way search should work. I just don't understand how such a basic and fundamental OS feature as file searching could be so badly bungled. It was perfected decades ago, why can't they get it right now?

[Electro Detective]

It's actually kind of funny, Microsoft generated so much bad press for themselves with the release of Windows 10 that many people were turned against it without ever seeing it or using it.

It was another Vista train wreck dumped on the initial victims and 'must have it first-ers'  that copped it for 'FREE', so it got a bad vibe

Anyone with an I.T. clue would not touch it with a 10 foot frozen network cable   

Win 10 just needs a few tweaks and or REAL user control options,  to make it a Win-ner   

But if MS prefer to keep it as it is, then perhaps they enjoy losing out on OEM pre-paid COA licenses PC income from big players Dell, HP, Acer, and many others
who may be running scared from flogging Win10 as they once did with positive consumer OS 2000, XP and 7,
and hey 8 and 8.1 are ok too 

and MS diehards sticking to their older 'no longer supported' OS with any 3rd party browser and security software  that works   
or risk customers running for Linux    or Mac ( ) salvation

It's on them really, not the customer who was at one time 'always right'
downgraded now to 'stfu b!tch' 

[james_s]

They pushed it SO hard too, surreptitiously slipping advertisements for it onto users PC using malware-like techniques, downloading gigabytes in the background without user permission or informing them of what was happening, deliberately misleading dialogs intended to trick the user into installing it, repeatedly pushing out the update under different names to catch people who had deliberatly unselected and removed it, then quietly changing it to a recommended update so that users with the default setting would wake up one day to find their whole OS replaced. The whole thing was rude and reeked of incredible hubris and desperation. It made me lose all trust in Windows Update, something that previously I had trusted almost completely. They threw that trust away overnight and have done far too little to earn it back.

[Marco]

I don't think it was a mistake, it was very profitable

That's probably what caused some of the problems, the subscription service was like printing money ... but that business model didn't exactly work on PC. So we got the incredible delays of DirectX 12, until Mantle forced their hand, the dismantling of their PC gaming division etc.

Of course when Microsoft finally did decide to modernize the OS we got UWP and Windows RT, so maybe it was just always a lost cause.

[DimitriP]

I just don't understand how such a basic and fundamental OS feature as file searching could be so badly bungled. It was perfected decades ago, why can't they get it right now?

Decades ago, the user had unfettered acces to any and all files.
So did malware installers

Now we have "users" like "Local Session ID" and "Trusted Installer".
So you can't just go looking for files ...you gotta use the index ...

[james_s]

I just don't understand how such a basic and fundamental OS feature as file searching could be so badly bungled. It was perfected decades ago, why can't they get it right now?

Decades ago, the user had unfettered acces to any and all files.
So did malware installers

Now we have "users" like "Local Session ID" and "Trusted Installer".
So you can't just go looking for files ...you gotta use the index ...

Well, the tool "Everything" works wonderfully so why can't that functionality be integrated into the OS? If it's part of the OS, it can be validated and trusted to have access to the files. It's so stupid how it will search the internet when all I want to do is find something on my local machine. If I wanted to search the internet I know how to open a browser and do that. Never once have I wanted to search the web or find an app in the store from the search box in the start menu.

[DimitriP]

It's so stupid how it will search the internet when all I want to do is find something on my local machine.

You are just stuck in the "old ways" of getting things done
Always beware of smart boneheads with decision making authority.
Every company has one, Microsoft being a very large company has many.

[Marco]

It's on them really, not the customer who was at one time 'always right'

Though I don't think they handled it well, they are kind of between a rock and a hard place. Google and Apple.

Google can do everything cheaper, because they datamine their customers with no restraint. Apple's reality distortion field allows them to pull customers and devs along at a much higher pace and turn old OS versions into abandonware without anyone batting an eye. That combined with the stable hardware platforms makes them hard to compete against for Microsoft. Having a single Windows for almost everyone which just continually updates would make it a bit easier for them to compete.

When all customers are always right, you get a really messy codebase.

[SiliconWizard]

One thing I'm wondering - this is purely hypothetical - is: what if MS eventually open-sourced Windows, or at least the Windows kernel?

Would that spark a real interest (beyond just for legacy reasons), would some people/companies actually choose Windows over say Linux (again if there was no legacy reason forcing them to choose Windows only)?

[MadTux]

One thing I'm wondering - this is purely hypothetical - is: what if MS eventually open-sourced Windows, or at least the Windows kernel?

Would that spark a real interest (beyond just for legacy reasons), would some people/companies actually choose Windows over say Linux (again if there was no legacy reason forcing them to choose Windows only)?

Probably no, but building Windows API integration into Linux would be much easier, since Wine is mostly done by reverse engineering.

I guess cleaning Windows code mess back into a slick and fast operating system would take a while. The first thing that probably would happen is that it gets a new and more usable Window manager.

[rdl]

I doubt an open source version of Windows would see much interest. I think if they released a consumer oriented, subscription version of Enterprise Windows 10 with its better control over Microsoft's shenanigans, they would probably make more money than whatever they're getting now from the "free" version of Windows 10. As long as the rent was reasonable.

[james_s]

Don't give them any ideas. To each their own, but I steadfastly refuse to rent software. I don't need or want it to be constantly twiddled with following the latest fads. I don't know whether open source would matter or not, Windows is already effectively free, instead of charging for the product they are trying to monetize the users and use Windows as a platform to push MS services. I recognize the dilemma they face but I refuse to play that game.

[Electro Detective]

Why rent software if paid software and freeware from 10 years ago still gets it done in most cases. Just rent any current 'must have' software you need, not the entire OS.
It's machine code, not a car or truck or tools with parts and consumables to wear out   

 The OEM PC sellers Dell, HP, Acer etc should pressure MS for Win 10 Home/Pro version/s that can be fully User controlled
and auto activated via Bios boot stuff etc as used to be the case since XP right up to 7.

This way MS get their license money up front, the OEMs sell their PCs complete with OS and legit COA,
and the customer fires up their new Win 10 PC that just works out of the box,
with an OS that behaves and does what it's TOLD,
an OS that doesn't meander off to the internet to play the sneaky unauthorized update game,
messing up or confusing system files on what was a stable PC the day before,
with the user going nuts    believing THEY did something wrong     or got 'hacked' by their ex or the cable guy 

But..that's just TOO EASY, right? 
and what would peeps blabbing on an electronics forum know anyway how computers and business works ? 

[james_s]

What adware is in Apple's OS's? I'm not an apple fanboy but I do have a macbook at work and an iphone at home and I don't recall seeing an ad or promotion in the OS. Some of the apps you can get are ad supported but the ones you pay for are typically not.

[Electro Detective]

Thanks blueskull      I wasn't aware (or paid attention/cared TBH) that operating systems have devolved into a data mining circus side show 

I'll stick to my vintage 'no longer supported' paid up legit OEM OS's and apps that still work 

and keep them alive with 3rd party browsers and anti-malware programs that are supported by real people with email addresses
that reply asap, and resolve any issues =     


There's enough to think about in 2020, without a bossy boots smart@ss OS Fing things up 

[rdl]

Sadly, Windows is a necessity if you play games. A game I really want to play that only runs on Windows 10 would be the only reason for me to install it. And that is almost certain to happen eventually.

I did take a look at Windows 10 last year to see for myself how bad it really was. Within an hour I found at least five things about it that I know I couldn't put up with on a day to day basis. I'm pretty sure it can be fixed, but I'd be willing to pay a couple of bucks a month to save me from fighting with it.

[SiliconWizard]

Sadly, Windows is a necessity if you play games. A game I really want to play that only runs on Windows 10 would be the only reason for me to install it. And that is almost certain to happen eventually.

Yeah. If you're a "serious" gamer, I can see why that would be a problem not having Windows. I myself only use (sparingly) gaming consoles these days for games, but that doesn't fit everyone.

One application (even though I haven't used that in a while now) I would sort of miss is Flight Simulator X. Fortunately, it can run on older versions of Windows so you can grab just any (starting with Win2000 I think? Or XP? I've used it on Win 7 and it runs fine.) There is no equivalent on other platforms IMO. Sure there is XPlane, but I still tend to like MS FSX better overall. I've heard MS was planning to get back to it and finally release a new version. Dunno how that's coming along... haven't heard about it in a while.

[james_s]

No argument there, even my friend who has been a hardcore Linux guy using it as his primary OS for >10 years has a Windows machine for gaming. I haven't been much of a gamer in years and most of the games I do still play occasionally will either run in Dosbox or like Doom and Duke3d have new engines that will run under Linux so I'm pretty well set. If you want to play the latest PC games though there is really no other option but computers are cheap enough that it's not unreasonable to have a dedicated gaming PC along with a laptop or other computers for other tasks.

[olkipukki]

Open-source Windows and folding Microsoft? 
It's like predict that Apple will hand-over MacOS to 3rd parties again   


https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar19/index.html

Windows 10 continues to gain traction in the enterprise as the most secure and productive operating system. It empowers people with AI-first interfaces ranging from voice-activated commands through Cortana, inking, immersive 3D content storytelling, and mixed reality experiences. Windows also plays a critical role in fueling our cloud business and Microsoft 365 strategy, and it powers the growing range of devices on the “intelligent edge.” Our ambition for Windows 10 monetization opportunities includes gaming, services, subscriptions, and search advertising.

MS can offer Windows for free, why they would do it if no alternative around?

It would be great if MS starts to offer Windows rent only and charge, say $9.99 monthly) fees from ordinary folks.
Sounds terrible, but only something else (Linux? oh dear) eventually can reveal itself.
 

Using Windows to fuel our cloud business and Microsoft 365 strategy, and to develop new categories of devices – both our own and third-party – on the intelligent edge.

Windows 10X is coming, be ready 

[Electro Detective]

Windows 10X is coming, be ready 

If I see Billy G. actually using Win 10X  (no staged bs) I'll give it a go 

Does the  'X' imply it's a p0rn surfers OS with subscription ?   

Not my cuppa tea but might be a goer for some 

[SiliconWizard]

10X? I thought they said that 10 was going to be the last Windows version ever!

Ah the little fuckers...

[Stray Electron]

10X? I thought they said that 10 was going to be the last Windows version ever!

Ah the little fuckers...

  Other great lies:

  The check is in the mail.
  It's only a cold sore.
  Upgrade to Windows 98 from Win 95 and you'll never see another blue screen.

[Sal Ammoniac]

This way MS get their license money up front, the OEMs sell their PCs complete with OS and legit COA,
and the customer fires up their new Win 10 PC that just works out of the box,
with an OS that behaves and does what it's TOLD,
an OS that doesn't meander off to the internet to play the sneaky unauthorized update game,

The problem with PCs with an OS that doesn't get updated is they become vulnerable to exploits and wind up as part of botnets. Making updates optional doesn't help here because most won't bother to update their systems ever.

[james_s]

For all the talk about exploits and vulnerabilities, I've yet to see it happen on a consumer PC. I've cleaned up many dozens of infected machines and always without exception the user had installed something. As long as the browser is up to date the biggest most wide open attack vector is the user. Next probably the browser, I use Adblock and Noscript always. Not saying it's impossible, but the risks of running an old unpatched operating system are dramatically overblown and the resistance to updating is Microsoft's own doing by bundling security updates with feature and UI changes, and by requiring a stream of constant reboots.

[SiliconWizard]

I agree that most infections I've ever witnessed came from the installation of an infected third-party program, either directly through a voluntary download, or a bit more sneaky through the installation of a browser extension/add-on for instance.

UAC has improved the situation dramatically, although unfortunately many people have considered it an annoyance and tried their best to bypass it or at least just ignore it and validate confirmation dialogs blindly.

Automatic updates have been Windows' default for ages anyway, so the basic user not really knowing what they're doing were likely to just have left them enabled. The difference is that advanced users had the opportunity to disable that. One side-problem of automatic updates, especially a-la "windows 10", is that they're assuming computers should be left powered on at all times so that updates can be  done when the user is not actively using the computer. Since many users are reasonable and just shut down or at least put their computer to sleep when not using it, the updates will inevitably occur at a moment when it will bug the heck out of the user. This is a very simple, yet terrible issue there. It's just a call for sucking up useless power if people want the updates to be less annoying to them.

Beyond the technical security points, I find it pretty "interesting" per se that any given company would become so untrustful of their customers for using their products properly that they would have to keep controlling said products forever once sold. To me, it clearly shows a very defective model here, whatever the reason. If the reason is that the software just can't be made secure enough without constant fixing, well, that's a major problem too IMO. Clearly some things to think about. But we all seem to be doing as if it were normal.

[nctnico]

This way MS get their license money up front, the OEMs sell their PCs complete with OS and legit COA,
and the customer fires up their new Win 10 PC that just works out of the box,
with an OS that behaves and does what it's TOLD,
an OS that doesn't meander off to the internet to play the sneaky unauthorized update game,

The problem with PCs with an OS that doesn't get updated is they become vulnerable to exploits and wind up as part of botnets. Making updates optional doesn't help here because most won't bother to update their systems ever.

You have to divide that into OS updates and application updates. OS updates are less important since the biggest attack vector are the applications. Now the problem with Windows is that there isn't a very clear dividing line between the OS and the applications. The WMF attack comes to mind as an example.

[Sal Ammoniac]

For all the talk about exploits and vulnerabilities, I've yet to see it happen on a consumer PC. I've cleaned up many dozens of infected machines and always without exception the user had installed something. As long as the browser is up to date the biggest most wide open attack vector is the user. Next probably the browser, I use Adblock and Noscript always. Not saying it's impossible, but the risks of running an old unpatched operating system are dramatically overblown and the resistance to updating is Microsoft's own doing by bundling security updates with feature and UI changes, and by requiring a stream of constant reboots.

I've seen it happen on three PCs, but those machines were basically servers (although they were running a consumer version of Windows) that were never updated, either the OS or the apps.

[james_s]

For all the talk about exploits and vulnerabilities, I've yet to see it happen on a consumer PC. I've cleaned up many dozens of infected machines and always without exception the user had installed something. As long as the browser is up to date the biggest most wide open attack vector is the user. Next probably the browser, I use Adblock and Noscript always. Not saying it's impossible, but the risks of running an old unpatched operating system are dramatically overblown and the resistance to updating is Microsoft's own doing by bundling security updates with feature and UI changes, and by requiring a stream of constant reboots.

I've seen it happen on three PCs, but those machines were basically servers (although they were running a consumer version of Windows) that were never updated, either the OS or the apps.

Well that's not really the same thing. I mean if you have a server that is exposed to the outside world then yes you need to keep it up to date, but a non-server OS on a server is a problem in itself.

The problem is forced updates on desktop/laptop machines which not only rudely change features and functionality, annoyingly revert settings that the user deliberately took time to set and occasionally uninstall programs, but also they wake the machine in the middle of the night or hijack it for an hour or more right when you're trying to get some work done.

I've seen a business put on hold for over an hour when the PC they used for all the client invoicing and credit card processing decided to update in the middle of the work day, I've had my work laptop hijacked right at the start of a meetinrbg when I was about to present something. My friend who lives in a studio apartment has complained of his gaming PC waking up in the middle of the night, fans roaring and lights blazing to install updates. The whole thing is just poorly thought out, they have made some improvements but these are all things I would consider the bare minimum that should have shipped in the first place. An operating system as a service is not the way to go, users want to customize and control their OS.

[Karel]

... users want to customize and control their OS.

And microsoft don't want you to be in control anymore. They want to take over control of your pc.
And they are getting away with it. Most people don't care. And the people who care and who would
like to switch to another os can not do that because they need some special software that only runs on windows.
So, nothing is going to change and people wil continue to swallow it.

[Electro Detective]

   ..and how does one debate with herds of idiots, that think they know better than someone who actually does know better