Is Windows 7 the end of the line?

[Ole Juul]

Like it or not, the era of the personal computer is coming to an end. Because of that there simply won't be a market for an OS like W7 - it won't be worth Microsoft's while to develop or support it. The evolution of consumer computing appliances is one reason, but probably more important is that cloud computing is being so aggressively sold now. Business people are going to go with the hype.

There is a very strong business case for IT providers to hype the cloud. The appeal is that it gets people to pay a regular monthly fee. Cell phones are a good business for the same reason. You can charge for all features and keep upping the ante. No matter how much you would rather just buy a phone and pay a flat unlimited use fee, like you do with internet, the cell phone provider still likes it better the way they have it. I'm sure Microsoft would rather get $200 a month per seat than $500 every three years. Do the math. Companies selling computing services will push hard for that business dream to come true.

My long term guess is that Microsoft will stop developing a personal computer OS, start running Linux, and sell cloud services. Google has shown the way - and they're not running W7!

 

[Chuck(G)]

Well put, Ole. I think that's what many people are missing. What's been gnawing at the gut of many internet firms is that it's, well, too free..

Much more lucrative if it can be run like your mobile phone service. It might even give them control over the content...

 

[Unknown_K]

Well put, Ole. I think that's what many people are missing. What's been gnawing at the gut of many internet firms is that it's, well, too free..

Much more lucrative if it can be run like your mobile phone service. It might even give them control over the content...

Thats a good way to make Linux a viable desktop system, make people keep the monthly payments going to the big boys or you can't use your data.

Personaly I think the hardware should cost more then the software. If anything the OS should be $20 on a $200 computer. The reason I say that is because we will hit a wall where it is not worth making computers anymore and nobody will invest in R&D and come up with anything new. It costs way more money to create the hardware then software. If every software company today went out of existance we would be able to reinvent everything, if every computer hardware maker went extinct we will be hunting with sticks and rocks when the last C64 quits working.

 

[billdeg]

What I did was build a killer powerful i7 965 system with an x58 board, etc. and I use this for all of my PC needs remotely. It's installed at my office with backups, etc. and I tunnel into it from where ever I am using a laptop or my less powerful home pc or my netbook, etc. I basically use it as my software server so I only have to buy one copy of everything.

I will upgrade it from Vista to Win7 when I get the chance. Overall I have had no problems with Vista, but I did have to tinker with a few things to get it how I liked it first.

I can see the day were people will tunnel into their local ISP to use the software installed there using terminals from home. No need for a PC if you can access remotely.

I am thinking of experimenting to offer this service from my business.

Bill

 

[billdeg]

one other comment...for gaming you need a powerful PC, so for that reason the PC is not dead. I remember thinking in 1994 that UNIX was dead ... hard to know what will happen.

 

[tezza]

Yes, I recently read a book (forget the name) which speculated on the future of computing.

It's prediction was that we would eventually see the end of the general purpose desktop (and the general purpose OS). Computing will become like electricity. A service you subscribe to, be it for business, entertainment or communication needs. You'll get all your computing requirements through thin clients plugged into the wall and a lot of the processing and storage will be done in the cloud. Impossible until recently as the network (Internet) was too slow, unreliable and insecure but it's fast becoming feasible.

The "do everything" computer will become a thing of the past and instead will be replaced by inexpensive computer applicances tailored to their main task.

IT departments, present in all middle to large enterprises in order to satisfy their computing "needs" will largely disappear.

The predictions seem to make sense.

Tez

 

[krebizfan]

Yes, I recently read a book (forget the name) which speculated on the future of computing.

It's prediction was that we would eventually see the end of the general purpose desktop (and the general purpose OS). Computing will become like electricity. A service you subscribe to, be it for business, entertainment or communication needs. You'll get all your computing requirements through thin clients plugged into the wall and a lot of the processing and storage will be done in the cloud. Impossible until recently as the network (Internet) was too slow, unreliable and insecure but it's fast becoming feasible.

The "do everything" computer will become a thing of the past and instead will be replaced by inexpensive computer applicances tailored to their main task.

IT departments, present in all middle to large enterprises in order to satisfy their computing "needs" will largely disappear.

The predictions seem to make sense.

Tez

The return of the mainframe replete with highly paid consultants that work for the other company controlling all your data wrapped in a cute "web" bow. Even the pricing models for Windows Azure and the like match the old IBM model. The major difference is that a mainframe or mini would be in your building; the cloud system is somewhere else. When the cloud company goes under, all the underlying servers will be sold off. Was a bit more difficult to reclaim a System 360.

First big failure and companies will realize that local control of all business functions is worth spending a few dollars. Frankly, with the current listed cloud prices, cloud computing will cost much more than local systems except if one needs to ramp up for holiday orders and drop capacity right after.

 

[Ole Juul]

. . . First big failure and companies will realize that local control of all business functions is worth spending a few dollars. Frankly, with the current listed cloud prices, cloud computing will cost much more than local systems except if one needs to ramp up for holiday orders and drop capacity right after.

Yep, you got that one figured out.

Failures are no problem however. That just gives an opportunity to charge for extended services. At some point someone will invent a procedure that we might call "local storage" and they will have some new-fangled name for. Of course they will patent it! However, it is also possible that "data retention" could become illegal. There are quite a few factors that figure in how the future of computing will turn out - most of them don't actually have anything to do with computers.

 

[rebeltaz]

Like it or not, the era of the personal computer is coming to an end. Because of that there simply won't be a market for an OS like W7 - it won't be worth Microsoft's while to develop or support it. The evolution of consumer computing appliances is one reason, but probably more important is that cloud computing is being so aggressively sold now. Business people are going to go with the hype.

There is a very strong business case for IT providers to hype the cloud. The appeal is that it gets people to pay a regular monthly fee. Cell phones are a good business for the same reason. You can charge for all features and keep upping the ante. No matter how much you would rather just buy a phone and pay a flat unlimited use fee, like you do with internet, the cell phone provider still likes it better the way they have it. I'm sure Microsoft would rather get $200 a month per seat than $500 every three years. Do the math. Companies selling computing services will push hard for that business dream to come true.

My long term guess is that Microsoft will stop developing a personal computer OS, start running Linux, and sell cloud services. Google has shown the way - and they're not running W7!

Here's what I don't understand... why on earth are people (going to) buy into 'cloud computing' ? You are still going to have to buy the hardware. Then, instead of paying one price and using the software until you get tired of it (I am not a follower of the 'newer is better - have to upgrade' crowd), you pay a monthly fee to use software hosted on another companies computer (which has security problems written all over it in the first place) which will add up to more than the software would have cost you to begin with.

And I agree with UnknownK, the hardware should cost more than the software. That's why software is pirated as it is. If Adobe Photoshop didn't cost $1000 (as I fall out of my chair just reading that bloated figure!) do you really think people would be so quick to pirate it? I believe in honest work for honest pay, but you tell me what is honest about that number? That's why I am a Linux Lover.

One final parting thought - doesn't it just make you want to rush out a buy Windows 7 ($300? really?) when you see a commercial of a six year old kid telling you how great it is? I mean, hell, it must be fantastic if she thinks so, huh? Geesh! Sheeple... (or is that sheople?)

 

[Lutiana]

Here's what I don't understand... why on earth are people (going to) buy into 'cloud computing' ?

Cloud computing makes little sense to me, and subscription based software simply won't work in the retail market, it might work in the small business arena if the price is right (read low) and even corporate IT infrastructure won't buy into it.

Honestly, it was hard enough to get my customers to buy into a $200/mo service contract to maintain and repair their computer on a monthly basis, I shudder to think what they would have done if I told them their OS was that per month.

Bottom line IMO is that the computer as we know still has quite a lifespan left, but their prices will continue to drop and the industry will become more about the software than the hardware. I think that Juul has a point about appliance based computers, but I still think most users want a multi-functional machine (even if they don't use any of the functions).

 

[krebizfan]

Cloud computing is the solution for a dot-bomb; just a decade too late for Pets.com. Lots of the unsuccessful internet companies poured much of their VC building massive infrstructures for order volumes that never came. If cloud computing ever works, those companies could instead rent just enough computer time for what is needed right now and cheaply grow into profitability. And all the excess VC cash gets siphoned off by Google or Microsoft instead of propping up Sun and IBM.

But the savings are overstated. Cloud computing still requires as many local personnel to maintain terminals and the network as before. DBAs and programmers will still be needed, in about the same numbers. Okay, some systems adminstrative positions could be cut. In doing so, all the proven SQL client-server concepts are thrown out. Different database designs are needed; new failure points will have to be discovered. Unless a lot of mainframe programmers that remember time-sharing can be brought out of retirement, many cloud computing projects will have cost overruns and other rampant problems.

One other problem is how will the cloud computing supplier get all the hardware needed. The supplier needs to order capacity to cover all needs before any of the client companies figure out how much is needed. I just have this expectation that cloud computing suppliers will be stuck with large inventories of little used systems 11 months of the year. Some will set prices too low and go out of business; others will go for realistic prices and not get clients. Potential clients will find it cheaper building in house instead of relying on outside companies. Vulture consultants stand to make a lot of money cleaning up this mess while evangelist consultants will have made lots of money creating the mess.

 

[Unknown_K]

Cloud computing is the solution for a dot-bomb; just a decade too late for Pets.com. Lots of the unsuccessful internet companies poured much of their VC building massive infrstructures for order volumes that never came. If cloud computing ever works, those companies could instead rent just enough computer time for what is needed right now and cheaply grow into profitability. And all the excess VC cash gets siphoned off by Google or Microsoft instead of propping up Sun and IBM.

But the savings are overstated. Cloud computing still requires as many local personnel to maintain terminals and the network as before. DBAs and programmers will still be needed, in about the same numbers. Okay, some systems adminstrative positions could be cut. In doing so, all the proven SQL client-server concepts are thrown out. Different database designs are needed; new failure points will have to be discovered. Unless a lot of mainframe programmers that remember time-sharing can be brought out of retirement, many cloud computing projects will have cost overruns and other rampant problems.

One other problem is how will the cloud computing supplier get all the hardware needed. The supplier needs to order capacity to cover all needs before any of the client companies figure out how much is needed. I just have this expectation that cloud computing suppliers will be stuck with large inventories of little used systems 11 months of the year. Some will set prices too low and go out of business; others will go for realistic prices and not get clients. Potential clients will find it cheaper building in house instead of relying on outside companies. Vulture consultants stand to make a lot of money cleaning up this mess while evangelist consultants will have made lots of money creating the mess.

Basically sell people what they don't need at a higher cost with less reliability then what currently works so a few people can make a ton of money on something "new".