Microsoft Finally decides to ditch Windows Platform…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7540282.stm

Microsoft Finally decides to ditch Windows Platform…

good riddance!

About time. Vista was a train wreck, maybe Microsoft will hit a home run with this new operating system. In my opinion they should base it off XP because that is my second favorite to Leopard. We'll see though, thanks for the post though!

I see where Microsoft are coming from and it's a really good angle. The only catch is if they have many different so called servers based on one machine and if this one machine goes down, then big problems, well unless there are a few machines that have the same servers on them and are all constantly and simultaneously updated. Then it might work.

Overall anything to move away from Vista is a good thing. But XP did have it's good points and those shouldn't be lost either,

Zeels90 said:

About time. Vista was a train wreck, maybe Microsoft will hit a home run with this new operating system. In my opinion they should base it off XP because that is my second favorite to Leopard. We'll see though, thanks for the post though!

Click to expand...

You know that Vista is based off of XP, right?

Kash said:

You know that Vista is based off of XP, right?

Click to expand...

And XP is 85% win98...

No, it's really not, it's mostly Windows 2000 with a pretty face. Windows 2000 is based off the NT kernel, unlike 98 and its predecessors, which were based on the DOS kernel.

Either way, it's just regurgetated tripe!

I know that Vista is based off XP I just really didn't like Vista, and I really liked XP. Sure they are similar but XP seemed far less buggy and way more simple than Vista. That's just my opinion though.

The phrase "Pipe Dream" comes to mind.....

On a serious note...

I think the importance of cloud computing has been waaay over stated. If cloud computing was really the future, then people would not download their emails to Apple Mail, Outlook or Entourage. If cloud computing was the future, we'd all stream movies rather than want to download them, or own the discs. We'd stream music, rather than download them. There wouldn't be 3,000 applications out there that help you grab online video content (like YouTube clips) rather than simply watching them on-demand.

You see there is an inherent distrust of virtual data, and I doubt this is going to go away for a looong time. People think that unless you have the data on your own HDD, there could be issues. Additionally, even with 100 Mbps bandwidth, the lag and latency is still going to be an issue. Are application like Photoshop really going to process all your needs on the web? What about Logic Pro or Final Cut? When you think a simple court subpoena forced google to hand over the IP addresses of everyone who'd viewed copywrited content on YouTube, do you really think we'll be trusting our photo-libraries, music compositions, school papers or anything else to MS, Google or even Apple?

On a serious note...

I think the importance of cloud computing has been waaay over stated. If cloud computing was really the future, then people would not download their emails to Apple Mail, Outlook or Entourage. If cloud computing was the future, we'd all stream movies rather than want to download them, or own the discs. We'd stream music, rather than download them. There wouldn't be 3,000 applications out there that help you grab online video content (like YouTube clips) rather than simply watching them on-demand.

You see there is an inherent distrust of virtual data, and I doubt this is going to go away for a looong time. People think that unless you have the data on your own HDD, there could be issues. Additionally, even with 100 Mbps bandwidth, the lag and latency is still going to be an issue. Are application like Photoshop really going to process all your needs on the web? What about Logic Pro or Final Cut? When you think a simple court subpoena forced google to hand over the IP addresses of everyone who'd viewed copywrited content on YouTube, do you really think we'll be trusting our photo-libraries, music compositions, school papers or anything else to MS, Google or even Apple?

Click to expand...

I think you have the wrong idea (or maybe I do). I thought the only data that would be synced to a server or 'cloud' what be actual files made by the user and not applications etc…

shahvikram123 said:

I think you have the wrong idea (or maybe I do). I thought the only data that would be synced to a server or 'cloud' what be actual files made by the user and not applications etc…

Click to expand...

I think the eventual idea is the latter, but the interim idea is the former. Even so, what I said is still relevant. People rarely even leave their emails on the server, much less any other applications.

The idea is that the client does not need to be so powerful, as most of the effort is done in the cloud, so this certainly refers to applications, not just files.

My personal data will stay on MY personal computer and I will never use a server outside my house to store or work with it. Sorry.

And no, they want the Applications on a server also. They can keep it.

Kash said:

You know that Vista is based off of XP, right?

Click to expand...

just because its based off of xp doesnt make xp trash too. xp is a great operating system and a step forward.

sometimes operating systems just dont work out. look at windows me. I pity the fool with that on thier system. regardless how bad it was microsoft shoved it down peoples throat saying they will get used to it. it was never accepted. this is what is happening with vista. they are shoving it down peoples throat and folks / buisness dont want it. eventually it will die. just like windows me.

Good one Zoolook, one of the only people to puncture the whole cloud computing bubble, ever since MySpace and Facebook, tech journalists have been jumping on that old bandwagon.

I think a lot more data and info will go in to the so called cloud, but some things are just to impractical not to have locally, and after all we are human, we like things close at hand, we like to own some processions. I would not put my car in the cloud to be shared by other drivers.

Does anybody remember the NC in the late 1990s, the idea that we would all want a dumbed down PC light that would have its OS and apps on servers. Anybody who has used an NC will know they are slow and awful, and all the control is in someone else's hands

Anyway, on the whole Microsoft new blueskies OS thing. It sounds like another vague vapourware idea, basically MS are fearful of the whole Google apps on the web idea and are looking to try and keep making big money in a future where the net is everything (sounds like Neuromancer)

But if they can pull off a whole new non legacy fantastic computer platform, then good on them, but until I see anything beyond a codename and some woolly statements, I will hold my judgement

I remember the NC all too well. I was against it then and always will be. Sorry if that bothers anyone, but it's the way I am.

louishen said:

Does anybody remember the NC in the late 1990s, the idea that we would all want a dumbed down PC light that would have its OS and apps on servers. Anybody who has used an NC will know they are slow and awful, and all the control is in someone else's hands

Anyway, on the whole Microsoft new blueskies OS thing. It sounds like another vague vapourware idea, basically MS are fearful of the whole Google apps on the web idea and are looking to try and keep making big money in a future where the net is everything (sounds like Neuromancer)

But if they can pull off a whole new non legacy fantastic computer platform, then good on them, but until I see anything beyond a codename and some woolly statements, I will hold my judgement

Click to expand...

Indeed. The more I think about this, the more rediculous it seems. Things like SETI@home and folding@home are designed on the principle that thousands or millions of home computers are far better at processing things than even the most powerful servers owned by the biggest companies. Not to mention the cost of these things, when you consider energy expenses over the next 20 years, running these enourmous server farms is going to cost a fortune. Are the costs really going to be paid for by in-line ads?

I can understand the appeal of not having to buy new external HDDs for example every few years for our ever growing digital needs, in fact I already back up all my stuff to my 'own' server, encrypted and well hidden, rather than use .mac (MobileMe), but it's incredibly slow. I have more than 280GBs of data I consider 'critical'. A backup to even a Firewire 400 drive would only take an hour or two, to the web, could take 200 hours with my upload speeds and a computer restore would still take 10 hours, at least.

I know we're talking 5 years into the future, but I don't think cloud computing will take hold until:

-: We get 400 - 500 Mbps bandwidth on both wired and wireless broadband
-: You get <10 Msec latency on the above
-: Cloud servcies are private, and owned (not licensed) by the individual and so are considered private property (like a physical computer)
-: The shift to the cloud allows formfactors for Laptops to be 'ultra-portable' (as steve described the first ever iPod). i.e. it'll be a fold up screen and keyboard with virtually zero footprint when out away

At this point, it has a chance, assuming the users can be persuaded that virtual data is real and safe... and that is unlikely so long as Generation X (born 1960 - 1979) is dominant in the computing arena (which we currently are).

This is a reason to stick to Mac forever. I agree that I don't want to rely on a server for my files. I'm nervous enough trusting my HDD with important things. A huge breech of this server could leave many out of luck.

shahvikram123 said:

Microsoft Finally decides to ditch Windows Platform…

Click to expand...

Mac users are used to the rug being pulled out from under them. Apple has entirely switched platforms twice in the last decade, not counting the transition to Intel (since PPC's are still supported). So it makes sense when a company is researching things beyond "the normal thing" that it is immediately accepted as defeat, that the 'old' platform is no longer viable, and it's being abandoned. You've gone through this, you have no reason to really believe otherwise.

Now for the dose of how the rest of the world does things: Microsoft has been tinkering with alternate operating systems for *years*. They have a large research group, why wouldn't they be looking into alternatives and different ideas and directions? We don't look at a petroleum company researching alternative fuels and say that company is "abandoning oil." That's silly. It's equally silly to believe MS is going to just drop their flagship product on a moment's notice because people say mean things about it. MS still makes insane money; they can cry about bad reviews all the way to the bank.

A lot of the research MS has done on alternate OS's has ended up having pieces retrofitted back into Windows. Windows itself is a byproduct of research into an alternate OS to DOS from the 80's. The NT kernel, which would be the heart of the "replacement to DOS" didn't actually come out until a while *after* many of the pieces of it were already on millions of computers. In fact it took until late 2001, in Windows XP, for all of the various bits and pieces of research on OS techs to come together into a single product.

Given the way Windows is so embedded in computing today, I'd safely say we're going to be stuck with it for the indefinite future... for better or for worse. We're likely to see Apple switch platforms at least two more times before the last OEM stops offering Windows as a preload.