Will Vista Be the Last Operating System Microsoft Produces?
I don’t think Microsoft will ship another Operating System after Vista launches. I believe that a combination of technical difficulties and changing markets will prevent it from creating a product that is relevant in the market. Consider this, if the latest shipping dates are to be believed, it will have taken Microsoft over six years to get Windows Vista out the door and to its consumers. And based on past events, it is safe to assume that Vista will require at least one service pack before it is truly ready for use. Of course, factoring in the normal Microsoft delays for producing patches, such a comprehensive service pack will probably take another year before it can be released to users. That would mean that it will have taken Microsoft 7+ years to make a usable operating system.
Now consider how long it could take Microsoft to produce Vista’s successor. If the added complexity of this new OS increases the development time by only 25% (not an unreasonable figure) of what it took to make Vista, then it will have been in development for almost 8 years. That means if Vista comes out in 2007, it won’t be replaced until 2015. To put that into perspective, if Apple continues on with its release cycle of OS X (and factoring in increases in development time) they could, counting Leopard, release 4 to 5 new operating systems by the time Microsoft releases one.
But keeping up with Apple won’t be Microsoft’s biggest concern. What will prevent Microsoft from releasing another OS is the changing market. For Vista’s successor to have a hope of selling, the company has to assume that no fundamental shifts in technology will occur for almost a decade! That seems, overly optimistic at best. With Google threatening to release a web-based OS, and Apple potentially using virtualization to run all Windows applications, Microsoft might find that by the time it can cobble something together, it no longer has a market interested in its product.
Microsoft will find itself in this position (or one like it) all too soon, and it has no one but itself to blame. Here are the two biggest factors that are slowly killing Microsoft from within.
Code base
The amount of code that makes up Windows has simply become too large to work with. Now, you can blame this on anything you want (backwards compatibiliy would be high on my list), but ultimately the cause doesn’t matter. What matters is that building new features has become impossible, and debugging this mess has become impossible + 1. This was most clearly witnessed when Bill Gates got up onstage and informed his eager audience that the codebase for Vista had become so large and tangled that they simply had to throw it all away and start over from a point they knew was stable. Guess what? That problem isn’t going to go away by throwing another service pack at it. With each version of Windows released the amount of code grows and the strain gets greater. However, the amount of code isn’t the only problem here. The structure of the OS itself is fundamentally flawed. There are too many antiquated ideas (drive letters, the registry, etc.) and constraining bounds (NTFS) to allow for anymore growth. A drastic rewrite is the only way to solve this problem. The only real question Microsoft needs to ask is how much should we rewrite?
Management
The last few years has seen a flurry of restructuring at Microsoft. Key people have left (most noticably for Google) and even loyal employees who still believe the hype have begun to criticize management and air their grievances on personal blogs. The leadership of Microsoft has failed miserably and Vista is only the beginning in what looks to be an impressive series of embarrassments. It is time for a change. If Microsoft still hopes to be in the OS market a decade from now then those changes can’t come soon enough.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
I would like to believe that this is the case, but Mr. Stoup has not provided any alternatives.
The truth is that there are way too many Windows systems out there, and that number grows significantly every day. For Microsoft to be replaced, there must be another alternative.
Linux just isn’t there. That may no longer be the case 10+ years from now, but for the foreseeable future, it just takes too much knowledge to bring and adminster a Linux system.
Mr. Stoup does imply that the Apple OS would be an alternative, but not with the current Apple philosophy that Apple OS only runs on Apple hardware. Apple simply can not produce enough computers to keep up with the rest of the computer manufacturers, much less displace them.
The only realistic hope I see is that Apple will someday realize that there is more money in the OS than in the computer (Look at the relative financials of Microsoft vs. Dell), and allow their OS to run on other PC’s.
I had hoped that this was going to be the ultimate plan for Apple, but the more I see from them, the less likely this scenario looks.
Unless Apple sets its sights on Microsoft, I think Microsoft will be around for a long time to come.
OK, let’s take a look at this article one controversial sentence at a time:
“I don’t think Microsoft will ship another Operating System after Vista launches.”
Whoa, whoa whoa- what? Are you kidding? Microsoft controls 90% of the OS market. Almost all of the world’s software runs on it. Millions and millions of websites are managed using their server software. And you just expect them to DROP IT? The only way software is going to get better and better is through a better OS that can run it, and I don’t think millions and millions of developers are just going to port their software for Mac OS X; Windows is here to stay, and as much as you may hate it, that’s the reality of it.
“I believe that a combination of technical difficulties and changing markets will prevent it from creating a product that is relevant in the market”
Here’s something for you to think about: If you remember, back in 1996, Apple was having tremendous problems with the Mac OS and their newest project, Copland. It was only when Steve Jobs took over, two years later, that they started to get back on track. So by that logic, wouldn’t Apple be dead by now?
“Consider this, if the latest shipping dates are to be believed, it will have taken Microsoft over six years to get Windows Vista out the door and to its consumers.”
1991: Mac OS 7.
1997: Mac OS 8.
“And based on past events, it is safe to assume that Vista will require at least one service pack before it is truly ready for use. Of course, factoring in the normal Microsoft delays for producing patches, such a comprehensive service pack will probably take another year before it can be released to users. That would mean that it will have taken Microsoft 7+ years to make a usable operating system.”
I can’t find any concrete evidence that supports your opinion, at least, not from a site that doesn’t obsessively support Apple.
“What will prevent Microsoft from releasing another OS is the changing market. For Vista’s successor to have a hope of selling, the company has to assume that no fundamental shifts in technology will occur for almost a decade!”
“Changing market”? What, are we switching over to PowerPC or something? And Vista doesn’t have to have a hope of selling, nor does the market get to change- when Vista is being distributed on practically every PC in the world.
“With Google threatening to release a web-based OS, and Apple potentially using virtualization to run all Windows applications, Microsoft might find that by the time it can cobble something together, it no longer has a market interested in its product.”
How much market share did Mac OS X gain in the past 5 years? Enough to kill Windows? No. Chances are Google isn’t going to have much luck killing Windows either. And for Apple to implement virtualization to run Windows applications, they would still need help from Microsoft so they could keep it updated. And it doesn’t make much sense for Microsoft just to update Windows for Apple, would it?
“The amount of code that makes up Windows has simply become too large to work with.”
That’s what Microsoft’s engineers are paid to do, James. And when you have an OS that has to be backwards-compatible, you really don’t have a choice but to write lots of code. Also, most of that code comes from having to keep consistent security updates going, and when almost all of the world’s viruses are targeted at your OS, you can’t just let it sit there, can you?
“A drastic rewrite is the only way to solve this problem. The only real question Microsoft needs to ask is how much should we rewrite?”
You can’t seriously expect the hundreds of millions of software developers to just completely rewrite their software, can you? C’mon. That’s ridiculous.
“Key people have left (most noticably for Google) and even loyal employees who still believe the hype have begun to criticize management and air their grievances on personal blogs.”
I can recall ONE person who left for Google, and if I’m wrong please correct me, and although Microsoft is having problems (to say the least), they aren’t just going to give up. And like I said before, if you were to apply that logic to other businesses, there would be no Apple.
In my opinion, if you want to post topics like this, make them at least somewhat realistic, so Mac users like me don’t have to invoke feelings of sympathy for Microsoft.
skyhawkrider,
Let me try respond to some of your points.
“I don’t think Microsoft will ship another Operating System after Vista launches.”
Whoa, whoa whoa- what? Are you kidding? Microsoft controls 90% of the OS market. Almost all of the world’s software runs on it. Millions and millions of websites are managed using their server software. And you just expect them to DROP IT? The only way software is going to get better and better is through a better OS that can run it, and I don’t think millions and millions of developers are just going to port their software for Mac OS X; Windows is here to stay, and as much as you may hate it, that’s the reality of it.
Your objections here don’t really respond to the point of my post. I don’t think Microsoft is going to drop thier OS out of choice, I think they will be unable to continue producing an OS because of technical difficulties. The fact that they have 90% of the market is irrelevant when considering what they will do in the future.
“I believe that a combination of technical difficulties and changing markets will prevent it from creating a product that is relevant in the market”
Here’s something for you to think about: If you remember, back in 1996, Apple was having tremendous problems with the Mac OS and their newest project, Copland. It was only when Steve Jobs took over, two years later, that they started to get back on track. So by that logic, wouldn’t Apple be dead by now?
By all rights Apple should be dead by now. In case you forgot Steve Jobs came in and brought NextStep with him. NextStep was a FULLY functional operating system. And even with that it still took 5 years for them to get it turned into OS X. Are you suggesting Microsoft is going to buy another OS, change leadership, spend 5 years reworking Windows AND create an emulator so older apps will still work? Because that seems to me to be a lot to expect from Microsoft.
“Consider this, if the latest shipping dates are to be believed, it will have taken Microsoft over six years to get Windows Vista out the door and to its consumers.”
1991: Mac OS 7.
1997: Mac OS 8.
Do we not remember Apple losing almost half a BILLION dollars in one year? Do we not remember them almost going under until Jobs arrived? That situation looks very similar to Vista.
“And based on past events, it is safe to assume that Vista will require at least one service pack before it is truly ready for use. Of course, factoring in the normal Microsoft delays for producing patches, such a comprehensive service pack will probably take another year before it can be released to users. That would mean that it will have taken Microsoft 7+ years to make a usable operating system.”
I can’t find any concrete evidence that supports your opinion, at least, not from a site that doesn’t obsessively support Apple.
Currently XP has had 2 service packs, both (especially the last one) relating to security. As any IT guy who has ever had to manage a Windows network if he really “needs” those service packs or is it just alarmism by us mean Mac people. Let me know how that works for you.
“What will prevent Microsoft from releasing another OS is the changing market. For Vista’s successor to have a hope of selling, the company has to assume that no fundamental shifts in technology will occur for almost a decade!”
“Changing market”? What, are we switching over to PowerPC or something? And Vista doesn’t have to have a hope of selling, nor does the market get to change- when Vista is being distributed on practically every PC in the world.
I didn’t say Vista doesn’t have a chance of selling I said the operating system AFTER Vista is going to be in trouble.
“With Google threatening to release a web-based OS, and Apple potentially using virtualization to run all Windows applications, Microsoft might find that by the time it can cobble something together, it no longer has a market interested in its product.”
How much market share did Mac OS X gain in the past 5 years? Enough to kill Windows? No. Chances are Google isn’t going to have much luck killing Windows either. And for Apple to implement virtualization to run Windows applications, they would still need help from Microsoft so they could keep it updated. And it doesn’t make much sense for Microsoft just to update Windows for Apple, would it?
Read “I,Cringley” latest piece and this will make much more sense.
“The amount of code that makes up Windows has simply become too large to work with.”
That’s what Microsoft’s engineers are paid to do, James. And when you have an OS that has to be backwards-compatible, you really don’t have a choice but to write lots of code. Also, most of that code comes from having to keep consistent security updates going, and when almost all of the world’s viruses are targeted at your OS, you can’t just let it sit there, can you?
Would this be the same engineers who were paid to implement WinFS? I don’t understand what you are saying here. You appear to be agreeing with me that the code base is getting larger and larger. You realize, don’t you, that it gets much more difficult to maintain when that happens, right?
“A drastic rewrite is the only way to solve this problem. The only real question Microsoft needs to ask is how much should we rewrite?”
You can’t seriously expect the hundreds of millions of software developers to just completely rewrite their software, can you? C’mon. That’s ridiculous.
First, I was talking about Microsoft rewriting its OS, not developers rewriting their applications. Second, Apple was faced with this same problem when they released OS X, maybe you remember their solution?
“Key people have left (most noticably for Google) and even loyal employees who still believe the hype have begun to criticize management and air their grievances on personal blogs.”
I can recall ONE person who left for Google, and if I’m wrong please correct me, and although Microsoft is having problems (to say the least), they aren’t just going to give up. And like I said before, if you were to apply that logic to other businesses, there would be no Apple.
The only reason Apple is still in business is because of Steve Jobs. Now, maybe you are suggesting that another Steve Jobs will come along and save Microsoft, but that seems a bit, unlikely doesn’t it?
I’m a Mac guy who used to be an anti-Microsoft guy, but have changed my tune over the last month or so. From reading a good amount of blog posts by Microsoft employees, I feel Microsoft, like any company is ultimately people brought together to do a job. People with families and hobbies… not people who go home everyday from actively working to destroy all that is good and true in the world to dissect live kittens.
Based on what I’ve read (I’m no software engineer, and I’m definitely no tech insider) I feel like Vista has to be the last version of Windows… at least Windows as we know it.
These are smart people who love what they do, and with the right leadership, could deliver an all new, powerful, but nimble OS that looks forward and not back. Use virtualization for backward compatability… don’t pull to whole OS down with it. Create some brilliant technology for making increasingly popular web apps fly… but make it work with open standards not just your stuff.
Take a cue from Apple and “Think Different” about your products… just don’t forget the people who have to use them.
“The only realistic hope I see is that Apple will someday realize that there is more money in the OS than in the computer (Look at the relative financials of Microsoft vs. Dell), and allow their OS to run on other PC’s.”
There’s more money in it for companies like Microsoft and Dell but not for Apple, which makes most of its profits from hardware sales (and uses software to drive those hardware sales). To switch from a hardware based company (in that the profits are made on the hardware) over to a Microsoft-like company would not only be difficult (at best) for Apple, it may come close to ruining them. Not only that, if they did go that route, there’s nothing that would prevent them from ending up in the same position Microsoft is in right now with Vista. They’ll run into the same problems, i.e., backward compatibility, 3rd party drivers, etc. By remaining small and keeping your company’s business model linked to the hardware, it’s much easier to do something like create an entirely new codebase for an OS.
“I feel like Vista has to be the last version of Windows… at least Windows as we know it. “
I think you’re right on this point, but this won’t be the last OS Microsoft releases. I’d wager that a lot of people within Microsoft, working directly on either Vista or within the OS division, are thinking these exact same things. Despite what us Apple folks would like to believe, Microsoft doesn’t employ stupid people - well, maybe a few, but the whole company isn’t made up of stupid people.
I think that Vista will end up being on the market for a long time, perhaps 5-8 years, but the next version of a Microsoft OS (Windows or not) will be something radically redesigned, and over time the cycle will repeat itself and eventually Microsoft will have to throw out that codebase as well. That or they will dramatically revamp their development process.
James,
I understand why you think this may be the case, but realistically, it just isn’t going to happen. Microsoft is the world’s biggest software company, and they will have to constantly keep updating their OS so bigger and better software can be developed for it. And when you mentioned Microsoft rewriting their OS, I understood that you said Microsoft, but by rewriting their OS that would cause hundreds of millions of developers to have to rewrite their software, and to answer your question, it was easier for Apple because they have about 1/10 the number of developers that Microsoft does.
The fundamental point of the blog is dead right: Microsoft has reached the point of maximum sustainable complexity (MSC). Any organization sufficiently complex eventually either reduces complexity or collapses under its own weight. You don’t have to be pro or anti-Microsoft to understand this.
I have been a windows user for years and right now, i see no reason to upgrade to vista. My winXP already has transparent glass, shadows ect to my eye candy is sorted.
I don’t think i’ve ever been this disapointed over what they showed us in 2003 to what the’re about to deliver. Its shocking.
I would love apple to port osx to run on non apple hardware and get rid of windows. The only thing that actually stops me buying a mac is the price.
It’s like £700 for a decent mac mini and you can’t even play new*ish games. If you want to play games on a mac you have to pay £2,000 while my current system runs all the latest games and it’s cost me around £700 all together. Just bought a recent upgrade of graphics card (7800gt) and easily upgraded.
I think the end of microsoft, will be when people can build there own mac systems cheaply with whatever components they choose, without having to pay double the price.
While Paul Thurrott doesn’t go as far as you have, he’s made similar observations about Vista.
http://winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5308_05.asp
“Vista has to be the last version of Windows… at least Windows as we know it.”
funny you should mention this… I think Microsoft are already aware of this, have you read about singularity?
http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity/
Yes, its in extremely early stages, but this could end up being the “windows” of the future.
I love the Apple OS and have used it for about 2 years now, but XP isnt that bad. Its a bit ugly to look at, but works pretty well and you can’t argue with the vast library of software available.
Also, Apple’s marketing of their OS and hardware (other than iPods) is absolute rubbish. I was barely even aware of what the OS could and couldnt do before we were given an eMac in work for browser testing.
It would be difficult for anyone to break the stranglehold Microsoft has over the OS market. Joe Public has no idea what an “operating system” is. he just expects his computer to work when he pushes the power button.
Aren’t you making a really gigantic assumption that in order to release updates to their OS (and thus keep making money) Microsoft will have to rewrite their OS each time they make a new release? That’s rediculous. As you’ve pointed out, Apple has been able to make four “releases” (five if you count Leopard) of their operating system. Microsoft also did this with Win95 -> WinMe -> WinXP. Given the massive amount of effort and the number of years going into Vista, there may very well be even more releases of Vista (that won’t necessarily even be called Vista after the first year) to keep Microsoft going very well past 2007. I feel like your argument is just saying “Microsoft will self-destruct… just because” and doesn’t offer a compelling reason for that to actually happen.
Im still not even sure if theyll ever get vista shipping!
“1991: Mac OS 7.
1997: Mac OS 8.”
Dude, ever heard of 7.5, 7.6? And OS 8 is actually 7.7… and it’s not called Mac OS 7 its System 7… it’s hard to take you seriously if you are so ill-informed…
Maybe I’m just naive, but OS X is atleast 5 years old. Sure, they have updated parts with cool cat names, but the truth is that the only major update was the switch to intel chips. Sure, each cat update came out with something new like better searching, it is still OS X. The question shouldn’t be if MS will come out with another OS. That’s an obvious yes. The came out with Win 98 before 95 was done for and Win Me, Win NT, Win 2000, ect. Yes, there will be another Win OS. Rather, the question should be when will Mac OS come up with an OS XI or will it just be a gradual process without truely developing anything revolutionary.
Now, please don’t label me as a Mac hater. In fact, I enjoy Macs, but I also enjoy Windows (as blasphemous as that sounds). MS will continue onward and so will Apple if they make some smart decisions.
Apple virtualized OS 9 with Classic, with Intel switch making it trivial to banish. Microsoft can eventually do something similar with Windows, albeit a much longer and monotonous journey towards eventual extinction. Are there more realistically possible alternatives based on what we currently know?
Even with radical shifts in the marketplace it seems something like virtualization is one way to provide a necessary continuity to the process. Less painful than other methods for overcoming the burden of legacy dependency built around the Microsoft monopoly on so many levels.
And perhaps it’s just as likely OS X will be the last of its type for Apple as Vista will be for Microsoft? Both derive from similar traditional legacy roots and share similar metaphorical vulnerabilities. Any current OS X vs. Windows “battle” is frivolous history making, killing time until inevitably overshadowed as the legacy computing OSes of this generation are subsumed by whatever it is that’s still in the process of developing to where it can finally emerge, tangibly recognizable, for a future generation. Hopefully I’ll stick around that long.