This post originated from an RSS feed registered with .NET Buzz
by Jeff Key.
Original Post: How Windows 9x support extension ties into Longhorn
Feed Title: Jeff Key
Feed URL: http://www.asp.net/err404.htm?aspxerrorpath=/jkey/Rss.aspx
Feed Description: Topics revolve around .NET and the Windows platform.
You don't say! What would the world do without high-priced analysts to state the obvious and make inaccurate predictions year after year?
The essence of Gartner's argument is that the move was motivated by Microsoft's self-interested fears of revenue loss from customer defections rather than benign concern that customers' experience a comfortable progression through Microsoft's successive operating systems.
Show me a company that isn't driven by revenue and I'll show you a company that's soon to be out-of-business.
Analyst rant complete. Onward:
This must've been a tough decision for Microsoft. Considering application compatibility is quite good on Windows (when you compare it to other operating systems), people generally don't have a reason to upgrade. Sure their OS crashes occasionally, but when that's all you've ever experienced it's just a fact of life.[1]
One of the things that distinguishes Longhorn from all previous versions of Windows is that Longhorn itself is an application framework. Windows XP and those before it were service platforms; you have your i/o services, print services, network services and so on. Over the years Microsoft added more and more services, and applications consumed more of these services, but Windows was still a service platform. This is why Linux is a potential competitor on the desktop. If Linux can provide the services required by business applications, and currently that's not much more than i/o, print and network services (ie. support a browser), then it is a threat. The UIs of several distros already mimic Windows' and most "suite" applications read/write Microsoft formats.
This is why Longhorn must be a success. By providing an application framework with a unified data store, web services-based messaging infrastructure and easy-to-use graphics/media services, Microsoft is providing a real foundation to build next-generation apps. The question that's been on my mind for quite a while is: Do people need these kinds of apps? The demos are very cool, but people are still getting things done on mainframes, Win NT servers and Win 98 boxes. Applications have been moving back to the server for years with a (sometimes) platform-agnostic interface in a web browser. Will Longhorn usher in another swing back to the desktop, or more appropriately, to a cooperative environment? Time will tell.
This brings me back to the Win 9x support extension. If I was Microsoft, I would keep people on Windows, no matter what version, until Longhorn ships. People will need to buy new computers eventually for whatever reason. If Joe Director can save money now by getting a supported Linux distro on an existing computer and use free suite applications that work with MS Office, why not switch? (Yes, it's not that simple.)
By losing near-term revenue on loss of upgrades driven purely by dropped support, they are increasing the chances people will be on Windows when Longhorn ships, see how it can benefit them, then "lock them in" to the new application framework, ensuring long-term profitability. Considering the amount of cash they have in the bank, this is a gamble they should take.
[1] Throughout I'm stating things simply. Management does come into play in bigger organizations and can be a significant driver for upgrades.
Previous Topic
