4 ms·

Microsoft’s OS Business Has Started to Decline

23 points by echair 18y ago

gamble 18y ago
I've often wondered how much of Vista's adoption problem in corporations came down to the higher system requirements. It was pretty common for companies upgrading from earlier versions of Windows to buy the rock-bottom cheapest systems capable of running XP, much less Vista. Upgrading to Vista would mean replacing every computer in the office, on top Microsoft's bill. Why do that if there's nothing fundamentally unsatisfying with XP?
- josefresco 18y ago
  "nothing fundamentally unsatisfying with XP" The security was pretty 'unsatisfying' to say the least. Vista came a long way in protecting users .. from themselves.
  - gamble 18y ago
    In a corporate environment, XP PCs are often completely locked down. There's not much Vista could do to improve on removing the user's ability to modify anything outside their home directory.
    - greyman 18y ago
      In our company, the rule is that we are not allowed to upgrade core MS software ourselves (XP, Office, IE, service packs etc.) This is done by the security department and rolled out automatically to workstations. Other than that, I can install what I want. We did not experience anything horrible regarding security - it is just we need a few full-time employees to take care of that. Regarding Vista, the reasons mentioned above applied to us as well...we didnt migrate and it seems that everyone is waiting on Win7 already.
- gaius 18y ago
  I actually watched my work PC booting up the other day and noticed that XP is (c) 2001. No-one seems able to clearly articulate what exactly it is Vista does that XP can't, in a corporate setting at least. That's Microsoft's problem, that XP was "good enough". Whereas if you look at their server products, the reasons to move from NT4 to 2000 to 2003 to 2008 are all, the message is much clearer.
  - jwilliams 18y ago
    I agree entirely - they are pushing themselves into a "change for change's sake" scenario. The same applies to their other cash cow - Office. Office 2007 has some improvements I like... Powerpoint and Excel have some usability improvements... but on the whole.. Word for me is still Word as it was in Word 2000. There is nothing in 2007 that is that compelling. For many people it's probably Word 98, or Word 2.0. Apple has avoided this by keeping OS X and the evolving it. This model seems to be working much better for now.
    - gaius 18y ago
      Whereas with Apple, if you ask "why should I upgrade from Tiger to Leopard" the answer is simply, "Time Machine". Or with Sun, why should I upgrade from Sol8 to 10, the answer is "dtrace and zones". MS really needs a snappy comeback like that. The most complex single document I've ever worked on was my MSc dissertation, 30,000 words, lots of cross-references, figures, footnotes, etc etc. I can't remember if I used Word 97 or 2000, but it was more than sufficient for the task. I could have done it in Word 6 or Word 5.1, even. It truly baffles me why people (even within MS itself) want to keep upgrading it.
Hexstream 18y ago
I think the advertised domain should clearly be bits.blogs.nytimes.com, not nytimes.com.
kzar 18y ago
I think the article missed the main cause, Visa isn't very good so people don't want it.
- Raphael 18y ago
  They much prefer the alternatives: Mastercard, Discover, and American Express.
- aneesh 18y ago
  I'd be wary of proclaiming this as "the beginning of the end", as the article title seems to imply. There were two things wrong with Vista: 1) issues with 3rd party software & drivers, and 2) steep hardware requirements. The first was due to enhancements to user accounts & security, and is largely fixed today. Anyway, people aren't going to be using Windows XP for the next 5 years, so they'll switch en masse to Windows 7 or to OS X. Apple still isn't competing at the lower price points, so unless Windows 7 is just really bad, I think we'll see the numbers pick back up when Win7 comes out.
  - jimbokun 18y ago
    The real possible "beginning of the end" problem is the popularity of $300 netbooks, and Microsoft only getting $30 on these versus $70 for a more "traditional" PC. If this trend continues to accelerate, the revenue Microsoft gets per PC will steadily decline and likely offset the increase in revenue from increased volume.
- jackchristopher 18y ago
  Even with that perception of Vista (whether true or not), The problem is deeper. Microsoft is on a philosophical decline; they don't matter as much. And Paul predicted this a while back. Desktops would be replaced with a smaller web-focused devices. [1] Grandmas will be left using Windows. [2] Microsoft is declining in importance. [1] [2] [3] [1]http://www.paulgraham.com/road.html http://www.paulgraham.com/road.html [2]http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html [3]http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html
netcan 18y ago
Where is the competition? All this 'MS is finished' talk. Fine. I understand the reasoning. Makes sense. I just don't see any potential replacement. OSs may eventually fade into the background. That's a possibility. But that has nothing to do with MS. The Vista launch & the netbook sales as described in the article would have been a great opportunity for any competing OS to play. But none are there to rise. Apple plays a different game. 1. Do we really think one company will do all the hardware & all the software of all PCs (or even half of them)? 2. They would need to cut margins. No reason for them to do that. . Linux had a run with the Eee PCs V1. Heard it got good reviews. But it didn't stick. Anyway, it looks very possible that Vista is just a below average product that gets below average sales & the next windows will be released, Vista forgotten, & nothing (bar a couple of years of slightly reduced sales in one department) changed in the long run. They were weak for a couple of years.It might have been a good time for an attack. But noone was there to do it.
- jimbokun 18y ago
  Linux and OS X probably won't overtake Windows in market share in any foreseeable timeframe. What they are doing is book ending Windows at the low and high end of the market. Apple is doing an excellent job of sniping the high end part of the PC market. And Linux makes possible a lower end of the PC market that Microsoft would prefer not exist because of what it does to their margins.
  - raganwald 18y ago
    I suggest Apple wants the low end of the market as well, just that) they are taking some of that market with the iPhone/Touch platform rather than with Macintosh.
    - netcan 18y ago
      I would say that's a different market. An iphone isn't a cheap alternative to a pc. It a supplement.
  - netcan 18y ago
    Linux makes possible a lower end of the PC market Even there we see Microsoft's pitiful efforts get them a dominant position. Throw out a reduced version of XP that still adds 10% - 20% to the price tag (maybe more considering the hardware needs) & you take that market too. I think we're really seeing a market crying out for competition.

23 points by echair 18y ago

I've often wondered how much of Vista's adoption problem in corporations came down to the higher system requirements. It was pretty common for companies upgrading from earlier versions of Windows to buy the rock-bottom cheapest systems capable of running XP, much less Vista. Upgrading to Vista would mean replacing every computer in the office, on top Microsoft's bill. Why do that if there's nothing fundamentally unsatisfying with XP?

josefresco 18y ago
"nothing fundamentally unsatisfying with XP" The security was pretty 'unsatisfying' to say the least. Vista came a long way in protecting users .. from themselves.
- gamble 18y ago
  In a corporate environment, XP PCs are often completely locked down. There's not much Vista could do to improve on removing the user's ability to modify anything outside their home directory.
  - greyman 18y ago
    In our company, the rule is that we are not allowed to upgrade core MS software ourselves (XP, Office, IE, service packs etc.) This is done by the security department and rolled out automatically to workstations. Other than that, I can install what I want. We did not experience anything horrible regarding security - it is just we need a few full-time employees to take care of that. Regarding Vista, the reasons mentioned above applied to us as well...we didnt migrate and it seems that everyone is waiting on Win7 already.
gaius 18y ago
I actually watched my work PC booting up the other day and noticed that XP is (c) 2001. No-one seems able to clearly articulate what exactly it is Vista does that XP can't, in a corporate setting at least. That's Microsoft's problem, that XP was "good enough". Whereas if you look at their server products, the reasons to move from NT4 to 2000 to 2003 to 2008 are all, the message is much clearer.
- jwilliams 18y ago
  I agree entirely - they are pushing themselves into a "change for change's sake" scenario. The same applies to their other cash cow - Office. Office 2007 has some improvements I like... Powerpoint and Excel have some usability improvements... but on the whole.. Word for me is still Word as it was in Word 2000. There is nothing in 2007 that is that compelling. For many people it's probably Word 98, or Word 2.0. Apple has avoided this by keeping OS X and the evolving it. This model seems to be working much better for now.
  - gaius 18y ago
    Whereas with Apple, if you ask "why should I upgrade from Tiger to Leopard" the answer is simply, "Time Machine". Or with Sun, why should I upgrade from Sol8 to 10, the answer is "dtrace and zones". MS really needs a snappy comeback like that. The most complex single document I've ever worked on was my MSc dissertation, 30,000 words, lots of cross-references, figures, footnotes, etc etc. I can't remember if I used Word 97 or 2000, but it was more than sufficient for the task. I could have done it in Word 6 or Word 5.1, even. It truly baffles me why people (even within MS itself) want to keep upgrading it.

Hexstream 18y ago

I think the advertised domain should clearly be bits.blogs.nytimes.com, not nytimes.com.

kzar 18y ago

I think the article missed the main cause, Visa isn't very good so people don't want it.

Raphael 18y ago
They much prefer the alternatives: Mastercard, Discover, and American Express.
aneesh 18y ago
I'd be wary of proclaiming this as "the beginning of the end", as the article title seems to imply. There were two things wrong with Vista: 1) issues with 3rd party software & drivers, and 2) steep hardware requirements. The first was due to enhancements to user accounts & security, and is largely fixed today. Anyway, people aren't going to be using Windows XP for the next 5 years, so they'll switch en masse to Windows 7 or to OS X. Apple still isn't competing at the lower price points, so unless Windows 7 is just really bad, I think we'll see the numbers pick back up when Win7 comes out.
- jimbokun 18y ago
  The real possible "beginning of the end" problem is the popularity of $300 netbooks, and Microsoft only getting $30 on these versus $70 for a more "traditional" PC. If this trend continues to accelerate, the revenue Microsoft gets per PC will steadily decline and likely offset the increase in revenue from increased volume.
jackchristopher 18y ago
Even with that perception of Vista (whether true or not), The problem is deeper. Microsoft is on a philosophical decline; they don't matter as much. And Paul predicted this a while back. Desktops would be replaced with a smaller web-focused devices. [1] Grandmas will be left using Windows. [2] Microsoft is declining in importance. [1] [2] [3] [1]http://www.paulgraham.com/road.html http://www.paulgraham.com/road.html [2]http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html [3]http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html

netcan 18y ago

Where is the competition? All this 'MS is finished' talk. Fine. I understand the reasoning. Makes sense. I just don't see any potential replacement. OSs may eventually fade into the background. That's a possibility. But that has nothing to do with MS. The Vista launch & the netbook sales as described in the article would have been a great opportunity for any competing OS to play. But none are there to rise. Apple plays a different game. 1. Do we really think one company will do all the hardware & all the software of all PCs (or even half of them)? 2. They would need to cut margins. No reason for them to do that. . Linux had a run with the Eee PCs V1. Heard it got good reviews. But it didn't stick. Anyway, it looks very possible that Vista is just a below average product that gets below average sales & the next windows will be released, Vista forgotten, & nothing (bar a couple of years of slightly reduced sales in one department) changed in the long run. They were weak for a couple of years.It might have been a good time for an attack. But noone was there to do it.

jimbokun 18y ago
Linux and OS X probably won't overtake Windows in market share in any foreseeable timeframe. What they are doing is book ending Windows at the low and high end of the market. Apple is doing an excellent job of sniping the high end part of the PC market. And Linux makes possible a lower end of the PC market that Microsoft would prefer not exist because of what it does to their margins.
- raganwald 18y ago
  I suggest Apple wants the low end of the market as well, just that) they are taking some of that market with the iPhone/Touch platform rather than with Macintosh.
  - netcan 18y ago
    I would say that's a different market. An iphone isn't a cheap alternative to a pc. It a supplement.
- netcan 18y ago
  Linux makes possible a lower end of the PC market Even there we see Microsoft's pitiful efforts get them a dominant position. Throw out a reduced version of XP that still adds 10% - 20% to the price tag (maybe more considering the hardware needs) & you take that market too. I think we're really seeing a market crying out for competition.