Help me with my project about operating systems!

[hukoo]

Hello guys!

 

I am doing a project in school and i got the topic "windows". I need to make a creative product and I need some of you to answer some questions about Windows future and how they will do in the future.

- How do you think that Windows do in the future?

- Will Microsoft/Windows lose alot of customers to Apple, Google etc... 

- Will Google win the race of the future of operating systems?

- Why did Windows Phone fail? ( I think it failed)

 

To the ones that answers, thanks alot!

[Jeroen1322]

1. I think that casual people will still use Windows but geeks Linux when more games are released. 

2. And no i don't think so because Microsoft is in everything and do everything.

3. To early to say that now. (I didn't even know they where even making an OS)

4. It looks horrible and casual people mostly don't even know what Windows is.. They always go for the brand like Apple.

 

 

Hope this helped

[hukoo]

Thanks Jereon More answers would be great!

[s3ns3]

1- they will release the windows 8.1 update 1 soon,which will add more functionality to the metro UI. but impoves 0. multitasking will still be inexistent,so i see the windows future dark if they continue this way.couse metro sucks even on tablets.its something that most people call a fail.

i mean we have to install programs to make it look like windows,so we can actually do something on it.

2-yes. they already do. many people avoided buying a new laptop with windows because it came with windows 8. asus,acer,lenovo ,they all blamed microsoft.however they recently droped the price of windows for system integrators.up to 70%,and they will release a free windows 8 for those who want to upgrade from windows 7 and for some system integrators.so they are trying to push W8

3-well on phones they already do.karbonn will launch this year a low end phone with dualboot. android and windows mobile.it doesn`t sound interesting for me

4-have you used it? i can`t stand it 

[lutzee]

Windows still has control over the PC market  and OEMs, that doesn't look set to change compared to the last 20 years, apple is still branded as the premium option and that won't change either. Linux could soon start filtering into the OEM market but people will stick to what they know.

 

Then we have the next trend, which is people moving to the mobile options, where apple and android are both growing and growing. Windows mobile systems have failed to penetrate this market, especially with the limited number of OEMs not wanting to adopt the windows mobile systems. The surface failed, windows RT was the problem, with 2 different ecosystems in the windows mobile range there was no easy overlap for app developers, they didn't want double the work, and hence things failed.

 

Android (Google) is a very big system, but its not perfect for some usecases.  No one wants to sit working in an office on an android system all day, its not practical or useful, as for the commercial mobile market, apple will survive, there are too many die hard apple fans for it to fail. 

 

There are pretty much two people who bought windows phone, those who buy a phone without even really knowing about the system its running, and those who wanted windows phone to work, liked the system (yes, there  will be people) and believed in it. Unfortunately it was just another spanner in the works for app developers, a new system to learn, and another code base to manage, many didn't want to even bother. 

[max1220]

- Hopefully die I guess, they will focus more on the devices, and create a more "closed" hard/software connection. 

- Well, I think they will lose a lot of customers to Google. They are already everywhere, and it's so easy for them to "manipulate" the masses to use their OS in the future, that they properbly will

- Well, I guess, I already answered that But Microsoft & Google aren't the only ones creating OS'es. Take a look at Ubuntu, for example. Or SteamOS.

- The others were already to big. Think about the custmers: Why should they buy Windows Phones, which supports allmost no apps, when there are Android/iOS devices.

[GoodBytes]

- How do you think that Windows do in the future?

Windows will continue to strive. Many people on the tech community forum all say death to Windows, But they have been saying that back with Win95. People don't realize that Windows strength is to bring high power and flexibility from Linux, and ease to use to MacOS. It sits in between these 2 worlds is what I am trying to say. Yes Linux based OS are great, and you can make it have an option to engage your breakfast machine in the morning to make bacon and eggs, but under Windows you are not buried with useless options after useless option. The problem with Linux based OS, is that they try to please everyone as it's open source code, there is no sense of direction. The result is that Linux based OS are unwelcoming. Look at netbooks. There was a moment a few years back that you were blasted in Linux netbooks. People used it... Linux did gain a nice increase in market share, then they switch back to Windows. Dell, Lenovo tries a few times with decent laptops with Linux, but they all short lived. People prefer Windows.

In addition, many people forget that under Windows you have millions on end software, and that if you want a simple app, you have it. Under Linux, you have a few programs, and they try to please, once again, everyone, so it's overly complex for nothing.

So even if, let's say, gaming goes to Linux... sure people here will switch, but many will stick with Windows or switch back to it.

As for businesses, they want Windows. Why? Simple. Support.

Developers have a lot of support and documentation to make professionally looking and working software, companies get support from Microsoft for any need they may have, including training employees, setup of a domain and defining restriction is simple, a click away, no command line.

It makes everyone prefer Windows in the business world.

Look at Visual Studio. It cost thousands of dollars if you want the full version. And guess what? Software development companies have 0 problem cashing out for a license for all their systems.

There is no true alternative on any OS, including Windows itself. All the other offering are bellow Visual Studio Express which is free, assuming you don't need Java.

No mater how you put it, in addition, Windows provide a more polished experience and looking GUI than Linux based OS, which is a key part for making it welcoming.

Microsoft has it right with Windows 8. It's just, like Vista, too ahead of it's time. But I think I understand why. You see. Microsoft knows that businesses follow a 6 year upgrade cycle. So they knew that releasing Windows 8 this 3 year cycle is the best way to test and experiment. If not, you would get a more transitional OS. Windows 8 is too ahead. It assumes a world where our desktop computers have a keyboard, mouse, and a special screen that passes from upright traditional position, to over your keyboard flat a small angle and you use touch, and digitize pen. It assume that everyone runs on devices like the Surface Pro 2. For sure that day will come. But now.

Before anyone knew anything about Windows 8, Steve Ballmer said time and time again, that Windows 8 will be the riskiest Windows release ever made. And he was right. The majority of people that give Windows 8 a chance, likes it, even love it. While most don't want to learn as they simply close minded or well just not giving it a proper chance. Unwilling to pass over the learning curve.

Vista was a bit similar. Great OS. Not perfect, needed about a year more of polishing and cleaning up, and you can see it was pushed for rushed released by investors, as it's been 6 years in the works, as Microsoft recoded the majority of Windows from scratch, which did indeed lead to bugs that were not there before (inevitable). Vista required some serious power to run smoothly and provide a better experience than XP. You needed a true dual core CPU 64-bit (no Pentium D crap), 3-4GB of RAM (which was a lot back then), pixel shader 2.0 graphic card with full DirectX10 support for the GUI, and 256MB of video memory. So in other words: a gaming PC. But 3 years later... look now a netbook has all this, well almost. Was it Microsoft that did a massive push? or just technology naturally evolve, it's hard to say.

Going a step back. When I say Linux based OS, I excluded Android. Android is a highly modified Linux, which over comes all these limitation, and look, it's doing very well.

 

 

- Will Microsoft/Windows lose alot of customers to Apple, Google etc...

Yes. Because most people are realizing that all they need is their web browser. The free alternative Office (or using Office online which is also free) is plenty for them. As most don't really multitask this is great and plenty.

 

- Will Google win the race of the future of operating systems?

You mean Android or ChromeOS? To me it's like Google is freaking out for some odd reason, and making 2 OS, when 1 is needed. People are going mobile. I think the Surface Pro really show case the future of computing. It's a tablet, but also a mean and powerful machine. It's a question of time before technology allows a dedicated GPU. Both Intel CPUs and AMD and Nvidia with their GPUs are working hard to make them low powered. When it will reach a point where people are happy with the battery life, like the Pro 2, and there is room by keeping the same great battery life, by having a dedicated GPU, expect to see it.

At which point... well... why need a desktop? Sure you will ALWAYS have more power on the desktop. But the Surface Pro 2 device allows you to dock it, and use it like a desktop, and then you can take it with you. With a dedicated GPU, you can now properly game at medium settings to even high (depending on the game), and have full proper OpenCL (and CUDA for Nvidia) support for depamdning software like complex and demanding filtering effects and so on.

 

- Why did Windows Phone fail? ( I think it failed)

Late in the game.

Check out this interview:

[GoodBytes]

1- they will release the windows 8.1 update 1 soon,which will add more functionality to the metro UI. but impoves 0. multitasking will still be inexistent,

You can multitask with Windows 8. More than iOS and Android by a long shot.

[hukoo]

Thanks for the help guys  

[s3ns3]

You can multitask with Windows 8

not with metro ui

[GoodBytes]

:sigh: yes you can.

Background process, putting metro apps side by side, or side by side by side by side... and switch between them. It's all there.

[max1220]

Windows will continue to strive. Many people on the tech community forum all say death to Windows, But they have been saying that back with Win95. People don't realize that Windows strength is to bring high power and flexibility from Linux, and ease to use to MacOS. It sits in between these 2 worlds is what I am trying to say. Yes Linux based OS are great, and you can make it have an option to engage your breakfast machine in the morning to make bacon and eggs, but under Windows you are not buried with useless options after useless option. The problem with Linux based OS, is that they try to please everyone as it's open source code, there is no sense of direction. The result is that Linux based OS are unwelcoming. Look at netbooks. There was a moment a few years back that you were blasted in Linux netbooks. People used it... Linux did gain a nice increase in market share, then they switch back to Windows. Dell, Lenovo tries a few times with decent laptops with Linux, but they all short lived. People prefer Windows.

(...)

In addition, many people forget that under Windows you have millions on end software, and that if you want a simple app, you have it. Under Linux, you have a few programs, and they try to please, once again, everyone, so it's overly complex for nothing.

(...)

No mater how you put it, in addition, Windows provide a more polished experience and looking GUI than Linux based OS, which is a key part for making it welcoming.

 

I'm sorry of the OT, but there are few things that are... not entirely correct(In my opinion!). First, lets specify linux a bit more: Linux is a Kernel. There is no specific userland(The "base" programs, libs, etc.) involved with Linux. What you(&me as well ) mean when we talk about Linux is more GNU/Linux. But that's still to unspecific: Various Linux distributions vary in their goals as well. And so their end-user experience; Take a look at RedHat(A Linux distro) for example: It's not targetet at the avg. user. It's targetet at Users, who know what they're doing. Any beginner couldn't use it at all. Now lets look at Ubuntu: It's easy to use. Some may even argue it's easier to use than Windows: You don't need to google some "wired numbers" to install your Graphics card drivers, you don't need to download software from strange sources. If you want to install an Office app, you open the Software center, and type Office in the search bar. You then click on install. That's it.

Also, the GUI is more a personal preference. For example, I prefer my XFCE desktop over my windows one. It just works, looks great, performs great and is generally awesome, since __I__ configured it __myself__! I wouldn't change anything! 

Windows isn't even that flexible: As you said, every once in a while, M$ will release a new Windows, that will have higher demands, and so won't work on older hardware. Even on the Software side, Windows isn't all that Compatible. I still got some games that only work in a certain version of Windows...

With the netbook/notebook thing: I don't see the point in building specific hardware for Linux anyway. Linux is flexible enough, you can install it on anything! Even  on routers with 4MB Flash and 32MB RAM or less. So the people who wanted to use Linux already did - On the normal hardware. So why would they buy new hardware specific for Linux?

 

Also:

The problem with Linux based OS, is that they try to please everyone as it's open source code

 Nope. First off, I wouldn't see a problem there, if it would be that way. Linux systems are build modular. The core guys develop on the core stuff, the network guys on the network stuff, and finally the GUI guys on the GUI stuff. They wouldn't interfere, since you can replace a GUI with another, and the most "user-friendly" would win in the long term. Well, but it's not like that: If you develop on a project as a developer, you make your code changes, and send them to the project you're developing for. "They" decide, if that feature gets in the Project or not. An example "goal" for a GUI project could be "make a GUI, that everyone can use!" or "make a GUI that looks like Windows". If some developer contributes code, that doesn't fits those "requirements", it would't get migrated to the main code base. So they still try to please everyone - but the end user won't notice, since they just get "their" modules, for GUI etc that will "work" for them.

 

 

Again, I'm sorry for this bit of OT, but I felt like I needed to correct you here and there, or other users may get a little "to afraid" of Linux, or at least get some(In my opinion) wrong impressions. I don't care if someone decides not to use Linux - But he should do so on a more educated opinion! I dont want to attack you either, just educate you!

[GoodBytes]

Windows isn't even that flexible: As you said, every once in a while, M$ will release a new Windows, that will have higher demands, and so won't work on older hardware. Even on the Software side, Windows isn't all that Compatible. I still got some games that only work in a certain version of Windows...

If developers follows Microsoft documentation carefully, then a Windows 95 program, heck even Windows 3.1 will run on Windows 8.

You can find youtube videos pf people upgrading Windows 1 to Windows 8 and all versions in between.

http://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/The-Defrag-Show/20140219Defrag

With the netbook/notebook thing: I don't see the point in building specific hardware for Linux anyway. Linux is flexible enough, you can install it on anything! Even  on routers with 4MB Flash and 32MB RAM or less. So the people who wanted to use Linux already did - On the normal hardware. So why would they buy new hardware specific for Linux?

 

False. Linux based OS, only supports specific hardware. Few manufactures has Linux drivers, let alone non-half ass ones.

In addition, many times you lose all power saving features, reducing system battery life, and have a warmer system.

To get the best Linux experience, you have to pick hardware that has proper Linux drivers. In addition, getting a system from an OEM specific for Linux, you get all the features, including any software from the manufacture get the special keys on the keyboard work, or provide on screen notification, and such.

Also:

 Nope. First off, I wouldn't see a problem there, if it would be that way. Linux systems are build modular. The core guys develop on the core stuff, the network guys on the network stuff, and finally the GUI guys on the GUI stuff.

Your point? I didn't say that was not the case.

They wouldn't interfere, since you can replace a GUI with another, and the most "user-friendly" would win in the long term. Well, but it's not like that: If you develop on a project as a developer, you make your code changes, and send them to the project you're developing for. "They" decide, if that feature gets in the Project or not.

Yup, and they please everyone to be popular choice.

 

Again, I'm sorry for this bit of OT, but I felt like I needed to correct you here and there, or other users may get a little "to afraid" of Linux, or at least get some(In my opinion) wrong impressions. I don't care if someone decides not to use Linux - But he should do so on a more educated opinion! I dont want to attack you either, just educate you!

You say it's your opinion.. so there is no correction.. it's my opinion against yours, and I respect that. Hence, I liked your post.

[neolithic3]

Do your own homework, kid! Learn to think and research and form ideas for yourself. It might actually end up coming in handy for you in life.

[max1220]

If developers follows Microsoft documentation carefully, then a Windows 95 program, heck even Windows 3.1 will run on Windows 8.

You can find youtube videos pf people upgrading Windows 1 to Windows 8 and all versions in between.

http://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/The-Defrag-Show/20140219Defrag

I didn't knew that - thanks! But I guess, that if you follow Microsofts's APi so strictly, back then, there would be no 3D games, and all that "new technology". Also, compability always just reaches as far as the drivers. Ever tried to use an old Logitech webcam that worked just fine, with out any drivers in W7/up? It does not work. There are just no drivers. Some thing with WLAN-adapters. Although they are standardizing it, so they should work in the future...

 

 

 

False. Linux based OS, only supports specific hardware. Few manufactures has Linux drivers, let alone non-half ass ones.

In addition, many times you lose all power saving features, reducing system battery life, and have a warmer system.

To get the best Linux experience, you have to pick hardware that has proper Linux drivers. In addition, getting a system from an OEM specific for Linux, you get all the features, including any software from the manufacture get the special keys on the keyboard work, or provide on screen notification, and such.

 

Well, yes. At least partially. Linux of course has more compatible hardware than windows, but not that often in the Desktop/Notebook segment. Yes, Linux had(an sometimes has) someproblems with power management on some devices. But those aren't that mutch, and, in most cases, are workarounds available! Currently all power management-related problems with Linux come from either the new ULP-Atom-SoC's or Alienware notebooks. I could be wrong though, and always been just on the lucky side.

With DEsktop systems, you usually have problems only with AMD/ATI cards, and after some googling, and maybe compiling your Kernel yourself, you can fix those aswell. At least that worked for me. My HD7790 works great under Debian with both, the fglrx and FOSS-drivers. My old GT630 worked just fine with the Nvidia drivers. It might be true that the latest GPUs at their release work not that great, and that the linux drivers sometimes suck. But even me still plays games on Windows! Oh, and my EEEPC x101h has longer battery-lifetime with debian than with the Windows 7 starter, and I never had a single Hardware-related problem with this thing on Linux(To be fair, on windows aswell)!

 

 

 

(...)

Your point? I didn't say that was not the case.

As far as I understood, you said, that Linux was not a good end-user system, because Linux would try to serve everyone, and since that the avg. end user would need to use tools from developers for developers(Or the people who contribute to Linux), wich weren't user-friendly. Bur I might misunderstood you, I'm not a native speaker(or writer ). Actually, I'm German, and 15, so I didn't even had all my English lessons yet, so I'm sorry, if I misunderstood you!

 

In the last post, I even missed something: Linux is actually used more in the professional business. Look at Amazon(They even let you rent Servers. Running Linux...), Google(Including youtube), Facebook, Yahoo!, Wikipedia, ... All of the bigger Internet-based Company's. Linux is more scalable than windows, is more resource friendly, and supports professional File systems like ZFS. You also mentioned support. Well, there are big Company's like Novell, Redhat, LPI, etc. that make money with just offering support to their distros to other Company's(And the surroundings, like offering Domain registration to their customers etc.)

 

Again, 'Im not a native speaker, and if I sound like I'm "attacking" you, I don't mean it like this - Of course I also respect your opinion, there are valid reasons for using Windows, but felt like I should correct you here and there, so everyone could learn from it!