Could lower Windows sales be a good thing?

Microsoft’s recent quarter definitely wasn’t one of its best, at least on the surface, reporting a $492 million loss thanks to its acquisition of aQuantive, but aQuantive’s failure to change Microsoft’s position in the advertising market isn’t the only problem in the financial results. The Windows Division took a pretty big heat, too, with sales dropping 13%.

Now, that sounds like a pretty big number, but make no mistake – Windows is still a huge business for Microsoft, and it means big money. They’re not lowering their commitment to the venerable OS any time soon, and it might even be possible to chalk up the lower sales to anticipation of Windows 8.

Yet Preston Gralla, over at Computerworld, thinks that Window’s shrinking place in Microsoft’s product portfolio could be ‘one of the best things that has happened to it in a while.’ His article is pretty interesting in its own right, but the gist of it is that Microsoft is at its best when it’s willing to step outside of its comfort zone and not worried about cannibalizing itself, and when it’s willing to spread itself out across a variety of products and services.

Windows’ dominance of the desktop OS market is not one of those cases. And yet Office, which represents an even bigger chunk of Microsoft’s revenue, is, and so is the Online Services Division, and the Xbox Division. Gralla says that Microsoft’s lost decade – if there really was such a thing – was mostly due to Microsoft’s reliance on the Windows empire. But Office is the Microsoft division with the greatest potential for growth, thanks to great new products like Office 2013.

On one hand, Microsoft is really dedicated to Windows, and for good reason. But on the other, Office and other divisions do offer a lot more potential for growth. Microsoft has shown that they’re willing to take risks when it comes to Windows, too, but do you think they should be focused on putting ‘Office everywhere,’ and potentially move towards being a more ‘open’ company. Maybe it’s finally time for Microsoft to move on from the Windows era?

Source: Computerworld

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft reportedly working on stylus for any LCD screen

Next Story

What the hell is "Microsoft's lost decade"?

72 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Microsoft sold over 680M copies of Wndows 7, I don't see that as lowered sales. Vista sold nearly 500M copies and I am not sure how many Windows XP sold. Since it was on shelf for 10 years, Iguess they likely sold double Vista's numbers.

Also Windows sales ae always higher in the first 2 quarters vs the last 2.

thechronic said,
I was under the impression Windows 7 sold more copies than any previous version?

I was under the impression that people here actually READ comments - the explanation for the 13% drop has been given multiple times - how about READING the comments before replying.

I want to thank the poster of both long responses. I like learning new things, very informative. I have been using Windows since I came across Win95 and even used Win3.1. I was hooked and have been a fan ever since, Now I use Win 7 and I love it! I never give up on Microsoft and over the years all the articles saying they were dying was a joke.

They are still here aren't they? It make take them some time but they always come back strong. NT is a great architecture and powers many devices / systems. The thing is perception. Apple is the media darling and so that is what is exposed to everyone it is ingrained so to speak. Meanwhile in the background NT is chugging along and doing it's thing is business, server rooms, etc.

Since people do not see this behind the scenes stuff they do not know. Anyways I will stick with Windows and Microsoft until there would be no more or something else were to take over and I do not see this happening for quite some time. Microsoft is too entrenched in software and the consumer side is big but MS was very smart in getting into the business side which is critical to power many things and as NT gets better so will it's benefits. Look at the Surface now, the Sync in Ford. Many people do not realize this. Again Apple and the others.

Anything but Microsoft seems to be the mantra unfortunately. Little do many people know that some of the devices they use could be Windows / NT powered. They may take these devices for granted. If they only knew

Well there is going to be a lot lower Windows sales when 8 hits the shelf's, as most people wont be interested init.. or be able to work it lol

xpclient said,
Let's see Office 2013 won't be able to run on 50% of Windows PCs running XP+Vista (http://marketshare.hitslink.co...px?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0) a stats site which MS themselves often recommend over StatsCounter. Maybe Office for iPad will make it up. Because Windows 8 isn't going to be a best-seller either.

Yep because those products are inferior... You can still use office 2010, its not the end of the world...

you know. judging by the comments here. the trend can be easily understood if you put them in a political context. we have the democraps who is having some good laughs at rebloodicans' expense because michele bachmann made a stupid comment. while the rebloodicans are cursing at bachmann for making them loses face.

now guess who's who. lmfao.

sales were actually down just over 1%, not 13%, because of the discount they have added for the future release of win8, they are having record breaking revenue, other than the 1 time right down they are doing very good, and the company just doesn't rely on widows anymore they have a good portfolio of products to keep things going strong and continue to bring in good revenue. what was google's revenue for the same period?

only on ****in cnet and computerworld do you read crap like this.

windows sales are down %13 this quarter after theyve sold 700 million copies

i mean, no **** sherlock sales are down, after selling to nearly every computer user in the world.

vcfan said,
only on ****in cnet and computerworld do you read crap like this.

windows sales are down %13 this quarter after theyve sold 700 million copies

i mean, no **** sherlock sales are down, after selling to nearly every computer user in the world.

ell 1/2 of the world. It is estimated that 1.3B people use Windows legally.

TechieXP said,
ell 1/2 of the world. It is estimated that 1.3B people use Windows legally.

Where the **** did you get that from... Its more like 7%

WTF whats with all these crappy articles lately? Where do they find these guys seriously. Jumping to conclusions and trying to make a story out of ****. End of rant...

And the dumb article of the week award goes to.....

Computerworld!

Congratulations Computerworld you successfully made one of the most ridiculous rants of anyone in the tech world this week.

Lower Windows sales? Don't these analysts read that Microsoft deferred a bunch of Windows license sales due to Windows 8 upgrade offer? Stupid dumbass!

^ That's all well in good. It would have been great If we could have the UI of Windows 7 inside and out but the under the hood enhancements of Windows 8. On a side note, Holy Write up Batman! Good read!

(Continued)

Windows NT...

NT is so misunderstood it is shameful to see educated people attempt to talk about the technology and the conceptual theories that went into its creation.

Here is the base concept - There is NO operating system technology that even comes in terms of architectural technology or capabilities.

This sounds like hyperbole to Linux and OS X users, but when it comes down to core OS kernel and OS model, they are 20 years behind NT.

In 1992 Microsoft's team threw out all the baggage and 'generics' of the Unix OS model, they also threw out traditional kernel models for a new 'heavier' kernel technology that is highly layer both horizontally and vertically. (Read the first edition of Inside NT and why they avoided Unix and why they avoided traditional kernel technologies, there are good reasons why OSes based on this aged concepts suck and will get worse as technology advances.)

This departure from traditional OS designs was seen as a major gamble for Microsoft, as they could have held on to Unix and based NT on a Unix model and a very traditional micro-kernel architecture. However, as the NT development team made a convincing case at the time, it would be redundant to carry forward with aged technologies and continue to deal with their flaws and lack of flexibility in exponentially growing technology complexity.

Around 1996, the 'overhead' of the NT architecture and kernel was negated by its ability to inherently handle complex hardware and software. This is why NT 4.0 that was C based, highly portable using a unified architecture HAL, and object based with robust security token and object handling was able to out perform Windows95 with just 32mb of RAM as the requirement to be faster and compensate for the massive overhead difference.

Win95 also was a tight monolithic kernel directly written for x86 in assembly, and still was not able to keep up with NT 4.0, even though it was handling 1/20th the OS level management. (Think Linux, but more optimized and doing 1/10th the work, and it was STILL slower than NT.)

This complexity shift is now true when comparing NT to OSX or Linux or OpenBSD based OS technologies. They use very simplistic generic models that offer low level performance; however, in dealing with a massive level of complexity, the generic streamline is lost quickly and the object model of NT overtakes these OSes in speed and functionality at a growing rate.

Windows 7 is faster than Linux or OS X, and they are doing 1/10th the management and OS level functionality Windows 7 is doing. This should have been a wake up call to Apple and the OSS world in general, yet they dismissed NT, because at this point in history, the new generation that was emerging had so little understanding of NT and what it does and is capable of doing. (NT was built on concepts that my generation had developed in 'theory' and had not been tried in a general OS, let alone with so many 'theoretical concepts' in one OS being built from scratch.)

As software and hardware complexity has changed from 2009 and Windows 7, OS X has gotten slower, Linux has gotten slower, because they are having to 'add overhead' to deal with management of the technologies that NT's object model already was handling 20 years ago.

With NT, there is no breaking code by changing parameters and functions, because when dealing with Objects, the Objects themselves compensate to provide the proper response and functionality based on the calling code's expectations. This is why Object based has overhead, but it is also why it is far more extensible and self managing as complexity increases. If you change major scheduling or locks in Linux (reference fair scheduler) it breaks a lot of dependent code. In contrast NT's scheduling and features changed far more than Linux did with 2.6 in the move from XP to Vista, and it broke virtually nothing in NT itself and upper level software never noticed the massive changes.

NT has the ability to continue to expand features without decreasing performance even when faced with massive new technologies. The WDDM/WDM in Vista was a huge change, that even one tiny piece, the composer has been a nightmare to implement in other OSes. Even OS X that had a basic composer has not been able to adapt to the vector composer or VRAM or GPU scheduling technologies, as it would require over the top changes to the OS X kernel and all dependent layers, which includes the upper layer Apple graphical frameworks. (Apple couldn't even enable 2D assisted acceleration through the GPU, and Vista and Win7 turned these on without applications even noticing they were there.

----

So, until there is an OS technology that can even come 'close' to offering the functionality, features, or speed of NT there is NOT room for a debate of retiring Windows, as there is NOTHING that can take its place.

With Windows 8 and the optimization of NT to device class systems, this becomes even more of a problem for alternative OS technologies, as they are going to be too heavy or too limited in functionality. Compare NT to Android or iOS, they are too limited. Compare NT to Linux or OS X, they are NOW heavier than NT. Yet NT is running just fine on phones and tablets and desktops and notebooks and servers, and it is the SAME kernel code and same kernel API code and same subsystem code.

If Apple could have made OS X able to run on the iphone or iPad - which they tried desperately to do, iOS would not exist and Apple would not be dismissing Microsoft's ability to put NT on everything.


The original article's author has not a clue, and in their world of Office and a few Applications, they can see a world without Windows. However in technical environments and people dealing with new hardware and emerging software needs and complexity, Windows is the only thing that can currently hold everything together without crushing under its own weight as other OSes are starting to do.


Think of this...
• Windows Server 8 - needs less resources than the latest Linux or OpenBSD servers if they are providing the same level of functionality.
• Windows Phone 8 - needs less resources than Android or iOS to provide 100x the functionality on devices.
• Windows 8 RT & x86/ & x64 in the tablet and notebook market - needs less resources than Android or iOS and these are not watered down OSes. Look at phone and tablet hardware today - Android needs quad core and 1gb already, which is UNDER what Windows 8 needs. Windows 8 is also not just a JVM using limited functionality of its underlying kernel like Android is doing, and it is also not iOS that is a generic kernel with one simplistic framework on top.

Windows has dropped in market share, but if technology is to move forward, there is NOTHING else out there that can carry it, and we will flatline at Android and iOS functionality and performance, which they are even even being crushed under their own weight and they are not very robust OSes.

thenetavenger said,
...

Congratulations! You've just written a comment longer than any article I've ever done! And by the way, thanks for not confusing me with the originator of this opinion. And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't iOS use the same kernel and underlying architecture as OS X? Regardless though, nice job with that!

Edited by THolman, Jul 21 2012, 4:24am :

1) Apple has enabled 2D Acceleration on the GPU but it is on a per-application basis just as you have to write your application to take advantage of Direct2D/DirectWrite. Regarding GDI itself, it is only partially hardware accelerated where Microsoft focused on the most commonly used elements and focused on those since the improvements would be most noticeable to end users.

2) Apple has revamped their graphics stack several times which included utilising LLVM for software based OpenGL functionality, a clean rebuild of OpenGL 3.2 that is completely legacy free and without the compromises when they first wrote OpenGL 2.1, then there is the improvements that came with Mountain Lion where the various parts of Mac OS X which rely on OpenGL have been ported over to OpenGL 3.2 and all hell hasn't broken loose.

3) Windows NT kernel is not a micro-kernel - is it cleanly designed and modular? sure it is but that is no different than Tru64 which is based on Mach 2.5 or Mac OS X which is based on Mach 3.0/BSD (which are non-micro kernel) or QNX which is a true micro-kernel. Micro-kernel designs aren't magically superior because at the end of the day it is the implementation that dictates whether something something performs or it doesn't.

4) When you talk about UNIX which UNIX are you referring to? Solaris? AIX? HP-UX? Tru64? Irix? or one of the UNIX like operating systems such as OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD or Linux? Each of them are different - Solaris has a considerably more sophisticated user management system that what exists in Linux for example - so you throw Solaris in the same boat as Linux? how about DragonflyBSD which has decided to use critical paths and other methods rather than traditional mutex paradigm to achieve greater scalability? It seems that you're quite happy to paint the world of UNIX with a very broad brush. Are there crap UNIX implementations? sure but that could be said about any operating system.

5) I can't speak for the mainstream UNIX but you tend to find that the problem with Linux has nothing to do with the lack of object orientation (as if some how OO is magic pixie dust to cure all crappy programming issues) but the fact that everything from the kernel above is written for the lowest common denominator - just look at Xorg as the epitome of 'everything but the kitchen sink' - there is finally emerging a replacement that is a Linux native technology but it needn't have taken 24 years for something to emerge.

Regarding Mac OS X - I'm confused how you claim things have become slower and slower all due to the 'lack of object orientation' (again, is it magic pixie dust that turns crappy code into good code?) given that for the last 12/13 years Apple has been taking to Mac OS X with a hatchet purging out Carbon and replacing it with nice new Cocoa code that is object orientated form the ground up. When you look at the performance issues with Mac OS X they can be pretty much traced back to a crappy compiler and even crappier libraries that developers depend upon. LLVM is a good start and we're starting to see it produce good results but it'll be at least another 2-3 years before we start seeing developers move from the GNU C++ library to the LLVM C++ Library which has been shown to have massive performance improvements even in the early development stages.

6) You raised the issue of the scheduler being changed then you confuse the issue by talking about dependencies within the kernel with the impact on the user space itself; the two are mutually exclusive and to try and link them together is lunacy. I'm the first to admit that the Linux kernel code is crap - change something and all hell breaks lose somewhere else but equally when there was a scheduler change nothing happened in user land - everything just kept working without a hitch. The only problem I remember years ago was when NTPL was merged into the kernel and required changes to libc - again, most applications worked well when they didn't assume that the threading was based on processes being spawned (that is what Linux used to do, there were no 'real threads' but simply a whole tonne of processes being spawned hence Linux sucked in the early days when it came to scalability). Wine was written on the assumption that threads equal processes and was written on that assumption with the result being that the change broke wine. Apart from that issue I can't think of anything that really comes close to such an issue taking place.

7) Mac OS X and iOS share a common source but are built with different requirements in mind such as the scheduler for example, power management and how aggressive it is at saving power, the fact that there is a tonne of stuff not required such as CUPS for printing. Linux is a nightmare but that comes back to problems beyond *NIX and everything to do with the kernel developers hangups.

Yes, the author of the said linked article is an idiot but lets actually stick to the facts rather than throwing falsehoods at another set of falsehoods.

Mr Nom Nom's said,
... lets actually stick to the facts rather than throwing falsehoods at another set of falsehoods.

thenetavenger's post was very factual. I think you missed the point of the post.
The NT kernel of today is still outperforming anything created before or since. Period.

Why do you think Apple shifted away from the powerPC chip? Why can a windows phone outperform any other smart phone running on lesser hardware?

What will this amount to in the future? Who knows... but it has to be a competitive advantage to be able latch your OS onto any emerging technology.

stevew25 said,
thenetavenger's post was very factual. I think you missed the point of the post. The NT kernel of today is still outperforming anything created before or since. Period.

No, you missed the point - the reason he gave as to WHY it outperforms SOME operating systems today. The reason he gave rested on the argument that its object orientated design lends it self to a superior end result to which I demonstrated isn't the case hence his logic is faulty.

Why do you think Apple shifted away from the powerPC chip?

Which has nothing to do with the operating system which is the argument that thenetavenger made.

Why can a windows phone outperform any other smart phone running on lesser hardware?

You're comparing Windows CE to a general purpose operating systems with a few tweaks for mobile devices? are we talking about Windows NT or Windows CE?

What will this amount to in the future? Who knows... but it has to be a competitive advantage to be able latch your OS onto any emerging technology.

Which Mac OS X does pretty well as shown over the last decade.

Mr Nom Nom's said,

You're comparing Windows CE to a general purpose operating systems with a few tweaks for mobile devices? are we talking about Windows NT or Windows CE?
.

Yeah my bad, I keep confusing Windows Embedded Standard (NT based) with Windows Embedded Compact (not NT based.) Anyway as the for objects.. I don't think its the objects themselves but how they can adapt. It was just purely objects I think Apple would of had the upper hand pre-Unix as I seem to remember the very first Macintosh being a breakthrough in object oriented design. Hypercard?

stevew25 said,
Yeah my bad, I keep confusing Windows Embedded Standard (NT based) with Windows Embedded Compact (not NT based.) Anyway as the for objects.. I don't think its the objects themselves but how they can adapt. It was just purely objects I think Apple would of had the upper hand pre-Unix as I seem to remember the very first Macintosh being a breakthrough in object oriented design. Hypercard?

Mac OS X seems to have adapted very well - I admit that the early versions of Mac OS X were incredibly basic and lacking a lot of the advanced features which Windows NT has had for decades but today the gap between the two operating systems is very small. Mac OS X has object orientation all through it - from the driver API which is based on a strict minimalist C++ implementation through to the AppKit, QtKit, AV Foundation and so on.

Regarding Linux - in it's defence the programmers would argue that a clean layered design might result in a higher overhead but that is offset by a much cleaner implementation that doesn't have the dependency issues that Windows has. The problem with Windows historically is you have dependencies that not only go down but also lower levels going upwards and horizontal dependencies too which makes stripping down Windows very difficult. Microsoft has done a lot of work addressing this issue under the well know rubric 'WinMin' but as Steven Sinofsky, it is an ongoing effort that continues to today. Windows RT and Windows Phone 8 are the first beneficiaries of such changes but things will become more interesting as the 'MinWin' work continues further up the stack.

thenetavenger said,
(Continued)

Windows NT...

NT is so misunderstood it is shameful to see educated people attempt to talk about the technology and the conceptual theories that went into its creation.

Here is the base concept - There is NO operating system technology that even comes in terms of architectural technology or capabilities.

This sounds like hyperbole to Linux and OS X users, but when it comes down to core OS kernel and OS model, they are 20 years behind NT.

In 1992 Microsoft's team threw out all the baggage and 'generics' of the Unix OS model, they also threw out traditional kernel models for a new 'heavier' kernel technology that is highly layer both horizontally and vertically. (Read the first edition of Inside NT and why they avoided Unix and why they avoided traditional kernel technologies, there are good reasons why OSes based on this aged concepts suck and will get worse as technology advances.)

This departure from traditional OS designs was seen as a major gamble for Microsoft, as they could have held on to Unix and based NT on a Unix model and a very traditional micro-kernel architecture. However, as the NT development team made a convincing case at the time, it would be redundant to carry forward with aged technologies and continue to deal with their flaws and lack of flexibility in exponentially growing technology complexity.

Around 1996, the 'overhead' of the NT architecture and kernel was negated by its ability to inherently handle complex hardware and software. This is why NT 4.0 that was C based, highly portable using a unified architecture HAL, and object based with robust security token and object handling was able to out perform Windows95 with just 32mb of RAM as the requirement to be faster and compensate for the massive overhead difference.

Win95 also was a tight monolithic kernel directly written for x86 in assembly, and still was not able to keep up with NT 4.0, even though it was handling 1/20th the OS level management. (Think Linux, but more optimized and doing 1/10th the work, and it was STILL slower than NT.)

This complexity shift is now true when comparing NT to OSX or Linux or OpenBSD based OS technologies. They use very simplistic generic models that offer low level performance; however, in dealing with a massive level of complexity, the generic streamline is lost quickly and the object model of NT overtakes these OSes in speed and functionality at a growing rate.

Windows 7 is faster than Linux or OS X, and they are doing 1/10th the management and OS level functionality Windows 7 is doing. This should have been a wake up call to Apple and the OSS world in general, yet they dismissed NT, because at this point in history, the new generation that was emerging had so little understanding of NT and what it does and is capable of doing. (NT was built on concepts that my generation had developed in 'theory' and had not been tried in a general OS, let alone with so many 'theoretical concepts' in one OS being built from scratch.)

As software and hardware complexity has changed from 2009 and Windows 7, OS X has gotten slower, Linux has gotten slower, because they are having to 'add overhead' to deal with management of the technologies that NT's object model already was handling 20 years ago.

With NT, there is no breaking code by changing parameters and functions, because when dealing with Objects, the Objects themselves compensate to provide the proper response and functionality based on the calling code's expectations. This is why Object based has overhead, but it is also why it is far more extensible and self managing as complexity increases. If you change major scheduling or locks in Linux (reference fair scheduler) it breaks a lot of dependent code. In contrast NT's scheduling and features changed far more than Linux did with 2.6 in the move from XP to Vista, and it broke virtually nothing in NT itself and upper level software never noticed the massive changes.

NT has the ability to continue to expand features without decreasing performance even when faced with massive new technologies. The WDDM/WDM in Vista was a huge change, that even one tiny piece, the composer has been a nightmare to implement in other OSes. Even OS X that had a basic composer has not been able to adapt to the vector composer or VRAM or GPU scheduling technologies, as it would require over the top changes to the OS X kernel and all dependent layers, which includes the upper layer Apple graphical frameworks. (Apple couldn't even enable 2D assisted acceleration through the GPU, and Vista and Win7 turned these on without applications even noticing they were there.

----

So, until there is an OS technology that can even come 'close' to offering the functionality, features, or speed of NT there is NOT room for a debate of retiring Windows, as there is NOTHING that can take its place.

With Windows 8 and the optimization of NT to device class systems, this becomes even more of a problem for alternative OS technologies, as they are going to be too heavy or too limited in functionality. Compare NT to Android or iOS, they are too limited. Compare NT to Linux or OS X, they are NOW heavier than NT. Yet NT is running just fine on phones and tablets and desktops and notebooks and servers, and it is the SAME kernel code and same kernel API code and same subsystem code.

If Apple could have made OS X able to run on the iphone or iPad - which they tried desperately to do, iOS would not exist and Apple would not be dismissing Microsoft's ability to put NT on everything.


The original article's author has not a clue, and in their world of Office and a few Applications, they can see a world without Windows. However in technical environments and people dealing with new hardware and emerging software needs and complexity, Windows is the only thing that can currently hold everything together without crushing under its own weight as other OSes are starting to do.


Think of this...
• Windows Server 8 - needs less resources than the latest Linux or OpenBSD servers if they are providing the same level of functionality.
• Windows Phone 8 - needs less resources than Android or iOS to provide 100x the functionality on devices.
• Windows 8 RT & x86/ & x64 in the tablet and notebook market - needs less resources than Android or iOS and these are not watered down OSes. Look at phone and tablet hardware today - Android needs quad core and 1gb already, which is UNDER what Windows 8 needs. Windows 8 is also not just a JVM using limited functionality of its underlying kernel like Android is doing, and it is also not iOS that is a generic kernel with one simplistic framework on top.

Windows has dropped in market share, but if technology is to move forward, there is NOTHING else out there that can carry it, and we will flatline at Android and iOS functionality and performance, which they are even even being crushed under their own weight and they are not very robust OSes.

I agree with you 99.9%. What I don't agree with is Android NEEDS a quadcore processor. It doesn't. Quadcore is simply whre hardware has progressed to keep it new and fresh, not because the OS needs that much power.

I believe Adroid 4.1 could easily run on a dualcore 1Ghz CPU with 1GBof RAM and a Adreno 220 GPU and it would run very fast.

Mr Nom Nom's said,
1) ...

No, the entire not NT based environment is inferior that is why they are trying to expand it. But they have realised that they can't expand without using more resources, hence why OSX's minimum requirements are growing whereas Windows' is not...

‘open' company. Maybe it's finally time for Microsoft to move on from the Windows era?

This is a direct example of architecture ignorance regarding the Windows OS and platform, specifically the NT architecture and the upper level frameworks.

People see Office and whatever Applications they are exposed to through work and play, but they don't see the millions of other people and the eclectic mix of applications and uses that would seem 'not needed' from their myopic world of technology and computing.

There are three things that are so sadly not understood.
1) Application development framework technologies
2) NT architecture and extensibility
3) Management functionality that is a core part of Windows and NT

I won't dig into the 3rd one, as even most good IT people have trouble understanding why AD with seamless integration is different than SAMBA doing authentication and being a gloried file/print server. There is a reason every company and large group in the world NEEDS the Windows management technologies.

For the other two, here goes...

Just take the development frameworks of Windows from the aged Win32 to WinRT and all the technologies that are in between. There is NOTHING like them anywhere.

With the .NET and WinRT direction that moves developers to new development models like MVVM, right now there is no way to quickly assembly high functioning and comprehensive software in a very quick development time frame. For an example, look at contests with 'children' creating functioning software that is more robust and comprehensive than a full retail software product from 15 years ago.

The adoption of visual and interactive live development technologies is where Microsoft changed a lot of the world and is the root of the success of the Windows platform. Going back to Windows 3.x, one reason it BEAT OS/2 is the cost to develop and the ease of producing software using the aged Win16/Win32 APIs and newer runtime development tools that were inexpensive like Visual Basic and its evolution from a drag and drop interface builder to a full ecosystem and platform that created millions of applications in the 90s.

Microsoft once again has the 'new' angle on future development and fast development of high quality software. Take even WP7, a graphic designer using Expression Blend can build a robust application in a very short amount of time without ever writing a single line of code beyond the XAML events and behaviors using the object oriented under structure of this new model.

The same is true of WPF era .NET and newer which is where they converge in WinRT bringing the new paradigm of HTML5 that Microsoft had tried to get adopted over 10 years ago but was thwarted by Sun and others that wanted Flash and Java to be the RIA model of the connected world.

(Notice a lot of CSS and HTML5 aspects come DIRECTLY from Microsoft W3C proposals from the late 90s that were shelved until Microsoft was no longer 'evil'. Heck, remember when people would use 'font' tags to make a page not readable in IE4 and MADE FUN of the fact that IE4 allowed the declaration of specific fonts on a web page?)

As HTML5 grows to meet what WPF was providing, and it is, WinRT's engine is set to handle both technologies as they merge seamlessly, and is able to run HTML5 content as fast as more traditional and closer to hardware code. (Something Chrome/Safari/Webkit and Firefox cannot do and is why even IE9 can still stomp them in high level RIA content by a factor up to 1000 to 1 with graphical content.)

thenetavenger said,

This is a direct example of architecture ignorance regarding the Windows OS and platform, specifically the NT architecture and the upper level frameworks.

People see Office and whatever Applications they are exposed to through work and play, but they don't see the millions of other people and the eclectic mix of applications and uses that would seem 'not needed' from their myopic world of technology and computing.

There are three things that are so sadly not understood.
1) Application development framework technologies
2) NT architecture and extensibility
3) Management functionality that is a core part of Windows and NT

I won't dig into the 3rd one, as even most good IT people have trouble understanding why AD with seamless integration is different than SAMBA doing authentication and being a gloried file/print server. There is a reason every company and large group in the world NEEDS the Windows management technologies.

For the other two, here goes...

Just take the development frameworks of Windows from the aged Win32 to WinRT and all the technologies that are in between. There is NOTHING like them anywhere.

With the .NET and WinRT direction that moves developers to new development models like MVVM, right now there is no way to quickly assembly high functioning and comprehensive software in a very quick development time frame. For an example, look at contests with 'children' creating functioning software that is more robust and comprehensive than a full retail software product from 15 years ago.

The adoption of visual and interactive live development technologies is where Microsoft changed a lot of the world and is the root of the success of the Windows platform. Going back to Windows 3.x, one reason it BEAT OS/2 is the cost to develop and the ease of producing software using the aged Win16/Win32 APIs and newer runtime development tools that were inexpensive like Visual Basic and its evolution from a drag and drop interface builder to a full ecosystem and platform that created millions of applications in the 90s.

Microsoft once again has the 'new' angle on future development and fast development of high quality software. Take even WP7, a graphic designer using Expression Blend can build a robust application in a very short amount of time without ever writing a single line of code beyond the XAML events and behaviors using the object oriented under structure of this new model.

The same is true of WPF era .NET and newer which is where they converge in WinRT bringing the new paradigm of HTML5 that Microsoft had tried to get adopted over 10 years ago but was thwarted by Sun and others that wanted Flash and Java to be the RIA model of the connected world.

(Notice a lot of CSS and HTML5 aspects come DIRECTLY from Microsoft W3C proposals from the late 90s that were shelved until Microsoft was no longer 'evil'. Heck, remember when people would use 'font' tags to make a page not readable in IE4 and MADE FUN of the fact that IE4 allowed the declaration of specific fonts on a web page?)

As HTML5 grows to meet what WPF was providing, and it is, WinRT's engine is set to handle both technologies as they merge seamlessly, and is able to run HTML5 content as fast as more traditional and closer to hardware code. (Something Chrome/Safari/Webkit and Firefox cannot do and is why even IE9 can still stomp them in high level RIA content by a factor up to 1000 to 1 with graphical content.)


THANK YOU, SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Even then Win32 isn't all that bad as long as developers read the documentation and take on board when Microsoft says they're going to deprecate something. The only complaint I've heard from developers in the real world regarding Win32 is that it is too low level sometimes hence we're seeing WinRT abstract the complexity away which is a step in the right direction. IMHO when it comes to desktop applications what I see is the future are feature rich frameworks with good developer tools rather than managed code - Apple has already done that with their deprecating of garbage collection in favour of Automatic Reference Counting (ARC) and Microsoft is pretty much doing it for the last few years with their improved compiler technologies and developer tools.

I made a prediction last year that within five years MS would be on the brink of collapse. I think I feel even more confident with that sad time coming to fruition. MS gave Apple Office and hence gave away what made it key to getting real work done. Now Apples sell like if you dont have one then you might get cancer or something. MS is finished.

MS is finished?

- Recently had record revenues.
- Would have had close to 7 billion profit on revenues of 18 billion if it wasn't for a 6.2 billion purchase that went bad.
- Most popular console
- Most popular desktop OS
- Most popular office suite

Hell last year they had profits of 27 billion on revenues of 70 billion. Sorry MS is far from the brink of collapse.

Iridium said,
I made a prediction last year that within five years MS would be on the brink of collapse. I think I feel even more confident with that sad time coming to fruition. MS gave Apple Office and hence gave away what made it key to getting real work done. Now Apples sell like if you dont have one then you might get cancer or something. MS is finished.

In spite of that, Apple still has 6% of desktop os market share.
Whenever you'd like to come back to reality, let us know.

Iridium said,
I made a prediction last year that within five years MS would be on the brink of collapse. I think I feel even more confident with that sad time coming to fruition. MS gave Apple Office and hence gave away what made it key to getting real work done. Now Apples sell like if you dont have one then you might get cancer or something. MS is finished.

http://motivpic.com/users-data...ing-or-just-stupid-050f.jpg
but seriously, Office _is_ essentially an Apple product - it came out first for Mac, and it was developed with Apple...Microsoft never gave Apple Office, and if anything

Apple helped Office get to where it is now. as for selling, dude, seriously, check the OSX sales figures once a decade ;D even with the iPad, we've yet to see how consumers respond to Surface & Windows 8. And iPhone? Windows Phone has actually been doing not completely horrible (though still not good), and Microsoft is making, what, a billion dollars annually on Android patent deals?

if you can prove me wrong, and Microsoft really does fall in 4 years, I'll eat a Trinidad Scorpion Butch T pepper(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...dad_Scorpion_Butch_T_pepper)

I need to write down your username to make sure I never take any investment advice from you.

With Microsoft's record revenue and profits I think you should stay out of the predictions game. You are a terrible terrible analyst.

Iridium said,
I made a prediction last year that within five years MS would be on the brink of collapse. I think I feel even more confident with that sad time coming to fruition. MS gave Apple Office and hence gave away what made it key to getting real work done. Now Apples sell like if you dont have one then you might get cancer or something. MS is finished.

I'll make a prediction right now, you're wrong, that is all.

Matthew_Thepc said,

http://motivpic.com/users-data...ing-or-just-stupid-050f.jpg
but seriously, Office _is_ essentially an Apple product - it came out first for Mac, and it was developed with Apple...Microsoft never gave Apple Office, and if anything

Apple helped Office get to where it is now. as for selling, dude, seriously, check the OSX sales figures once a decade ;D even with the iPad, we've yet to see how consumers respond to Surface & Windows 8. And iPhone? Windows Phone has actually been doing not completely horrible (though still not good), and Microsoft is making, what, a billion dollars annually on Android patent deals?

if you can prove me wrong, and Microsoft really does fall in 4 years, I'll eat a Trinidad Scorpion Butch T pepper(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...dad_Scorpion_Butch_T_pepper)

Dude what are you smoking!!!!!!!!!


Windows is what propelled Office...NOT Apple or the Mac. In 28 years Apple has sold only 130M Mac's. PC's right now sell at over 200M in a single year. You really think the Mac propelled Office? That is just dumb.

Mac's are used MOSt for media creation. Those guys don't need Office. Plus they all brag about how much better iWorks is over Office. Well if iWorks was so great, why isn't it available for Windows. See the world's greatest Applications are avail on multiple platforms, not just one. If Microsoft relead on Apple for Ofice penetration, WordPErfect would still be number one.

Dude lay off the glue.

Iridium said,
I made a prediction last year that within five years MS would be on the brink of collapse. I think I feel even more confident with that sad time coming to fruition. MS gave Apple Office and hence gave away what made it key to getting real work done. Now Apples sell like if you dont have one then you might get cancer or something. MS is finished.
And 5 years from now you will post the same until finally it actually happens. OH WAIT...unless you are under 25, it likely wont happen in your lifetime.

TechieXP said,
Dude what are you smoking!!!!!!!!!


Windows is what propelled Office...NOT Apple or the Mac. In 28 years Apple has sold only 130M Mac's. PC's right now sell at over 200M in a single year. You really think the Mac propelled Office? That is just dumb.

Mac's are used MOSt for media creation. Those guys don't need Office. Plus they all brag about how much better iWorks is over Office. Well if iWorks was so great, why isn't it available for Windows. See the world's greatest Applications are avail on multiple platforms, not just one. If Microsoft relead on Apple for Ofice penetration, WordPErfect would still be number one.

Dude lay off the glue.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Office Office was released first for Macintosh. I was trying to point out that when he says Microsoft "gave" Apple office because they made a version for Mac, in reality Office was made for Mac and then ported over to Windows, instead of made for Windows and ported over to Mac. Ofc Office wasn't propelled by Mac, but I was just trying to reply to where he said Microsoft 'gave' apple Office

edit: but yeah, reading over it again now, I could've written my comment a lot better and the sentence should read "Microsoft never gave Apple Office, and if anything Apple helped Office get to where it is now" without the line break, sorry for that

But as people become less dependant on Windows, Office will suffer as a consequence. In fact all Microsoft software with the exception of perhaps the XBox is tied into Windows. If one suffers, they all do. It may not be apparent immediately, but the realisation that Windows isn't necessary for work and play is going to hurt almost all Microsoft business units.

simplezz said,
But as people become less dependant on Windows, Office will suffer as a consequence. In fact all Microsoft software with the exception of perhaps the XBox is tied into Windows. If one suffers, they all do. It may not be apparent immediately, but the realisation that Windows isn't necessary to do work and play is going to hurt almost all Microsoft business units.

Not if Microsoft adapted to that new reality. Why haven't they released a version of Office for iOS for example?

CJEric said,

Not if Microsoft adapted to that new reality. Why haven't they released a version of Office for iOS for example?

Rumored to be coming by the end of the year.

simplezz said,
But as people become less dependant on Windows, Office will suffer as a consequence. In fact all Microsoft software with the exception of perhaps the XBox is tied into Windows. If one suffers, they all do. It may not be apparent immediately, but the realisation that Windows isn't necessary for work and play is going to hurt almost all Microsoft business units.

You've got it the wrong way around - people are dependent on Office therefore they're dependent on Windows with the worse thing Microsoft can do is port Microsoft Office to more platforms in complete form which would undermine their Windows sales.

CJEric said,

Not if Microsoft adapted to that new reality. Why haven't they released a version of Office for iOS for example?

Because Microsoft isn't going to release a product for another platform, before releasing for their own first. Look at Office. Has MS ever release Office for the Mac before Windows? NO!!!!!!

Sometimes I wonder why common-sense if so scarce in our society.

13% is i assume a big number, I assume only a couple percents are because of people waiting for windows 8. specially since microsoft is offering it to people for a $50 upgrade fee.

are PC sales down in general? it would be interesting to know that.

capr said,
are PC sales down in general? it would be interesting to know that.

Yes. In addition, the entire world economy is down.

Microsoft's recent quarter definitely wasn't one of its best, at least on the surface, reporting a $492 million loss thanks to its acquisition of aQuantive, but aQuantive's failure to change Microsoft's position in the advertising market isn't the only problem in the financial results. The Windows Division took a pretty big heat, too, with sales dropping 13%.

Um they made a 6.7 billion profit that had to be marked down due a 6.2 billion purchase.

Also Windows 8 is about to be released soon, so guess what happens? Windows 7 sales drop. It happens every windows release.

Whoever wrote the original article is stupid. Then again isn't funny how analysts always end up wrong but still get paid tons? *Cough* Patcher *cough*

-Razorfold said,
Um they made a 6.7 billion profit that had to be marked down due a 6.2 billion purchase.

Also Windows 8 is about to be released soon, so guess what happens? Windows 7 sales drop. It happens every windows release.

Whoever wrote the original article is stupid. Then again isn't funny how analysts always end up wrong but still get paid tons? *Cough* Patcher *cough*

Of course but what I find even funnier are the number of MBA wizzkids who pay these idiots for said advice - remember the speculation by Forrester that Itanium was going to replace x86 in the high end along with the proprietary RISC CPU's? well here we are and sorry the Itanium revolution hasn't occurred - we're all now using x86-64 and even Intel has seen the writing on the wall to start pushing x86-64 further up in terms of scalability.

-Razorfold said,
Also Windows 8 is about to be released soon, so guess what happens? Windows 7 sales drop. It happens every windows release.

Unsure of that this time

hopefully, ms continues to invest in new products and ideas. I've had my laptop for nearly 4 years now. I think it's time to upgrade to a i7 laptop with windows 8, should be a nice change.

Melfster said,
What kind of BS article is this? Without windows office would be nothing.

the article talks about the lowered sales of windows os, not their office product.

Melfster said,
What kind of BS article is this? Without windows office would be nothing.

Actually, Office is already a great product in its own right. Lots of people who don't use Windows still use Office.

THolman said,

Actually, Office is already a great product in its own right. Lots of people who don't use Windows still use Office.

\


The point is is Microsoft didn't APIs for Windows it would take much longer to make Office. Office depends on Windows Look how much it has changed in windows 8.

Melfster said,
\


The point is is Microsoft didn't APIs for Windows it would take much longer to make Office. Office depends on Windows Look how much it has changed in windows 8.

What?

Melfster said,
\


The point is is Microsoft didn't APIs for Windows it would take much longer to make Office. Office depends on Windows Look how much it has changed in windows 8.

Office 2004 for Mac... Office 2008 for Mac... Office 2011 for Mac...

rfirth said,

Office 2004 for Mac... Office 2008 for Mac... Office 2011 for Mac...

WTF I talking Microsoft had an inherent advantage with Windows. Yes I know its on other platforms. But the bulk of their sales is on Windows.

Melfster said,

WTF I talking Microsoft had an inherent advantage with Windows. Yes I know its on other platforms. But the bulk of their sales is on Windows.

Now you're speaking English. Your earlier comment was confusing.

This doesn't make sense:
"The point is is Microsoft didn't APIs for Windows"

Melfster said,
Office depends on Windows Look how much it has changed in windows 8.

Slapping on a different interface so Office resembles Metro doesn't say anything about how the application suite actually makes use of Windows 8's new APIs. In fact Microsoft Office remains a set of desktop apps rather than Metro and they run on Windows 7 as well.

Melfster said,
\


The point is is Microsoft didn't APIs for Windows it would take much longer to make Office. Office depends on Windows Look how much it has changed in windows 8.

Ithink Iunderstand what you're trying to say, but your point is dumb. Here os why. Yes Office does use Windows API's. Microsoft wants it that way for a reason as with other apps that run on Windows. There are fundemental functions that already exist in the OS. If you use the API, it prevents the need to rewrite a finction that alread exists. If Office did use the API for IE, then you coudlnt open a web page directly inside Office.

Using Windows Media API's means media can be played directly in the app, without opening the media player itself. Office can run without any APT's from Windows at all. But then you may as well be using the Mac versions.