Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Making Microsoft a niche player
By Nicholas Petreley
on
August 30, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
Novell engineer and manager Allison Singh recently predicted in an Africa-based tectonic magazine article that Windows will become a niche operating system, replaced by Linux as the new standard. A gestalt of recent trends, events, and stories should tell you that this prediction is right on the money. A gestalt, by the way, is a perception or conclusion that goes beyond the sum of its parts. Here are three of the many parts that comprise the gestalt.
Part One: Microsoft ran an ad campaign for about six months that used the results of a Meta Group study. The study compares the cost of Windows running on a dual 900MHz Xeon server versus Linux on a z900 IBM mainframe. The Microsoft conclusion, according to the ad, is that Linux is ten times more expensive to run than Windows. The UK Advertising Standards Authority recently upheld complaints that this ad was misleading, as reported in this Inquirer article.
Part Two: Sean Gallagher wrote in a recent Baseline magazine article that Microsoft's developer base is eroding due to powerful and intuitive languages like Python, which can easily replace Visual Basic.
Part Three: Linux Development studies by Evans Data Corporation over the past few years show a definite shift from Windows to Linux among developers.
The prediction that Windows will become a niche operating system and be replaced by Linux is counterintuitive at best. Some of the problems that plague Windows are caused by the fact that Microsoft has designed it to be a one-size-fits-all operating system, so how could it ever be relegated to a niche status?
The answer to this question begins with part one, and requires a bit of history.
Once upon a time, product-oriented publications earned a level of credibility by maintaining a strict wall between the sales staff, whose job it is to sell advertising, and the editorial staff, whose job it is to tell the truth about products. One of the few times an editorial staff crossed the line was when editors felt it was necessary to censor an advertisement that contained potentially false information or was intentionally misleading. Running such an ad could damage the credibility of the publication and, in turn, the credibility of its editorial content.
Now, it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to detect that something has changed. While it is reassuring that the the UK Advertising Standards Authority recently agreed that it is misleading to include the cost of a mainframe in order to prove Linux is ten times more expensive than Windows, surely the only people who were fooled by this comparison were those who can measure their IQ with a tire pressure gauge. What is surprising, however, is that (to their shame) reputable IT publications ran this ad for months.
I will leave it to the reader to decide if the editorial content of any of these publications is less credible as a result. But if I may come to their defense just a bit without excusing their poor judgment, allow me explain why this change in editorial sensitivity and control over misleading advertising has come about.
The Golden Years of Microsoft
Ironically, we owe at least some credit to Microsoft that the media once rejected misleading advertisements without fear that the loss of advertising income could harm the publication's bottom line. More than a decade ago, IBM, Microsoft, and others had created a wide-open market for PC applications. If a publication refused to run a misleading ad from Ashton-Tate about its dBase product, so what? The publication would remain filled with ads for other databases like Paradox, Dataease, Clarion, FoxPro, Clipper, R:Base, and countless more. It was a market rich with healthy competition.
Then came the '90s. Microsoft sold these publications a dirty bill of goods with the promise of Windows 95. Microsoft promoted Windows 95 in such a way that publications became positively giddy with excitement over the possible explosion of new advertising revenue. Surely everyone would be eager to sell their new 32-bit versions of Windows applications, hence more advertising income would come rolling in like a tidal wave with the release of this new 32-bit version of Windows. As a result, the IT media (in general) was eager to whip the consuming public into an orgasmic frenzy over the introduction of Windows 95. They believed it was in their best financial interests to do so.
Except it wasn't. Instead of creating a market for a new breed of applications, Microsoft leveraged its control over Windows 95 to eliminate all major competing products in almost every category. By the time the media realized this, it was too late to do anything about it. Almost all products that competed with Microsoft products began to fail in the market, even when the non-Microsoft products were clearly superior. With almost all competition out of the way, Microsoft quickly became the primary source of advertising income for the media.
That's often the reason why even reputable IT publications now run blatantly misleading ads that claim Linux is ten times more expensive than Windows. Many of them can't afford to offend the provider of their greatest source of income.
Don't expect things to change anytime soon. Microsoft has managed to see to it that there is no longer a market for new third-party commercial Windows applications. Some existing applications (Lotus Notes, Oracle, DB2, to cite a few examples) are hanging on in the Windows market, but primarily because it is often painful for the installed base to migrate away from these applications to the Microsoft equivalents. With each new version of Windows, Microsoft is hard at work making it painful not to migrate from existing third-party applications to Microsoft equivalents. For example, one of the design goals of Longhorn is to make third party databases irrelevant.
Developers, developers, developers
That brings us to part two of the gestalt. In the article referenced above, Sean Gallagher points out that Microsoft is losing its developer base. Personally, I think he overstated the influence of Python in his argument. Python is one of my favorite languages, but Python will overthrow the Microsoft hold on developers when someone turns down a date with Angelina Jolie because she has a zit that day.
Python mania aside, Gallagher's basic premise has merit. Gallagher rightly points out that Microsoft built its empire on the backs of developers. But what he fails to make clear is that these were primarily third-party commercial software developers. When Steve Ballmer once chanted "developers, developers, developers" to his employees, people were buying Windows because that was the target for all the popular applications, namely Lotus SmartSuite, Lotus Notes, Borland Paradox, WordPerfect Office, Visio, Corel Draw, and so on. Microsoft has since eliminated, bought, or relegated these applications to niche status.
Here's the problem. Linux and free/open source software is not going to restore the third party Independent Software Vendor market to its former glory. Free/open source software cannot promise to restore this market because the best alternatives to Windows and Windows applications are free-as-in-beer, like Linux, OpenOffice, Apache, PostgreSQL, Ximian Evolution, and so on. It is safe to say that the demand for third-party commercial applications in the Linux market is never going to reach the heights once enjoyed by the Windows market.
The New Market
So here is the current state of the industry. On the one side, we have Microsoft working toward the goal of making sure that everything you run in the front and back office is Microsoft software. On the other side, we have free/open source equivalent solutions to almost all of what Microsoft has to offer. In neither case is there a promise of a revival of the third-party commercial software market. In both cases, there is the promise of making money by adding value to the existing solutions, or by providing vertical commercial applications. (A vertical application is one that targets a special market such as medical systems, etc.)
The new market is therefore comprised primarily of value add resellers (VARs), system integrators (SI), vertical applications development, and internal development of corporate applications. This is the reason why what Gallagher says is true. Microsoft really is losing its developer base to free software. The Evans Data Corporation Linux developer surveys include hard data to back up that assertion, although it currently indicates developers are far more inclined to use languages like Java, PHP, C/C++, and Perl rather than Python.
One of the most interesting trends in the most recent Evans survey is that the reality of what developers are doing is beginning to match their predictions from past surveys. With each survey, developers predicted a major shift in their primary focus from Windows to Linux. Each new survey contained the same predictions, but the shift was not actually occurring. That is, it didn't occur until this latest survey.
The most recent survey shows a significant drop in developers who expect to upgrade to Windows 2003 server. It also shows that a significant percentage of developers are moving directly from Windows 2000 to Linux. In other words, when taken together, several pieces of the survey indicate that developers are finally jumping off the Windows upgrade merry-go-round. This accounts for the fact that they are finally beginning to catch up to their prior predictions of switching focus from Windows to Linux.
That's not to say other factors aren't involved. The most recent survey also revealed a dramatic increase in dissatisfaction with Windows security, as a large percentage of developers moved from ranking Windows as "somewhat less secure" to "much less secure" than Linux.
More important than why Microsoft is losing developers to Linux is which developers are defecting. Microsoft is losing the developer base that belongs to the new market, not the old one. These developers are primarily VARs, systems integrators, commercial developers of vertical applications and the like. The glory days of selling word processors is over. The glory days of selling custom solutions is just beginning to flourish. And Microsoft cannot possibly compete effectively in this new market.
As Microsoft creeps closer to its goal of providing the entire solution from desktop to server, Microsoft runs into the sticky problem of how to perpetuate its revenue streams. The obvious solution, and the one Microsoft has clearly chosen, is the renewable license. Neither developers nor end-user customers can buy Microsoft software, they can only rent it. And when the lease is up, they have no choice but to do without support or renew the contract. Failing to renew is not an option, because they can't afford to leave systems open to the latest worms, viruses, and flaws. No doubt they will also pay substantially more each round, because Microsoft can't afford to keep its revenue stream constant, it must increase its revenue.
Imagine, therefore, that you are a VAR attempting to sell a custom solution to your customer. Which solution will put more money in your pocket? The all-Microsoft solution includes the cost of each copy of Windows at the server and desktop, including user licenses for Windows itself and any licenses for additional Microsoft applications that are part of the final solution. The VAR must pass on this cost to the customer, thus inflating the price of the solution. In addition, these costs are recurring, due to Microsoft's shift to a subscription based revenue model.
The VAR who chooses a free/open source solution can easily underbid any Microsoft-based solution, and still pocket more money when the sale is done.
Microsoft currently has three leverage points against the free/open source solutions. First, Microsoft still offers arguably better tools for the VAR to build the final product. Second, most customers suffer from some degree of Microsoft lock-in, whether it is dependence upon Office document formats or a customer's unwillingness to retrain its users. Third, Microsoft has a Fort Knox of funds with which to advertise propaganda, grease palms, and influence customers in other ways.
On the other hand, as Microsoft tools improve, prices rise. As free/open source tools improve, they remain free. Nor is it cost-effective to remain locked into Microsoft. At some point, many customers will not be able to afford to remain locked-in, and they will have to take the open source plunge. This trend has already begun. Microsoft has been using its cash to stave off some defections to open source, but Microsoft's supply of money is not inexhaustible. With each new defection, another log is added to the dam blocking the river of green flowing into Microsoft's Fort Knox.
As Microsoft loses more customers to open source, it has to yield to pressures to find other sources of income, and one of those sources will be existing customers. That, in turn, places more pressure on existing customers to defect to open source.
In the end, Microsoft has nowhere to go but to become a "niche" player, where its only remaining customers are those who choose to stay locked-in to one or more software products available only from Microsoft. Allison Singh is right. At some point in the not-too-distant future, Windows and Microsoft software is doomed to a niche status while Linux and free/open source software becomes the de-facto standard.
Nicholas Petreley, Linux Analyst for Evans Data Corp, is a consultant and writer in Kansas City, MO.
Part Two: Sean Gallagher wrote in a recent Baseline magazine article that Microsoft's developer base is eroding due to powerful and intuitive languages like Python, which can easily replace Visual Basic.
Part Three: Linux Development studies by Evans Data Corporation over the past few years show a definite shift from Windows to Linux among developers.
The prediction that Windows will become a niche operating system and be replaced by Linux is counterintuitive at best. Some of the problems that plague Windows are caused by the fact that Microsoft has designed it to be a one-size-fits-all operating system, so how could it ever be relegated to a niche status?
The answer to this question begins with part one, and requires a bit of history.
Once upon a time, product-oriented publications earned a level of credibility by maintaining a strict wall between the sales staff, whose job it is to sell advertising, and the editorial staff, whose job it is to tell the truth about products. One of the few times an editorial staff crossed the line was when editors felt it was necessary to censor an advertisement that contained potentially false information or was intentionally misleading. Running such an ad could damage the credibility of the publication and, in turn, the credibility of its editorial content.
Now, it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to detect that something has changed. While it is reassuring that the the UK Advertising Standards Authority recently agreed that it is misleading to include the cost of a mainframe in order to prove Linux is ten times more expensive than Windows, surely the only people who were fooled by this comparison were those who can measure their IQ with a tire pressure gauge. What is surprising, however, is that (to their shame) reputable IT publications ran this ad for months.
I will leave it to the reader to decide if the editorial content of any of these publications is less credible as a result. But if I may come to their defense just a bit without excusing their poor judgment, allow me explain why this change in editorial sensitivity and control over misleading advertising has come about.
The Golden Years of Microsoft
Ironically, we owe at least some credit to Microsoft that the media once rejected misleading advertisements without fear that the loss of advertising income could harm the publication's bottom line. More than a decade ago, IBM, Microsoft, and others had created a wide-open market for PC applications. If a publication refused to run a misleading ad from Ashton-Tate about its dBase product, so what? The publication would remain filled with ads for other databases like Paradox, Dataease, Clarion, FoxPro, Clipper, R:Base, and countless more. It was a market rich with healthy competition.
Then came the '90s. Microsoft sold these publications a dirty bill of goods with the promise of Windows 95. Microsoft promoted Windows 95 in such a way that publications became positively giddy with excitement over the possible explosion of new advertising revenue. Surely everyone would be eager to sell their new 32-bit versions of Windows applications, hence more advertising income would come rolling in like a tidal wave with the release of this new 32-bit version of Windows. As a result, the IT media (in general) was eager to whip the consuming public into an orgasmic frenzy over the introduction of Windows 95. They believed it was in their best financial interests to do so.
Except it wasn't. Instead of creating a market for a new breed of applications, Microsoft leveraged its control over Windows 95 to eliminate all major competing products in almost every category. By the time the media realized this, it was too late to do anything about it. Almost all products that competed with Microsoft products began to fail in the market, even when the non-Microsoft products were clearly superior. With almost all competition out of the way, Microsoft quickly became the primary source of advertising income for the media.
That's often the reason why even reputable IT publications now run blatantly misleading ads that claim Linux is ten times more expensive than Windows. Many of them can't afford to offend the provider of their greatest source of income.
Don't expect things to change anytime soon. Microsoft has managed to see to it that there is no longer a market for new third-party commercial Windows applications. Some existing applications (Lotus Notes, Oracle, DB2, to cite a few examples) are hanging on in the Windows market, but primarily because it is often painful for the installed base to migrate away from these applications to the Microsoft equivalents. With each new version of Windows, Microsoft is hard at work making it painful not to migrate from existing third-party applications to Microsoft equivalents. For example, one of the design goals of Longhorn is to make third party databases irrelevant.
Developers, developers, developers
That brings us to part two of the gestalt. In the article referenced above, Sean Gallagher points out that Microsoft is losing its developer base. Personally, I think he overstated the influence of Python in his argument. Python is one of my favorite languages, but Python will overthrow the Microsoft hold on developers when someone turns down a date with Angelina Jolie because she has a zit that day.
Python mania aside, Gallagher's basic premise has merit. Gallagher rightly points out that Microsoft built its empire on the backs of developers. But what he fails to make clear is that these were primarily third-party commercial software developers. When Steve Ballmer once chanted "developers, developers, developers" to his employees, people were buying Windows because that was the target for all the popular applications, namely Lotus SmartSuite, Lotus Notes, Borland Paradox, WordPerfect Office, Visio, Corel Draw, and so on. Microsoft has since eliminated, bought, or relegated these applications to niche status.
Here's the problem. Linux and free/open source software is not going to restore the third party Independent Software Vendor market to its former glory. Free/open source software cannot promise to restore this market because the best alternatives to Windows and Windows applications are free-as-in-beer, like Linux, OpenOffice, Apache, PostgreSQL, Ximian Evolution, and so on. It is safe to say that the demand for third-party commercial applications in the Linux market is never going to reach the heights once enjoyed by the Windows market.
The New Market
So here is the current state of the industry. On the one side, we have Microsoft working toward the goal of making sure that everything you run in the front and back office is Microsoft software. On the other side, we have free/open source equivalent solutions to almost all of what Microsoft has to offer. In neither case is there a promise of a revival of the third-party commercial software market. In both cases, there is the promise of making money by adding value to the existing solutions, or by providing vertical commercial applications. (A vertical application is one that targets a special market such as medical systems, etc.)
The new market is therefore comprised primarily of value add resellers (VARs), system integrators (SI), vertical applications development, and internal development of corporate applications. This is the reason why what Gallagher says is true. Microsoft really is losing its developer base to free software. The Evans Data Corporation Linux developer surveys include hard data to back up that assertion, although it currently indicates developers are far more inclined to use languages like Java, PHP, C/C++, and Perl rather than Python.
One of the most interesting trends in the most recent Evans survey is that the reality of what developers are doing is beginning to match their predictions from past surveys. With each survey, developers predicted a major shift in their primary focus from Windows to Linux. Each new survey contained the same predictions, but the shift was not actually occurring. That is, it didn't occur until this latest survey.
The most recent survey shows a significant drop in developers who expect to upgrade to Windows 2003 server. It also shows that a significant percentage of developers are moving directly from Windows 2000 to Linux. In other words, when taken together, several pieces of the survey indicate that developers are finally jumping off the Windows upgrade merry-go-round. This accounts for the fact that they are finally beginning to catch up to their prior predictions of switching focus from Windows to Linux.
That's not to say other factors aren't involved. The most recent survey also revealed a dramatic increase in dissatisfaction with Windows security, as a large percentage of developers moved from ranking Windows as "somewhat less secure" to "much less secure" than Linux.
More important than why Microsoft is losing developers to Linux is which developers are defecting. Microsoft is losing the developer base that belongs to the new market, not the old one. These developers are primarily VARs, systems integrators, commercial developers of vertical applications and the like. The glory days of selling word processors is over. The glory days of selling custom solutions is just beginning to flourish. And Microsoft cannot possibly compete effectively in this new market.
As Microsoft creeps closer to its goal of providing the entire solution from desktop to server, Microsoft runs into the sticky problem of how to perpetuate its revenue streams. The obvious solution, and the one Microsoft has clearly chosen, is the renewable license. Neither developers nor end-user customers can buy Microsoft software, they can only rent it. And when the lease is up, they have no choice but to do without support or renew the contract. Failing to renew is not an option, because they can't afford to leave systems open to the latest worms, viruses, and flaws. No doubt they will also pay substantially more each round, because Microsoft can't afford to keep its revenue stream constant, it must increase its revenue.
Imagine, therefore, that you are a VAR attempting to sell a custom solution to your customer. Which solution will put more money in your pocket? The all-Microsoft solution includes the cost of each copy of Windows at the server and desktop, including user licenses for Windows itself and any licenses for additional Microsoft applications that are part of the final solution. The VAR must pass on this cost to the customer, thus inflating the price of the solution. In addition, these costs are recurring, due to Microsoft's shift to a subscription based revenue model.
The VAR who chooses a free/open source solution can easily underbid any Microsoft-based solution, and still pocket more money when the sale is done.
Microsoft currently has three leverage points against the free/open source solutions. First, Microsoft still offers arguably better tools for the VAR to build the final product. Second, most customers suffer from some degree of Microsoft lock-in, whether it is dependence upon Office document formats or a customer's unwillingness to retrain its users. Third, Microsoft has a Fort Knox of funds with which to advertise propaganda, grease palms, and influence customers in other ways.
On the other hand, as Microsoft tools improve, prices rise. As free/open source tools improve, they remain free. Nor is it cost-effective to remain locked into Microsoft. At some point, many customers will not be able to afford to remain locked-in, and they will have to take the open source plunge. This trend has already begun. Microsoft has been using its cash to stave off some defections to open source, but Microsoft's supply of money is not inexhaustible. With each new defection, another log is added to the dam blocking the river of green flowing into Microsoft's Fort Knox.
As Microsoft loses more customers to open source, it has to yield to pressures to find other sources of income, and one of those sources will be existing customers. That, in turn, places more pressure on existing customers to defect to open source.
In the end, Microsoft has nowhere to go but to become a "niche" player, where its only remaining customers are those who choose to stay locked-in to one or more software products available only from Microsoft. Allison Singh is right. At some point in the not-too-distant future, Windows and Microsoft software is doomed to a niche status while Linux and free/open source software becomes the de-facto standard.
Nicholas Petreley, Linux Analyst for Evans Data Corp, is a consultant and writer in Kansas City, MO.
Comments
on Making Microsoft a niche playerNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
sounds good but overly optimistic.
Patents, patenst, IP and other legal stuff will be a hangover for Free Software.
Also there will only be a switch to GNU/linux and Free Software if the there is a clear and present cost advantatge. So that the company's that work with GNU/Linux are working a lot cheaper then company who use Microsoft.
Now I don't think that GNU/Linux is a lot ceaper. Maybe a little bit but not a LOT.
However I think Longhorn/shorthorn could be the brick on wich Microsoft will finly stumble.
For the Free Software people. This is the time to prove your self. You have until 2006 to make the market share of GNU/Linux jump to 5 a 10 %... Else the lockin of Microsoft will be to great!
I hope and believe that Free Software will become mandatory
Patents, patenst, IP and other legal stuff will be a hangover for Free Software.
Also there will only be a switch to GNU/linux and Free Software if the there is a clear and present cost advantatge. So that the company's that work with GNU/Linux are working a lot cheaper then company who use Microsoft.
Now I don't think that GNU/Linux is a lot ceaper. Maybe a little bit but not a LOT.
However I think Longhorn/shorthorn could be the brick on wich Microsoft will finly stumble.
For the Free Software people. This is the time to prove your self. You have until 2006 to make the market share of GNU/Linux jump to 5 a 10 %... Else the lockin of Microsoft will be to great!
I hope and believe that Free Software will become mandatory
"I hope and believe that Free Software will become mandatory"
And that's really in the spirit of Freedom that underlies Free Software, isn't it.
company's that work with GNU/Linux are working a lot cheaper then company who use Microsoft
The biggest area where they are working "cheaper" is in that they are working cooperatively, with a lot less duplication of effort. I believe that in the process you will see proprietary Unix dissapear as well.
In the past the time cost of puting togeather a linux solution was definately higher than putting togeather a windows solution, and you may be right that now it is only a little less. But here again we see another pointer in the same direction as the article pointed, as linux continues to be improved, it will be even easier to set up, customize and use. This will make the labor cost difference even greater in favor of Linux. This is a long term trend, just like the rising prices/cost of M$ software. So lets say that 12 years ago linux cost 4 times as much to set up as windows did for a specific job that linux could do, and it has now become just slightly less expensive than windows. If we project that out, in 12 years more, windows will cost 4 times as much to set up as linux will. If most management cost decisions are based on the immediate price, then this will be the most important cost consideration in selecting what operating system gets used, and, well, we get the same conclusion that the article had.
as for doing contract work, I can often -- though not always -- buy the hardware for the project, and bill my time at $60/hour and still come in under the price for microsofts software alone. Anyone who would set up the M$ solution would then have to spend about the same ammount of time setting that up as I would setting up the open source solution. As time goes on, I would not be surprised at being able to charge $120-$150/hour and still beating the prices for a M$ based solution. If these prices are less than what the M$ shops are asking, then those M$ shops are just begging for their customers to develop internal linux skills which can deployed for $25 - $35/hour.
But microsoft has just a advantage here. Microsoft constructud the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET to set infrastructur. And besides the internet is getting more an more in the middle of thing. Not the home PC.
If Microsoft wouldn't such a market leverage then it already would have been swept away by Free Software! But the fact is that Microsoft is a entity on its own.
I use primarly Free Software out of principle like RMS even if it gives me a lower productivity.
The more knowledgebell one get the more productive you will be.
I hope that in ten year time the Free Software movement will made there code truely easy.
If Microsoft wouldn't such a market leverage then it already would have been swept away by Free Software! But the fact is that Microsoft is a entity on its own.
I use primarly Free Software out of principle like RMS even if it gives me a lower productivity.
The more knowledgebell one get the more productive you will be.
I hope that in ten year time the Free Software movement will made there code truely easy.
The spelling and grammer in this thread is just shocking. Mine is no gem but omg, asking people to read the English written here is a cruelty. I could string sentances together better than that when I was 9. And I went to public school!
It may surprise you that not everyone that accesses the internet is from the USA.
If all the pirated ms copies went to free-linux, then ms would be a niche player, but still the leader in terms of gross sales! (and rich as stink!)
"Microsoft promoted Windows 95............ Surely everyone would be eager to sell their new 32-bit versions of Windows applications."
Now correct me if I am wrong but was the 1st iteration of win95 really a 32 bit OS? I know that the file system for win 95 was FAT16 and it was not until the release of win95b (not sure about that naming) that it used FAT32.
So I think FAT16 is a 16 bit file system and FAT32 a 32 bit file system. Can you run a 32 bit OS on a 16 bit file system? Possibly. I suppose the memory registers for the RAM could be 32 bit while the file system on the harddrive is 16 bit.
Can you store 32 bit data in a 16 bit address space? Maybe, but it seems like it would be quite a kludge.
Now correct me if I am wrong but was the 1st iteration of win95 really a 32 bit OS? I know that the file system for win 95 was FAT16 and it was not until the release of win95b (not sure about that naming) that it used FAT32.
So I think FAT16 is a 16 bit file system and FAT32 a 32 bit file system. Can you run a 32 bit OS on a 16 bit file system? Possibly. I suppose the memory registers for the RAM could be 32 bit while the file system on the harddrive is 16 bit.
Can you store 32 bit data in a 16 bit address space? Maybe, but it seems like it would be quite a kludge.
Acually, "FAT16/FAT32" refers to the number of bits used to describe the address space of a hard drive, not the operating system. It has nothing to do with the 32-bit"ness" of Windows 95--in fact, 32-bit Windows was already partially implemented on Windows 3.1-and-up as "Win32s."
Win 95 was *NOT* a 32 bit OS, neither was Win 98, WIn 98SE or Win ME. The core of each was 16 bit code (kernel32.dll was 16 bit, as was a large portion of the GDI)
Nothing to do with the filesystem though.
Nothing to do with the filesystem though.
> Win 95 was *NOT* a 32 bit OS
Linux isn't a 64bit OS on AMD64. It's basically a 32 bit OS with 64bit addressing extensions. A true 64bit OS is Solaris on the Sparc architecture. Tru64 was another example.
Linux isn't a 64bit OS on AMD64. It's basically a 32 bit OS with 64bit addressing extensions. A true 64bit OS is Solaris on the Sparc architecture. Tru64 was another example.
Win95 had quite a bit of 16-bit code left sitting around from previous versions.
Linux, compiled for AMD64 doesn't have any 32-bit code sitting around.
Linux, compiled for AMD64 doesn't have any 32-bit code sitting around.
Yup, you're wrong. Windows 95 was not a 32-bit OS at all. Windows 95 was just MSDOS 7.0 re-named--the code at its core was simply the next version of the same 16-bit code from previous DOS. The real big leap in "innovation" was the integration of DOS and the updated GUI--discounting the visual difference Win95 is not much different technically than DOS 6.x + Win 3.11 + Win32s (the latter being 32-bit "extension" libraries).
Win95 at the core (Kernel, User and GDI) was comprised of 16-bit mode applications with interfaces that allowed 32-bit applications (like those written for NT) to execute. Yes, this allows REAL 32-bit programs to run on Win9x but the OS itself remained a 16-bit DOS variant with 32-bit library extensions right from Win95 up to and including WinME. That in large part accounts for that line of OS being much more prone to crash than the NT-based line of OSes from MS--the DOS-era 16-bit code did not properly implement true pre-emptive multitasking functionality--most importantly protected memory--allowing programs that are running concurrently to steal each others resources without permission. Eventually MS finally dropped the DOS line of OSes with the release of the 32-bit, NT-based WinXP for both home and business use.
With regards to FAT16--filesystems aren't really "16-bit" or "32-bit" in the way CPUs or software code is--at least they aren't tied to one another. In FAT16, 16 refers to the number of bits used to address a block of data (called a "cluster"). That allows FAT16 to keep track of 65,536 clusters on a drive. The problem is that when drives got to a certain size that 65,536 limit is reached and the only way to keep track of the data is to increase the cluster size. FAT16 handles a maximum of 2 Gigs--quite small byt todays standard--and to do that the smallest chunk of data it can track is 32kB--that means even a 1k text file will eat 32k of your space.
FAT32 is the basically exactly the same file system as FAT16, except it uses a 32-bit value to track the clusters, allowing for more than four BILLION clusters and terabytes of space per drive/partition. In reality though, FAT is a primitive filesystem with no inbuilt security or data integrity functions--at really large sizes it is inefficient and unreliable.
Data-vs-addressing are really separate issues. The FAT system is basically referring to addressing (albeit in a bit of a different way than how CPUs address memory). There is nothing "kludgey" about storing 32-bit data in 16-bit addressed space, or fice versa--they are two unrelated animals. "X"-bit data paths refer to how big of a "chunk" of data you process in one machine cycle (in a way, the cluster size of a FAT filesystem is like this, so you could argur that FAT could be called a 512-bit to a 32,768-bit filesystem). "X"-bit addressing means how many bits (thus how big a number) you used to keep track of each of those chunks of data.
You could in fact design an 8-bit computer with 32-bit addressing. Because the data path is so narrow the electronics would be cheap, and with so much addressing you could support lots of memory, but the computer would run pretty slow unless you upped the clock speed dramatically. Conversely, you could design a 32-bit computer with 16-bit addressing (there are systems like that out there). That would be much faster, but you'd only be able to deal with 64K of memory at a time.
Win95 at the core (Kernel, User and GDI) was comprised of 16-bit mode applications with interfaces that allowed 32-bit applications (like those written for NT) to execute. Yes, this allows REAL 32-bit programs to run on Win9x but the OS itself remained a 16-bit DOS variant with 32-bit library extensions right from Win95 up to and including WinME. That in large part accounts for that line of OS being much more prone to crash than the NT-based line of OSes from MS--the DOS-era 16-bit code did not properly implement true pre-emptive multitasking functionality--most importantly protected memory--allowing programs that are running concurrently to steal each others resources without permission. Eventually MS finally dropped the DOS line of OSes with the release of the 32-bit, NT-based WinXP for both home and business use.
With regards to FAT16--filesystems aren't really "16-bit" or "32-bit" in the way CPUs or software code is--at least they aren't tied to one another. In FAT16, 16 refers to the number of bits used to address a block of data (called a "cluster"). That allows FAT16 to keep track of 65,536 clusters on a drive. The problem is that when drives got to a certain size that 65,536 limit is reached and the only way to keep track of the data is to increase the cluster size. FAT16 handles a maximum of 2 Gigs--quite small byt todays standard--and to do that the smallest chunk of data it can track is 32kB--that means even a 1k text file will eat 32k of your space.
FAT32 is the basically exactly the same file system as FAT16, except it uses a 32-bit value to track the clusters, allowing for more than four BILLION clusters and terabytes of space per drive/partition. In reality though, FAT is a primitive filesystem with no inbuilt security or data integrity functions--at really large sizes it is inefficient and unreliable.
Data-vs-addressing are really separate issues. The FAT system is basically referring to addressing (albeit in a bit of a different way than how CPUs address memory). There is nothing "kludgey" about storing 32-bit data in 16-bit addressed space, or fice versa--they are two unrelated animals. "X"-bit data paths refer to how big of a "chunk" of data you process in one machine cycle (in a way, the cluster size of a FAT filesystem is like this, so you could argur that FAT could be called a 512-bit to a 32,768-bit filesystem). "X"-bit addressing means how many bits (thus how big a number) you used to keep track of each of those chunks of data.
You could in fact design an 8-bit computer with 32-bit addressing. Because the data path is so narrow the electronics would be cheap, and with so much addressing you could support lots of memory, but the computer would run pretty slow unless you upped the clock speed dramatically. Conversely, you could design a 32-bit computer with 16-bit addressing (there are systems like that out there). That would be much faster, but you'd only be able to deal with 64K of memory at a time.
The filesystem has nothing to do with a 16-bit versus 32-bit OS. It has to do with memory addressing and, to cut to the chase, how many bits are in the CPU's pointer registers.
For an education, Google on "thunking".
For an education, Google on "thunking".
Thank-you for the interesting responses. It should have been apparent to me that the "bit-ness" of the OS, as someone so eloquently coined it, is related to the hardware the OS is running on. (ie AMD64 vs IA32) Meanwhile the file system can be quite varied even for a single OS. (ie ext2/3, Reiserfs, JFS) and all use the same hardware, the harddrive, we all know and love for the last 40 years.
it should have been apparent to me that the "bit-ness" of the OS, as someone so eloquently coined it, is related to the hardware the OS is running on. (ie AMD64 vs IA32)
so, windows 3.1 running a a i386 box is a 32-bit OS?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
Sorry, I can't help you with that question:~(
I don't know if this is helpful to you or not but WindowsXP on AMD64 is not a 64bit OS. However in order to run a 64bit OS you need 64 bit hardware. Get it;~/
So, "related to the hardware" but not determined by the hardware.
I don't know if this is helpful to you or not but WindowsXP on AMD64 is not a 64bit OS. However in order to run a 64bit OS you need 64 bit hardware. Get it;~/
So, "related to the hardware" but not determined by the hardware.
Good answers, but you're missing the point. You are right that Win95 was not a 32-bit OS, and Nick knows this. But M$ was *claiming* that Win95 was a 32-bit OS, trumpeting it quite loudly in fact. So, they were lying in their marketing babble to generate excitement and squelch competition. Imagine that?
To claim that Windows 95 was based on DOS, or wasn't a 32-bit OS, is specious. If you read Schulman's 'Unauthorized Windows 95' you'll find that although Windows 95 booted from a real-mode DOS, during the boot process virtually all DOS and BIOS functions became mapped by 32-bit Windows VXDs (virtual device drivers). There was no 16-bit DOS there any more once Windows 95 was finished loading; all the OS code was 32-bit. The only DOS functions still mapped to real-mode code were some of the non-file-related Int21 calls, and most of that was a single function to set 'PSPs' (process descriptor caretaking stuff).
Windows for Workgroups started the process of moving all DOS and BIOS calls to 32-bit Windows VXDs; Windows 95 finished it. That GDI was still 16-bit was irrelevant (indeed, OS/2 2.0 Presentation Manager was 16-bit code as well, yet people still call OS/2 2.0 a 32-bit OS).
Windows for Workgroups started the process of moving all DOS and BIOS calls to 32-bit Windows VXDs; Windows 95 finished it. That GDI was still 16-bit was irrelevant (indeed, OS/2 2.0 Presentation Manager was 16-bit code as well, yet people still call OS/2 2.0 a 32-bit OS).
While I think that Singh's thoughts on future Linux market share are accurate, his predictions would appear more reliable if he didn't happen to work for a company that now makes Linux products.
With its be all to everyone design, is Windows CAPABLE of being a niche player? A niche player must be able to meet certain narrow requirements. Isn't Linux far -more- capable of filling this role?
GPL'd Linux can play the chameleon, without losing efficiency in any one area. Windows -can- be stripped-down (Windows CE?), but how effectively?
Relegating Windows to niche status really means its ultimate demise.
GPL'd Linux can play the chameleon, without losing efficiency in any one area. Windows -can- be stripped-down (Windows CE?), but how effectively?
Relegating Windows to niche status really means its ultimate demise.
I've seen a couple of "Linux is 10 times as expensive as Windows" on... Newsforge...
its not newsforge's fault , they just display the ads that they are paid to display.
Did you read the article?
There is a bit of a difference in this case. NewsForge editors, the ones who control the content, do not control the advertisments.
This means a few things. One: Yes, bad MS advertisements will show up from time to time. Two: The editors can publish any content they want without fear of reprisal from those buying the advertisements.
So, there is the good and there is the bad. They have to get paid somehow.
This means a few things. One: Yes, bad MS advertisements will show up from time to time. Two: The editors can publish any content they want without fear of reprisal from those buying the advertisements.
So, there is the good and there is the bad. They have to get paid somehow.
In a lot of developing countries, 90% of windows are private versions. In these countries, most people don't care about linux at all. Beacuse Windows is already dominant OS there or in the furture.
Even when people in these country want to buy legal copy of software, they only choose to buy thoses with familar Microsoft windows interface. They won't consider other alternatives. Linux is no any advantage there, since microsoft windows is considered as free also.
While these countries have 90% world population.
Even when people in these country want to buy legal copy of software, they only choose to buy thoses with familar Microsoft windows interface. They won't consider other alternatives. Linux is no any advantage there, since microsoft windows is considered as free also.
While these countries have 90% world population.
If that is true then these customers would have no morals about ripping off other commercial programs as well.
The article was in the context of having developers leave the MS camp.
Do you think the developers will stay because there are heaps of people in certain country's that will run a pirate copy of their software on the pirate copy of Windows?
The article was in the context of having developers leave the MS camp.
Do you think the developers will stay because there are heaps of people in certain country's that will run a pirate copy of their software on the pirate copy of Windows?
Not true.
Most of the commercial software companies are ripping off the consumers in developing countries. When your montly incose is only 5000 rupees, who is going to pay 15000 rupees (3 months income) for windows and office?
Of course cheaper alternatives are available in the US, but they are not marketed in India, so it's not possible to purchase them.
When commercial companies decide to sell software at proper rates, only then will consumers be able to buy them.
Arpan
Ps: I either use free software or purchase software that I use, even though it is very expensive for me to do so.
Most of the commercial software companies are ripping off the consumers in developing countries. When your montly incose is only 5000 rupees, who is going to pay 15000 rupees (3 months income) for windows and office?
Of course cheaper alternatives are available in the US, but they are not marketed in India, so it's not possible to purchase them.
When commercial companies decide to sell software at proper rates, only then will consumers be able to buy them.
Arpan
Ps: I either use free software or purchase software that I use, even though it is very expensive for me to do so.
In a lot of developing countries, 90% of windows are private versions. In these countries, most people don't care about linux at all.
They will when the Business Software Alliance comes knocking at their door to take a software inventory and insure they're not pirating their software.
And the local government will go along/support such...inventories...because they want to be seen as being "good IP stewards" and shown in a favorable light in the hallowed halls of the WTO.
Because of cheap labor force and outsourcing trend, these developing countires will soon have more than 90% of world's software developers in the furture. They will soon be ten times out-number the total developers in US or developed countires.
But they are using pirate microsoft windows since they were kids and also educated in pirate microsoft windows in schools and universities. Microsoft windows is the only familiar platform for them. How many these developers will be, I think editor forget to count those people in.
But they are using pirate microsoft windows since they were kids and also educated in pirate microsoft windows in schools and universities. Microsoft windows is the only familiar platform for them. How many these developers will be, I think editor forget to count those people in.
As governmental organisations are increasingly choosing for the cheaper option particular in debt ridden places like third world countries and California, Microsoft will be in the position that it will have to be compatible with the governmental organisations and unable to muster its monopoly position. The reason for this is, that it is unacceptable for MS's clients to be incompatible with their government.
The thing with governments is, they are a rule onto themselves.
The thing with governments is, they are a rule onto themselves.
He's still the most persuasive anti-MS troll (er, critic). Partly because he took notes while MS was busy monopolizing the industry in the '90s.
I am a Visual Studio developer in C++. Foud Your article very interresting and much of it are correct !
But !, if I had a chance I would leave both Linux and Windows in favourite of the USER !
I struggle finding short informative info regarding Linux and holding back the info stream in Windows.
The winner will be the one that take care of the user !!
But !, if I had a chance I would leave both Linux and Windows in favourite of the USER !
I struggle finding short informative info regarding Linux and holding back the info stream in Windows.
The winner will be the one that take care of the user !!
Look...up there...Is that a pie in the sky??
The simple fact is that the SME market is more effective and efficient as a result of MS technology and these guys will continue to drive a fair chunk of the development. Why should they trust the Open Source Community when all it does is develop a dependance on a bit-part vendor for that piece of software? Where are they going to be in 5 years? I can throw a blanket from my office window and land on several people skilled in MS products wo can provide me with all the support and skills that I need to keep my business alive. Why would I want to deploy a Linux solution when what I have works well and I can get all the support I need? Stability and Security - Give me a break, I've not been hit with a Virus in well over 2 years.
And by the way, I have played with Linux AND I found Win98 better.
The simple fact is that the SME market is more effective and efficient as a result of MS technology and these guys will continue to drive a fair chunk of the development. Why should they trust the Open Source Community when all it does is develop a dependance on a bit-part vendor for that piece of software? Where are they going to be in 5 years? I can throw a blanket from my office window and land on several people skilled in MS products wo can provide me with all the support and skills that I need to keep my business alive. Why would I want to deploy a Linux solution when what I have works well and I can get all the support I need? Stability and Security - Give me a break, I've not been hit with a Virus in well over 2 years.
And by the way, I have played with Linux AND I found Win98 better.
counting
Posted by: Enquest on August 30, 2004 07:03 PMPatents, patenst, IP and other legal stuff will be a hangover for Free Software.
Also there will only be a switch to GNU/linux and Free Software if the there is a clear and present cost advantatge. So that the company's that work with GNU/Linux are working a lot cheaper then company who use Microsoft.
Now I don't think that GNU/Linux is a lot ceaper. Maybe a little bit but not a LOT.
However I think Longhorn/shorthorn could be the brick on wich Microsoft will finly stumble.
For the Free Software people. This is the time to prove your self. You have until 2006 to make the market share of GNU/Linux jump to 5 a 10 %... Else the lockin of Microsoft will be to great!
I hope and believe that Free Software will become mandatory
#