by Playfuls Staff |
15th January 2007
“Vista is the best $6 billion I have ever spent” said Bill Gates at this year’s CES. Is that enough for Microsoft to finally defeat the open source threat? Definitely NOT. [more]
More than 10,000 people involved, more than $6 billion invested in research and testing for about 6 years (which makes it the most expensive piece of software ever built)- these are just a few features of Microsoft’s next-gen OS, Windows Vista.
During the numerous interviews Bill Gates offered to news agencies at CES he particularly focused on Vista’s capabilities as
a next generation operating system. The majority of us had the chance of testing its many builds since May 2006, and honestly I cannot say Vista
. When I asked my friends who have also used Vista (at least for while), they said the same thing: “Vista is definitely better than XP, but I wouldn’t recommend it (yet), because it’s unstable; moreover, despite the fact that it’s better than XP, it actually looks like an XP with Service Pack 3 and fresh, shiny UI; and it forces you to upgrade”.
Considering what we’ve witnessed at CES 2007, Vista is trying to become more of a Media Center OS rather than a truly reliable OS, focused more on the entertainment needs of the user - apparently because of Bill Gates' plan with “connected entertainment”. Jason Seuss, the Media Center evangelist at Microsoft, described this important feature of Vista as “a unified interface for consuming your digital media”.
Consuming, not including- which is quite suggestive for Microsoft’s policy towards consumers: the Redmond behemoth aggressively promotes its standards and rarely opens for dialogue with other platforms (no, I do not want to think about the Novell-MS agreement right now…)
But Vista should be more than just playing videos, games or music. Unfortunately, one of its major improvements from the early stages of development, the WinFS, was buried some time ago, and this could be another argument for Vista not being a next-gen OS.
Plans for WinFS have been made since Windows Vista was known as Longhorn. Since the beginning it was meant to become one of Longhorn’s strong points in the battle against Linux and/or MacOSX. Everyone would appreciate a Windows OS with a strong file system, object-oriented, with a lot of search capabilities that would ease day-to-day routines.
In 2003, Microsoft founder and chairman Bill Gates said:
“WinFS-this is unified storage. Some of you here have heard me talk about unified storage for more than a decade. The idea of taking the XML flexibility, database technology, getting it into the file system: that's been a Holy Grail for me for quite some time. And here it is. Thank goodness we have got the powerful systems to be able to do this thing. Thank goodness we have the evolution around XML and user interface capabilities, so that this can all come together."Well, it was a beautiful dream and only a thing of the past. Or maybe we might just get lucky to see it in some sort of uncompromised new version of Microsoft SQL Server or ADO.NET. All we know for now is that the next version of SQL Server would support unstructured data and that entities from WinFS got adopted in ADO.NET.
Many are disappointed by Microsoft’s decision. Comments have been made that the Redmond giant killed a project that has lasted for more than 10 years, and a strong point for Vista. Actually, when Longhorn was first presented as the next big-thing for Microsoft, WinFS and the Aero interface were the first two things that company officials used to lure and attract public’s interest.
Up until now, only Aero is certitude, with WinFS “split” into a lot of other applications. But the main problem is still being neglected: large amounts of information, stored on larger and faster devices, still need an efficient method to deal with. WinFS could have been a splendid solution, but now it’s out of the question. Which brings another “pillar” down for Vista (Aero might be an eye-catching UI, but it doesn’t match Novell’s XGL Desktop…could that be a reason for the two companies’ close-up?). People were enchanted by what WinFS was doing from the beginning, because of its new relations between files, common schemas for things like contacts that could have been shared between applications or synchronization features that made life easy while searching for something on one’s PC. And what is even more intriguing is that WinFS was on of Gates’ most beloved projects for Vista….
By contrast, Linux has an advanced system of file storage that makes it look “fresh” even after years of intense usage, without needing the usual “6-months-reinstall” that XP needs.
Let’s have one thing straight before really entering the Linux-Windows fight: they are both strong platforms. Neither of them will ever disappear, despite each side’s hopes. Each of them has advantages and disadvantages; and in the end it’s actually a good thing that we have a choice.
First of all, Microsoft’s main advantage towards OSS (open source software) is the immense market share accumulated over the years. On the other side, OSS is much richer in alternatives and the fact that it’s (almost) completely free makes it appealing to the great majority of users. The GNU license says that OSS comes with no guarantee, but let’s face it: what guarantee does Bill offer against BSODs?
OSS offers users the chance to directly modify the source code of an application, thus improving the development cycle and shortening time. By contrast Microsoft (which is also involved in vaster areas than software) has a monthly Patch-Tuesday, a not very convenient interval to fix security problems for its own code.
If we also take a look at the internal architecture of the OSS, most of the applications that come out of the hands and minds of Linux programmers have a better architecture than that of the applications built for Windows, consuming fewer resources and delivering superior output- an argument which makes open source adherents triumphantly proclaim the future death of the Windows platform. An example: Aero vs. XGL. To be able to run Aero on Vista, your computer has to be upgraded to a much powerful configuration and if you also decide to have Vista Ultimate Extras, that will consume even more of your processor and RAM (about 5-10%, according to Microsoft’s Barry Goff, Client Management at Windows Client Team and mainly responsible for Windows Vista). Linux’s XGL runs smoothly even on three-year old PCs, without “eating” your hardware and delivering more options for “eye-candy” effects like burning windows, water-ripple desktop or 3D-cube desktop.
The disadvantages of the open source software are mainly linked to its popularity or market share. Microsoft controls with its Windows platform more than 90% of the world’s PCs, which in terms of
installed base means stronger direct and indirect network effects, enhanced value of the operating system to current and potential users and more feedback on bugs and more suggestions for new features.
The Linux-Windows battle is not necessarily fought on the software ground but on an economic ground. In an economic model, the absence of cost asymmetries and as long as Windows has a first-mover advantage (a larger installed base at time zero),
Linux never displaces Windows of its leadership position. That means that the enthusiasm of its adherents and the appeal given by its free status are not enough for Linux to surpass Windows.
There is also one more important aspect: the governments’ preference for Linux. Most European countries are now Linux-powered/on track of adopting Linux, because it’s much safer, it’s (almost) costless and having access to the source code allows them to verify that sensitive data is treated securely. Windows’ binary code and Microsoft’s secrecy upon the source code subject have not only repelled governments, but also attracted hundreds-of-millions euros fines from the EU Commission. Facing both the Linux and the fines threat, MS was forced to reveal parts of Windows’ code to officials, hoping to kill two rabbits with one bullet. But that was not enough.
IBM and other major companies have announced their support for Linux, in part for its advantages, in part for diminishing Microsoft’s dominance. That is called in economic language
strategic buyer. The more strategic buyers one of the two platforms has, the more likely it will be for it to win.
Paradoxically, the long discussed Windows piracy is actually an enemy of open source and a precious help for Microsoft. In countries where piracy is registering high rates (like China, Russia or Brazil) the OSS has the lowest levels of market penetration and the Windows platform rules. Moreover, Microsoft can even turn (and be sure that it is already doing that) the piracy into profit.
There are of course other reasons to discuss here (like the social desirability of Linux vs. Windows or the gaming), but I preferred the general frame of the Linux-Windows battle because this frame comes first. Open source community should rest assured though that the only way Windows is ever going to beat Linux is by making the price equal to zero, which is of course impossible. And as long as there are Linux developers, Vista (or any other future OS emanating from Microsoft) will always face a threat.
For us, the end-users, the Linux-Windows battle has of course the advantage of giving us choices.
