Look at IBM nobody would have thought that they wouldn't be making PC's anymore.
...
IBM again is a good example of a big company making a mistake
IBM has made mistakes, but getting rid of their 'PC' business isn't really one of them... PC's are a very low margin, highly competitive business.. lots of work for very little reward. PC's aren't IBM's core business - their software, services and enteprise hardware businesses are far more valuable and strategic for them.. they sold a costly and low profit-potential business unit. Hardly a mistake.
Windows is a fine desktop OS.
It is.. but not from a technical standpoint (though it is making a lot of progress in Vista, or it was until they descoped some of the good stuff). Most importantly it is from a users point of view.. and the vast majority of users are not technical... they want usability (ease of use of the gui for all their needs) and compatibility (they want all their software and hardware to work quickly and easily) - Try getting WPA for Wifi working in linux, or tri-monitors - doable, but hardly a breeze for average joe.. That's why Windows is such a continued success in the desktop market.
I believe Microsoft should leave the large enterprise server market to IBM and HP.
Were they ever truly in it ? Yes they do a lot of the windows networking and communications stuff - Active Directory, Exchange etc for those Desktops, and support some internal web applications - e.g. IIS and SQL Server, and some smaller enterprise apps... but most enterprises that aren't 'Microsoft only' tend to use Unix for their bigger apps and services.. e.g. ERP, EAI, Data Warehousing/EII, WMS, TMS, Finance etc.
I also dispute that Linux is a lower cost alternative to Unix in the data center.
Absolutely. Linux is by no means free.. not only in the capital costs, but the operation of the platform.. in our experience we've found that Linux isn't as stable as our Unix platforms.. from discussions with a couple of the technical infrastructure architects it seems that this is relatively common.. our linux servers have had more problems than our Unix Servers. That could be a broad generalisation, but who am I to argue with first hand experience of a large server estate ..?
Anyway, back to Microsoft...
I, like Chrissie, think they've done tremendously well and been one of the leaders in software during their time. They do not fulfil everyones needs, or lead every area - but where they do, they have made a significant positive impact on things. That doesn't mean to say that they have the most stable or secure OS.. or the most elegantly architected.. but it does mean that they've had success - which is likely to continue for a good time yet. (And that doesn't mean I don't like linux or unix either.. it's not a mutually exclusive choice you know..)
So, for the future:
1. A new Desktop / Web based (hybrid) OS - SaaS is a new focus for them, but is likely to lead to a new way of personal computing in the longer term.. people aren't quite ready for it yet.. but the more Microsoft does to forward this, the more people will shine to the idea.. like it or not, that's why MS can be called 'leaders'.
2. They will likely continue the product range integration to make deploying all Microsoft solutions a piece of cake.. this is their goal.. to have a click and go enterprise / smb deployment of their products. They already make admin of their products simple and easy (hence the likeability by businesses - they can use less skilled/costly staff (no offence - there are talented MS admins out there, but the point is that you don't have to be to do the basics)). The next step will be to make implementing a network of Microsoft's products (server OS, desktop OS, email/collaboration, databases, web servers/apps, DNS, Directory, integration etc etc) a matter of installing a primary management server that will host deployment packages that can simply be 'selected' and deployed over the network instantly. The idea being that these deployments will be aware of the network topology and solution architecture requirements and 'just work' out of the box with the other deployed packages.. e.g. Exchange, SharePoint, IIS, AD, SQL Server, BizTalk, etc,etc..
3. Microsoft might even put a stop to (replace) MAC OS.... I know, people are going to get riled by that one.. but, Apple on Intel... (Windows on MAC Hardware anyone ?) Apple famed for IPOD (hardware)... Apple profits from iTunes (services)... (or in other words.. they are distracted by $ in areas other than OS development).. Vista - visually a MAC-alike.. Apple invested in by Microsoft...mmmm... pure speculation I'm sure! ;-)
I'm sure they'll do other things, but I think 1 and 2 above will be their main focus in the coming years.
People are sheep though. They read what others are doing and they don't want to be left behind so they follow.
Never a more true word was spoken..
I work with several Unix variants - mainly AIX and Solaris, and with Linux (RHEL), as well as with Windows.
At home I have Linux (Fedora Core and Kubuntu), Windows (XP and Win2k3 server) and Unix (FreeBSD).
I like them all.... for different reasons. (I also like many of the concepts in AS400's, but don't get to play with these that often)
-- OS 'Fanboys' (for whatever OS) are only limited by their own choice.. it is possible to get the best out of any OS if you have an open mind and use it appropriately.
A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy! 