Microsoft CEO Wants One OS To Rule Them All

[Alec Mowat]

It's easy to make one OS to rule them all, and to profit from it as well. First you take all the development teams in MS... merge them together...

Second, you can lay off all another 20,000 people and make 20,000*(xSalary) this year.

Big foreseeable profits ahead!

I think these corporations are seeing PC's as money holes now. As much as PC users love them, they are used for a hell of a lot of illegal activity. Microsoft spent a fortune just patching Windows XP, and I don't think they want to end up with another money pit. 10 years of support for $90? Even my car's warranty is only good for 5 years.

If they can eliminate Windows from the PC market, then they can basically create a controlled environment for offices, like Apple. Xbox for games, Tablet/laptops with Windows 8 and Windows Servers with virtualized applications.

 

[back_by_demand]

Or, you could have a mobile OS and a desktop OS.
Even Apple doesn't have the audacity to try and merge desktop and mobile into a single platform because it doesn't work.

They're too diverse.
Unless a disc comes with both, and the option to install them is diverse. I'd like to see a Windows disc with the necessary files for both, but three options:
Mobile
Desktop
Both

That would mean you don't waste HDD space on the part you don't need.

The new OSX is morphing slowly to look like iOS, convergence is only a matter of time, MS is just being more transparent about its intentions.

 

[JoeyDee86]

Minor rant alert.

It's funny how consumers know nothing of Microsoft and exactly how vital they are.

Apple is surviving strictly off of it's mobile business, that's why they're focusing on that and not worrying about their desktop OS. There's more people on VISTA still than all versions of OS X combined. You know how little business that is?

Microsoft rules the enterprise, it IS the backbone of well over 90% of all businesses. Apple/Google stand absolutely no chance at even scratching the surface of that market within a decade at least.

Microsoft is taking over the cloud. 1 out of every 10 servers produced in the world is being purchased by Microsoft for their Azure data centers. Think about that.

Regarding the OS's, you guys need to understand that the whole point of the Universal App's isn't that you're just using the same app on multiple desktop/phone/game OS's, but that they can be run for x86/x64/ARM. So no, people who think they're talking about x86 phones, you'll still have an ARM phone with good battery life, while having access to the same apps as your tablet/pc, etc.

Lastly, Windows RT and Windows Phone are merging very soon. Imagine having a Windows Phone just as it is now, but then using an MHL cable, or Miracast to display a full Windows RT/8 desktop to your TV or monitor. Bluetooth keyboard/mouse if no USB ports on your phones dock. Your universal apps would display in Desktop mode, and for anything that requires Windows 8 x86/x64, you stream that program from Azure RemoteApps. As long as you aren't on 56k dialup, the RemoteApps will feel as responsive as native programs.

Doesn't that sound cool? It's what Ubuntu is/was trying to do, except they don't have a huge user base nor the funding. Apple isn't ready to do anything like this, and Google is already losing steam with Google Apps vs Office 365 in the enterprise, and we all know Chrome OS, where people think it's just a cheap pc at first....

I know it's a rant, but I'm actually excited about Microsoft's 'big picture'. They have a plan that interconnects each of their services. Apple doesn't have that (too mobile focused), and Google has always been a cluster-F with 8 billion different projects that sound like great ideas until they give up on them...

 

[Onus]

...and therein lies the issue.
PC = Personal Computer. It belongs to, and is controlled by, its owner. That owner wants to configure it as he sees fit, running what he wants, and only what he wants. As a convenient source of data, or a sharing mechanism, the "cloud" might be useful, but that's as far as it goes. Insofar as it moves away from the Personal Computer concept, it is inherently flawed. Making customers (business or consumer) reliant on external resources, for which they must pay (and pay, and pay, and pay some more) is NOT, and never was what the "PC" is about.

 

[JoeyDee86]

Of course, you still have that flexability though to run it locally. That's the point of the universal apps. RemoteApps is just when you either are unable to run a legacy program(not a universal app), or when you need much more horsepower to run something. It's nice to be able to tell Azure "hey there... I need 16 cpu cores and 112GB of ram for this task", Azure: "Here you go", Me: "ok Azure, I'm done, shut it down'

That convenience alone makes it so attractive for enterprises.

For consumers, not so much, but you have the capability of running something that isnt compatible with the device you're in front of, everything else though is still on your device.

Right now people need their phones, their tablets, and their PCs for work. Sure, a pro 3 can make it so you just need that and your phone, but imagine having a phone that can be all 3? Anything it can't you run from a remote server/computer. Keep in mind though Azure's RemoteApps are just MS's same RemoteApps that you can run from a private server... it doesnt have to be in Azure. That way you still have 100% control, just not the same level of protection if Hurricane Sandy #2 comes to town...

 

[MidnightDistort]

I do understand that MS is trying to unify the tablet to the PC, it would be totally cool to transfer files from your PC to your tablet with a swipe and be able to use the apps you use on your tablet on your PC and vise versa however that's not how people are seeing it.

Windows 8 for an example just does not work for everyone and it's because instead of trying to unify the platforms all they did was put the touch UI ontop of the start menu and called it 'innovative'.

I don't want to pay for an OS that i am either going to spend hours tweaking or has a lack of backwards compatibility. Or worse yet the issue of having bad updates. There's no question about what MS is doing but they are just going about it the wrong way and in effect doesn't work.

The cloud won't take over PC's, not everyone wants all their information stored on a cloud or even will be aware they can store information across the internet. I myself want offline access to all my data so having a cloud would just be an extra feature but isn't necessary to have, so unless the cloud is 100% free i have no need for it.

The same with having a touch UI on a desktop PC. Microsoft isn't a vital part in computers. They are just a company like anyone else and if MS falls another will just take their place. They are not supernatural, they are not Gods they are a company. Companies fail and should not matter if they do fall, someone else better will take over for them. It won't happen in an instant either, but it's the same with those who think Linux will take over PCs or those who think Linux will never be successful. Right now Microsoft is on top and they hold all the cards, but they can still fail.

People do want their devices to be interlinked, but they don't want a touch UI on their desktop. Even if some do, others don't and it would make more sense to create an OS designed for desktops which have a keyboard and mouse. There should also be a proper desktop UI as people have used this for desktops since GUI's came around. Touch is an extra feature that is better fitted for tablets or portable devices and while there still needs to be improvements, it works just fine for the portable devices but do not offer the flexibility desktop UI's have.

Desktop PC's have a far longer life span than the models from the early days and many people know they can either fix their desktop or take it into a shop making the desktop into a general household item that is easily repairable. This post PC stuff is crazy because most everyone has a good running PC that isn't needed to be replaced as often or at all. I'm still using a single core processor desktop PC running W7 while it is slow it's manageable and while i bought it for $99 used, it's still in working condition. It works fine for a media PC and won't need replacing for a long time (unless of course the motherboard gives out).

Bottom line is MS doesn't focus 100% on making sure their OS's are stable updates are clean and people don't mind paying $100 or so in keeping their system up to date. But when you factor compatibility, stability and UI, people are going to look elsewhere for a choice. Maybe third party UI design companies are the way to go but in the end people do not have money to spend on constantly keeping their system up to date and if MS really thinks they have a future in mind and want to keep making profit they will listen to what consumer wants otherwise they will lose that chance to another company for an OS.

 

[JoeyDee86]

The problem is that the best part of Windows 8 that no one uses is the universal search. Hit windows key, and type in. You don't need to click Search. It's far quicker than looking for an icon on your desktop on start menu a la Win7. Don't remember someones phone number? Type in their name, boom it's there. Everything that I do on PC's, I get to that task quicker with Win8+. The start screen I just really use as widgets and nothing more.

Regarding microsoft's health though, on the consumer side, sure, they're just like 'any other' company that can go away and someone else fit in, even though that's incredibly unrealistic. In the enterprise world though, if MS died today, that would be like everyone is instantly on XP with no support. Businesses would flat out stop. The sheer amount of capital required to convert a company's MS systems over to 'something else' as well as the training required essentially cements microsoft's feet to the ground of the enterprise world. This is still a company that grosses almost 100 billion dollars a year... and that's coming from so many of their solutions. Almost all of Google's income is adds, almost all of Apple's income is mobile device and app sales. They're both far more vulnerable than MS is.

What coming down the pipe with Google excites you? What about Apple?

Android is popular because manufactures didn't have to pay for it. It wasn't because it was better. iOS is popular because Apples original advertising brainwashed them into thinking they're using the most magical thing ever, while making the product easy enough for your grandmother to understand it. Other than that, what is it? I want a device that I can use for work and for play, and right now, only MS's OS can do that for me.

 

[Onus]

I'm not suggesting that Microsoft doesn't have a valid or useful solution. On the contrary, it does, for reasons you (and others) have listed. The marketing model for it (and that is all this is, marketing) is what is getting farther away from the PC as a personal device. Consider the DOS days; you bought an O/S for your PC, and you were basically done. Even if a new version offered features you wanted (and often it did), you were never obligated to keep paying. You had a system, and it worked; done. You bought the programs you needed or wanted, and you were done. Upgrades, if desired, were your choice, not a vendor's.
Apple proved that a lot of people, especially non-technical, would happily trade away "choice" to get "easy." That's fine for some people, or some systems, but not for everything, which is how it is becoming.

 

[axehead15]

Ubuntu is doing the same thing. Just better imo. Like was said by others, MS has a good chance of doing this well, if they remove a lot of the crap in their OS. It is just too heavy for lower end systems.

 

[LordConrad]

Big mistake! Many of the features used on, and needed by, desktop PCs aren't used on mobile devices. It's a mistake to try and shoehorn a full size OS into mobile devices with limited resources. This is why the original Windows Tablet PCs were such a flop, Microsoft tried to cram a full desktop OS onto power and resource limited mobile hardware.

I'm not a huge Apple fan, but I think they have the right idea by keeping a separate OS for mobile and desktop.

 

[stevejnb]

In ten years when every company is aggressively pursuing this policy for their OS's, I doubt a one of you will do anything but heap praise upon the model. Reality is, the capability is here and in the long term it's a better way to do things than fragmenting everything and having user bases trying to communicate common activities between multiple OS's.

We're at the cusp of this becoming quite viable, and it will only get better form here. I'm ready for it.

 

[ceh4702]

There is nothing that says the world will continue using Microsoft Operating Systems. Their goofy approach could really irritate their business customers.

 

[jn77]

I think I am going to re-install OpenStep or NextStep on my computers.....

 

[stephber]

Sorry to burst everyones bubble, Satya backtracked on this comment later in the conference call, stating that the 'unification' was (1) the same dev team is making all Windows OSes (nothing new, Balmer created this group), (2) a single core OS - the NT kernel that ALL Microsoft OS's have been built on for over 5 years, (3) a unified developer platform for all MS, and (4) a unified Microsoft "store and commerce platform". So sorry, more of a non-story.

 

[de5_Roy]

looks like alot of backtracking going on at microsoft these days....

 

[Alec Mowat]

Big mistake! Many of the features used on, and needed by, desktop PCs aren't used on mobile devices. It's a mistake to try and shoehorn a full size OS into mobile devices with limited resources. This is why the original Windows Tablet PCs were such a flop, Microsoft tried to cram a full desktop OS onto power and resource limited mobile hardware.

I'm not a huge Apple fan, but I think they have the right idea by keeping a separate OS for mobile and desktop.

Yes, but many of those features aren't supported by, or wanted by, Microsoft. Such as bittorrent, or data mining viruses.

 

[sulumordna]

Looks like i'll be holding onto my copy of windows 7 until all this non-sense passes over. See you all in 10 years.

LOL, right ... I think I might just be making a full time switch to GNU/Linux or buy a mac ... and I loathe macs

 

[nJohanis]

The danger here I see combining desktops/mobiles/etc:
1) Different resource capacities
2) Different user input methods
3) Different screen size
4) Different environment - desktops are used more privately, as result of their more cumbersome nature

If you think about it, it SHOULD be possible. Desktops already can give you different input methods: joystick, mouse, touchpad/drawpad, webcam, etc. Desktops can give you different resolutions AND small-ish screens and large screens! Desktops can have different resource capacities. They can also be used in more public environments. The tricky thing is figuring out how to include mobiles in what's already accomplished. The tolerance for things has to be broadened. Can they do it?

The question is whether they'll be able to succeed in doing this without enraging the different audiences.

BUT in the meantime I'll be getting familiar with Linux. Just in case. Maybe Microsoft doesn't have desktop users in mind? I mean, perhaps they're not interested in merging desktops and mobiles in a way that's friendly to desktop users? We'll see.

I downloaded Ubuntu the other day. I have heard it's a kind of simple OS that's friendly to mobiles and desktops. Haven't installed yet. I'm open to giving it a run. Since I've already tried Windows 8, it'll be fun to compare them.

 

[Alec Mowat]

The danger here I see combining desktops/mobiles/etc:
1) Different resource capacities
2) Different user input methods
3) Different screen size
4) Different environment - desktops are used more privately, as result of their more cumbersome nature

If you think about it, it SHOULD be possible. Desktops already can give you different input methods: joystick, mouse, touchpad/drawpad, webcam, etc. Desktops can give you different resolutions AND small-ish screens and large screens! Desktops can have different resource capacities. They can also be used in more public environments. The tricky thing is figuring out how to include mobiles in what's already accomplished. The tolerance for things has to be broadened. Can they do it?

The question is whether they'll be able to succeed in doing this without enraging the different audiences.

BUT in the meantime I'll be getting familiar with Linux. Just in case. Maybe Microsoft doesn't have desktop users in mind? I mean, perhaps they're not interested in merging desktops and mobiles in a way that's friendly to desktop users? We'll see.

I downloaded Ubuntu the other day. I have heard it's a kind of simple OS that's friendly to mobiles and desktops. Haven't installed yet. I'm open to giving it a run. Since I've already tried Windows 8, it'll be fun to compare them.

The tricky part is control. Microsoft wants 100% control of the environment. They can't control a desktop environment, but they can control a mobile environment.

 

[Guest]

What a fucking douche, Windows 8 is a misguided incompatible piece of junk. Or if you really don't want to sell 3 products instead of one (which makes sense if you want to make more money, they are a business right!?), then at least give people the option to choose and customize it to whatever platform they're installing it on. If you're not using a touchscreen Metro is fucking useless. I use Windows 8 at work and Windows 7 at home and other than a pretty Task Manager and File Copy, there is literally nothing going for it in terms of the end result. Yeah sure; RAM performance, new kernel blah blah, I've heard it all before. When I can actually notice the difference that makes, maybe then I'll give a shit.

 

[Billzegun1]

And this is why im staying with Windows 7... probly the last decent build they will ever make

 

[Justin Goldberg]

Remember Neptune and Odyssey? It was a merger of the 95/98/me kernel and the NT & 2000 kernels. Both projects were trashed and 9x was thrown away. I think this could happen to NT/2k/XP/2003/Vista/7/2008/8/2012.

 

[Alec Mowat]

Remember Neptune and Odyssey? It was a merger of the 95/98/me kernel and the NT & 2000 kernels. Both projects were trashed and 9x was thrown away. I think this could happen to NT/2k/XP/2003/Vista/7/2008/8/2012.

No it wasn't, it was an upgrade path for Windows NT (NepTune) that was eventually merged into the XP (Odyssey) team.
It was released as "Windows XP".

It had nothing to do with merging Windows NT and DOS environments. They were trying to move consumers into the NT environment. NT had better hardware support, better, more secure drive format support and MS wanted the move consumers, and not just business, to that platform.

XP and Vista/7/8 are two different versions of Windows. Version 5.0 and 6.X

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_6.0

I doubt Windows 9 will move out of 6.0, the differences will be cosmetic at best. DX12 is reported to run on Windows 8, so there's no need for an overhaul. The biggest advantage for Windows 6.0 was that it had a lot of support for x64 based applications, which most everything is supported on today.

 

[Justin Goldberg]

Remember Neptune and Odyssey? It was a merger of the 95/98/me kernel and the NT & 2000 kernels. Both projects were trashed and 9x was thrown away. I think this could happen to NT/2k/XP/2003/Vista/7/2008/8/2012.

No it wasn't, it was an upgrade path for Windows NT (NepTune) that was eventually merged into the XP (Odyssey) team.
It was released as "Windows XP".

It had nothing to do with merging Windows NT and DOS environments. They were trying to move consumers into the NT environment. NT had better hardware support, better, more secure drive format support and MS wanted the move consumers, and not just business, to that platform.

XP and Vista/7/8 are two different versions of Windows. Version 5.0 and 6.X

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_6.0

I doubt Windows 9 will move out of 6.0, the differences will be cosmetic at best. DX12 is reported to run on Windows 8, so there's no need for an overhaul. The biggest advantage for Windows 6.0 was that it had a lot of support for x64 based applications, which most everything is supported on today.

Sorry, I was referring to Neptune. I believe it was a merge of 9x and NT.

 

[SkOrPn]

All that matters to me is whether or not Windows is smart enough to adjust its GUI to suit the environment it is installed on. If you have a non-touch 24" or larger Screen, then it should be smart enough to know to setup the GUI similar to Windows 7 and be ready to play games or do graphical work. If its a touch screen, then it should give people the touch interface by default. I do not mind them trying to push all their resources to making a better unified product, but when I am forced to modify the OS to suit my own needs, I mind. Sure, I have no problem modding, but why should I? If I do not see Desktop mode come back and looking every bit as good as Windows 7 did, they could lose my monetary support forever.