@Reasonable & @bdbdbd:

I agree that Google will be a threat to MS.  I just reread my post and noticed I must have edited a sentence out where I said google wasn't directly affected Microsoft with a bolded "yet".

Oracle has supposedly been a threat to Microsoft for over 10 years now.  They're there, but they don't seem to be making much ground in any meaningful way against Microsoft.

We have seen a big jump in what webpages can do with browsers implementing javascript's httprequest object.  However, I don't think we'll be seeing a move to a Web based OS any time soon.  This may start to effect Microsoft in 5 to 10 years, but at this time, it certainly does not.  That's also to say that Microsoft will not be there developing their own alternatives.  They have an embedded Windows OS that could run on STBs.  Hell, Microsoft predicted the move to slimmer web only devices years ago when they bought WebTV; just seems the world wasn't ready then.  Who's to say you will not be accessing Microsoft's servers with a Microsoft STB to access the web apps?

These are things Microsoft will need to and is adapting towards.  So I agree with this vision of the future, but I do not agree that this will effect Microsoft in the foreseeable future.  It certainly isn't effecting them now.

EDIT: I think the big news, and something that Microsoft must be thinking about, is HP's linux based OS they are developing.  Dell's been offering Ubuntu, but HP could potentionally be creating something that could really give Windows a run for it's money.  Not that I'm discrediting Ubuntu, but as it stands I don't see it moving in too fast.  HP has the potential to deliver a product that could truely compete.

What does Vista do that XP can't?

@BornFirst:
I agree, while he wrote some historical inaccuracies, he made some good points about current MS situation and he did a good effort to lay them out.

@noslodecoy: "Yet" would indeed had clalified it a bit, but i'd still argue.
Google have grown big enough to have some control over the content already. And we already are in a situation, where a heavy OS is obsolete for most users needs. Even if Google wouldn't have any effect to operating systems, a situation where "Google web apps" and "Micro$oft web apps" are put up against; using the Google tools could show your site in top ten in Google search and M$ equivalent put you somewhere around the place 37 million in the results.
Since the web browser is the key interface between user and web content, it's irrelevant whether Windows supports the application or not. If you run into content that is not supported by Internet Explorer, you'll be shown similar "upgrade" link to Chrome/Firefox/Opera that you see on flash applications if you don't have a compatible version. That would force M$ to follow others standards (namely Google), instead of having control over the content which others would be forced to follow. Once Windows would be just a platform among the others in its key areas, it would mean the end to Windows dominance, sure it would still have the biggest market share in operating systems, but the point is, that how much would the OS sales go down overall.

There may be a Windows OS for every hardware you can imagine, but so is Linux equivalents and hardware manufacturers own systems. Every other hardware, outside PC, Windows nees to compete with every other option and as we know, M$ isn't very good in competing.
There isn't coming a successfull Linux-PC from the existing PC manufacturers, such as HP, because their Windows-PC business is so big and M$ practically has a stranglehold on them, since they do their business with Windows PC:s. Like the latest example with Asus shows; just when they got their eee model out, Asus announced they phase out the Linux due M$ pressuring them.
So the current situation isn't because of Windows being a competetive system, but because of its virtual monopoly, which offers M$ its strangehold. Now, stuff like mobile phones, set-top-boxes, gaming consoles, DVD players and all the other electronics, where you could implement internet connection, and their manufacturers don't need to care about Micro$oft or what they think about the electronics manufacturers actions.

In the end, all i'm pointing out is, that the competition between M$ and Google is a lot more harsh than what it seems. After all, you can see Googles importance to M$ by looking at their 45 billion bid for Yahoo.

@BDBDBD Most computer use happens at the workplace and they aren't likely to switch to web apps for a multitude of reasons. Then ignoring the school computers, at least 50% of home computers do not have the internet speed fast enough to take advantage of them then of the remaining 50% I doubt that more than 20% of people will seriously use it as their main application suite for a variety of reasons such as ease of use, familiarity, trust, competing free local office suits etc.

Btw im not sure what the fascination with Linux is all about... They don't have much success in giving it away for FREE.

@Squiliam: I wasn't talking about the amount of time spent on a computer, i was talking about the number of systems purchased. It doesn't matter if you spend 10 hours a day on computer, opposed to one hour, since both paid the same for their operating system.
People already use a lot of web apps, flash, email, java and different instances online services (you can debate whether what should be count as an application and what shouldn't, from customer point of view it doesn't matter).

Now that you look how people use their computer, there's only three main uses: browse internet, check email and store data. For these the internet speeds seem to be enough for most people and by looking at most webservices, everything is already done at the server and the webpages are dynamic.

Linuxes haven't been very successful (in operating systems) for two main reasons:
1. M$ virtual monopoly, that pushes the PC manufacturers to bundle their computers with Windows.
2. The barrier to learn to do something in a different way. Once you bought your computer with Windows, you're unlikely to switch since you don't know how the new system works and even if you try it, the new way of doing things is seemingly harder than the old way.

I personally have experience with DOS, Win 3.11, Win 95, Win 98, Win 2000, Win XP, Win Vista, Mandriva and Ubuntu. And i must say that Ubuntu is the best of them by far. Still the best Windows system, IMO, is 3.11.

bdbdbd said: @Squiliam: I wasn't talking about the amount of time spent on a computer, i was talking about the number of systems purchased. It doesn't matter if you spend 10 hours a day on computer, opposed to one hour, since both paid the same for their operating system. People already use a lot of web apps, flash, email, java and different instances online services (you can debate whether what should be count as an application and what shouldn't, from customer point of view it doesn't matter). Now that you look how people use their computer, there's only three main uses: browse internet, check email and store data. For these the internet speeds seem to be enough for most people and by looking at most webservices, everything is already done at the server and the webpages are dynamic. Linuxes haven't been very successful (in operating systems) for two main reasons: 1. M$ virtual monopoly, that pushes the PC manufacturers to bundle their computers with Windows. 2. The barrier to learn to do something in a different way. Once you bought your computer with Windows, you're unlikely to switch since you don't know how the new system works and even if you try it, the new way of doing things is seemingly harder than the old way. I personally have experience with DOS, Win 3.11, Win 95, Win 98, Win 2000, Win XP, Win Vista, Mandriva and Ubuntu. And i must say that Ubuntu is the best of them by far. Still the best Windows system, IMO, is 3.11.

Most systems are used for Web and Office duties. Most people use Microsoft Office at work so it makes sense for them to use Office at home. They actually need to use Office because thats the standard which is used in business, and taught in schools. As for Linux.1. Theres nothing Microsoft can do to an OEM like HP which decides to push Linux in their systems because they are being watched closely by anti-trust lawyers. So if HP doesn't sell Linux its because they don't think people want it, not because they are being bullied by Microsoft. 2. Theres more to that barrier than that. If it takes time to learn a new system and time = money it doesn't actually make sense for people to learn or be trained to use Linux. For example if a work place were to migrate to Linux they would likely have to spend at least as much money training new and existing staff members how to use it than actually buying the operating system from Microsoft.

 

edge... what edge???

Microsoft's OS is slowly being eaten away by apple and linux. Its console is losing despite a headstart. Zune had problems and lost. Not to mention RROD which made the 360 into one of the most defective products ever made.

It cant get any worse

xman said: MikeB said: To me, it is all very straight forward. Whilst PC's were a great machine to own, until Microsoft came along, they were not user friendly to the majority of the users. Microsoft allowed people to easily access PC's to do regular work as well as more complex. MSDOS was very bad, it was a direct CP/M rippoff (even down to the source codes), it was the most handicapped and limited OS I've ever used. MSDOS is at the core of Microsoft's success, they already were dominant within the market during this era, well before Windows 1.x became popular for home usage. IMO the reasons for Microsoft's success. 1) IBM choose for MSDOS for their computers despite better options existed. IBM unlike Microsoft was a big name back then, especially amongst businesses. Better options like QNX existed, but may have been too expensive considering usage (mainly brainless on and off activity at factories and such). IBM thought there wasn't a market for PC home usage, later on of course they were unhappy giving this might to Microsoft when the clones arrived. It was too late to launch their own operating system OS/2. 2) More user friendly and powerful systems like the Amiga, Atari ST, Acorn, Apple, etc existed. But they were more expensive and overkill for simple tasks. 3) More advanced versions of applications like Word Perfect were discontinued for the Amiga (Window controlled, Copy & Paste, multitasking enabled, etc). Instead Word Perfect as well as a non multi-tasking version of Lotus 1-2-3 were exclusively available for MSDOS, these were market leading applications at the time. People wanting to continue their work at home would pick a MSDOS PC to run Lotus and/or Word Perfect. No matter more advanced software existed, other apps were not compatible with those used at work. If only appple would have licenced out there OS we would probably all me using MAC OSX right now

At least we'd have a viable choice that is supported by a company rather then a bunch of asshats who talk about Windows blue screen of death that I haven't seen in 5 years.