The death of Microsoft began with a slow poison called JAVA several years back. Once you have a middleware that can react with multiple back ends to run applications loaded from remote locations, the network IS the computer.

I first realized this in the 90's just a short time after I first heard the statement, and it didn't take long for me to understand it's implications. Back then, NT 4.0 was coming out, and the implications were very clear. You now had a dedicated or semi dedicated processor, but the actual computer, and by this I mean the scope of devices you touch directly or indirectly without case by case intervention had now expanded beyond the case on your desk and the peripherals tied to it by clumsy wires and cables.

More and more, the computer became a portal to a much larger world, where data was bi-directional and where processing happened in multiple locations.

As the distribution of these powers become more oriented to the office environment, we will start to see true "Thin Clients". I expect nothing more than a screen, keyboard, and mouse with a JAVA engine and connection to the net allowing you to use web based applications for anything you need, be it word processing, browsing, spreadsheets, or databases.

While there will still be a place for the current "Desktop" it will be in the hands of developers who need the ability to create their own little networks, and thus their own versions of "The Computer".

Microsofts days are numbered unless they can figure out how to transform themselves into a Net offering. Multi platform, and feeding themselves the way most websites do, via subscription/advertizing. That model is going to be a BIG leap.

I have to disagree.

Certainly, the operating system is less important than it used to be in a non-networked environment.

However, Windows is NOT Microsoft.

Just for a simple example: look at Microsoft server products. What's the significance of them?

As everyone, and everything, becomes more and more dependent on the network, try to imagine what will happen when the network goes down......

You thought you had an epiphany when you couldn't connect your 2006 computer to the Internet......

Although I don't have a lot of use for Microsoft's overall philosophy, I think there is a great deal to be said for keeping your critical functionality on your desktop, rather than on some network somewhere "out there."

> As the distribution of these powers become more
> oriented to the office environment, we will
> start to see true "Thin Clients". I expect
> nothing more than a screen, keyboard, and mouse
> with a JAVA engine and connection to the net
> allowing you to use web based applications for
> anything you need, be it word processing,
> browsing, spreadsheets, or databases.

the same arguments, the same technology, the same hope. just a different time - 10 years later.

thin clients turned out to be insufficient, as did thick clients. does larry ellison and network computer ring a bell? they should.

the ideal platform is a mix of online and offline. in thin clients, if you lose connectivity, you have an expensive paperweight. no, you still can't assume you have constant connectivity everywhere.

consumers rarely have the technical and business chops to judge a technology company.

please allow me to use a metaphor.

it got dark outside so you thought you'd turn on the light. but neither light worked. you were confused. then suddenly, you realized the circuit braker got busted this morning and you forgot to replace it. all this made you realize that the power company/lightbulb manufacturer/etc. is due to go out of business.

origin of epiphanies can sometimes be very odd.

it's no shame being outsmarted. it's a shame to give up. anyone who thinks microsoft is going out of business doesn't know the meaning of "competitive spirit" or "following the news".

microsoft isn't out of business until it actually is out of business. or any other company with that kind of philosophy.

I've been thinking for a while that Microsoft will end up narrowing down into a multimedia and gaming company. Certainly not with Zune, but with the Xbox and other endeavors outside of Windows/Office/servers.

As others have stated, in reality there will always be some flavour of a balance of online applications & services via the "net," vs. local horsepower within the office.

If you read any of the very frustrating personal identity thefts happening this past year by credit card web sites and other transaction sites inadvertently opening their doors to hackers, you'll realize the "balance" also involves security... both in content and in personal privacy.

With an adequate perimeter security platform in place, most security problems are avoided (key word here is "most").

Regulatory and Compliance mandates from local Governments and Institutions will no doubt continue to flourish, and as they do so will the need to maintain internal/local archival and CPU horsepower.

Microsoft Exchange, other Microsoft Server based engines out there are alive and doing well. As fast as LINUX is getting an ever increasing % of the data center square footage, those same data centers continue to grow and Microsoft is well-positioned to stay in place for a long, long time.

I believe we will continue to see more mobility based solutions surface (we have VPN, GoodLink, RIM, VMWARE, and so many other flavours of remote access and virtual CPU Hosting). The handsets, mobile intelligent terminals, tablets, are still growing in horsepower, storage, and capabilities. We continue to add, not take away, capabilities for mobile platforms. As broadband matures, UMTS surfaces in USA, and 3G networks bridge the gaps internationally, there may be less of a need for an 802.11x at home when a cost effective 1-2Mbps path is available for $49 a month from Sprint (just an example.)

That changes the face of the "net" a bit aye? :)

The more the "virtual" office environment profilerates (it's darn near painful now... it's hard to find an office these days where I work as I travel), the more impact socially and the more secure we need our information.

No, the core infrastructure running the Fortune 1000's isn't going to switch to thin clients hosted by generic multitenant hosting service providers. Those hosting SP's are going to add more server, application, and communications services for their clientele, but that will be a closed access through a secured pipeline back to the core business organization.

Perhaps a "virtual" core infrastructure no doubt, but one that will continue to require horsepower for running LINUX, Microsoft, Cisco, Mac, and other platforms we haven't thought about yet. Microsoft won't die (at the desktop), but it will shrink a bit.

Two comments:
1
"When computing started, Your C: drive was your world, and a slow, just slightly better than useless modem merely icing on the computing cake."

a) This should read "When *Personal* Computing started". Grace Hopper and the ENIAC team wouldn't know what a c: drive is. b) The C: drive wasn't our world. Our twin, 360k floppies were and c) in the beginning there were *no* modems at all for PC's. Guess I am older than you :-)

2
The death of MS has been predicted now for at least 15 years by many dreamers, every time with solid logic. One argument is always conveniently overlooked though. Anybody worked out the investment the global corporate world would have to make in writing of the investment and experience in MS products. Think of the re-skilling of a) the IT administrators and (worse) the 10th (100th?) of millions of none IT PC workers, from the CEO to the clerks and secretaries. Don't forget they are the business, IT is not.

Gert

In response to Gert:

You're right about dreamers forecasting Microsoft's death for a long time, but you also have to consider that the line between desktop and the internet has become all but transparent (think Dashboard for OSX, Google services, AJAX, web apps like YouOS).

As more and more of our daily computing takes place on the web, the underlying OS means less and less. If I'm using Gmail in Firefox, it doesn't matter if the OS is Windows, Linux, *BSD, or OSX, it looks and acts the same way. *This* is why Microsoft is truely in trouble this time around.

If Linux steps up and manages to bridge the FUD, and finds a way to take the "geek factor" out of Linux, then the next generation of computer users (currently ages 3-10), won't be able to justify spending money on Windows, when they can install Linux for free, or have OSX when they buy a shiny new Mac. They aren't concerned with email, because they use Gmail or Yahoo Mail. They aren't worried about office software, because they use Google Office. In fact, they don't need any desktop applications beyond a media player (or maybe they just use YouTube and Pandora) and a web browser.

As for the Xbox and Zune, both are failures (imho). Zune is too late in the game, and doesn't use iTunes. Xbox may seem almost like a success, until you consider that the Xbox is nothing more than a computer in a fancy case, running a custom-designed version of Windows. It's aimed at young Windows users, pure and simple. No one would even buy it if the name "Microsoft" didn't mean something, and it only means something because of Windows and Office. Take those two out of the way, and the Xbox is a complete failure. I could also talk about IE7, but we all know that IE7 was a lot of promise, and only a little effort.