Gartner explains where MS went wrong
AT THE Gartner Emerging Trends conference this week, analysts said that Microsoft's operating system development times are too long and fail to deliver genuine innovation.
Companies perceive little benefit from costly upgrades to new operating systems when the ones they have are working just fine. And with everyone cutting back on spending, upgrading machines and installing extra RAM just to run Vista rather than XP just isn't going to happen.
High on Gartner's list of Microsoft's mistakes is the sheer complexity of Windows; its large footprint; and the trend towards Web-based apps.
According to Gartner, the computer hardware business is expected to grow a meagre eight per cent by 2011. The story is better in emerging markets, with growth approaching 25 per cent, but machines here tend to be lower-specced and lower-cost, making Vista a non-starter.
Up to 80 per cent of corporate applications currently run under Windows, says Gartner, but come 2011, a tipping point will be reached with Web apps - that don't care about what operating system is in use - starting to take over and undermining Windows' desktop dominance.
Gartner naturally stops short of advising Microsoft what to do to avoid losing its grip on corporate IT, but, hey, if it knew how to do that, it'd start developing its own software. µ
L'Inq
PC
World
Share this:
Business Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
I wonder what Gartner had to say about this whole thing a couple of months BEFORE Vista was released....?

20$ says it was the complete opposite...
And in future volumes: "More of Microsoft's Greatest Mistakes" and "Who Is This Microsoft Person Anyway"?

Douglas Adams, RIP.
They went wrong when they thought changing the title bar, menu bar and navigation bar around would be interesting and refreshing.

That is my biggest beef with M$. Why change a good thing?
Looks like someone forgot to acknowledge how MS was forced to change the structure of the OS due to EU Anti-trust rulings. That couldnt have had any impact on developing Vista could it? what an idiot.
"That is my biggest beef with M$. Why change a good thing?" - to Micr0$0ft, change IS innovation. Where do you want to go (crash) today?

Jim

Bill Gates went wrong when he envisioned a world where every living person would have his own "Windows Machine", all seamless integrated between each other and with "Microsoft Internet" (aka MSN), sending money to his pockets with every click. Things didn't quite turn out as he wanted, it seems, and this legacy of mistaken concepts are carried over in every Windows release.

So if they ever stop trying to activate the Microsoft Genesis messianic terraforming machine, maybe they can come with some quality products (yeah, right).

Oh and another thing. Perhaps I wouldn't be wearing those deep and heavy glasses by now if he didn't come with the idea that the screen background should be white, as in a paper. A paper doesn't shine in our eyes, Bill! Ancient systems had black background for a reason! Screw WYSIWYG!!!

" They went wrong when they thought changing the title bar, menu bar and navigation bar around would be interesting and refreshing."

and removing the "Up to parent folder" button from explorer windows...i HATE that about Vista. it seems like such a little thing but when you're used to it being there and it's used frequently, it's totally annoying to have it...gone. maybe there's a way to get it back that i haven't found yet but the point is, why remove it in the first place?

and no, using the "Back" button isn't the same functionality
Nobody actually Likes XP Glitches, Siezes & Ramble of Lost Files, XP Machines are Cheap & Xrummy BSOD Monsters.
Yet theres Still Little Choice. If you want upgrade, it will be Strongest:: Windows Server 2008, yet thats FULL 7 Days Away to Retail. Can You Hold Out?

Only Freaks like Ultie Gartner know difference, Soon You Will too. In Mean Time. Think Fashion Statement & Get Windows Vista Ultimate 64. Its Worth it, Yet you'll need one of just Several mainboards that can Handle such Excellent performance & Experience. As circle gets Heavier in Quality, Each Revolution in Computing Takes More Ink.
Thomas Drashek
I Meant Server 2008 Went out of Beta Testing 4 Days Ago, It has Been Retail for Several Months. If you Wish to ReBeta, its Still on 2 Month Beta trial right Now. My Mistake, 
Too Many Chocolate Easter Eggs. Its Warm Spring Day, Here. 
Also heres another article you should try to figure Out to get Ultimate into Graphics Perspective:
http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=3099 Its about meaning of Vantage Numbers.

Gartner should Try Server 2008 Now its Available. They'd EAT thier Home Garden WORDS,
Thomas Drashek
Even though majority of applications are web based those are exceptional if you have an extremely high bandwidth network. However in some cases for security purposes it is not beneficial to have web based applications, areas with no network etc. That's where Mozilla's prism comes in...
Funny question, I never thought that they had gone right in the first place.
But okay, I'll play along. MS went wrong the day they realized that an OS could be coded to do a lot more than just operate the system. They screwed themselves the day they thought they could use the OS to further commercial dominance and tie-in to the platform.
Which was basically on day one.
Meanwhile, MS still makes billions on the flawed concept. Hopefully, one day the market will come to its senses and realize that the MS OS is a toy good enough for home users, but a real OS is required for business use.
And we're getting there, one Vista at a time.
Why are people contented to allow themselves to be restrained to looking through Windows to take in the Vista of the outside world? Who needs Gates if you don't have fences? Linux.
Bashing MS is getting old, get a new job.
...they paid Gartner too little and
they got seriously pissed off about it! >D

Actually I find really ridicolous that these "Gartner guys" not more than one year ago kept telling companies that they should pass to Windows Vista for they'd lose support and update capabilities and *then* they say things like this, that are things which are obvious even to the greatest idiot in the world, but...what's the point about
telling them *now*?

My personal opinion is that they got money to make a "spot" for Microsoft before...and may be that, since the "spot" didn't work (maybe human beings were too smart for that), MS "closed the money bag", so now they're pissed off and start hunting for any negative thing they could say about Windows & MS...

I know that analysts are experts of obvious things and that they change the flag "after the market", but I don't think someone who makes a spot to a company and then changes to such an attitude could have any *real* credibility...

So what I ask myself is "who believes to guys who behave like this"?

Really...