Starting from Google's operating system-a little bit about Microsoft

After Google announced its chromeos strategy, a new round of OS battle began to enter the climax.

As early as a few years ago, there were constant guesses that Google would have to do the OS sooner or later, but Google was not ready yet. Let a group of people who are waiting to watch the movie very disappointed-including me, of course. Although MS Windows does a good job in the desktop field-at least once. But without competition, there will be no progress. Competition is the king.

After that, Google finally developed an OS-Android-although it is only an OS specification for the mobile platform, it has clearly stated that Google is actually going to be an OS.

Now, these guesses can finally be settled.

In history, Ms has survived numerous storms. What will happen this time? I personally think that Google is unlikely to overturn ms, but at least it has to eat a small portion of its market share-as Firefox is currently dealing with IE, rather than being overwhelmed by challengers.

From a business point of view, I think these two analyses of pig's simplicity are very good: Microsoft
He pointed out that Ms is inevitably suffering from the legendary "major enterprise disease"-which was described 20 years ago as IBM, and I agree with it very much, although Ms has always been learning from IBM, it is still time to lose weight. I also agree with two more technical questions. Microsoft, Microsoft
From the product perspective, I also have a lot of comments on MS products.

As for the reporter Ji Yongqing, "stay away from Microsoft"
Of course, this is a layman, but it can also represent the opinions of some users.

A message from solidot said the London stock exchange would give up windows
", Then a pot of cold water is poured onto the MS Server.

Let's talk about my technical point of view.

No
Let's review the history: Before MS Office was born, the world's most Nb spreadsheet software was Lotus
1-2-3, but it failed to continue its success, because it encountered a difficult choice in the development of new products: the hardware configuration was too bad at the time, if you want to add features to a new product, your computer will
Upgrade is required, and the hardware in the past is very expensive. However, the product development must add new features. Therefore, they can only push the new features to the only K memory in the current mainstream configuration.
Zhizhi-the development progress is postponed, the function is not enhanced much, and the product stability is reduced. Ms firmly believes that the development of hardware must be more configuration and lower price, so it opens the function to add to excel, coupled
The people that Lotus dug up, so they created the most powerful product-although the mainstream computers could not run at the time, there was not much time, and the mainstream hardware configuration came up, and Lotus was eliminated.

Over the years, Ms has been following this path, so the result is that MS Office is now criticized by pig's simple function and slow. There are two problems:

On the one hand, the development direction of hardware is changing. The first is that the hardware upgrade has reached the point of a phase and can only be changed to multi-core development. However, multi-core architecture does not bring much Performance Improvement for most single-threaded desktop applications. In addition, the demand for miniaturization of hardware has led to the prevalence of low-configuration hardware. In addition to mobile phones, there are also netbooks and mid.

Another
On the one hand, the user needs are differentiated. Most users use MS
Office and other products only use a very small number of features. For example, I used the dversion 97 and 2000 versions all the time before, but I have heard of it before.
I have used WPS, and I have seen MS Office on other computers since. The WPS function is much less, but it is enough for me, MS
Office is powerful, but more than 3000 yuan a license, I use three computers alone (one desktop, one book, one netbook), it does not need to spend 10 thousand, but it may only
Using hundreds of functions is not cost-effective.

In fact, it should have been a good thing for software product function enhancement. Microsoft's practice should be praised, but I still can't help it.
-- That is, you are using a forced method to upgrade your instance. For example, MS Office
The file format of 2007 is not compatible with the previous format. Users of the old version must upgrade to the new version to open the file format of the new version. Of course, Ms has not been used, and patches are provided. So
What about outlook? If you do not receive emails sent using outlook2007 (for example, if you use Foxmail), the content of the emails will be different.
As an attachment to winmail. dat, open it with a third-party dedicated tool to know that the content is unique to outlook2007. It's really awesome.

I am a little confused. I am talking about the OS. How can I go to the office.

Back
On OS, the Windows route is the same. I always think that Windows
2000 is the shining point of the Windows system, and XP and 2003 are the continuation of this glory. But then ......, Taking vista for example, it is also a typical complicated and slow home with complicated functions.
Guy -- reminds me of a time when Windows 2000 was born out of Windows NT, while windows
NT is also from a project in which Ms cooperates with IBM: OS/2. It was this OS/2 that brought IBM into the trap. Of course, the main responsibility lies in IBM. The failure of this product lies in
So many features were added in it that they were finally commented on by the IT media as "very complex and fat ".

Of course, Windows 7 is changing this situation, but it still needs to wait and see if it can cope with new challenges.

Speaking of windows, this will return to the topic. In fact, Windows is still a good OS, at least in the desktop field and for most users is the best OS-the most convenient and the best GUI performance. But the problem is also here.

Upper
When talking about this topic with Ling Hu, I pointed out that the GUI performance of Windows depends on integrating the GUI into the OS kernel. However, this will inevitably bring potential risks of stability and security.
Risks. For example, if a OS using X crashes in the GUI, you only need to switch to the command line and shut down the X process and restart X. But what about windows? Of course, it is a direct death.
Machine. In addition, for the server, there is no need for GUI at all, but Windows has started it and wasted valuable server resources there. This is also a problem.

Ling Hu points out another question
Question: Registry. It is undeniable that compared with Windows 3. X, Windows
The Registry introduced by 95 is indeed a major innovation. However, the reason for this innovation lies in the non-NT kernel windows (3.x,
(9x) does not have enough security control mechanisms. However, this initiative brings far-reaching problems. The main problem is that it becomes the life gate of the entire system. Once the registry is damaged, the system must be reinstalled and
Unable to recover to the state before system corruption-because although the registry can be edited, editing it depends on an OS kernel with a GUI. The contradiction is that the registry is not repaired, this kernel cannot be started. This
Such problems do not exist for systems like Linux. Even if the core system configuration file is damaged, you can use livecd to start the system and then use a text editing tool to fix the problem.

There is nothing to say about other issues such as Windows APIs. Thanks to the MS documentation writers, they are the greatest contributor to the popularity of windows.

Of course, these issues have little impact on desktop users. Let's talk about the server.

I think the decision on the London Stock Exchange is wise. NASDAQ should take a look. Although the server system used by NASDAQ has MS to provide technical support directly, it still seems to be able to run, but I personally feel that the speed is too slow.

In addition to the waste of resources, security, stability, and other issues caused by unnecessary guis mentioned above, there are still many problems with the use of Windows server. For example, for convenience, GUI is a nightmare for remote operations, especially when the network conditions are poor or the server load is heavy, and the security is not enough. It is completely incomparable with SSH.

The most disgusting is the so-called cal-Client Access License.

Division
This is a problem with the server application. IIS is the most spam webserver I have ever used, and even Lighttpd is better than it, not to mention in the webserver field such
Apache, which is common to the same God, is still the most powerful webserver so far. Even Ms Loyal users like csdn use
Windows +. NET + IIS + MSSQL is the basic platform for websites, but you still have to use nginx on the front-end-the best overall performance of webserver.
After using other webservers, I used IIS again. The only feeling is: how can there be such a bad webserver.

Now, let's talk about MSSQL. This is indeed one of Ms's products, which is the best cost-effective commercial database product on Windows. But that's all. Besides, there is a Windows system that is bound to it.

. Net won't talk about it. I mentioned it several times a n years ago. Not bad, but not as good as Ms. What's more, in my opinion, we need native performance development and Dynamic Language for functions. I am not very interested in Virtual Machine platforms, whether it is Java or. NET.

Note that the server applications mentioned above should not be compared with the Windows version of other products, because on Windows platforms, they are more restricted than Ms products, this comparison is unfair.

The final difference lies in the OS.

Of course, Microsoft is also said to have some very good products, but I don't need them. I still don't think of things I 've never used.

Back
To Google's OS, let's talk about SaaS problems. Two days ago, I saw a fan of WM criticizing android on this grounds. My opinion was that Ms will soon add SaaS for WM.
. However, in any case, SAAS can only be a necessary useful supplement, and it is impossible to completely replace client applications in the short term. At least in this field, Google has obvious advantages, which is why I think
The launch of OS for Google can eat part of the market share, but it is impossible to completely replace the dominant position of the MS Client OS.

After talking so much, Ms may not be aware of many problems. It's just that changes are not just a matter of time. Ms can achieve today's achievements. Naturally, there is a reason for it. I just want to talk a little bit. But some fans of MS are actually ...... Not as good as IIS. It's no wonder that Robin of javaeye was annoyed with a statement recently:

Some dead users are always dying because others are also dying. Some pirated users always think that others are also suffering from piracy. I solemnly declare that my desktop uses Apple's MacOSX and the server uses SuSE Linux. I have already said goodbye to death for N years. Don't try to reply again. Thank you.

Well, this kind of brain damage is indeed quite a lot, for example, the days away from Microsoft
Deuteron and on my way.

Things
In fact, I have three computers: The desktop is an old guy with P3, and the original configuration is a genuine 98. I used the D version 2000 earlier, and then I installed ubuntu.
Linux: upgrade from 6.06 to 9.04. This is the original genuine XP
Home is enough for me, because I use Linux for everything on the server. The original XP netbook
Home has been installed with Ubuntu 8.10 for only two hours on my computer (even the system has not been restored to a partition) and has now been upgraded to 9.04.

By the way, we strongly recommend Ubuntu 9.04. Compared with previous versions, the GUI performance is greatly optimized and the hardware support is much better.

If you have said so much, we still need to summarize it.

For professionals, Ms OS is very bad, especially on the server, but it is enough for most users, so the status of MS is unshakable. However, in the future, the OS field will inevitably develop in a diversified direction. As a professional, it is necessary to consider two aspects:

For the client, you cannot only consider Windows support; for the server, you 'd better not consider windows.