Anybody remember that slick marketing line? You are a winner if you picked OS/2. OK I will admit it, I was an OS/2 user. I liked it much better than Windows 3.1 and used it even after Windows 95 came out. I still think it was a superior product to anything that the guys from Redmond put out. Why don't we all run OS/2 today instead of Windows? Good question, I ask myself that all the time. Some say it is because Microsoft used strong arm tactics to persuade ISV's from developing apps for OS/2. That may be true, but for me the real problem was IBM's strategy was instead of fighting the fight to get OS/2 apps developed, they said go ahead and run Windows and DOS apps on OS/2, we can run them better. They could, but at the end of the day they were still Windows and DOS apps and this gave Microsoft an inherent advantage that could not be overcome.
I was reminded of this today while reading an article in eWeek by Joe Wilcox on how Microsoft is in so much trouble and how nobody is using Vista (better not tell the 100 million or so users of Vista that). Joe points out the recent Gartner report that says Microsoft is headed for a train wreck around 2011 or so because Windows is vulnerable (to competition that is, not necessarily to vulnerabilities. Well actually it is vulnerable to those too, but that is for another blog). Not to be outdone by the G-men, straight off the shrimp boat the Forest-er Gump crew come out with a pair of reports (here and here), that detail Vista's adoption issues. The net of one is that while tech folks see the benefit of upgrading to Vista, it is a tough sell to the CIOs and CFOs of the world. Many according to the article are saying they will wait for Windows 7, whenever that comes out. I don't buy this myself. I remember similar talk when XP came out.
Where I really disagree with Wilcox though is his comments regarding Mac OSX replacing Windows in the enterprise:
I disagree that Mac OS X is no alternative, particularly when businesses must swap out hardware anyway and Exchange-supporting Office 2008 is available. Mac OS X nicely plugs into Active Directory. I don't expect massive conversions to Mac OS X, but I strongly disagree with contention that it's "simply not a viable option."
What will enable this Mac revolution? Virtualization according to Wilcox and those who believe as he does. This is where they step in the footsteps of OS/2 before them. If OSX is a better OS, fine. But don't fool yourself. If you are going to rely on Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft AD and other Microsoft server products plus Microsoft applications and you are going to run your Mac hardware running Windows in a virtual hypervisor on top of it, you are just a "better Windows than Windows" but you still run Windows. Microsoft will use its stranglehold on the applications to make sure that they run better, faster, cheaper on the real Windows.
Gartner, Forester and Joe Wilcox miss the point here. Windows will not be in serious danger of losing its preeminent position on the desktop until there are enough applications that run natively on another OS and don't run on Windows. I don't see many application developers willing to walk away from the Windows market for that to be a reality. That makes desktop Linux, Mac OS and the rest just more OS/2s.
