Modular Windows Will Suck, Ars Writes

Terry Olaes

Terry Olaes

I Used to be the [H] News Guy
2FA
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
4,646
Ars Technica has an article up about Windows 7’s rumored modular build and why it will suck, not only for the end user but for Microsoft as well. It’s a good read for those interested in Windows and the modular OS concept.

A modularized Windows, or worse still, a modularized subscription-based Windows, undermines the purpose and value of the Windows OS. If it comes to pass, it will surely sound the death knell of the entire Windows platform.
Click to expand...
 
Ohhh, a technology prediction. I'm uhhhhh.... 100% sure they're wrong.

Why do these idiots always seem to think they know better then the massive corporation that has control of an entire world market? Oh, wait, I know, they're idiots, and that's why they spend their time writing pointless articles.
 
Very presumptuous article, but not entirely worthless. It does have some valid arguments, though I'm sure that if Windows were to become subscription based (or modular at least), then Microsoft could probably do it - forcefully if needed.
 
"If it comes to pass, it will surely sound the death knell of the entire Windows platform. ":rolleyes:

This has to be hands-down one of the stupidest 'prediction' I have heard in a long time.
 
you know, I thought that this would be a totally doom-and-gloom anti Microsoft article, but I was surprised to find that he made some valid points. I kind of agree with the article, for the most part.
 
Somehow I feel that third parties would find a way to become a part of this process. Thus example, if Microsoft would offer this Windows Live Photo Gallery w/hosting and back-up and whatnot, Google and other third parties would create and market their own versions, which should keep prices within reason at the very least. Granted, plenty of people would just go with the Windows module because they wouldn't know about the third party options, but most of the people apt to complain about such a system would know of such and thus it would be a non-issue.
 
as long as game makers keep making directX games almost exclusively, microsoft has us gamers by the balls so its all irrelevant.
 
No worries, any new or innovative features will get dropped before the launch.
 
I wouldn't mind paying a yearly sub of 25 bucks or so if they dropped the price down to like 20 bucks or something. Otherwise I'll stick with XP or Vista as along as possible.
 
NO ONE knows if Windows 7 will be modular, Microsoft has said NOTHING about it, and there is NO proof. This crap was on Digg this morning, too. It's ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. It will never happen.
 
InorganicMatter said:
NO ONE knows if Windows 7 will be modular, Microsoft has said NOTHING about it, and there is NO proof. This crap was on Digg this morning, too. It's ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. It will never happen.
Click to expand...

When it comes to a corporation and its money, "never" is not a word that will separate them.
 
deathBOB said:
No worries, any new or innovative features will get dropped before the launch.
Click to expand...

Spot on. That's the 2nd biggest problem I see with MS. Clearly MS not afraid to fail so what's the hold up? Oh yeah it's the #1 problem with MS, management.
 
TerranUp16 said:
Somehow I feel that third parties would find a way to become a part of this process. Thus example, if Microsoft would offer this Windows Live Photo Gallery w/hosting and back-up and whatnot, Google and other third parties would create and market their own versions, which should keep prices within reason at the very least. Granted, plenty of people would just go with the Windows module because they wouldn't know about the third party options, but most of the people apt to complain about such a system would know of such and thus it would be a non-issue.
Click to expand...

The situation now kinda parallels a modular Windows, such as having OpenOffice as an alternative to Microsoft Office. However, I'd imagine that some Microsoft modules might be closely tied to the OS and proprietary - making alternatives difficult, impossible, or just plain undesirable compared to the real thing; thus giving "Genuine Advantage" a whole new meaning.

Personally, I'm a bit apprehensive about modular Windows (and there's no way in hell that I'd want to use a subscription-based OS at home). I'd be afraid that they'd want to nickel-and-dime the features that I now expect to be included with Windows.
 
I have to disagree with that article. Options for the user are always good, and there's no reason to pay for what you don't need. Everyone who complains about the "bloat" in Windows can just buy the core OS and forget about the extras that they don't want or need.

I mean, does everything you could possibly think of have to be included with your OS? I wouldn't like it Roxio or Norton or Nero was included with my OS - I can buy those programs if I'm going to use them. The same applies to Windows Backup, Windows Live OneCare, and Windows Movie Maker. Allowing users to not buy what they won't use is, in my opinion, a good thing.

The article assume that MS will use modular technology to get more money from businesses and consumers who need the extra features, but I disagree with that. For example, the current price of Vista Business is not much higher than Home Premium or even Home Basic. Ultimate is expensive, but that applies to pretty much every top-end product.

And the subscription-based thing is something I can never see happening. Microsoft is smart enough to not attempt a move like that.
 
xBanzai89 said:
I wouldn't mind paying a yearly sub of 25 bucks or so if they dropped the price down to like 20 bucks or something. Otherwise I'll stick with XP or Vista as along as possible.
Click to expand...

$25 a year? That isn't nearly what you pay for an upgrade if you get a new OS every 4 years.

If you would buy the OEM version of the newest OS every 4 years that would probably be around $150. $150/4 = $37/year.


$35 per year would be a nice pricepoint. But seeing as how I've never had to pay for an OS (either got it with my PC, when the hardware itself costs more than what I paid, or MS sent me a free copy through some program they had) I'd rather they keep it this way as I plan to continue getting free copies as long as I can (and I am sure they will continue to give out free copies). :D
 
the thing we are all overlooking is that this is a moot point....


over half of us will still be on xp anyway... i think until computers are moved off of silicon or something some people won't part with xp.


I use both xp and vista...but i must say i don't get microsoft shuffling out a new os this fast...

....if it ain't broke....
 
WTF? I have to call this article bull shit and the author a dumb ass.

The "roles" in Windows server 2008 is nothing new. Server 2000 had you install Active directory, IIS and all that stuff on a as needed basis also. I never used NT server although I pretty sure that also required you to install these. That would be stupid to have your server come with every single possible feature turned on. First it would put an addition load on the server that isn't needed, and it would make it less secure. This is not the sign that they are making it module. Nor do you pay extra to use those features.

This is just some ass hat trying to make something out of nothing. He is basis his entire article on a feature that has been in all windows servers calling it new.

I'm surprised nobody else picked up on this.
 
Exavior said:
WTF? I have to call this article bull shit and the author a dumb ass.

The "roles" in Windows server 2008 is nothing new. Server 2000 had you install Active directory, IIS and all that stuff on a as needed basis also. I never used NT server although I pretty sure that also required you to install these. That would be stupid to have your server come with every single possible feature turned on. First it would put an addition load on the server that isn't needed, and it would make it less secure. This is not the sign that they are making it module. Nor do you pay extra to use those features.

This is just some ass hat trying to make something out of nothing. He is basis his entire article on a feature that has been in all windows servers calling it new.

I'm surprised nobody else picked up on this.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware that the 'roles' on Windows servers is certainly nothing new. You only install the features you need from the many that are included with the installation media.

However, the article is talking about selling a base or packaged OS and charging money for additional features in the form of modules - or even selling subscriptions to the OS and/or features. Imagine paying, say, $30 for Aero Glass instead of it being included for 'free' with Vista. Or perhaps spending money to enable BitLocker on your Vista Home version? Several hundred dollars to turn on advanced File/Print management features on Windows Server?
 
I would at least let Microsoft allow a shot to show windows 7 before convicted it to craphood.
 
This Microsoft bashfest has got to stop. Rather than taking every OS announcement they make and instantly jumping on the "omfg it suckz0rs!" bandwagon can we for once focus more on what they are doing right? Not everything in their new OS sucks. Reward them for the good, point out the bad.

Love MS or hate MS, the world needs to work with them. We NEED a new OS that most people can get behind.

MS isn't even really "The Man" anymore when it comes to heavyhanded business practices. Sony and Apple are much more scary as far as proprietary control goes.
 
Modular Windows for the end-user may be a mistake, but I can certainly see that approach being attractive for businesses. They can tailor installs for exactly what the end users require to do their jobs, most likely ending up in a much leaner, less resource-intensive build.
Of course MS could piss off a lot of retail end users by instituting an insanely inappropriate pricing strategy for the various "modules".

Off topic but I'm curious, has anyone who purchased Vista Ultimate gotten any of their ultimate extras yet?

I also think that the recent news about Windows 7 coming sooner than later is MS acknowledging that many users are not happy with Vista and they (MS) need to move on.

Sure, it took about 4 years for XP to get to the level and stability and security it enjoys today and many people want it to stick around for a bit longer, but I don't see that same scenario happening with Vista at all.
 
SockMan! said:
I'm well aware that the 'roles' on Windows servers is certainly nothing new. You only install the features you need from the many that are included with the installation media.

However, the article is talking about selling a base or packaged OS and charging money for additional features in the form of modules - or even selling subscriptions to the OS and/or features. Imagine paying, say, $30 for Aero Glass instead of it being included for 'free' with Vista. Or perhaps spending money to enable BitLocker on your Vista Home version? Several hundred dollars to turn on advanced File/Print management features on Windows Server?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know what they are saying, But unless I am reading it wrong. It is saying that Vista and 2008 server show that 7 will be modular because Vista had different versions and 2008 server had various roles that you could install. Thus come windows 7 and the new server they will start with a base OS and make you pay for each module that you want. That is where they got the whole module idea from. But as I pointed out server 2008 is not doing anything new. Then again to some point neither is Vista. XP had multiple versions. There was Home, Pro, Tablet and Media Center. They just changed that around some and put another version in there for those that just wanted the basic OS for basic pc usage. I think that windows 7 will be like Vista in that it will have a basic version, home premium, ultimate and bussiness. But that doesn't make it module. There is nothing new between Vista and server 2008 that should suggest that it will be either.
 
As I've said, this proposition is ridiculous, and there's no proof that it will ever happen. Different versions of the Desktop OS have existed for years and is nothing new to Vista. Installable server roles has existed for years and is nothing new to Server 2008.

This whole imagined "modular" crap is just more imaginary stuff invented by the rabid Linux spin camp. It's more disgusting than Hilary Clinton's recent "campaigning" tactics.
 
There is a real problem with Vista and all the versions out there, as touched on by the article, there is no real marketing out there informing consumers of what each version has/does, ad that with the fact that to comply with "Vista capable" MS has made decisions with hardware makers that pretty much are there to if not decieve, then at least lull the consumer into thinking that the Vista logo means it will run ANY version, not saying that there is ALSO an DIFFERENT set of requirements to be vista ULTIMATE.
compatable.

Modular SOUNDS interesting, but what does it mean? IF and I say IF they did decide to go down that road it could be such a change in strategy that it would confuse the average consumer even more.

I guess I could see it happening but you would have to be so clear and just offer a couple of standard versions outright otherwise "7" could take even longer than Vista has to migrate to.
Go with the mid/high (drop the frigging basic load that it is) and offer 30/60 day trials of the high stuff at a REASONABLE price and it might work, but it would have to be VERY clear to the mom/pop consumer what is out there and what they DO and DO NOT need for your daily system
 
jroe52 said:
Windows Vista ME
Click to expand...

Way to contribute to the topic.

Has everyone considered that a modular Windows may actually save you money? It seems that most people here disable pretty much everything when they install Windows, so wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to pay for all that stuff you're going to disable anyway?

I actually use many of Vista's features, but I wouldn't pay for things like Movie Maker and HD movie support (I don't have an HD drive) if I didn't have to. Speaking of HD movie support, wouldn't it be great if you could choose to buy Windows without HD movie playback, and therefore without DRM, and save some money while you're at it?

We're assuming that MS will make the core OS cost as much as Vista Home Preimum does now and then make the modules cost even more, but it could be the other way around. Profit-per-sale is not their only motivation here. Antitrust problems, market share, and (gasp!) customer satisfaction are also at stake.

And, as others have said, there is no proof that Windows 7 will be modular, anyway. I think a subscription-based OS is far-fetched to say the least.
 
HOCP4ME said:
And, as others have said, there is no proof that Windows 7 will be modular, anyway. I think a subscription-based OS is far-fetched to say the least.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Why would someone pay $9.99 for the "internet/email" bundle when they can get Firefox/Thunderbird for free? Who would pay for a PDF reading module when Foxit's ultra-fast reader is free? Why get the Windows Defender antispyware+antivirus module when AVG and Spybot S&D can be downloaded without cost?

Moving to a nickel-and-dime module system would only make free software explode in popularity. Word of mouth can spread very fast, especially when money saving is involved.
 
Vista would be all right if Microsoft stopped the security nags and speeded up the Disk Operating System to work as fast as XP [that must be Windows 7]. The basic problem is Microsoft is way overcharging for the modules; $79 for Home Basic to get DVD player and Aero, no way. If they charged less for the downloadable add-on's than available alternatives, Microsoft may continue to profit.

It took me a long time to figure out how to get Vista 32 to do all the things WinXP already did. The only thing I need Vista for is DirectX 10. But, my addiction for spending money on video cards, computer gaming and Nvidia stock may all be going down the tubes.
 
Although I like the idea of a less bloated Windows. I do not like the idea of subscription fees for my OS. I would probably switch to Linux or something.
 
The quicker Vista is dragged outside and shot like the lame dog it is, the quicker we can all move on. Usually I'd be insensed that a company would spend development resources on future OSes when it's current product is in dire need of help, but this time I'll make an exception. Anything is better than Vista.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Moving to a nickel-and-dime module system would only make free software explode in popularity. Word of mouth can spread very fast, especially when money saving is involved.
Click to expand...

Windows is proprietary. That and it makes no business sense to help promote the use of competing free products. Microsoft would probably modularize features that are difficult or impossible to substitute with free software.
 
Haven't read the article yet- but I LOVE having a single-click to open the article rather than having 2-3 just to get to the damn thing... Thank you Terry!
 
InorganicMatter said:
NO ONE knows if Windows 7 will be modular, Microsoft has said NOTHING about it, and there is NO proof. This crap was on Digg this morning, too. It's ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. It will never happen.
Click to expand...

Bottom line right there. Nothing but speculation.
Starting to sound like some stinkin' Apple products...

Anyone remember the "Experts" with "Insider Info" when the iPhone was about to be launched? To say the least, they were all pretty far off the mark...
 
anime4u said:
I would at least let Microsoft allow a shot to show windows 7 before convicted it to craphood.
Click to expand...

That would be a first when it comes to people covering Microsoft software. Accuse first, back peddle later...or just not back peddle when you are wrong.
 
Crikey, what a load of bull. I know it's crazy, but here's what my guess is. It's as valid as the doom and gloom crap in the ars article, but makes much more sense.

Microsoft makes the OS modular, hopefully breaks "native" backwards compatibility and gives us a very clean, raw OS. Call this..hmm.. MinWin ;)

You can buy MinWin standalone for e.g. $30. It's very basic, doesn't do much. Then you can buy addons or subscribe to addons as you like.

Next up the chain, MS offers a bundle for a more usable OS. e.g. Windows 7 Core. Windows 7 Core = MinWin + Vista compatibility layer + IE + Notepad + accessories + whatever. Basically, a bundle - maybe this costs $90. Again, you can buy or subscribe to more addons from anything below.

Next up, Windows 7 Pro. This is Windows 7 Core + some crap. Maybe $150.

Then you get Windows 7 Server - Windows 7 Core + server crap. Cost..whatever.

I don't see anything wrong with this. In fact, I'd freaking love it - it would give complete control and would let me build a lean and mean machine that does only what I need it to. I don't care about the cost side of this - it will work itself out in the market with what people are willing to pay. I'm just excited about a chance for a new OS from the ground up. Microsoft's development tools are far and away superior to everything ese, so that's why I want this OS to come from MS.
 
TechieSooner said:
This is actually how it is NOW, it's just that base OS has your $90 accessories already in it...
Click to expand...

Right. I'm saying things won't change much, but we'll get (if they do it right)

1. Slimmer, more efficient OS
2. Option to lease some components instead of buy, maybe
3. More customization options (like vLite)
 
Yes, but if you charge for every little thing, you'll find more and more people will try skimping on cost (thus decreasing Microsoft's profits- which is why I don't think it would happen).

That, and the "modules"... Brings more issues of security/stability to the table if some crummy third-party comes up with some.
Even though not signed or endorsed by Microsoft, Vienna would still get the blame (look at the driver issues on Vista today!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top