Some opinion: http://www.pcworld.com/article/187703/what_would_life_be_like_without_windows.html

The world cannot live without Windows. OMG, without it the end of the world would come!

This is almost like "Randall C. Kennedy" is actually an alias for "Steve Ballmer", hahaha...


Oh, please! Microsoft is the No 1 standard non-follower/breaker and my-standard-is-bigger-than-yours in the industry. Gimme a break.


WATCH the BSD family, Red Hat or Open/Solaris development models and LEARN how human creativity and innovation can best be exploited. Sheesh.


Yes Google is powerful. But why should its so-called "web-centric" computing model be the "Way"? Heck, why should there even be a "Way" to begin with? What happened to all the other companies and OSS projects that don't, never intended to, and probably never will follow that model and will continue to follow "traditional" models? All the rest of the argument is based on that false premise.
How obtuse can this guy be? When you think he has reached the top, he breaks his own record.


How is the Win32 API so superior, in every way, to any other API? No one prevents people/companies from making/copying and using a similar API if they like it, or using an already-existing and established alternative API.


People usually criticize the OSS alternatives to Windows for having too much freedom and too many UIs and UI frameworks. But now apparently Mr. Kennedy is arguing there is no other UI but Windows'. Interesting how people suddenly get voluntary myopia.
These guys should make up their minds. Which one is it, too much or not enough?


Or maybe this "cloud-centrism" will be the next and biggest fiasco or fad in the history of the computing industry and none will even talk about it by 2015.
As for the strong surviving, isn't that what always happens everyday IRL?


Let OS programmers deal with that as it's already the case for virtually everything outside Windows and MacOS. And it seems they have been doing quite a good job. Problems only start when the ultra-secretive companies don't even release their H/W datasheets or only share them with companies who pay high fees and sign NDAs, only leaving the illegal, slow and error-prone reverse-engineering solution as the only choice for all the rest.
So the real problem lies not in the lack of Windows but in the principles of patenting and intellectual property.
And "homogenized"? Come again?


Even the "chaotic" GNU/Linux has major popular platforms. Target these or target whatever you see as worth your money. Problem solved.


What does PnP, i.e. the existence of common buses and device specifications, have to do with Windows and Microsoft?
The OS has to support the framework and manufacturers do the rest. Yes, it's usually good if both understand each others and create new standards together, but this can be done with or without Microsoft.


What a shock! And this is different from today in what way, again? Who said one single platform would not be able to replace Windows if it ever died?


Are we discussing software development models or the economics of monopoly capitalism?


Hmm, what's the difference?

Well ManOfSteel, I think this guy is pretty much saying "what will happen after all current OSes die" rather than just Windows, so I think he's on crack.

My guess is, some device devs are not willing to disclose their info with open source, so Microsoft for them was a blessing... but in reality I think they WILL nevertheless do it -- a small profit with an opposition who knows your devices is better than no profit at all (you can't sell your stuff if it works with no OSes out there...)

There has not come anything good out of Microsoft for half a decade.

Although for the most part the article is complete nonsense there is one aspect that I think is correct. The mention of the hardware manufacturers not knowing who to support. Currently is it easy for a board maker to know that supporting Windows is a must. Supporting other OSes is completely optional and would hurt sales very little if no support is provided. So if there was no Windows it would force the hardware makers into two options. 1) write lots and lots of drivers, one for each OS, or 2) release all information and specs so that others can write the needed drivers. Both of these two options would be beneficial for the average user; choosing both would be ideal.

Yes and my point was that they would be forced to do so, whether they like it or not -- less profit is better than no profit at all (if their hardware doesn't work, no one will buy it).

EDIT: Or maybe we would see an explosion of interest in ReactOS?

Or a rise in suicide rates.