All the Windows 10 PCs

Microsoft's Windows 11 is not compatible with much of the existing PCs in the world. Microsoft gave no reasons for such incompatibility, but we can deduce that by specifying a certain level of hardware (processor and memory, mostly) Microsoft was able to implement certain features for security.

Regardless of the reason, a lot of PCs could not move to Windows 11, and therefore stayed on Windows 10. Soon, support for Windows 10 will stop, and those PCs will not get updates -- not even security updates. (Microsoft does offer extended support for a small fee.)

What's going to happen to all of those Windows 10 PCs? Microsoft recommends that you upgrade to Windows 11, and if that is not possible, replace (or recycle) your PC. Here's what I think will happen.

A large number of Windows 10 PCs (perhaps the majority) will stay on Windows 10. People will continue to use the PC, with Windows 10, to do their normal tasks. They won't get security updates, and that they will be okay with that.

Some number of Windows 10 PCs will be replaced. I suspect that this number (as a percentage of Windows PCs) is small. The people who want Windows 11 already have it. A few people may be waiting for the "right time" to upgrade to Windows 11, so they will replace their PCs.

Some number of Windows 10 PCs will be converted to Linux. This may be a smaller percentage than either of the "stay on Windows 10" or "replace" crowds.

I should point out that many PCs that are replaced are then sold to people who resell them. Some will physically destroy the PC, but others simply reformat the disk (or replace the disk) and resell the PC, either with Windows or with Linux. Thus, a PC that is "replaced" can continue its life as a Linux PC.

All in all, the decision by Microsoft to make some PCs obsolete (sort of) will lead to an increase in the number of PCs running Linux.

For me, this decision is personal. I have an old-ish HP laptop which runs Windows 10. It won't run Windows 11 -- even with Microsoft loosening the requirements for Windows 11. I have a decision: keep Windows 10, or switch to Linux. (I like the laptop and want to keep using it.)

Keeping Windows 10 is easy, but offers little benefit. I use Windows for few tasks (most of my work is in Linux) and there are only two items that require Windows: remote access to the office, and administering some old Apple Time Capsules and Airports.

My other option is to convert it to Linux. Conversion is also easy -- I've installed Linux on a number of other PCs. Once converted, I may need to use WINE to run the Apple Airport administration program. (Or I may simply replace the Apple Time Capsules and Airports with modern file servers and routers.) Access to the office isn't that important. The office supplies me with an official PC for access; my personal Windows PC is a back-up method when the official PC fails. (Which it has not done for as long as I can remember.)

So I think I will take up Microsoft's suggestion to get off of Windows 10. But it won't be to go to Windows 11. I have another PC running Windows 11; I don't need two.

Will Microsoft Change Windows to Linux

People, from time to time, ask about Microsoft changing from Windows to Linux. When they do, lots of people respond. The responses fall into two general categories: Microsoft will switch to Linux because it is the superior operating system, and Microsoft will stick with Windows because it is the superior operating system.

The rebuttals are always -- always -- in the technical realm. Linux is better at this, and Windows is better at that.

I have a different response.

Microsoft will switch from Windows to Linux if, and when, it is Microsoft's interest to switch.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Windows was a key part of its strategy. Microsoft sold software (or licenses for software, which amounts to the same thing) and it used Windows as a base for its other products. Office ran on Windows (and versions for Mac OS, which were a special case). SQL Server ran on Windows. Internet Explorer ran on Windows. Outlook ran on Windows, and talked to Exchange, which also ran on Windows. Visual Studio ran on Windows. SourceSafe ran on Windows (and Unix, because it had been developed by an independent company and sold to Microsoft).

During that period, Microsoft would never consider switching from Windows to Linux. Such a move would destroy Microsoft's strategy of "everything on Windows".

Today, Microsoft offers services that extend beyond Windows, and some of them use Linux. Azure provides cloud services. One can provision Linux servers as well as Windows servers (and pay Microsoft for both). Microsoft has less incentive to force customers to use Windows.

In addition, Microsoft is moving its apps into the cloud and onto the web. One can open and edit Word documents and Excel spreadsheets in a browser. (The online versions of Word and Excel are limited compared to the locally-installed versions. I expect the online versions to improve over time.) Microsoft has also created a cloud-based, web version of Visual Studio Code, which lets programmers collaborate across multiple operating systems.

Microsoft has dropped the "everything on Windows" strategy in favor of a "sell services and subscriptions" strategy. It doesn't require Windows to be at the center of the customer experience.

Will Microsoft replace Windows with Linux? The proper way to look at the question is not in the technical realm, but in the financial realm. If Microsoft can make more money with Linux than Windows, it should (and probably will) offer Linux.

Windows provides an income stream, in the form of licenses. Microsoft is moving from a "buy once until you upgrade" approach to an annual subscription. The latter is more predictable, for both Microsoft and customers, and seems to provide higher revenue to Microsoft. But the point is that Windows provides income to Microsoft.

Windows is also an expense for Microsoft. The development, maintenance, and support for Windows requires time and effort in significant quantities.

The question then becomes: which is the higher number? Does revenue cover expenses (and then some)? Or does Windows cost more to maintain than it brings in revenue?

The current capabilities of Microsoft's cloud-based web applications are such that locally-installed applications provide more to the customer. Some day that may change. Until it does, those advantages translate to incentives to support Windows.

Technical arguments can be fun. They can also be heated. But they are not the way to convince Microsoft to switch to Linux. Or to stay with Windows. The decision is a financial one, not a technical one.

Windows and Linux are not the same

We like to think that operating systems are commodities, that Windows performs just as well as mac OS, and they both perform as well as Linux. I'm not sure about mac OS, but I can think of one significant difference between Windows and Linux, and that difference may affect the lifespan of the hardware.

Specifically, the difference in Windows and Linux may affect the hard disk drive, when it is an SSD (solid state disk). SSDs have a limited lifespan, in the number of reads and writes. This is important because Windows and Linux show different behavior with disk activity.

My experience is that Linux has minimal disk activity. Linux loads, creates a login session, does a few more things (I suspect that it runs 'apt' for an update) and then sits and waits. No disk activity.

Windows is quite different. It loads and creates a login session (just like Linux). But then it keeps doing things. Computers with disk activity lights show this activity. (Is Windows downloading updates from Microsoft servers? Checking for malware? I don't know. But it's doing something.) And it does this for at least 30 minutes.

That's before I log in to Windows, and before I launch any applications, or check my e-mail, or visit web sites.

After I log in, Windows does more. One can see the disk activity (on PCs that have status lights). When I check the CPU usage (as shown by Task Manager), I see lots of different tasks, many with vague names such as "Local Service".

Not all of this is caused by Microsoft. My work client has supplied a laptop that runs Splunk, McAfee, and a few other third-party applications (all installed by my client) and they wake up and do things every few minutes or so. All day long.

The immediate thought from this disk activity is: this cannot be good for SSDs. Each read operation and each write operation chips away at the lifespan of the SSD. (Old-style spinning hard disks are much less susceptible to this effect.)

The constant activity in Windows means that Windows will "consume" an SSD much quicker than Linux.

I certain that Microsoft is aware of this issue. I'm guessing that there is not much that they can do about it. Windows was designed to run lots of tasks on start-up, and throughout the day. (Also, it's not really Microsoft's problem. The fact that Windows "burns out" SSDs means that people will replace the disks, or possibly replace the whole PC. People will view this problem as a problem of hardware, not a problem with Windows.)

I tend to keep computers for a long time. For computers that run Windows, I look for systems that use the older hard disks and not SSDs. That's my strategy. Let's see how it works!

Linux is a parasite, and it may be our future

Linux is a parasite.

So is Unix.

The first Unix ran on a DEC PDP-7. But DEC did not sell PDP-7s to run Unix; it sold them to run its own operating system called "DECsys".

Later Unix versions ran on PDP-11s. But DEC did not sell PDP-11s to run Unix; it sold them to run later operating systems called RSX-11, TSX-11, CTS-11, and RSTS.

DEC's minicomputers were simple, compared to today's PCs. They would load and run just about any program. On many models, the loader program (what we would call the bootstrap code) was entered by hand on a front panel.

There was no trusted platform, no TPM, no signed code. It was easy to load Unix onto a DEC minicomputer. The success of Unix was due, in part, to the openness of those minicomputers.

But to be honest, Unix was a parasite. It took advantage of the hardware that was available.

Linux is in the same way a parasite on PCs. PCs are sold to run Windows. (Yes, a few are sold with Linux. But PCs are designed to run Windows, and the cast majority are sold with Windows.)

PC hardware has been, from the original IBM PC, open and well-documented. Linux took advantage of that openness, and has enjoyed a modicum of success.

Linux is a parasite on Apple PCs too, taking advantage of the hardware that Apple designed.

But the life of a parasite is not easy.

As Apple changes its hardware and bolsters security, it becomes harder to run Linux on an Apple PC. It is possible to run Linux on an M1 MacBook. I expect that the effort will increase over the next few years, as Apple introduces more changes to defend against malware.

Microsoft is making similar changes to Windows and the PC platform. Microsoft designs and builds a small number of PCs, and issues a specification for the hardware to run Windows. That specification is changing to defend against malware. Those changes also make it harder to install Linux.

Will we see a day when it is impossible to install Linux on a PC? Or on a Macbook? I think we will, probably with Apple equipment first. Devices such as the iPhone and Apple Time Capsule require signed code to boot an operating system, and Apple is not divulging the signing keys. It is not possible to install Linux on them. I think a similar fate awaits Apple's Macbooks and iMac lines. Once that happens, Linux will be locked out of Apple hardware.

Chromebooks look for code signed by Google, although in developer mode they can boot code that has been signed by others. (The Chromebook boot code looks for a signed kernel, but it doesn't care who signed it.)

Microsoft is moving towards signed code. Windows version 11 will require signed code and a TPM (Trusted Platform Module) in the PC. There are ways to load Linux on these PCs, so Linux has not yet been locked out.

I think Microsoft recognizes the contributions that Linux makes to the ecosystem, and is taking steps to ensure that Linux will be available on future PCs. Apple, I think, sees no benefit from Linux and is willing to lock Linux out of Apple devices. Microsoft sees value in letting Linux run on PCs; Apple doesn't.

It might be that Microsoft is preparing a radical change. It may be that Microsoft is getting ready to limit Windows to virtual systems, and drop support for "real" PCs. The new "Windows 365" product (virtual computers running Windows accessible from a browser) could be the future of Windows.

In this fantasy world I am constructing, Microsoft provides Windows on virtual hardware and not anywhere else. Access to Windows is available via browser, but one must acquire the hardware and operating system to run the browser. That could be an old PC running an old (in the future) version of Windows 10 or Windows 11, or it could mean a Chromebook running ChromeOS, or it could mean a desktop PC running Linux.

This would be a big change -- and I'm not saying that it will happen, only that it may happen -- and it would have profound affects on the IT world. There are some thoughts that come to mind:

First, performance becomes less important for the physical PC running the browser. The heavy CPU work is on the server side. The PC hosting the browser is a fancy terminal, displaying the results of the computation but not performing the computation. The race for speed shifts to the servers hosting the virtual instances of Windows. (And there is less pressure to update local PCs every three years.)

Second, the effort to develop and support Windows drops significantly. A lot of work for Microsoft is maintaining compatibility with hardware. Windows works with just about every piece of hardware going back decades: printers, video cards, disk drives, camera, phones, ... you name it, Windows supports it. If Microsoft shifts to a virtual-server-only version of Windows, a lot of that work disappears from Microsoft's queue. The work doesn't vanish; it shifts to the people building the non-virtual PCs that run the browsers. But the work (and the expense) does vanish from Microsoft's accounts.

Third, this change is one that Apple cannot follow. Apple has built its strategy of privacy on top of a system of local processing -- a secure box. They don't send data to remote servers -- doing so would let your personal data escape the secure box. It has no way to offer virtual instances of macOS that correspond to Windows 365 without breaking that secure box. (And just as Windows 365 allows for longer lifespans of local PCs, virtual macOS would allow for longer lifespans of Macs and Macbooks -- something that Apple would prefer not to see, as they rely on consumers replacing their equipment every so often.)

If Microsoft does make this change, the prospects for Linux improve. If Microsoft pulls Windows off of the market, then PC manufacturers must offer something to run on their hardware. That something cannot be macOS, and it certainly won't be FreeDOS. (As good as it is, FreeDOS is not what we need.)

The operating system that comes with PCs may be Linux, or a variant of Linux built for laptop makers. There could be two versions: a lightweight version that is close to ChromeOS (just enough to run a browser) and a heavier version that is close to today's Linux distros.

If Microsoft makes this change -- and again, I'm not sure that they will -- then we really could see "the year of the Linux desktop". Oh, and it would mean that Linux would no longer be a parasite.

IBM and Apple innovate in different ways

Two of the most influential companies in the PC universe are IBM and Apple. There are others, including Microsoft. But I want to compare just IBM and Apple. These two companies have similarities, and differences.

IBM and Apple are both hardware companies. Apple is still a hardware company, although its main business is phones and not computers. IBM is more of a services company; it was a hardware company in 1981 when it introduced the IBM PC.

Both companies innovated and both companies created designs that influence the market today.

IBM introduced the detached keyboard (other systems were all-in-one designs or keyboard-and-CPU with a separate display). IBM also introduced the internal hard drive, the original 8-inch floppy disk, the 3.5-inch floppy disk, the ThinkPad TrackPoint (the "pointing stick"), and the VGA display and video card.

Apple introduced the mouse for personal computers (the original mouse was two decades earlier and for a system much larger than a PC), the PowerBook laptop (a year before the first ThinkPad), AppleTalk, touchscreen for iPhones, and (notably) iTunes which gave consumers a reliable, legal way to load music onto their devices.

Apple stands out in that it innovates not just by adding features, but by removing them. Apple was first in delivering a computer without a floppy drive, and then a computer without a CD drive. Apple famously removed the headphone jack from its phones. It also omitted the Home, End, PgUp, and PgDn keys on its laptops, going back as far as the first PowerBook. (As the PowerBook was not compatible with the IBM PC, it had no need of those keys.)

Apple, more than IBM or any other hardware supplier, has innovated by removing things. The makers of Windows PCs and laptops had typically followed Apple's lead. They have, over time, removed floppy drives, CD drives, and most laptops now require specific multi-key presses for Home, End, PgUp, and PgDn.

IBM innovated by adding features. Apple innovates by trimming away features. That's quite a difference.

Of course, one can remove only so much. Apple has trimmed the phone to a simple slab with a single port for charging and data transfer. It has trimmed the Macbook to a thin wedge that opens to a screen, keyboard, and trackpad. There is very little left to remove, which means that Apple has little room to innovate along its traditional methods.

But notice that Apple's innovation-by-reduction has been in hardware. Its operating systems are not the equivalent of a slim wedge. To the contrary, Apple's mac OS and iOS are somewhat bulky, which is something Apple shares with Windows and Linux.

Of the major operating systems, mac OS probably has the best chance of slimming. Apple has the "remove things to make it better" mindset, which helps to remove features. Apple also has close integration between operating system and hardware, and drops support for older hardware, which lets it remove drivers for older devices. Windows and Linux, in contrast, want to support as much hardware as they can, which means adding drivers and allowing for older devices.

Let's see if Apple's "less is more" approach works it way into mac OS and into Swift, Apple's favored language for development.

The computer of Linus Torvalds

My experience as developer ranges from solo artist to member of large, enterprise projects. That experience has given me various insights about hardware, operating systems, programming languages, teamwork, and management.

One observation is about a combination of those aspects, specifically hardware and development teams: The minimum hardware requirements for a system are (most likely) the hardware that the developers are using. If you equip developers with top-of-the-line hardware, the system when delivered will require top-of-the-line hardware to run acceptably. As a corollary, if you equip developers with mid-line hardware, the delivered system will run acceptably on that level of hardware.

Developers may often complain about slow hardware, and point out that top-level hardware is not that expensive, and may actually reduce expenses once you factor in the time to pay developers to wait for slow compiles and tests. That is a valid point, but it loses sight of the larger point of a system that performs for a user with hardware that is less than top-of-the-line.

With fast hardware, developers do not see the performance problems. With slower hardware, developers are aware of performance issues, and build a better system. (Or at least one that runs faster.)

Which brings us to Linux Torvalds, the chief developer for the Linux kernel. More specifically, his computer.

A recent article on slashdot lists the specifications of his new computer. It sounds really nice. Fast. Powerful. And just what will lead Torvalds (and Linux) into the "performance trap". Such a computer will hide performance issues from Linus. That may send Linux into a direction that lets it run well on high-end hardware, and not so well on lower-end hardware or older systems.

With a high-end system to run and test on, Torvalds will miss the feedback when some changes have negative affects on performance on slower hardware. Those changes may work "just fine" on his computer, but not so well on other computers.

I recognize that the development effort of the Linux kernel has a lot of contributors, not all of whom have top-level hardware. Those developers may see performance issues. They may even raise them. But do they have a voice? Will their concerns be heard, and addressed? Or will Torvalds reject the issues as complaints and arrogantly tell those developers get "real computers and stop whining". His reputation suggests the latter.

If Torvalds does fall into the "performance trap" it may have significant effects on the future success of Linux. Linux may become "tuned" to high-performance hardware, running acceptably on expensive systems but slow and laggy on cheaper hardware. It may run well on new equipment but poorly on older systems.

That, in turn, may force users of older, slower hardware to re-think their decision to use Linux.

There is no Linux desktop

Every year, Linux enthusiasts hope that the new year will be the "year of the Linux desktop", the year that Linux dethrones Microsoft Windows as the chief desktop operating system.

I have bad news for the Linux enthusiasts.

There is no Linux desktop.

More specifically, there is not one Linux desktop. Instead, there is a multitude. There are multiple Linux distributions ("distros" in jargon) and it seems that each has its own ideas about the desktop. Some emulate Microsoft Windows, in an attempt to make it easy for people to convert from Windows to Linux. Other distros do things their own (and presumably better) way. Some distros focus on low-end hardware, others focus on privacy. Some focus on forensics, and others are tailored for tinkerers.

Distributions include: Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, SuSE, Red Hat, Fedora, Arch Linux, Elementary, Tails, Kubuntu, CentOS, and more.

The plethora of distributions splits the market. No one distribution is the "gold standard". No one distribution is the leader.

Here's what I consider the big problem for Linux: The split market discourages some software vendors from entering it. If you have a new application, do you support all of the distros or just some? Which ones? How do you test all of the distros that you support? What do you do with customers who use distros that you don't support?

Compared to Linux, the choice of releasing for Windows and macOS is rather simple. Either you support Windows or you don't. (And by "Windows" I mean "Windows 10".) Either you support mac OS or you don't. (The latest version of mac OS.) Windows and macOS each provide a single platform, with a single installation method, and a single API. (Yes, I am simplifying here. Windows has multiple ways to install an application, but it is clear that Microsoft is transitioning to the Universal app.)

I see nothing to reduce the number of Linux distros, so this condition will continue. We will continue to enjoy the benefits of multiple Linux distributions, and I believe that to be good for Linux.

But it does mean that the Evil Plan to take over all desktops will have to wait.

IBM and Red Hat Linux

The news that IBM had an agreement to purchase Red Hat (the distributor and supporter of a Linux distro for commercial use) was followed quickly by a series of comments from the tech world, ranging from anger to disappointment.

I'm not sure that the purchase of Red Hat by IBM is a bad thing.

One can view this event in the form of two questions. The first is "Should Red Hat sell itself (to anyone)?". The second is "Given that Red Hat is for sale, who would be a good purchaser?".

The negative reaction, I think, is mostly about the first question. People are disappointed (or angered) by the sale of Red Had -- to anyone.

But once you commit to a sale, the question changes and the focus is on the buyer. Who are possible buyers for Red Hat?

IBM is, of course, a possibility. Many people might object to IBM, and if we think of the IBM from its monopoly days and its arrogance and incompatible hardware designs, then IBM would be a poor choice. (Red Hat would also be a poor acquisition for that IBM, too.)

But IBM has changed quite a bit. It still sells mainframes; its S/36 line has mutated into servers, and it has sold (long ago) its PC business. It must compete in the cloud arena with Amazon.com, Microsoft, and Google (and Dell, and Oracle, and others). Red Hat helps IBM in this area. I think IBM is not so foolish as to break Red Hat or make many changes.

One possibility is that IBM purchased Red Hat to prevent others from doing so. (You buy something because you need it or because you want to keep it from others.) Who are the others?

Amazon.com and Microsoft come quickly to mind. They both offer cloud services, and Red Hat would help both with their offerings. The complainers may consider this; would they prefer Red Hat to go to Amazon or Microsoft? (Of the two, I think Microsoft would be the better owner. It is expanding its role with Linux and moving its business away from Windows and Windows-only software to a larger market of cloud services that support both Windows and Linux.)

There are other possible purchasers. Oracle has been mentioned by critics (usually as a "could be worse, could be Oracle" comment). Red Hat fills a gap in Oracle's product line between hardware and its database software, and also provides a platform for Java (another Oracle property).

Beyond those, there are Facebook, Dell, and possibly Intel, although I consider the last to be a long shot. None of them strike me as a good partner.

Red Hat could be purchased by an equity/investment company, which would probably doom Red Hat to partitioning and sales of individual components.

In the end, IBM seems quite a reasonable purchaser. IBM has changed from its old ways and it supports Linux quite a bit. I think it will recognize value and strive to keep it. Let's see what happens.

Open source takes advantage of abandoned hardware

Of the popular desktop operating systems (Windows, Mac OS, and Linux), Windows has a commanding lead. Mac OS is a distant second, and Linux -- on the desktop -- is a far distant third. Yet Linux has one advantage over Windows and Mac OS.

This advantage was made real to me when I dusted off an old 2006-era MacBook. It is in good condition, and due to Apple's design, still serviceable. Yet it ran Mac OSX 10.4 "Tiger", an operating system that Apple abandoned several years ago. Not only has Apple abandoned the operating system, they have abandoned the hardware. (The good folks at Apple would much prefer that one purchase a new device with a new operating system. That makes sense, as Apple is the in the business of selling hardware.)

Microsoft is not in the business of selling hardware (keyboards and Surface tablets are a very small part of their business) yet they also abandon operating systems and hardware. An old Dell desktop PC, sitting in the corner, runs Windows XP and cannot upgrade to a later system. Microsoft has determined that the processor, memory, and disk combination is not worthy of a later version.

So I have an Apple MacBook that I cannot upgrade to a later version of Mac OS X and a desktop PC that I cannot upgrade to a later version of Windows. While the MacBook was able to run a later version of Mac OS X, those versions are not available. The current version ("Yosemite") won't run on it. The desktop PC is "maxed out" at Windows XP.

Here is where open source has a foothold. Apple will not supply an operating system for the MacBook -- not even the original version anymore. Microsoft
will not supply and operating system for the old Dell desktop PC -- not even the original version. Yet Linux can run on both machines.

I have, in fact, replaced Mac OS X on the MacBook with Ubuntu Linux. I'm using the new combination to type this post, and it works.

Many people may casually discard old computers. Other folks, though, may revive those computers with open source software. Over time, the market share of Linux will grow, if only because Apple and Microsoft have walked away from the old hardware.

Web services use the Unix way

Web services use a very different mindset than the typical Windows application. Windows applications are large, all-encompassing systems that contain everything they need.

Web services, in contrast, are small fractions of a system. A complete system can be composed of web services, but a web service is not a complete system.

We've seen this pattern before. Not in Windows, nor in PC-DOS or MS-DOS, but in Unix (and now Linux).

"The Art of Unix Programming" by E.S. Raymond covers the topic well. The author describes the philosophy of small, connectable programs. Each program does one thing well, and systems are built from these programs. Anyone who has worked with the Unix (or Linux) command line knows how to connect multiple programs into a larger system.

We don't need to discover the properties of good web services. We don't need to re-invent the techniques for desiging good web services. The properties and techniques already exist, in the command-line philosophy of Unix.

We no longer think about operating systems

Windows XP remains popular, despite its age, its limitations, and its lack of support from Microsoft.

The desire to keep Windows XP shows that users want stable, reliable operating systems that they can install and then ignore. Well, perhaps not ignore, but at least not think about.

Things were not always this way. Early in the age of Windows, corporations, individuals, hobbyists, and programmers all looked forward to new versions of Microsoft's operating system. Windows 3.1 was desired for its networking capabilities; Windows 95 for its user interface (in contrast to Windows 8); and Windows NT for its security. Windows 2000 brought all of those features together, and was eagerly adopted.

I think that the lesson of Windows 8 (and Windows Vista, and Windows 7) is this: We no longer care about the operating system.

In the old days, operating systems were important -- much more than today. Certain applications would run on only certain operating systems; pick the wrong operating system and you could not run your application. Not running your application meant that you could not get your work done, or deliver for your client.

Today, most applications run on most operating systems. Yes, most Microsoft products run only on Windows, but other products run on Windows, MacOS, and Linux. Moreover, web apps run in browsers, and most web apps run in the popular browsers (Firefox, Chrome, IE, and Safari) and care nothing about the operating system.

Applications are not tied so closely to operating systems as they were.

The mobile world has made operating systems commodities, with equivalent apps available on iOS and Android. In the mobile world, very few people care about the operating system.

With less dependence on the operating system, we tend to think of other things. We still think of performance -- although modern processors are fast enough for most tasks and cloud computing can provide computing power for large tasks.

Today we tend to think of portability (an app for my phone) and network connectivity (coverage by mobile service provider).

The operating system, for most people, is a means to an end but it is not the end. We think of it as we think of electricity, or of sidewalks: there and ready for us to use, but nothing distinguishing about them. They are becoming part of "the infrastructure", that part of our world that we use without thinking about it.

To be sure, there are some folks who do care about operating systems. The system designers, to start. And I'm sure that Microsoft's product teams care about the features in Windows (as do Apple's product designers care about features in MacOS and iOS). Hobbyists and tinkerers enjoy exploring new versions of operating systems. Support teams for large organizations, security analysts, and the "black hat" hackers who look for vulnerabilities -- they all care about operating systems.

But walk down the street and ask individuals at random, and most will answer that they don't care. Some may not even know which operating system are used by their devices!

We've moved on to other things.

Installing Windows 8 is not always easy

I think Microsoft is missing a useful tool for would-be Windows 8 users.

The tool I am thinking about is a compatibility checker for PC hardware. I have an old PC and I am considering Windows 8 for it. My big question is: Will Windows 8 run on it?

I would prefer an answer to that question before committing to the purchase of Windows 8.

The Microsoft web site is very good about listing the requirements for running Windows 8. They specify a processor speed, memory, and disk space. Those are easy (for me) to verify. Microsoft also mandates that the graphics card be a "Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device". That requirement is not so easy to verify.

The PC in question is a vintage Dell Optiplex GX-280 desktop PC. I'm pretty sure that it predates DirectX 9.

Given the difficulties in verifying hardware, I would think that a utility would be available. Something small and simple, that would run and say "yes" or "no". Yet I find no such utility.

Now, there are utilities that you can run on existing Windows systems and these utilities check the hardware and your current applications. They assume, however, that you are already running a version of Windows.

Did I mention that my PC is *not* running Windows? Did I mention that my PC is running a variant of Ubuntu Linux?

That means that I cannot run the Microsoft-supplied, Windows-only, compatibility checker utility.

From what I can see, my only option is to attempt to install Windows 8, use the activation code (it's the first thing that the install program requires), and hope that Windows finds my system acceptable. That's a risk (in money and time) I would rather not take.

This approach is very different from most Linux distros, which allow one to run Linux in "live" mode from the CD (and not touching your hard drive) to verify compatibility.

I don't know that Microsoft needs a "run off the CD" mode for Windows. The option to verify hardware would be nice -- perhaps as the first step of the install, and before the activation code. Such an option would let me confirm my installation before committing.

If not part of the install program, perhaps a stand-alone utility that runs under Linux. (Perhaps even an open source utility!) Something one could build with gcc and run from the command line. It doesn't have to be fancy -- since anyone using it would be a Linux user with sysadmin experience. (If you're installing a new operating system, you're a sysadmin.)

Perhaps Microsoft considered this capability, and decided against it. Such capability does add to the complexity of the setup disk. As a practical matter, most PCs will be running Windows, and configurations such as mine are a very small minority. I could easily see Microsoft choosing to invest the effort in other directions.

Yet I cannot help but think that in today's market Windows must compete against Mac OS and Linux. Tools to assist people converting from non-Windows to Windows might be a good idea.

Android PCs will clobber Linux, on the desktop

The big PC operating systems (Windows, MacOS, and Linux) leave a lot of administration work to the user. Over the years, all have made improvements. Windows has focussed on domain management, giving corporate support teams administrative control over PCs. MacOS has hidden a lot of configuration from the user and made the installation of applications easy with drag-and-drop operations. Linux has leveraged open source, package managers, and repositories of software to reduce the cost of installing software.

Android already has a firm beachhead in the phone and tablet market. Now it can expand onto the home PC.

A number of manufacturers have introduced "Android PCs", full-sized computers running Android. I think that they have a bright future, and may supplant Linux on the home desktop PC.

But isn't Android really Linux, configured for phones and tablets?

Linux is at the heart of Android, true. But Android is more than Linux with a smaller user interface. Android handles more device management and software management than Linux.

Android's model is closer to Apple's iOS/iTunes method of managing software. Android (and iOS) let the user purchase and download software quickly and easily from centrally-managed repositories. They are not exactly the same: Apple locks you into their repository; Android lets you add software from other repositories. Yet both have unified updating mechanisms, and both let you move to new devices and keep your apps (and data). Android (and iOS) manage the updates for all of your apps. Buy a new phone, and (once you register) you can quickly re-install your apps without incurring additional charges (Android and iOS remember that you have purchased the apps).

The traditional PC operating systems, in contrast, force you to upgrade your software and (possibly) acquire new licenses. In Windows, the Microsoft update service handles Microsoft products, but products from other vendors need their own systems. Buy a new Windows PC, and you have to install all of your applications, including the Microsoft ones. This arrangement works for the corporate environment, with a support team that assigns, licenses, and installs corporate-approved applications. It offers little for the individual PC owner.

Linux distros come close to Android's functionality, with an update service that handles all software. Yet Android's update system is easier to use and more convenient, especially for the individual user.

Windows will maintain its dominance in the corporate world, and Android will gain in the home market. It is the enthusiast, the computer geek, who wants to tinker with Linux and settings. The average person wants a computing appliance, one that needs as much attention as a toaster. Android delivers a better toaster than Linux (or Windows).

That's for user PCs. Servers will remain unaffected by the rise of Android. The people running servers (the sysadmins) are geeks, and they want (need) the ability to tune those servers.

Android (or some operating system that offers a toaster-like appliance level) for servers may happen in the future, as individuals (non-sysadmins) want servers. But that's some time away.

The Future of your Windows XP PC

Suppose you have one (or several) PCs running Windows XP. Microsoft has announced the end-of-life date for Windows XP (about a year from now). What to do?

You have several options:

Upgrade to Windows 8: This probably requires new hardware, since Windows 8 requires a bit more than Windows XP. If you want to use a touchscreen, you are looking at not upgrading your PC system to Windows 8 but replacing all of the hardware.

Windows 8 uses the new "Modern/Metro" UI which is a significant change from Windows XP. Your users may find the new interface unfamiliar.

Upgrade to Windows 7: Like Windows 8, Windows 7 probably requires new hardware. You are replacing your PC, not upgrading it. (Perhaps you keep the monitor, mouse, and keyboard.)

The UI in Windows 7 is closer to Windows XP, but there are still changes. The user experience is quite close to Windows XP; the system administrator will see the changes.

Switch to Mac: Instead of upgrading to Windows 8 or Windows 7, you can switch to an Apple Macintosh PC running OSX. This requires new versions of your software. Now you are replacing hardware and software, hardly a simple upgrade.

The user interface and administration of OSX is different from Windows, another cost of conversion.

Switch to Linux: Instead of upgrading to a version of Windows, you can switch to Linux. This is one option that lets you keep your current hardware. There are several Linux distros that are designed to run on limited hardware.

The Linux UI is different, but closer to Windows than Mac OSX, and can be tuned to look like Windows. Software may or may not be a challenge. The major browsers (except Internet Explorer) run on Linux. LibreOffice can replace Microsoft Office for most tasks. Commodity software be replaced with open source packages (GIMP for PhotoShop, for example). The WINE package can run some Windows applications, so you may be able to keep your custom (that is, non-commodity) software. (Or perhaps not; some software will run only on Windows.)

Keep Windows XP: This option may be missing from some consultant recommendations, but it is a possible path. There is nothing that will prevent you from running your existing hardware with your existing software. Windows XP has no self-destruct timer, and will continue to run after the "end of life" date.

But staying with Windows XP has costs. They are deferred costs, not immediate costs. They are gradual, not sharply defined. It is the "death by a thousand cuts" approach. You can keep running Windows XP, but small things will break, and then larger things.

Here's what will probably happen:

You get no updates from Microsoft, and you don't have to apply them and reboot Windows. You may think that this is an improvement. It is, in that you don't lose time applying updates. The downside is that your system's vulnerabilities remain unfixed.

As other things in your environment change, you will find that the Windows XP system does not work with the new items. When you add a printer, the Windows XP system will not have a driver for the it. When your software update arrives (perhaps for Adobe Acrobat), the update will politely tell you that the new version is not supported under Windows XP. (If you are lucky, the update will tell you this *before* it modifies your system. Less fortunate folks will learn this only after the new software has been installed and refuses to run.)

New versions of browsers will fail to install. Stuck with old browsers, some web sites will give you warnings and complaints. Some web sites will fail in obvious ways. Others will fail in mysterious and frustrating ways -- perhaps not letting you log in, or complete a transaction.

Problems are not limited to hardware and software -- they can affect people, too.

Job candidates, upon learning that you use Windows XP, may decline to work with you. Some candidates may decline the job immediately. Others may hire on and then complain when you direct them to work with a Windows XP system.

Windows XP may be a problem when you look for system admins. Some may choose to work elsewhere, others may accept the job but demand higher rates. (And some seasoned sysadmins may be happy to work on an old friend.)

It may be that Windows XP (and corresponding applications) will act as a filter for your employees. Folks who want newer technologies will leave (or decline employment), folks who are comfortable with the older tech will stay (or hire on). Eventually many (if not all) of your staff will be familiar with older technologies and unfamiliar with new ones.

At some point, you will want to re-install Windows XP. Here you will encounter difficulties. Microsoft may (or may not) continue to support the activation servers for Windows XP. Without an activation code, Windows XP will not run. Even with the activation servers and codes, if you install on a new PC, Microsoft may reject the activation (thinking that you are attempting to exceed your license count). New hardware presents other problems: If the PC uses UEFI, it may fail to boot the Windows XP installer, which is not signed. If the PC has no CD drive, the Windows XP CD is useless.

You can stay with Windows XP, but the path is limited. Your system becomes fragile, dependent on a limited and shrinking set of technology. At some point, you will be forced to move to something else.

My advice: Move before you are forced to move. Move to a new operating system (and possibly new hardware) on your schedule, not on a schedule set by failing equipment. Migrations take time and require tests to ensure that the new equipment is working. You want to convert from Windows XP to your new environment with minimal risks and minimal disruptions.

Linux is a parasite

Linux is, to put it harshly, a parasite.

I like Linux. I use Linux. I encourage people to use it.

But I have to admit that Linux is successful because of the success of the IBM PC, and successful because the IBM PC was an open system.

When IBM released the PC, it documented the device and made it accessible to others. In contrast to its larger systems, which were documented less thoroughly, the PC documentation described almost every aspect of the hardware.

(This documentation may have been the result of the consent decree, the result of anti-trust litigation brought by the US Justice Department. Regardless of the source, the documentation was there.)

The openness of the PC made it possible for others to build accessory cards and eventually even clone PCs. (Those clone PCs, made first by Compaq and later by many others, did require some litigation of their own.)

The operating system, PC-DOS, was not made open. But enough of the hardware was defined to allow different people to create operating systems for the PC. In addition to Microsoft's PC-DOS, Digital Research produced a copy of CP/M-86 for the PC, SofTech produced the UCSD p-System, and I'm pretty sure that there was a copy of Forth for the PC.

Which brings us to Linux.

Linux, like the operating systems before it, runs on the PC architecture.

I realize that the PC of today is quite different from the original PC. (So different that none of the original PC hardware will work with today's PCs!) Yet the architecture is close enough, and the designs are open enough, that a "foreign" operating system (one designed by someone other than the PC designer) can run on the PC.

Linux has succeeded in the world, running on many devices. Lots of these devices are PCs. ("PC" in the general sense, not the specific model made by IBM.) It is easy to install Linux on an older PC, as an experiment or as a way to eke additional use out of a device that cannot run the latest version of Windows.

A few manufacturers have attempted to bundle Linux with hardware, with little success. Just about every copy of Linux on a PC has been installed "after-market": after the PC was sold and used for some period of time. (Most of my Linux PCs had Windows installed by the manufacturer, and I had to install Linux.)

Linux is taking advantage of the openness of PC hardware. In that sense, it is a parasite. The phrase may be a bit harsh, but I think it is accurate. You may not agree.

Regardless of your feelings about the term "parasite", the changes in hardware threaten Linux. Newer hardware is less open than the IBM PC. The Surface tablets from Microsoft do not use the standard BIOS and will not boot Linux. (Well, not without some hacking,) New PCs use the UEFI loader which guards against malware by checking signatures on boot images. The Apple iPhone and iPad devices use similar technology to boot only iOS.

Hardware is becoming closed. These new devices make it difficult, not easy, to load a "foreign" operating system.

I think Linux will continue to exist. I think that some number of open, old-style PCs will continue to be made (for several years). Linux will continue to exist in the form of Android.

But the new world of closed hardware is definitely a challenge for Linux. It may have to become something more than an "after-market" option for PCs.

What is a PC?

It's a simple question -- "what is a PC?" -- yet the answer is complicated.

If we use Mr. Peabody's Wayback machine to travel to September 1981, the answer is simple. A "PC" (that is, a personal computer) is an IBM model 5150 with it's gray cover, detached keyboard (with 83 keys), and either an IBM Color Display (5153) or an IBM Monochrome Display (5151). It has an Intel 8088 processor, probably one or two floppy disk units, and a video adapter card.

At that time, that was a PC. Any other equipment was not. The PC name was strongly associated with IBM.

Over time, the concept of "PC" expanded. IBM introduced the IBM PC XT (model 5160), which meant that there were *two* models of IBM PC.

IBM introduced adapters for memory and ports. Other vendors did also. Compaq introduced their portable PC, fighting (and eventually winning) the battle for a compatible BIOS. Hercules made a video adapter that displayed graphics on monochrome displays (the IBM monochrome display adapter displayed only text).

In 1984 IBM introduced the IBM PC AT which used the Intel 80286 processor. Now there were three types of PCs from IBM, some with different processors, and bunches from other vendors. Some had more memory, some had different adapters. IBM introduced the Enhanced Graphics Adapter (EGA) with the IBM PC AT.

Through all of these changes, the two constants for PCs were this: they ran PC-DOS (or MS-DOS), and they ran Lotus 1-2-3. The operating system and that one application defined "PC". If the device ran PC-DOS and Lotus 1-2-3, it was a PC. If it did not, it was not. (And even this definition was not quite true, since several computers ran MS-DOS and special versions of Lotus 1-2-3, but were never considered to be "PC"s. The Zenith Z-100, for example.)

Moving forward to the early 1990s, our definition of PCs changed. It was no longer sufficient to run PC-DOS and Lotus 1-2-3. Instead, the criteria changed to Windows and Microsoft Office. Those were the defining characteristics of a PC. (Even in the late 1990s, when Compaq and Microsoft built the "Pocket PC", the device was considered a PC.)

Today, when we use the term "PC", we think of a set of devices. These include desktop computers, laptop computers, virtual computers running on servers, and now, with the Microsoft Surface, tablets. The operating system has expanded to include Linux (but not Mac OSX), and there is no definitive application. We use the phrases "Windows PC" and "Linux PC". Windows PCs must run Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office, but a Linux PC needs only a version of Linux.

We have the puzzle of an Apple MacBook running Linux -- do we call this a PC? I am tending to think not. Apple's advertising and branding has been strong.

The one characteristic is that all of these devices require the user to be an administrator. The user must install new software, ensure updates are installed, and diagnose problems. This action separates a PC from a tablet. Tablets do not require the user to "install" software -- beyond selecting the software from a menu. Tablets do not require the user to be an administrator. Updates are applied automatically, or perhaps after a prompt. Network adapters do not need to be configured.

Let's take the dividing line between PCs and tablets as administration. Some might call it "ease of use".

Yet even this definition is less than clear. Apple's OSX is better at installing applications: just drag the install package to the "Applications" folder. Linux has made improvements too, with Ubuntu's "Software Center" that lets one pick an application and install it. Microsoft's Windows RT is quite close to Apple's iOS for iPhones and iPads, which are clearly not PCs.

Despite the lack of a bright line in devices and implementations, I believe that we will look back and consider PCs to require administration, and non-PCs (tablets, smartphones, etc.) to allow use without the administrator role.

So that's my answer: If you need an administrator, it's a PC. If you don't, then it isn't.

Maybe the answer isn't so complicated.

Windows blues

Windows "Blue" is the new version of Windows, and it is disruptive.

I expect Windows "Blue" to integrate with Microsoft's cloud services. This is an easy prediction: the industry moving to cloud services, and Microsoft will move with the industry as they have in the past. Also, Microsoft brands its cloud services with the name "Azure". (Get it? "Blue" and "Azure"?)

The more disruptive aspect of Windows Blue is the release schedule. Microsoft will be releasing this version of Windows one year after Windows 8. In doing so, Microsoft increases the frequency of Windows releases and matches Apple and Linux distributions. (The Ubuntu Linux folks release two versions each year!)

It may be that this is a fluke, a one-time occurrence of back-to-back releases of Windows. But it's more fun to assume that this is the new pace for Windows. What does such a change mean?

For starters, the Microsoft teams must be prepared to select features, implement them, test them, and prepare a release (including marketing, advertising, and fulfillment) on a much shorter schedule than before. A faster release schedule forces Microsoft to limit the new features of a release, which in turn means smaller changes from release to release. (Smaller "jumps" in features may be good for the users of Windows, giving them smaller "shocks" from one version to another.)

A faster release cycle lets Microsoft track changes in hardware. Microsoft can add new features (voice recognition, handwriting recognition, support for tablets, support for wireless tech) without resorting to the service packs and developer kits of the past. Keeping up with hardware lets Microsoft compete with Apple and Linux.

More frequent releases also lets Microsoft track changes in software. They can include later versions of browsers in their operating systems, and assume that people who install other browsers will install the latest version. The days of an "IE 6 browser" (outdated but popular from sheer inertia) may be over.

Consumers will probably change their view of PCs and computing devices (tablets, phones) and consider them more like small appliances and less like major purchases. They may be willing to upgrade their equipment every two years, as they do with cell phones.

Corporations and government agencies may dislike the increased frequency of releases. Larger organizations tend to avoid upgrades, trying to get the maximum life out of devices. I suspect that corporations prefer computing equipment to be like water or electricity: present all of the time and never changing. What these long-term users want is computing services, not computing equipment. Cloud computing should appeal to them. Fast releases of Windows (and browsers, and development IDEs) will not. (But where can they go? Microsoft, Apple, and Linux are all playing this game.)

Windows "Blue" will be a step forward in Microsoft's strategy. It may not be the step that everyone wants, and it may cause a few people some discomfort. We can complain, we can cling to old versions, or we can acknowledge the change and prepare for it.

Apple got patch management right, at a cost

Looking at Apple's iOS and Microsoft's update services for Windows, one can see that Apple developed the more effective answer.

Apple's solution for iOS devices (iPads, iPhones, and iPods) covers all apps. With iTunes as the gateway for all apps, all apps can be updated through iTunes. One solution covers all apps.

In contrast, Microsoft's Windows has a messier solution. Windows update services cover Microsoft products, but other (non-Microsoft) products must provide their own solutions. The result is a hodge-podge of update methods, and while most use InstallShield they each have their eccentricities. Small-scale shops can handle the variance, but large shops have large headaches with patch management.

Patch management (or "update management", or "version management") are the headache that was solved with iOS and iTunes. It is also solved with Microsoft's new WinRT app manager (the Microsoft App Store) and is mostly solved with the major Linux distributions. (I say "mostly solved for the Linux distributions" since one can install software from outside the known repositories.)

The grand patch management solutions of iTunes and App Store provide a central location, a single method, for updating apps. The traditional Windows environment allowed for multiple applications from multiple vendors, and there was no one update manager that handled all of them.

But the neat solutions offered by Apple's iTunes and Microsoft's App Store come at a price. That price is part variety and part control. The centralized iTunes and App Store methods limit apps to those approved by the service administrators. Apple can reject any app for any reason (and has been accused of rejecting apps for trivial reasons). I'm certain that Microsoft's App Store will have similar challenges. Apple and Microsoft have "gatekeeper" control over their new distribution mechanisms: apps they like are permitted, apps they dislike are omitted.

Linux, with its strong emphasis on system administrators, has taken a different route. The Linux distros have central repositories for installation and update of packages, but the software managers use a "repository" model which sees software packages (which must conform to certain technical specifications) stored in repositories, and the set of repositories is open. That is, one can select the repositories for your software and receive updates from multiple sources. (The construction and maintenance of a repository takes some work, but the rules for building it are available and open.)

Patch management is important. Software is vulnerable to exploits, and patches can minimize one's exposure. It is something that Windows has worried and frustrated Windows administrators since the beginning of Windows.

In the future, when we look back, I think that the big contribution of iOS and Windows 8 will not be the new UI with its swipes and taps, nor the small form factor, but the patch management. A unified system for updates will be considered necessary for any "modern" system. Apple's iOS delivered that.

Linux in the post-PC world

The advent of tablets and mobile computing devices has generated much discussion. The post-PC world offers convenience and reliability, and a stirring of the marketplace that could re-arrange the major players.

One topic that I have not seen is the viability of Linux. Can Linux survive in the post-PC world?

The PC world was defined by hardware. The "IBM PC standard" was set in 1981, with the introduction of the IBM PC.

The post-PC world is also defined by devices. It is a world in which the primary (and possibly only) devices we use (directly) are not PCs but tablets and smartphones (and possibly a few other devices).

What does this have to do with Linux?

Linux was -- and is -- a parasite in the PC world. It runs on PCs, and we can run it on PCs for two reasons. First, Linux is written to be compatible with the PC standard. Second, the PC standard is open and we can run anything on it. (That is, we can boot any operating system.)

The tablet world is different. Apple's iPads and Microsoft's Surface tablets are locked down: they run only approved software. An iPad will boot only iOS and a Microsoft Surface tablet will boot only a signed operating system. (It doesn't have to be Windows, but it does have to be signed with a specific key.) The lock-down is not limited to iPads and Surface tablets; Amazon.com Kindles and Barnes and Noble Nooks have the same restrictions.

This lock-down in the tablet world means that we are limited in our choice of operating systems. We cannot boot anything that we want; we can boot only the approved operating systems.

(I know that one can jail-break devices. One can put a "real" Linux on a Kindle or a Nook. IPads can be broken. I suspect that Surface tablets will be broken, too. But it takes extra effort, voids your warrantee, and casts doubt over any future problem. (Is the problem caused by jail-breaking?) I suspect few people will jail-break their devices.

Linux was able to thrive because it was easy to install. In the post-PC world, it will not be easy to install Linux.

I suspect that the future of Linux will lie in the server room. Servers are quite different from consumer PCs and the consumer-oriented tablets. Servers are attended by system administrators, and they expect (and want) fine-grained control over devices. Linux meets their needs. Consumers want devices that "just work", so they choose the easy-to-use devices and that creates market pressure for iPads and Surfaces. System administrators want control, and that creates market pressure for Linux.

How much is that XP in the Windows?

For years, Microsoft has sold Windows. And for each version, Microsoft specified minimum hardware requirements. So for any version of Windows, you need so much memory and so much disk and so much video power.

Now, Microsoft is turning the rules upside-down. Instead of specifying the minimum hardware, Microsoft is specifying the maximum hardware.

This is part of Microsoft's strategy for the ULPC (Ultra Low-cost PC) market. New PCs like the ASUS 'eee' PC and others are gaining interest by consumers, and market share. Normally, interest in PCs is a good thing for Microsoft, but this market isn't. Microsoft has staked its future on Windows Vista, and the ULPCs can't run Vista. (ULPCs are too small and underpowered for Windows Vista. They can run a stripped-down version of Windows XP. Many of them run Linux.)

It appears that Microsoft was surprised by the interest in ULPCs. I suspect that Microsoft's strategy assumed that hardware would continue to get a little bit faster and more capable each year. They didn't see a new 'technology curve' for hardware, namely the ULPC.

Microsoft is now between a rock and a hard place. They cannot ignore the ULPC market. Doing so would give Linux a 'foot in the door' at home and quite possibly in the business market. But they cannot distribute Windows Vista for the ULPCs because it just won't run, and if they extend the life of Windows XP then they lose the income from the upgrades to Windows Vista.

So in a move to have their cake and eat it too, Microsoft is extending the life of Windows XP, but now with limits on its use. The limits are not the typical "minimum system requirements" but a new concept: maximum system requirements. Or maybe, instead of "requirements", we should say "supported", since the rules set the upper bounds on hardware.

This lets Microsoft get into the ULPC market but keep Windows Vista as their premium operating system. The limits are artificial (1 GB RAM, 80 GB DASD, 10.5 inch display) and Windows XP can handle more -- it's been doing it for years.

It strikes me that if customers saw value in Windows Vista, the limits would not be necessary. If Windows Vista had value, people would be using it for their new desktops, upgrading their old desktops to use Vista, and would be clamoring for ULPCs that run Windows Vista.