Thread: Interesting Memo from Microsoft's Chief Software Architect

Another end of the pc, back of the dumb terminal + mainframe-cloud type of deal? I'll pass. Cloud should just provide data, not computing power. In that sense what he refers to "cloud computing" is a misnomer.

He mentions the connectivity of phones, tablets, but see the excitement everyone gets when people say the next gen of smartphones will be dual/multi core? People want processing power. Now and ever.

More power to the individual PC!

This is so against everything my beloved MS stands for, that I must believe the targeted audience was the shareholders and investors. They must know MS is doing something cloudish...

Hey, that's one way to stop piracy. Have your operating system run on a MS run server

Everyone is going on and on about cloud computing, and with good reason. As the memo said:

We’re moving toward a world of 1) cloud-based continuous services that connect us all and do our bidding, and 2) appliance-like connected devices enabling us to interact with those cloud-based services.

However, in moving towards this I don't believe we are moving AWAY from the PC-Centric world but simply expanding with new devices and additional technologies. He talks as if connected technologies will make PC's obsolete, moving to a world of connected devices where all the computing happens remotely and you essentially hold a simple (albeit powerful) terminal in the palm of your hand. Yes, we already have that today with the latest generation of Smart Phones, but connecting the PC like that? I don't think so. There will eventually reach a balance between perceived security, and cloud-use but I honestly don't believe that the balance will be on the cloud side (Sans Microsoft, which will no doubt eventually force you to use the cloud)

"Those who can envision a plausible future that’s brighter than today will earn the opportunity to lead."

Well said. I have no love for Microsoft but Ray is obviously bright and I'll pretty much buy it hook, line, and sinker. The cloud is not your Father's mainframe. Far from it. Mainframes of the past ran a terminal/services configuration. What Ray is outlining is a very different way of using distributed computing power that has massive connectivity.

Google doesn't run on a mainframe and it isn't a client/server architecture. It's tens of thousands of computers meshed together running apps that are both Google specific and also interact with other services, data sources, and news feeds. It's fundamentally different than a session on a terminal.

And I think he points out one of those differences by noting:

"As we’ve begun to embrace today’s incredibly powerful app-capable phones and pads into our daily lives, and as we’ve embraced myriad innovative services & websites, the early adopters among us have decidedly begun to move away from mentally associating our computing activities with the hardware/software artifacts of our past such as PC’s, CD-installed programs, desktops, folders & files."

He's dead on. Just because an individual may not have experienced this yet doesn't mean it isn't real or possible.

And I further, and wholeheartedly agree with his other premise about the standard PC of today:

"Complexity kills. Complexity sucks the life out of users, developers and IT. Complexity makes products difficult to plan, build, test and use. Complexity introduces security challenges. Complexity causes administrator frustration."

We are only now beginning to see an alternative to client/server or PC/internet emerge and I'm in agreement with him that this will happen much faster than everyone expects.

HOWEVER. Does that mean an end to the PC? Hardly. The PC is an incredibly flexible device with nearly infinite adaptability. The PC will adapt, but it will adapt along with new classes of devices that will extend its usefulness, not end it. Does that mean it will continue to be the main focus of computing? Most likely, for the forseeable future. But not necessarily for the medium term future.

It's going to be an exciting few years. I'm ready for it. Let's go!

What's wrong with complexity? I think simplicity smells reductionism, form and function (and features).

As Einstein once said, gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love, meaning not everything can be explained by physics. Nothing wrong with a complex layered system, capable of multiple things, instead of a dumb web browser.

Again, I think this piece is just designed to please investors. MS will never lack resources to push the PC platform (or so I believe).

I think he summed it up pretty well - it makes things more difficult to develop, plan, build and maintain.

There used to be no money in the GUI and Microsoft used to push DOS. If computing focus moves to something else, they'll move there, especially if there's money there.

Best part of all this is it won't take too long to see how it's going. I fully accept that I could be wrong. So far the evidence is that a fundamental change is underway but whether that will turn into a full fledged trend remains to be seen.

I think there is a change - my computing money nowadays is going shallow and wide, instead of deep and narrowly focused.

By that, I mean the computing in my life is becoming everywhere I want it to be - instead of spending on the latest and greatest desktop, with the hottest video card, etc. - pumping one static computer up - I now have a smartphone, a carpc, home server, etc. Most of the computers in the house are laptops (besides my 'good enough' gaming/work machine). This way I have what I need wherever I am, not just nailed down to one location.

Of course, by doing this, I also find it convenient to move services, etc. into the cloud - the email comes to me wherever I am, calendar is accessible on the closest device, etc. I'm working on centralizing and streaming media.

Life is just more convenient this way.

Originally Posted by Bugbyte

I think he summed it up pretty well - it makes things more difficult to develop, plan, build and maintain.

Err that's why we hire specialists? You know, guys like the one who inspect jet engines before take off. Kind of complex machines those. And we like them too!

I fully accept that I could be wrong.

Same here.

Originally Posted by Penzance

I think there is a change - my computing money nowadays is going shallow and wide, instead of deep and narrowly focused.

By that, I mean the computing in my life is becoming everywhere I want it to be - instead of spending on the latest and greatest desktop, with the hottest video card, etc. - pumping one static computer up - I now have a smartphone, a carpc, home server, etc. Most of the computers in the house are laptops (besides my 'good enough' gaming/work machine). This way I have what I need wherever I am, not just nailed down to one location.

Of course, by doing this, I also find it convenient to move services, etc. into the cloud - the email comes to me wherever I am, calendar is accessible on the closest device, etc. I'm working on centralizing and streaming media.

Life is just more convenient this way.

I do all the above (actually it's time to upgrade the video card), and I also stream media to the car. But that's not cloud computing, it's just data streaming - that part I like.

Cloud computing is more like Google's vision - dumb computers, intelligent searches, a complete profile of your soul in Google's gigantic system, how did they describe their new "intelligent search"? That's the future. They will index everything, your computer will just query (like a terminal).

And everybody wants to be on Google's side, investors are patient with that model/vision, not so much with tradional ones (where only hard numbers count). MS wants to enjoy that leeway too, thus the article.

look at the failure thats is ChromeOS....enough said

Originally Posted by RipplingHurst

Err that's why we hire specialists? You know, guys like the one who inspect jet engines before take off. Kind of complex machines those. And we like them too!

Bad example. Jet engines are much, much simpler than piston or turboprop powerplants. That's why they are so reliable. Simplicity=reliability. I think what you meant to say was jet engines are highly engineered using technically complex techniques to achieve a high power to weight ratio with simplicity.

From a business perspective, technical complexity is costly. It is sometimes necessary, if that is the only means to achieve a result but simpler products or services are substituted when performance is acceptable. PC's are no different.