Hacker News Reader

Actually, this is mostly wrong.

While Windows and Office are still major components, what was formerly called Server Tools & Business (STB) makes a large amount of money (sometimes more than Windows) and has exhibited the most growth of any division over the past couple years.

In addition, what you refer to as Office is really the Business division, which includes Dynamics (a billion dollar business) so Office really doesn't hold all of the sway you lend it.

Windows includes Windows Server, and Office is their sprawling business suite. It's hard to say where one stops and one begins, as SQL Server is sort of in both camps.

Windows does not include Windows Server, in Microsoft-land. Windows Server is definitely in the Server and Tools Business (now Enterprise and Cloud). SQL Server is also in Enterprise and Cloud.

Is there a chart or diagram which breaks down what's what?

That chart would probably be pretty big. Here's a description of the pre-reorg divisions.

http://www.microsoft.com/about/companyinformation/ourbusines...

And an incredibly brief and vague description of the new Engineering Groups:

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2013/jul13/07-11on...

While a break-up into separate companies may not make sense, giving each product group more independence to act like a separate group may allow products to be more flexible and reactive to user demands.

The average non-power user isn't going to want to learn how to use Linux, they're comfortable with Windows so they'll stick with Windows. I predict that they'll make two very distinct version of Windows next time, one for tablets like Windows 8 and one a lot more like Windows 7 for the desktops.

The non-power user will use whatever comes with the computer, as long as it can access Facebook.

But if it's too different and hard to figure it, they'll deem it as crap and that it doesn't work. That's the biggest reason why MS was so afraid to let XP die.

OS X is BSD based and you don't need to be a power user to learn how to use it. I'm not sure what your argument is here. With the right UX and application suite, Linux is for all intents and purposes just as functional as Windows is.

A mac is very expensive, that rules that out.

I know Linux is just as functional as Windows is. Most people on this site know that, but we aren't the ones buying most PCs. Imagine your mom, dad, brother or sister who don't use computers like crazy trying to learn how to use Linux. If it's too different, "it doesn't work at all." Too many people are afraid to learn new things, which is sad.

I don't know about "very expensive" unless you're in the market for a bargain bin computer. A Mac Mini costs $599, an feature equivalent Dell is maybe $399 to $499, so there is a price premium but it's not outrageous. Plus, you do get significantly better support from the retailer, cheaper upgrade options on the operating system, and a lot of bundled apps that, for some people, are more than worth the extra dollars.

It's not that people are not afraid to learn new things, they just have priorities, and often "learn a new OS" is not on their list.

Remember, Linux has succeeded on Android, so don't think it's impossible for people to use it.

Windows independent of Office is worthless. There's virtually no reason to use Windows apart from the Office infrastructure built around it, or the entrenched base Visual Studio developers.

Windows is still wanted and needed by a lot. We have been hearing windows is dead and linux is that for 15 years now and that ship is still on the drawing table.

It's somewhat popular as a gaming platform, but as Linux starts to be reshaped into a first-class gaming operating system, that will quickly become a non-factor.

It is the only PC gaming platform.

PC gaming is an increasingly tiny share of the overall gaming market. Mobile has put an enormous dent in that in the last few years, and consoles continue to gain ground. Android is Linux, so Linux gaming, in a sense, has become a pretty big thing. Just not on PC type computers. Not that Valve isn't working to fix this.

I don't know that Windows is wanted so much as it's needed by many, but only because the applications they use are tied to it. This group includes those in industries where they use specialized software that's not ported, or where it has been ported but other tools in their workflow haven't.

It's interesting to note that Pixar uses Maya on Linux even though that's a company created by Steve Jobs. Google uses Linux internally for workstations. It's not that Linux isn't ready, but that it's nearly impossible to buy a Linux laptop or desktop from a major vendor. Dell has maybe one consumer model in their entire lineup.

For the "Facebook and YouTube" crowd, which is arguably over 50% of the users out there, Linux is probably fine. Android shows how it can be cleaned up and made far friendlier than Windows ever was.

There's plenty of reason to use Windows apart from Office. You just can't see it because you live in a bubble.

Businesses aren't going to switch to Linux on the desktop anytime this decade or the next because there is very little expertise to be hired and they're not going to buy into Apple's hardware lock-in either for obvious reasons. Consumers aren't going to buy Linux unless it comes pre-installed from a major manufacturer. Even then (we've tried that experiment before) - they still don't buy. Some of them might buy Macs, but the majority certainly won't because they're more expensive and completely unnecessary since Windows already does everything they need.