Microsoft Windows may become Irrelevant Without Gaming...
 

I think in a few years Windows is basically insignificant without gaming. Not dead, but not worth the current sticker price. With Google Chrome OS/Android, Apple MacOS/iOS, and HP Palm webOS coming into the mix you will see a world where the operating system become a key differentiator in a product ecosystem. The game developers will create content for the largest platforms and that's that.

http://www.rahulsood.com/2010/08/mic...lsoo d.com%29

LOL.

no business uses Windows and Microsoft solutions anyway; so without gaming it would be irrelevant.

Don't forget that the most popular OS out there, XP, is based on a Windows OS which didn't support 3D accelerator cards, soundcards etc... aka Windows NT.

So sure... without games on Windows, Windows is irrelevant

I think you misunderstood his point.

Gaming has played a role in driving Windows sales in the past, but less so today. As you are fond of pointing out most businesses are sticking with Windows XP / 2003, it is the gamers and enthusiasts that are usually the first adopters or first to upgrade. But also as you often point out DX10/DX11 hasn't proven much of a reason to upgrade away from XP, even when gamers already have a DX10/11 card.

With the exception of "DX10" which fell flat, Microsoft quit pushing gaming for the PC since 2006, and there is a sizable difference today because of it. Expanding out a few years, if gaming continues to spread back to OS X as it is doing now, then what does it matter if a gamer uses Windows or OS X, or some other light-weight alternative that may come along in the interim? Rahul Sood's old business model is changing and not to his advantage.

Windows @ home was made popular in part due to Windows @ work.
Kids playing on daddy's PCs which used an OS made by the same company that made the OS @ work.

consoles have always been a step ahead in gaming when in comes down to usability; and with the latest generation the GFX end of the stick has also caught up to PC gaming. That is the cause the games on windows to fail; WIN OS was and still remains a hell to code a game on that is supposed to "just" work. (bought Fallout 3 for PC, too bad I can't return the purchase)

too many cases of patches, tweaks, workarounds etc to get a game going; I'd rather have microsoft invest time & money in perfecting the XBOX 360, allowing keyboard/mouse input, and have a dedicated gaming station; than to have to force feed people into using an OS which doesn't offer any serious advantages (XP vs Vista/7)

if tomorrow people stopped developing games for PCs and only used consoles as their platform of choice; do you think there would be any less usage of Windows at home by the none-tech savvy people?

I don't think that any gamer would buy a Mac for gaming because the hardware is just too expensive (don't forget that most gamers are looking for the best at the lowest price).
Also, Mac/Linux/Chrome have absolutely no history as gaming platform, nobody is going to take the step to another platform that hasn't been tested thourougly like Windows. Steam did, but the amount of games that are available for Mac is still countable on two hands and among those aren't many great titles.

Also, WebOS, iOs and Android will never take over any desktop market share as these are operating systems for mobile devices. Chrome OS isn't a real desktop OS either, it's more targeted at netbooks with mobile internet (3G and alike).

Microsoft has pushed Windows as a gaming OS for years and they simply stopped pushing because they're satisfied with the market share and because it just won't change much if they'd keep pushing. It's a self sustaining process they've started.

Can't say I've played it but from what I recall hearing Fallout 3 was just another poor port of a console game to the PC, like quite a few others have been. Blaming Windows because a developer can't be bothered to develop a title on the PC for the PC (or be forced to do a proper job of it as they are held accountable on console releases) is an entirely different conversation altogether.

You say this, then post a link about Crysis 2 looking worse on the Xbox?? :D Not sure what you are saying here.

Again you misunderstand but I did not make myself clear either. My point wasn't about gain/loss of market share, it's about market upgrades and selling new versions to their current market share. This has been Microsoft's primary business model for well over the past decade, finding ways to sell current owners a newer version of Windows. Gaming used to be one of the driving motivators.

Mac has no gaming history?? Before Microsoft won the DirectX vs OpenGL competition most games were OpenGL. All the big names & their sequels played on a Mac: Doom, Quake, Descent, Diablo, Starcraft, and many many others. Gamers used to lament about Macs only been able to play "old" games for years after DX displaced OpenGL. ;)

Quite a few Mac owners I know today use Windows via bootcamp because of games they wanted to play. For instance, Matt at The Tech Report just ran new blog update stating the latest OS X update fixes TF2 performance enough to the point he doesn't even see the need to dual boot Windows anymore. It's a very common theme I've been hearing, and I don't even own a Mac.

My point wasn't about gaining market share, it's about selling newer versions to their current market share. Gaming has for the most part stopped being a prime motivator to upgrade OSs, and if it wasn't for the forced DirectX obsolescence of XP much of the early adoption and push wouldn't have happened and the transition away from XP would be even slower.

it's not a port; it runs on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebryo engine which was also used for Oblivion , Civilisation IV (PC only title), Dark Age of Camelot (PC only title) and many others. It's actually the consoles which got the ports of these games ;)

if they compare 1080p at <2m distance, for sure; but if you own(ed) a PS3/XBOX360 you can see that the difference in the majority of games IQ wise is minor if both run at similar resolutions; next generation consoles will complete the transformation of those consoles putting out equal GFX to a very expensive PC.

People who upgraded and used Windows 2000 did not do it for gaming. Out the window goes that argument ;)
but yes, current gen windows lacks incentive to upgrade, needs better features compared to XP (beside DX) to make it a worthy upgrade; the UI in Windows Vista/7 is slick, but needs that little bit extra to really make that a valid argument :)

Your argument is akin to saying people didn't buy Windows Server 2003 over Vista for gaming... of course they wouldn't, Windows Server and Windows 2000 were both a corporate level OS.

Windows 2000 wasn't targeting the consumer market when it launched. If you remember, Windows ME targeted the consumer market and launched around 6 months from Windows 2000. It was not until Windows XP that Microsoft merged their consumer/corporate OS divisions into a single base OS.

At least we agree on the other part, by itself the Windows OS doesn't offer much of any reason to spend $100+ to upgrade to a newer version, especially given even Vista supports DX11 now.

Windows 2000 Professional is not a server OS ;p
I ran it at home, because it offered a substantial stability upgrade coming from Win98. (and knew plenty of people who also used it @ home;)
Win ME was a nightmare OS stability wise :)

we had to wait for SP2 under WIN2000 for gaming to "work" and SP4 made 2000 pretty much as good as XP in most areas :)