The bad advice keeps on rolling...

First things first - I don't have anything against Microsoft. No, really! It's actually years of dealing with so called 'experts' that has put me off Microsoft more than anything that Microsoft has made.

What I object to is being told that things are the right solution when clearly they are not the best option. Of course, I can see why it happens - you're not going to bite the hand that feeds, after all. But when was the last time you heard an IT person tell you, 'don't buy Microsoft Office, OpenOffice is just as good, (as far as your needs are concerned) it can do everything that MS Office can do and is open source and free'?

I do not know a single person who knows about tech who will look me in the eye and say 'Internet Explorer is the best browser on the market which is why I use nothing else'. They wouldn't dare because they would lose all credibility. It isn't and hasn't been for some time. So why do they pretend it is to their clients? It's been the same for over a decade.

Microsoft do some amazing things and have been real innovators since their inception - Gates is an utter visionary - but they've done some ropey things too. Vista and ME being just two of them. The Zune is another. You know it, I know it. Let's leave it there.

So, why is it that it takes such a brave IT professional to say to a company, 'do you know what, you'd be better off if you used some open source software - maybe even switched to Linux'. The slavish following of the 'one size fits all' 'follow the leader' advice that is so often given in the guise of tech advice is awful, tedious, annoying and just plain wrong. The 'they are the market leader' argument is just lazy - just because a lot of people are making the same mistake does not mean you should follow them.

Sometimes the Microsoft option is right but sometimes it isn't. Practitioners would do themselves a lot of favours in the long run if they introduced a bit of better tech, whether it be non-Microsoft commercial software or open source software.

I know that this is going to wind up a lot of my IT professional followers but I am ready, willing and able to take you on over this. I've spent the weekend discussing this same issue with a former client of mine and they are experiencing just the same phenomenon - and it just isn't wrong.

A Cloud with a Chrome Lining

Google has just announced its streamlined operating system, Chrome OS, and the blogosphere has gone into some sort of crazy meltdown with quite a few people suggesting that it will be the end of Microsoft.

But is that just wishful thinking?

The move to cloud-esque computing has caught the Redmond behemoth pretty much off-guard but it has started to show signs that it realises that people want to be able to access data and services independently of their own computers, allowing them to login from other access points and share between them. Microsoft is, though, taking its time in getting it right and it seems to be in a state of some denial over what this development means for its operating system – an operating system which remains anything but sylph-like.

Apple are, if the rumours are to be believed (and remember that we only ever know anything about what Apple is up to from rumours), in the advanced stages of putting together a massive, billion dollar cloud based data centre in the States. So we know that they get it and, in any event, the Apple fantopia (of which I freely admit to being a member) will be loyal to the leadership at Cupertino whatever happens.

So that leaves Linux.

Linux has always had underworldly appeal but has failed to break into the mainstream. Its best shot has been with the recent advent of netbooks but Microsoft’s decision to carry on flogging the not-very-well-if-not-actually-dead-yet horse that is XP as a cheap-ish OS option for the dinky devices has meant that users can have the portability of the netbook with the security-blanket comfort of a familiar Microsoft operating system. It was a struggle that Linux could never win but it was one in which, at least, it could increase its market share.

Google seems to have identified that there are a significant number of netbook users who just want to be able to use their netbook for… well, the net. So they have massively stripped down the OS and have made it, pretty much, a ‘browser-only’ party. That could well appeal to a significant number of users who want a cheap netbook (using Chrome OS on a netbook will cut down the price of the device as there will be no need for a Microsoft licence fee) but don’t want the geek chic, command-line-ability of Linux – probably because they’re afraid of it/they’re afraid of their techy mates who keep trying to explain how wonderful and pure the world of Linux is.

So, at the moment at least, Microsoft seems to have little to fear. Sure, they will lose some users that might have bought an XP netbook but they will not lose users who need that added functionality that their ever-so-slightly bloated OS can provide. Linux looks pretty much as if it will be dead in the water as an option, kept alive solely to provide the underlying infrastructure of Chrome OS, ironically. And Apple, well, Apple will be kept afloat by its cultish followers who know in their hearts that Apple can do no wrong.

But (and it’s a big but) if the Chrome OS proves to be more substantial over time than it looks today and, when combined with Google’s excellent cloud data and service offering, if it can provide everything that Microsoft can through Windows and Office, Microsoft have a big problem. If they are seen to react rather than innovate, they will lose traction in the market and, as things currently stand, it is simply impossible to see them doing a major u-turn on their OS and making it small, sleek and sexy.

Microsoft’s demise has been predicted before. But today, there is a big cloud bearing down on Redmond and it is a cloud with a Chrome lining.