AOL Money & Finance

DumbTerminals posts

Feed

Are Microsoft and Dell dinosaurs in the making?

Hypothesis: Our current computing environment sucks. We buy our own incomprehensively complex and undependable hardware, install a grab-bag of software that conflicts and/or craps out, and spend hours figuring out how to transfer and backup our work. Don't despair though, a better world is just around the corner. That world could be bad news for companies such as Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) and Dell (NASDAQ: DELL), but great news for the likes of Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) and AT&T (NYSE: T).

What am I talking about? I'm referring to a world in which we would only need to buy a dumb terminal and subscribe to the necessary computing services. The company we choose -- perhaps AT&T or Comcast (NYSE: CMCSA) -- would provide us with broadband wireless connectivity to its servers. From those servers, we could run any software we want, work with others on group projects and store our files remotely. No more data lost to hard drive crashes, no more struggling through software upgrades, no more lugging seven-pound laptops through airports, no more afternoons lost to recalcitrant home networks. No more need for a separate computer, xBox, Tivo, and cable box, either.

Continue reading Are Microsoft and Dell dinosaurs in the making?

The resurgence of 'dumb terminals' a threat to Microsoft?

"Dumb terminals" are merely screens and keyboards that retrieve and send information to and from a central server. Are employers racing all over the place to get rid of those three year-old Microsoft Corp.'s (NASDAQ:MSFT) Windows desktops that sit atop almost every employee's desk and workstation in order to install "dumb terminals?" Don't count on it for most.

This issue has risen as a competitive threat to Microsoft before (Sun Microsystems Inc. (NASDAQ:SUNW) has particularly been a huge advocate of "light desktops"), but I don't see this going anywhere soon for the majority of companies. The costs to switch out thousands of Microsoft-powered PCs to data-entry systems that don't have local storage devices (like hard drives) and local desktops (for playing solitaire, heh) may -- over time -- enable customers to save money by not having to "refresh" Windows machines every three years or so.

Here's my question -- why do Windows machines need to be "refreshed" every two or three years? I'm pretty sure that the Windows XP machines from 2001 are quite capable of running most software in 2007 (sure, with perhaps some memory upgrades and such), so why are companies so quick to replace perfectly good machines? Somebody's sales pitch is working.

[Disclosure: I own MSFT shares as of 1-31-07]

Symbol Lookup
IndexesChangePrice
DJIA-93.7910,197.47
NASDAQ-17.882,149.02
S&P 500-11.271,087.24

Last updated: November 12, 2009: 06:20 PM

BloggingStocks Exclusives

Hot Stocks

DailyFinance Headlines

Latest from BloggingBuyouts

WalletPop Headlines

AOL Business News

BioHealth Investor Headlines

Sponsored Links

My Portfolios

Track your stocks here!

Find out why more people track their portfolios on AOL Money & Finance then anywhere else.

BloggingStocks Partners

More from AOL Money & Finance