Death to all desktops!

Ok, considering that my last two posts have been about Vista, and, the comments I've been receiving on those posting haven't really been that thought inspiring, (in fact, I'd almost go as far to say that the posters are most likely Microsoft lurkers), I thought it might be appropriate to delve into a belief of mine that I hold very dear. But, before doing that let's level the playing field.

First off, I don't hate Microsoft and its products. Nor, do I prefer Linux or any other open source "project." Instead, I'm rather neutral when choosing to use a particular technology over another, the obvious caveat being that the technology I "choose" to use must meet my needs. In other words, prove to me something will work as stated, and if it does what you claim, I may just use it. :>)

Ok, now that we all understand that I attempt to be non-bias in my analysis of technologies, let's discuss something that I've wanted to write about for some time now. It is my opinion, this whole concept of "still" giving end-users full-fledged personal computers is an absolutely ridiculous endeavor. For sanity's sake, I will not dive into the consumer realm. But, for an organization's IT department to still be peddling/supporting PCs is akin to giving free drugs to drug users while also requesting the budget required to build a drug rehabilitation center.

Yup, that's a bold statement. But, then again, we have to ask ourselves, just how much of an organization's IT budget goes to just supporting PCs, Macs, Linux Desktops, or whatever else you may want to call them? After all:

1. You will need to purchase the hardware itself.
2. You will need to purchase all of the software that then goes on that hardware (this includes the OS).
3. Oh, don't forget you will have to manage the lifecycle of the items that I just mentioned. This includes deploying the infrastructure and personnel to:
   • test, manage, and deploy security updates (OS and applications).
   • test, manage, and deploy software updates (OS and applications).
   • provide hardware, OS, and application support to the end-user.
4. In addition, you would also have to deploy infrastructure to:
   • enforce security polices and ensure configuration settings are not changed.
   • protect all these end-points from the "nasties" of the Internet (malware and evil doers).
   • protect the data that these end-points seem to always have.
   • report on and audit the end-points, or better yet, watch their owners and protect them from themselves.

I'm most likely missing something, but I think you get the point. That list of items I just jotted down takes a certain amount funding to run and operate. Now, the actual percentage may vary from IT organization to IT organization. But, I'm pretty sure (based on my experience) that percentage happens to be a large chunk of an operational budget.

My only question to all of this is, why? I can understand that desktop computing made sense in 2000. But, the year is now 2008. Other options have been on the table for years now, and it's depressing to see that IT organizations are moving at a snail's pace to adopt and drive innovation. Instead, it seems like they are trying desperately to hold on to the desktop model. Heck, even Microsoft seems to be doing the same (Windows 7 and all of the other infrastructure applications targeted towards desktop management). And yes, sadly, they still have yet to truly answer Google's shot across their bow.

The world of computing is changing. Oddly enough, it's almost moving backwards, at least conceptually to the days of mainframes. Server Based Computing, Software as a Service, Cloud Computing, or any other label you want to throw down is the future. If organizations do not adapt, and understand that the day of the desktop is numbered. Then they will be in for a rude awaking.