|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 203 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 14 of 203:
| 
Jan 31 15:52 UTC 2007 |
All Bill Gates really has to do to really push his new O/S systems is
to code the old ones to expire and require an upgrade after a set
number of years. He could force you to upgrade. If he wanted to.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 15 of 203:
|
Jan 31 16:34 UTC 2007 |
> He could force you to upgrade.
No he couldn't.
|
cross
|
|
response 16 of 203:
|
Jan 31 17:43 UTC 2007 |
Regarding #14; And then people would switch to Linux and it's like in droves.
The remaining usability issues would be quickly fixed (due to demand and
economic incentive) and Microsoft would be totally screwed.
|
twenex
|
|
response 17 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:02 UTC 2007 |
Re: #14
All Bill Gates really has to do to really push his new O/S systems is
to code the old ones to expire and require an upgrade after a set
number of years. He could force you to upgrade. If he wanted to.
No, all Bill Gates really has to do o really push his new OS systems is say
to the vendors "well, if you REALLY want to sell that nasty communist Linux
thing, maybe we'll just not supply you with Windows anymore!" - Just like he
has been doing for the last however-many years.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 18 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:07 UTC 2007 |
All Bill Gates has to do to push his new OS is make it cheap. Like, $20
cheap. Then there wouldn't be a reason NOT to buy it. Leave the business
versions priced at $150 to $200.
|
twenex
|
|
response 19 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:09 UTC 2007 |
So you'd sell your digital freedom for twenty dollars.
Thanks for the info.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 20 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:17 UTC 2007 |
You guys can quibble all you want, but MS OSs are still the leading OSs
worldwide.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 21 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:20 UTC 2007 |
> So you'd sell your digital freedom for twenty dollars.
That doesn't even make sense. I wouldn't be selling anything.
|
richard
|
|
response 22 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:42 UTC 2007 |
Actually I was surprised the government never broke Microsoft up. Bill
Gates has a monopoly among PC's. Almost any PC computer you buy
anywhere in the world is going to have his software on it, his o/s and
his browser and his apps. The courts broke up AT&T years ago when you
basically had to have an AT&T phone to have a phone. But the same
rules don't apply to microsoft.
|
twenex
|
|
response 23 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:45 UTC 2007 |
Re: #20. Completely irrelevant, since they are foisted on most people. Most
people choose a PC supplier, but a lot of them don't even understand the
concept of "an OS", so of course they don't choose between them. Added to that
the fact that not only are suppliers who will sell you a computer pre-loaded
with anything but Windows (or MacOS) rare, but you would probably have to hold
the majority of them at gunpoint to get one without Windows on request.
|
remmers
|
|
response 24 of 203:
|
Jan 31 18:48 UTC 2007 |
Re #22: You don't have to have a Windows computer to have a computer.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 25 of 203:
|
Jan 31 19:10 UTC 2007 |
Re 23> If most people don't understand the concept of an OS, why didn't Linux
or something else intervene. They decided to take on a model that in the end
left them behind. I'm not saying that Microsoft is the greatest or anything,
but the reality is that they are world leaders. They've managed their business
so that most people use a Windows machine - for better or for worse. They've
managed their business so that most busineses use Windows.
Sure computers come pre-installed with Windows - sometime back then
Linux/Unix/whoever should have done something about it. But they didn't want
to provide their OS to the PC manufacturers at the manufacturers' terms - well
too bad suckers - you now have a world of Windows users. And it's not like
you're stuck with the OS that you get with your computers - you can strip it
off and install Linux if you so wish. But people don't. Because Windows is
too ingrained in them.
So quibble away - Bill Gates is laughing all the way to the bank.
Capitalism - you need to understand the rules.
|
twenex
|
|
response 26 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:19 UTC 2007 |
Re 23> If most people don't understand the concept of an OS, why didn't Linux
or something else intervene.
What?
They decided to take on a model that in the end
left them behind. I'm not saying that Microsoft is the greatest or anything,
but the reality is that they are world leaders. They've managed their
business
so that most people use a Windows machine - for better or for worse. They've
managed their business so that most busineses use Windows.
So how do you propose to break this monopoly if most people are blackmailed
into running Windows?
Sure computers come pre-installed with Windows - sometime back then
Linux/Unix/whoever should have done something about it. But they didn't want
to provide their OS to the PC manufacturers at the manufacturers' terms -
How did you get this idea?
well
too bad suckers - you now have a world of Windows users. And it's not like
you're stuck with the OS that you get with your computers - you can strip
it
off and install Linux if you so wish. But people don't. Because Windows is
too ingrained in them.
Of course you can - but then you've still paid for Windows.
So quibble away - Bill Gates is laughing all the way to the bank.
Capitalism - you need to understand the rules.
I think you should endeavour to understand the issues before you patronise
people.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 27 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:21 UTC 2007 |
"Blackmailed" into using Windows - care to elaborate?
|
twenex
|
|
response 28 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:24 UTC 2007 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 29 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:25 UTC 2007 |
I already did elaborate, in #23.
|
cross
|
|
response 30 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:30 UTC 2007 |
My gut? It doesn't really matter. Microsoft has almost run its course:
they're going to implode under their own weight. It's just the way of the
world. It happened to Bell, it happened to GM, it happened to GE, it happened
to IBM, it happened to everybody who was on top for too long.
Why isn't Linux the dominant OS? Well, it certainly came on the scene *after*
Windows did, so it would have had to overturn an already entrenched installed
base. Initial versions required more resources than DOS/Windows 3.11 or
whatever. Why didn't Unix before it take over the world? Much because of
the inept business practices of AT&T (after the breakup of Ma Bell), larger
resource requirements than what one could get out of an original IBM PC, and
an arrogant attitude of not wanting to deal with `toy' computers.
Yeah, you're right; Billy G is laughing all the way to the bank.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 31 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:32 UTC 2007 |
And quite frankly it ain't about the O/S, it's about all the app's people have
learned to use proficiently and the data they've created with them.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 32 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:34 UTC 2007 |
Getting a PC pre-loaded with Windows is not being "blackmailed" inot using
Windows.
Maybe it's too late to break the monopoly. The rest of the OS world should
have woken up earlier and done something way back when instead of quibbling
about it now. It wasn't user friendly then, and they didn't market to the
average schmoe - because they didn't expect the average schmoe to be using
computers on such a scale as it turned out they would. Maybe they should have
had a little more foresight than they did. But I'm not blaming them -
sometimes things just explode in unexpected ways .Hell - M$ nearly missed the
internet revolution and they haven't caught up yet.
|
twenex
|
|
response 33 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:35 UTC 2007 |
You can make that argument, but if (a) people don't NEED the gazillion apps
on one platform, and are perfectly happy with the million apps on another,
and (b) the OS is so unstable it makes Manson look like a marriage counsellor,
you got to wonder why it doesn't end up in the trash.
|
twenex
|
|
response 34 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:41 UTC 2007 |
Mynxcat slipped.
Getting a PC pre-loaded with Windows is not being "blackmailed" inot using
Windows.
It is if it's next to impossible to get one without it, as I've now pointed
out for the THIRD time.
Maybe it's too late to break the monopoly. The rest of the OS world should
have woken up earlier and done something way back when instead of quibbling
about it now. It wasn't user friendly then, and they didn't market to the
average schmoe - because they didn't expect the average schmoe to be using
computers on such a scale as it turned out they would. Maybe they should have
had a little more foresight than they did. But I'm not blaming them -
sometimes things just explode in unexpected ways .Hell - M$ nearly missed
the
internet revolution and they haven't caught up yet.
I wouldn't be doing this if I thought it was "too late". And no, I don't blame
them, I blame MS for illegal business practices and the DOJ for not doing
something about it. MS should probably have been prevented from being the sole
distributor of the OS, if nothing else.
Besides, another point you're enjoying missing is that Linux came LATER than
Unix, so it's not like they couldn't see what mistakes were made. To dat, they
haven't repeated those mistakes, and it's blindingly obvious to anyone who's
actually USED linux that if the developers really WERE "elitist", as they are
often accused of being, then half of the improvements that have been made in
the last 8 years would not have been made at all.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 35 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:41 UTC 2007 |
Maybe because people WANT the gazillion apps o one platform even if they don't
NEED them, and so far the instability isn't of enough proportion to trash the
product yet.
It's really an economics issue in the end - the geek-communtiy can yell about
the security leaks and the blue screen crashes that is associated with
Windows, but the large percentage of teh user base doesn't see it as
sufficiently affecting their needs.
I'm not defending Microsoft's products. I'm just pointing out a market
reality. Dan could well be right, M$ could be setting themselves up for an
implosion. But as long a sa majority of the user base is still using Windows,
it may be some time comig.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 36 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:48 UTC 2007 |
On the question of Linux's elitism - I've used computers a long time - hell
worked with them even. Installing and configuring Linux is not a piece of
cake, at least it wasn't abut 6 years ago, when I was gung ho about it. Too
many tweaks and changes needed to be made. compared to a Windows installation
which usually just meant popping in hte CD and almost everything works - not
everything, I'll admit.
I don't know if Linux has changed enough to make it easier to install, I gave
up trying - but expecting a lay person to be a "geek" to use your application
isn't going to help you. If they've made changes in the last 8 years to make
things easier, well more power to them, but maybe they just missed the boat.
Linux may not be elitist anymore, but maybe too little too late.
Simple lesson - give the user what he wants and in a manner he can use it.
The easier the better. Ease of use is appreciated over functionality most
times.
|
twenex
|
|
response 37 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:49 UTC 2007 |
Re: #35.
Maybe because people WANT the gazillion apps o one platform even if they don't
NEED them, and so far the instability isn't of enough proportion to trash
the
product yet.
Well if people want to use an operating system because it has a gazillion apps
they don't need, that's just retarded. Not that it wouldn't gel with my
impression of the vast majority of the human race. As for instability, it's
getting better, but when you take into account that it was once even MORE
laughable...
I'm not defending Microsoft's products. I'm just pointing out a market
reality. Dan could well be right, M$ could be setting themselves up for an
implosion. But as long a sa majority of the user base is still using Windows,
it may be some time comig.
Not necessarily. I can see their control-freakishness ending up where they
will force all users to pay up, so in a world where 1 out of every 5 copies
of Windows is pirated (and some estimates say up to 90% of copies in the
developing world), that will force those who can't or won't pay or who will
junk the OS on principle because of it to move to other platforms.
Wouldn't that be a shame.
Don't think it can happen? It happened before, when DEC dropped all its
various operating systems on the PDP-11, and its entire PDP-10 platform, in
favour of VMS on the VAX. Of course, people who felt betrayed by this marched
straight into Unix without passing go or collecting UKP200.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 38 of 203:
|
Jan 31 20:56 UTC 2007 |
Linux has become a lot easier to install thanks to the people at Ubuntu.
This is making Linux a greater and greater threat to Windows.
|
