Microsoft at one point owned 5% of Apple, but I'm not sure about 25%. They helped fund Apple's resurgence. Which makes this whole thing of "you don't like Microsoft? Buy Apple!" even more tragic. Not to mention on a Mac, you do have Microsoft software although I don't know anything about any licensing issues on the Mac. ------------------ My company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then agreed to merge with another company, which also declared for Chapter 11 bankruptcy... should I be worried?
So are you conspiracy theorists saying that if Microsoft Windows did not come bundled with every PC, that people would be better off? The vast majority of consumers don't want to think about their OS. They don't want to worry about installation of an operating system. They don't miss the command line. They don't want to worry about whether the software they buy is compatible with the operating system. If the OS is doing the job right, you hardly notice that it is there. Further, functional capability is not the deciding factor in technology. The Betamax was and is superior to the VHS. A Laserdisc gives better quality than a DVD. The Apple OS was for years far superior to basic DOS or even Windows 3.1. The masses just don't care. They want the base unit, whether it be hardware or OS, to be compatible with what they are actually interested in: which is the software products and games. It may be sad, but this is the truth. ------------------ I'm about to boldly go where many men have gone before.
SamCassell Our point is simple...competition makes better product at a better price. If you don't believe in that, then you don't really believe in capitalism. Micro~1 stymies competition rather than making better product that saves consumers money by not needed to upgrade hardware/software as much. This is not a conspiracy. These damn computers and software should not go obsolete so fast. Sure I love Windows 2000 and think it makes my life better. But I also believe our life would be better with less load on servers and hardware in general, like TVs and Tivo's. We should not have to upgrade everything just to get the benefits of one more feature...especially corporations.
Here's an example of the domino effect of no competition. 1. Joe Consumer has a nice Pentium 233 with 64M RAM and Win95 that has worked faitfully since 1998, when he bought it new for $1300, rather than buying that Sony TV he wanted to give his wife, 2. But Joe heard that the latest Internet Explorer was the **** so he had to have it because he's addicted to the internet. 3. Now mind you that a browser is not an immensely complicated piece of software, and the data you view is small. 4. He downloads a free version from Microsoft and tries to install....boy that is not easy, but Joe consumer's nephew was able to help him. 5. Joe quickly finds out all the great new features are actually tied to the Windows operating system. He needs at least Win Millenium edition, otherwise it works like the old version, but eats much more memory. 6. Now since he doesn't want to fork out $99 for the OS upgrade simply to support a free piece of software requiring him to ask his nephew for help again installing it, what does Joe do? 7. Joe spends another $1200 to buy a new 2000 system rather than buying that Sony big screen TV again. Now he has to reset all his mail addresses, because he fails to learn how to tranfer mail between two machines. He also has a brand spanking new Internet Explore, but can't figure out how to move his bookmarks and cookie file over. Oh but maybe he can give his nephew that old machine...but nah, it is archiving his old mail and whatnot, besides the kid needs a better soundcard and videocard and wants more RAM, but cannot find the stuff that works with the motherboard. 8. His wife divorces him, because he promised a Sony TV 3 years ago, and instead she has the latest IE and has to learn a whole new Outlook Express. 9. Joe doesn't mind that too much; he just finds himself wondering if he'll have to do this all over again in another 3 years. Moral of the Story With competition, Joe can get the latest software to support a great Internet experience without upgrading the OS and buying a new machine. So, then Joe can buy that Sony TV to really upgrade his life style. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited May 03, 2001).]
I don't have a wife ------------------ Pollution is Killing the Earth..... and the main rockets forum!
I agreed with everything you said. However you're defending a side the rest of us aren't disagreeing with. No one is saying Linux is easier to use than Windows. On the contrary, we've said that it's a far more complex OS than Windows to use and isn't meant for the average user. We know why Windows is popular. It's easy to use and has lots of software for it. Again, does that make it a superior product? No, not necessarily. Does it make it a superior product for certain individuals? Absolutely. ------------------ My company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then agreed to merge with another company, which also declared for Chapter 11 bankruptcy... should I be worried?
You mis-spelled "life" Smeg. ------------------ My company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then agreed to merge with another company, which also declared for Chapter 11 bankruptcy... should I be worried?
you mis-spelled Dr of Dunk ------------------ Pollution is Killing the Earth..... and the main rockets forum!
Doc, my point wasn't that MS Windows is a better product. My point was that its success isn't based only on marketing or on forcing PC makers to install their product on every machine. PC makers are going to do that anyway, because there is no viable option out there for the average consumer, and there never was. Linux is as you said intended really for a niche audience. To have real competition, a rival OS would have to convince major software manufacturers to code their products so that they are usable under that OS (and, maybe, only under that OS). That is how video game makers do it; Atari was once king, Nintendo was once King, Sony has top dog for awhile, based largely on software lisencing. I have yet to see this tried in the OS market - have I missed it? heyP, you magnificent b*stard: Shouldn't your joke be Micros~1 and not Micro~1? Unless you are taking a jab at Mr. Gates's manhood. Anyway, thank you for the demonstrative and no doubt true story. But my question to you is the same as the one to the good Doctor of Dunk. Where is this legitimate competition that is being squelched? I don't remember ever seeing a legitimate second option for the average consumer out there, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. ------------------ I'm about to boldly go where many men have gone before.
Hogwash, I say! OS/2 was a more than a viable candidate. You said one of the things needed is for the OS manufacturer to be able to convince software publishers to write code for the OS. That's the problem. Microsoft's stranglehold on the desktop, the browser, the office suites, the databases, etc. is so damn strong even IBM saw it moot to compete with it. IBM did not market OS/2 widely because they knew it was a losing proposition in the long-run. You can't defeat Microsoft, not because their technology is better (it's often not), but because they control the foundation of the PC itself -- the OS. When you control the OS market you control the PC because the OS is the gatekeeper to all other apps. Microsoft's monopolistic practice of pricing scales, packaging the browser with the OS, etc. was not innovation as they called it - it was domination of the PC as a whole. How the hell can Netscape survive when MS gives away their browser for free and intertwine the thing with the OS itself? Your statement that one needs to convince companies to write code for an OS is only partially correct. Why would you write for an OS that can't gain marketshare? If the OS can't gain marketshare, how on earth is the software you write for it going to be profitable? This is why the OS licensing crap MS is in courts over is so important. Microsoft talks about innovation, but it's pure domination of a market via monopolistic practices. Microsoft and Bill Gates are geniuses at marketing and strong-arm tactics to get their way. They have had the audacity to basically lie in front of the court and try to trick them to have their way. Microsoft knows that if they lose the OS monopoly, they lose the war. For those of you that think otherwise, I ask you to simply look at the AMD vs. Intel CPU pricewars that are going on. AMD was allowed to enter the market and compete fairly. AMD is now a bonafied threat to Intel's crown. The competition between the two has caused the CPU roadmap to become compressed and we're getting ridiculously low prices for these CPU's as they battle it out. This is competition at its best and the consumer wins. Technology advances at a fast rate, prices are incredibly low, and the consumer actually has a choice! In summary, what you said is true. If you can gain the confidence of developers, they will create apps for your OS. I don't deny it, but it's only partially true. If you can't/aren't allowed to gain that access to the OS marketshare and there are barriers to entry, then you've lost the war before the first battle. ------------------ My company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then agreed to merge with another company, which also declared for Chapter 11 bankruptcy... should I be worried? [This message has been edited by Dr of Dunk (edited May 03, 2001).]
"Do you guys believe in the "conspiracy" that M$ does not disclose all of their OS API's to their partners so that they can gain an unfair advantage in developing competing software?" I would have used "competitors" rather than "partners" above. At the very least, I've always figured that the MS application developers got earlier info about new API features than developers from other firms.
Go into any CompUSA and see what it's like during a Windows launch. Microsoft paraded Windows like crazy during sporting events like the Super Bowl (I think that was the one). Windows 95 was the most heavily advertised software product in history. Microsoft hyped the crap out of that thing to the point people lined up at midnight to grab their copy. Don't confuse marketing with tv or radio commercials. It's not like that in the PC/IT industry. Linux does very little advertising. Why? Because Linux is not a company. There are "flavors" of Linux like Red Hat, Caldera, etc. When's the last time you saw a Caldera commercial on tv? Stop counting, you probably haven't. What you're confusing with marketing is the media and users' surprise that there actually is an alternative to Windows. The fact that there actually is another OS that can run on an x86 platform, and is FREE. That's what drove Linux's popularity. It isn't. That's the point. That's one of the reasons it isn't as popular, but it's getting there. No one in this discussion is saying that Linux is definitely better than Windows -- at least I don't think so. I will say that in terms of security and resource management Linux/Unix is far better than Windows. However, the average user doesn't look into anything like this. They just want something with a user-friendly interface and gets the job done. Windows does this. To them that's all that matters, and that's fine. The average user doesn't care about multi-threading, SMP support, etc. They just care about whether or not their mail comes up and how easy it is to get it to come up. I love Windows. I'm not a *nix geek, nor do I care to be. Windows is the common man's OS, but I know of its deficiencies because I test applications under it daily. I watch memory management problems it has. I see security problems it has. I see problems with registry corruptions, etc. But I still like it because it's simple. Ultimately, the best OS for the individual is the one they enjoy using and the one that gets their job done. ...I'm eagerly awaiting Windows XP -- the best Windows yet. ------------------ My company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then agreed to merge with another company, which also declared for Chapter 11 bankruptcy... should I be worried? [This message has been edited by Dr of Dunk (edited May 03, 2001).]
I would like to ad the PC is not a company Apple is. . . . . Many different companies make PCs [Dell, compaq, micronPc, E-machines] only one company makes Macs [apples] It would be a better comparison of apples to any one of those companies Which in a sense is the opposite of MS While Linux has many flavors/companies MS is only one company. Hell I could market a flavor or linux [if i was a programmer and could make a few significant changes] Rocket River ------------------
Hey-P, the moral of the story is that if Joe spends $1200 to fix a problem when he could spend $79 to fix it, he's an idiot.
