> But the assholes didn't consider that there are so many choices... I wonder who
> was so smart to pay for an email with no standard POP3 access and tons of spam.

MS realizes that AIM, ICQ, and Yahoo exist when they launch MSN Messenger, they also realize that the PS2 and GameCube and Dreamcast exist when they launch the X-Box, etc... They're just hoping that since MS has the largest cash reserves, they'll be able to out-last and out-market their competitors. It's not MS who are stupid, it's the users (for not demanding alternatives when they are dissatisfied with what they are using). Why else would you use hotmail?

> Of course they cannot expand their OS market further. Everyone at home has
> Windows, and I doubt that the linux-powered servers going MS are more than the
> windows server switching to linux.

Well the problem with the servers is they're switching from UNIX to Linux, instead of from UNIX to Windows, which is what MS hoped after out-lasting UNIX (which is dying now). A free + modifyable OS is important because it can outlast MS. It is also important ot have an OS maintained by people who really want this to be done, so it will turn out how they want. By users, for users. It may not be 100% ready for users now, but it will be, and it's amazing to think that this competitive OS has come from a community effort by users who wanted something else that badly.

> They still have 90% of the market, though,
> and good part of it won't get lost. Of course they need to innovate: people
> still running Windows 98/ME (and 2000/XP in a couple of years) are a problem,
> they give no cash. That's why they tried to drop support for 98 some time ago,
> and recently I've heard something similar about 2000. Half the world whined and
> they took a step back, but they will try again soon.

Yeah, and that's why they extended Licensing to upgrade everyone using 9x/Me/2000 to XP. But they definitely won't extend it to include everyone running XP to move to Longhorn, they're hoping that all this will bring MS some $$$. Assuming everyone upgrades to Longhorn, anyway. But I'll bet businesses will have to upgrade their PCs to run Longhorn correctly as well, so all of this $$$ is required...

But Longhorn is released *just* after Licensing expires, and *just* after the anti-trust settlement is expired.

> > This is also why MS is expanding into new markets recently (X-Box, Mobile
> > Phones, Tablet PCs, Media PCs, in-car computers, media formats + media
> players).
>
> That's basically selling a brand, there. And every item you mentioned needs an
> upgrade sooner or later. The idea is that you buy things that don't last, so you
> have to buy again.

That's true. Mobile phones, table + media PCs, media players, all of these you will have to upgrade over the future for more power, even that tiny CPU in your media player probably won't be able to decompress tomorrow's complex audio algorithm. Video game systems, PCs, cars, phones, people change all these at least every 5 years (maybe not cars).

But if MS sells a copy of Windows with every 5 things you buy instead of every 1 thing (PC) then they're a lot better off... and they have a lot more leverage for proprietary formats (your audio will play on all MS devices! Luckily you seem to have them everywhere!)

> Software is dangerous, because it never grows old in some
> fashion. People doesn't perceive an upgrade as something new, and is not willing
> to pay for it.

Yeah, the only reason people upgrade Windows is when MS won't fix it. It's funny that they're able to release software that keeps saying "Our most stable and secure version ever!" I'm sure that's what they said on the back of the box of Windows XP, but all of these vulnerabilities still got through. I'm sure they're going to put it on the back of Longhorn's box, and I'm sure it will have problems too.

Q: Speaking of security, Internet Explorer has had well-publicized holes...
Gates: Understand those are cases where you are downloading third-party software. Link

What was I thinking? It's not MS's fault anyway. They don't need to fix anything! It's just that damned 3rd party software! So don't use anything other than MS!

> > MS has effectively sold their software to anyone who wants it, and they've
> > already locked in loyal customers into Licensing 6.0
>
> Fix it now, be more sorry later. I wonder how much they can keep doing that.
> Link?

Link

> As long as developers produce Windows
> software, they are kind of safe. That's why Ballmer dances and shouts at
> conferences. Fortunately for them, there are no other SDKs as good as theirs at
> the moment.

Plus, it allows MS new markets to expand into. Now MS are expanding into the antivirus and spyware businesses, as well as TV recording + multimedia, and CD/DVD burning software. I wonder what the developers who have supported them all along like Norton and McAffee are going to do?

> I don't care about MS if they go down. They can die. What I care about is: what
> will we have to cope with.

You mean what would replace Windows? Well, I'd say Windows has to die first. Microsoft may be able to die through all of that evil stuff it's been doing, but so far Microsoft hasn't really suffered for it (antitrust trial, software patents, it all went in their favour). By the time Windows dies, perhaps more software companies would have already been moving to other platforms, or started using platform-independant software.

> You say: Linux! Ok. Sure. But I use my PC to do something else.

Yeah I understand that, a lot of people want something else. I don't think that Linux should be the dominant platform, I just think that everyone should be concentrating on making sure their software works with it. Linux is just a kernel, everything else can (and is) moved to other operating systems. Even the windowing environment KDE and Gnome work on other operating systems, such as MacOS, BSD, Windows, etc.

The point is, if everyone makes sure that their software can run on the tools that work on Linux (Mono, GTK#, QT, GNU tools, Apache, Gecko), they are automatically able to move their software to any OS. The fact that Linux is one of those OSes is just a bonus.

> With Linux I spend most time so that I *CAN* do something else,
> which then generally takes less time than fixing the OS to make it possible.

If MS is gone, you won't be stuck with Linux. The market won't let it be that way. If MS were gone, everyone would be rushing to take their place, trying to get your attention with their product. In this case, competition would be restored and many companies would be competing to provide the best solution possible. In this case we'd have a much more amazing OS. People like Novell, IBM, Sun, Amiga (I bet they would love it), Linspire, Apple even (Darwin already runs on x86, if MS were gone who knows what Apple would do) would be working to bring you a desktop OS.

Plus, to think that if Windows didn't exist, software companies would have no easy way to sell you software, which means they couldn't take your money no matter how much they wanted it, because their software wouldn't work on your platform. I bet they'd find a very quick way to change this! But still, a change like this would probably happen over time.

But if MS suddenly died, or provided built-in software to do what your software does (they're expanding into your market), you wouldn't even be able to sell your software to people on other platforms, it would only work on Windows (the platform you helped grow by developing exclusively on). You either go with portable cross-platform software and provide your software to everyone, or you rely on MS to provide the tools you use to create your software. I think going with MS is more of a gamble, even if MS's tools work on 90% of the PCs, cross platform tools will always work with 100% of PCs, whether they are running Windows or not. On the Desktop MS is still important but in other areas (server, mainframe) MS is irrelevant.

> This could have been ok 10 years ago, but it's retarded in 2004. And with XP
> around there is some competition in the user-friendlyness field!

Some things have changed. I always found MS software user friendly, and I always found it lacking in security. But if you look at 1995 and you look at 2004, in 2004 we may have more user friendliness, but we also have a lot more security problems, a lot more viruses, the problem has only grown. Are MS in the position to stop it? If they make a version of Windows that is completely secure, will you, as a company, buy the next version? MS are competing against their own older versions, not just other companies. This cannot work for much longer...

> If MS goes down, who will be interested in developing an easier way to
> interact with the PC?

Everyone who wants to sell you software. Or make money.

> No competition, no party. I hope MS stays, and keeps doing crappy stuff
> and stealing ideas from Apple.

I agree, I don't see MS dying any time soon, and I think less competition is a bad idea. I just don't think MS is capable of providing everyone with the software they want, and they need more competition than they are experiencing now. They are able to get rid of competition in a way where competition cannot retaliate, and I don't agree with that either. More competition = better.