> > 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.
>