Some M$ history...

[Tassidar]

So then my argument that nobody is forced to buy M$ products stands then.

Rubbish. You're still paying for Windows whether you like it or not. That in my understanding constitutes forced to buy.

 

[Tassidar]

Are PC salesman pointing guns at people's heads and forcing them to buy MS products? Whats the world coming to?!?

In the 80's, if people wanted to buy a walkman, it would be a Sony. If anyone wanted a console, it would be a Nintendo. If you wanted tekkies (sneakers), it had to be Nike. If you wanted to rent a movie, you had to have a VHS.

Although Betamax might have been the 'superior' product, it had a major flaw. A "grand total" of 1 hour recording, while VHS allowed you to record 3hours+. Consumers chose the longer recording over the 'superior' image quality and that is the crux of the matter. What ever happened after that is irrelevant.

I've tried several Linux distro's and although they are great alternatives, they don't fulfill my requirements as a consumer. If Linux was a better product, surely it have been installed on every PC today as its completely free? I applaud Shuttleworth's effort into bringing Linux into the mainstream. This is something that Linux has always lacked, regardless if its 'superior' or not.

A product is only as good as its weakpoint.

And thats what I meant by "Consumer is king".

See other posts. My point remains, that it is pretty much impossible to buy a off-the-shelf PC that doesn't require you to pay for windows.

You're also not getting the point wrt Beta vs Sony. The simple point is that VHS won, and Beta disappeared. When standards are involved there is only place for one product, unless those standards are compatible across platforms. For the most part, this is something that MS has steadfastly refused to do, at great expense to the industry. It also explains why Linux may have a superior product (as OS/2 was), yet not gain much market share.

 

[Kloofvreter]

Rubbish. You're still paying for Windows whether you like it or not. That in my understanding constitutes forced to buy.

No you're not. You tell the salesman 'I want that PC, but leave the M$ products, I want a blank unformatted/formatted HDD', and that's how you get the PC, same price, no Windows. My guess is that you'd actually have to pay them their hourly rate to get Linux or anything else bundled.

 

[Kloofvreter]

See other posts. My point remains, that it is pretty much impossible to buy a off-the-shelf PC that doesn't require you to pay for windows.

If that is so, who's to blame for this? Certainly not M$? I mean, the vendor can surely make his own decisions on how he wants to sell his products.

 

[Sackboy]

See other posts. My point remains, that it is pretty much impossible to buy a off-the-shelf PC that doesn't require you to pay for windows.

You're also not getting the point wrt Beta vs Sony. The simple point is that VHS won, and Beta disappeared. When standards are involved there is only place for one product, unless those standards are compatible across platforms. For the most part, this is something that MS has steadfastly refused to do, at great expense to the industry. It also explains why Linux may have a superior product (as OS/2 was), yet not gain much market share.

I'm not so sure OS/2 was a superior product.

 

[Tassidar]

No you're not. You tell the salesman 'I want that PC, but leave the M$ products, I want a blank unformatted/formatted HDD', and that's how you get the PC, same price, no Windows. My guess is that you'd actually have to pay them their hourly rate to get Linux or anything else bundled.

This is silly. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. If you can't see the simple logic of my statement, then you aren't worth the time arguing with.

In the rare instance where you do get bundled Linux (e.g. Netbooks), the netbook is cheaper with Linux installed than with Windows installed, hence my point.

Secondly, why do you think MS's revenue stream has been so hurt by netbooks. If you don't believe me, then do some research.

 

[Sackboy]

This is silly. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. If you can't see the simple logic of my statement, then you aren't worth the time arguing with.

In the rare instance where you do get bundled Linux (e.g. Netbooks), the netbook is cheaper with Linux installed than with Windows installed, hence my point.

Secondly, why do you think MS's revenue stream has been so hurt by netbooks. If you don't believe me, then do some research.

Are you sure about the revenue stream. Most of the netbooks I've seen will only run XP or Linux. We know that XP is almost 2 generations old and is EOL for MS, so how much are they really losing?

 

[Tassidar]

I'm not so sure OS/2 was a superior product.

Immaterial to my argument. I'm happy to concede that point if it makes you feel better.

 

[Kloofvreter]

This is silly. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. If you can't see the simple logic of my statement, then you aren't worth the time arguing with.

In the rare instance where you do get bundled Linux (e.g. Netbooks), the netbook is cheaper with Linux installed than with Windows installed, hence my point.

Secondly, why do you think MS's revenue stream has been so hurt by netbooks. If you don't believe me, then do some research.

I ask again, why do you blame M$ for this? Surely the dealer can decide how he wants to sell his products?

 

[RoosTa]

You're also not getting the point wrt Beta vs Sony. The simple point is that VHS won, and Beta disappeared. When standards are involved there is only place for one product, unless those standards are compatible across platforms. For the most part, this is something that MS has steadfastly refused to do, at great expense to the industry. It also explains why Linux may have a superior product (as OS/2 was), yet not gain much market share.

No actually; it doesn't matter what format it is, who made it or where it came from.

We could be arguing that apples are better than oranges. In the end if the consumer like oranges more, oranges wins.

 

[Sackboy]

Immaterial to my argument. I'm happy to concede that point if it makes you feel better.

Sorry if you mentioned something immaterial.

Thanks, I do feel better

 

[Tassidar]

Are you sure about the revenue stream. Most of the netbooks I've seen will only run XP or Linux. We know that XP is almost 2 generations old and is EOL for MS, so how much are they really losing?

(1) XP would have been discontinued if not for Linux. MS would then sell the more expensive Vista alone.
(2) Netbooks constitute a growing market share
(3) Due to the low-cost of netbooks, the price of the OS becomes significant.
(4) MS has been forced to drastically cut the price of XP in order to compete
(5) MS has also lost a lot of revenue due to Linux's approx 30% market share of netbooks.

All this equates according to one calculation to $435 million. Not an insubstantial amount.

www.netbookdigest.com/2009/02/12/the-cold-numbers-of-microsofts-netbooklinux-nightmare/
http://www.netbookdigest.com/2009/0...-million-in-vaporized-2008-profits-continued/

 

[Tassidar]

No actually; it doesn't matter what format it is, who made it or where it came from.

We could be arguing that apples are better than oranges. In the end if the consumer like oranges more, oranges wins.

Yes, but it is possible for the consumer to be locked-in, in which case the consumer loses the choice. This is particularly true if anti-competitive practices are applied.

 

[Sackboy]

(1) XP would have been discontinued if not for Linux. MS would then sell the more expensive Vista alone.
(2) Netbooks constitute a growing market share
(3) Due to the low-cost of netbooks, the price of the OS becomes significant.
(4) MS has been forced to drastically cut the price of XP in order to compete
(5) MS has also lost a lot of revenue due to Linux's approx 30% market share of netbooks.

All this equates according to one calculation to $435 million. Not an insubstantial amount.

www.netbookdigest.com/2009/02/12/the-cold-numbers-of-microsofts-netbooklinux-nightmare/
http://www.netbookdigest.com/2009/0...-million-in-vaporized-2008-profits-continued/

The XP I see is more expensive than Vista AFAIK.

I'm not sure of your conjecture whether Linux influenced the longevity of XP. The consensus has been that the problems with Vista has been the greatest influence.

 

[Tassidar]

I ask again, why do you blame M$ for this? Surely the dealer can decide how he wants to sell his products?

A common complaint[21][22] comes from those who want to purchase a computer without a copy of Windows pre-installed because they intend to use another operating system such as Linux or BSD instead. Apple Inc. has always marketed home computers with their own non-Microsoft but proprietary operating system. More recently many other computer manufacturers have begun to offer specific product ranges with Linux pre-installed. These include Lenovo,[23][24] Dell,[25] Acer,[26] MSI,[27] Intel[28] and others. Nonetheless, all large computer vendors continue to bundle Microsoft Windows with the majority of the personal computers in their ranges. The Findings of Fact in the United States Microsoft antitrust case established that "One of the ways Microsoft combats piracy is by advising OEMs that they will be charged a higher price for Windows unless they drastically limit the number of PCs that they sell without an operating system pre-installed. In 1998, all major OEMs agreed to this restriction."[29] This has been called the "Windows tax" or "Microsoft tax".[30][31][32][33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Vendor_lock-in
Proof enough?

Also out of interest...

Microsoft software carries a high level of vendor lock-in, based on its extensive set of proprietary APIs. Their degree of lock-in combined with their market share has made them subject to a number of antitrust lawsuits.

The European Commission, in its March 24, 2004 decision on Microsoft's business practices, quotes, in paragraph 463, Microsoft general manager for C++ development Aaron Contorer as stating in a 1997-02-21 internal Microsoft memo drafted for Bill Gates:

"The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most ISVs would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead...

"It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties [...] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move.

"In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in

 

[Tassidar]

The XP I see is more expensive than Vista AFAIK.

I'm not sure of your conjecture whether Linux influenced the longevity of XP. The consensus has been that the problems with Vista has been the greatest influence.

Did you read the links?

Do some research to back up your half-baked statements. Linux most certainly did. MS extended the life of XP because of Linux on notebooks. That much is common knowledge.

 

[RoosTa]

Yes, but it is possible for the consumer to be locked-in, in which case the consumer loses the choice. This is particularly true if anti-competitive practices are applied.

Consumers have a choice; Linux/Windows/Apple. Most people today choose Windows.

Get over it.

 

[Tassidar]

Consumers have a choice; Linux/Windows/Apple. Most people today choose Windows.

Get over it.

FFS. Take the point. Most people when they go to a shop and choose to buy a PC do not have the choice as to whether they buy a Windows PC or a Linux PC. Mac is a different issue, and that largely relates to pricing.

To get a Linux PC in South Africa, I would most probably have to do the following:
(1) By a PC with Windows on it
(2) Download a distro of Linux
(3) Format my computer and install Linux.
And to add insult to injury, I would be stuck with a copy of Windows that I paid for but didn't want.

This is something that most users won't do.

 

[Claymore]

MS actually killed it with Win95, before NT was remotely ready for the home market. OS/2 went into obscurity - MS business tactics and monopoly led to
OS/2 becoming obscure so that no-one coded programs for it. OS/2 could still run legacy Win16 (Win 3.11 and below) applications but with the new 32 bit applications for Win32, OS/2 was incompatible.

OS/2 was a dog anyway. It was ludicrously massive for the PCs of the time, and ran like treacle.

NT only came in the form of
XP for the home market and the system requirements of OS/2 were far less than those of NT.

Huh? There were always workstation versions of NT, even going back to the original NT 3.1 in 1993, right through NT 3.5x, 4.0, and Windows 2000. XP only came out in 2002. I was using NT Workstation 3.51 on my PC at work in 1994, and it was a lot quicker than OS/2 was.

People would still be able to own PCs and run apps for cheap if they could
run OS/2 which was no more expensive than Windows95.

OS/2 was more expensive than 95 in OEM versions - and quite a bit more expensive. Retail prices were similar. By the time 95 shipped, Warp was several million copies ahead, a lead they didn't hold for long. 95 was a really decent OS for the time.

 

[RoosTa]

FFS. Take the point. Most people when they go to a shop and choose to buy a PC do not have the choice as to whether they buy a Windows PC or a Linux PC. Mac is a different issue, and that largely relates to pricing.

To get a Linux PC in South Africa, I would most probably have to do the following:
(1) By a PC with Windows on it
(2) Download a distro of Linux
(3) Format my computer and install Linux.
And to add insult to injury, I would be stuck with a copy of Windows that I paid for but didn't want.

This is something that most users won't do.

Because most people have no idea what Linux is therefor there is no (or very little) demand for it. Why should retailers cater for a niche market if they could sell lots more of what people want?