Ubuntu vs. Vista

[koffiejunkie]

As you can see from the 244 sales in China, it's not working so well.

That must be the ultimate slap in the face! And those 244 sales were probably the guys buying originals to copy for sale on street corners...

 

[Skeptik]

Skeptik - The general linux theme is not that it is looking to replace MS, but to provide a viable alternative to the people who are willing to take the time and effort to learn using another OS. Given this it is thus unlikely to be a mainstream consumer OS. And I don't think the powers that be particularly want it to be a mainstream OS. As such commercial gaming on linux will always be limited as game manufacturers will most likely, on the whole, not see that market as being worthwhile.

You've answered the question then. We want to use mainstream products, so if Linux will never be one, then they may as well give up now. They've had long enough to do it. Who actually wants to use some platform that only a few geeks use?
It's like the PS/XBOX thing. There are some people going the Nintendo way, but they will remain outsiders.

There is another alternative. Windows becomes unaffordable which results in a Linux uptake. Make no bones about it, Windows is expensive, which is why MS are releasing starter editions etc to try and stop the uptake of Linux. MS have a problem, what they would really like is to charge different prices in different locations around the world. Like a $2 fee in China and a $200 fee in the US. The only way around it is to release limited versions for the "cheaper" markets. As you can see from the 244 sales in China, it's not working so well. Also, large corporates are starting to get Linux because of the massive yearly costs that they have to pay MS. I remember reading that the annual saving for one government department (not local) switching to Linux/OpenOffice was about $4 million.

That's how monopolies work. Once they have total market share, they reduce the price to keep competitors out. Classic move, just wait and see.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

MS isn't a monopoly, everybody is not forced into using their OS. There's nothing stopping people from developing alternative OS's.

 

[w1z4rd]

MS isn't a monopoly, everybody is not forced into using their OS. There's nothing stopping people from developing alternative OS's.

Their marketing tactics are ugly. Forcing users to purchase windows with their pc's Its like telkom charging me adsl line rental

 

[Highflyer_GP]

IIRC Dell will soon start shipping part of their range with Linux? Users aren't forced to purchase Windows, it comes preloaded (that's between MS and the manufacturers). But users are more than welcome to install whichever OS they want to - there's no clause stating that they have to leave Windows installed at all times.

There's also nothing stopping people from buy Macs - but you have to wonder, is Apple any better than MS (or are they in fact even worse)? There's a reason why their market share is so small. MS at one point had no market share - the leaders back then were Apple and IBM, so obviously they've done something right.

Anyway that's a little off topic, but I just wanted to point out that MS is not a monopoly as stated earlier. People have a choice, whether it's the platform they choose to use or whether or not they want to develop their own OS.

 

[krycor]

MS isn't a monopoly, everybody is not forced into using their OS. There's nothing stopping people from developing alternative OS's.

true but then there's alot of software that has no equivalent on linux which kinda sucks.

 

[w1z4rd]

IIRC Dell will soon start shipping part of their range with Linux?

Yup, but thats very recent and I watched that whole saga unwind. At first they did not want to install it, just offer to ship it with the PC but as we now see that all changed.

Users aren't forced to purchase Windows, it comes preloaded (that's between MS and the manufacturers). But users are more than welcome to install whichever OS they want to - there's no clause stating that they have to leave Windows installed at all times.

My mom cant setup her email and now you want her to install a whole system? It also has not been until very recently that linux caught MS in practibility.

There's also nothing stopping people from buy Macs -

The price?

but you have to wonder, is Apple any better than MS (or are they in fact even worse)? There's a reason why their market share is so small. MS at one point had no market share - the leaders back then were Apple and IBM, so obviously they've done something right.

Built a decent OS outta BSD and made snazzy hardware to run it on. Their other good move was changing over from IBM to Intel chipsets. Which means you can install kubuntu on you new mac :>

Anyway that's a little off topic, but I just wanted to point out that MS is not a monopoly as stated earlier. People have a choice, whether it's the platform they choose to use or whether or not they want to develop their own OS.

I understand your opinion.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

That's the thing about Apple - they have a great OS but they insist on only shipping it with their hardware. I know some people will argue that this is a good thing, but it doesn't help in terms of penetration. On the other hand selling their OS as a standalone product I think will really help in taking on MS, they just don't seem to grasp this.

Also some of the blame lay with the OEM's by preloading their computers with Windows only. They should offer their customers a choice of which OS they want to come loaded on it. Apple could really help here by making their OS available to OEM's, not only would it do wonders for Mac OS penetration, but would also offer people more choice. They could probably even make more money this way than by selling all that iCrap

 

[noxibox]

MS have a problem, what they would really like is to charge different prices in different locations around the world.

They already do have differential prices, except they charge more if you live outside the US. A lot more.

 

[noxibox]

That's the thing about Apple - they have a great OS but they insist on only shipping it with their hardware. I know some people will argue that this is a good thing, but it doesn't help in terms of penetration. On the other hand selling their OS as a standalone product I think will really help in taking on MS, they just don't seem to grasp this.

I think Apple likes being elitist.

 

[Skeptik]

MS isn't a monopoly, everybody is not forced into using their OS. There's nothing stopping people from developing alternative OS's.

How do you define a monopoly?

1. A friend sends me a Word file with graphics and an inbedded Excel sheet. Now I have to find a program that will open it and print the same. Unlikely.
   
2. Walk into a shop to buy a game for your computer. Any Linux games alongside the Windows ones? Noo!
   
3. Buy a PC and what comes with it? Windows of course. (Even Apples run windows)
   
4. AQ developer wants to make money on some software for the home/business market. Does he code in Linux, Nooo! He knows where the market is.
   
5. Buy a scanner, printer, modem, camera. Does it work with Linux (guaranteed) Nooo! Does it work with windows? Of course! Do you get Linux use software with it -- Nooo!
   
6. Computer goes wrong and I take it to the techie for service. What will he do when he sees Linux??????????
   
7. Until recently even websites didn't work well if you didn't have IE.

M..O..N..O..P..O..L..Y..!!

 

[Abe]

MS isn't a monopoly, everybody is not forced into using their OS. There's nothing stopping people from developing alternative OS's.

MS is a monopoly. That is why they were charged by the DOJ. They never disputed the fact that they were a monopoly. They had clauses in their contracts with large suppliers such as Dell that prohibited Dell from selling any other OS. If they sold another OS, then they would be charged a higher rate for the OS. It was in fact cheaper for Dell to sell Windows on all machines then sell Windows on only 80%-90% of their machines. Dollar figure was less. MS has been a predatory monopoly for as long as I can remember and everything they do is done to hold onto that monopoly. For example, the clients that could really hurt them and have a legitimate alternative for an OS are the really large corporates. Guess who pays next to nothing for their OS? Gamers don't have a choice and pay top dollar for their copy of the same OS.

 

[edc]

The Windows vs. Linux fight will only be won by strength of numbers. However, Linux will only win if it is good enough to use. It will only be good enough when it has dominant support. i.e. NEVER
It's a vicious cycle.

It has good enough support from Nvidia and Linux reverse engineered Creative drivers are better than that of XP or Vista. A friend of mine was able to play Q4 on a Nvidia 4 card in Linux at around 40 fps, it did not run in Windows.

There are some problems with ATI but Linux support is definitely better than 5 years ago if you rate it on hardware alone.

If you start talking about software support Linux is light years ahead. I have not found a problem without a HOWTO explaining all possible quirks. Fixing a Microsoft problem can last hours and might never be solved, ask my flatmate running XP and Vista. I often troll forums here asking for help with XP or Vista giving the Linux solution to the problem. Linux is transparent and any possible setting can be found and changed.

 

[edc]

true but then there's alot of software that has no equivalent on linux which kinda sucks.

I used to answer your question with, give the Windows alternative to this and that, however developers have ported their code to Windows also, like Firefox. The idea behind it is if people start using open-source Linux software on their Windows PCs the migration to Linux would be much easier.

Give me a Windows alternative to gkrellm.

With a single process, gkrellm manages multiple stacked monitors and supports applying themes to match the monitors appearance to your window manager, Gtk, or any other theme.

I use the program to watch over resource utilization.

ftp://ftp.uunet.co.za/pub/incoming/iwan/Screenshot_g.png <-- see the windows I raised to the very left.

 

[Jongi]

You've answered the question then. We want to use mainstream products, so if Linux will never be one, then they may as well give up now. They've had long enough to do it. Who actually wants to use some platform that only a few geeks use?

You see for your needs Linux may not be the answer. And to be fair it may be the case that Linux is not looking to target your needs.

As a normal home user who doesn't game much, Linux is more than capable of meeting my needs. Even more so than XP. So it clearly has no need to give up if it serves a purpose.

 

[vmguru007]

RE: Ubuntu vs Vista

Hi,

LOL, any free thing is good . Lovely free Ubuntu.
Any way for people interested into comparing them, I have came across a very good detailed comparison at: Microsoft Windows Vista vs Ubuntu
I hope it will help everyone in choosing the right product for them selves. At the end we all different and might like different things.

Enjoy,
VMGuru007

 

[thisgeek]

When game developers start developing their games to run natively on Linux there will be a mass exodus from Windows.

 

[mccrack]

But there is no incentive for them to do that while the market is dominated by MS ..... back to the catch 22 we go.

 

[cerebus]

It's like the PS/XBOX thing. There are some people going the Nintendo way, but they will remain outsiders.

You would be talking about the worldwide number one selling consoles on both handheld and TV fronts right? I mean just to be clear...those are the 'outsiders' right?

 

[Abe]

But there is no incentive for them to do that while the market is dominated by MS ..... back to the catch 22 we go.

How about games being distributed with an embedded OS? A bit like a console game. Would cut out a whole bunch of potential software compatibility issues although it would raise some hardware ones.