Microsoft's Athens PC

OneLeg noted that the Seattle Times has a story on Microsoft deciding to partner up with HP and work on new PCs with a simpler, more controlled architecture. Including things like integrated telephony into the PCs, and in general, being a bit more Maclike and locking Linux out of the desktop market.

Comments

MS doing illegal stuff again.

[JustKidding]

When the hardware receives an incoming call, the software automatically pulls up the caller's contact information and photo if the data are stored on the system.

This is going to be interesting. If i recall correctly, the dutch personal privacy laws don't allow the automatic retrieval of caller information. (although is it allowed when you manually copy the number from one program to another, don't ask me why) Again, microsoft is doing something illegal. I wonder if they would disable the feature on the computers sold in the Netherlands, or try to change the law...

HP supports linux

[lilbudda]

One of the big misconceptions is that HP does not support Linux. We actually do, it's just that we don't market that fact well. HP does have a desktop offerings with Linux installed. I'm assuming that HP will play both sides of the fence with separate offerings...

Nit: "Public domain"

[yerricde]

They give their OSes out for free, I believe, after they release the next version anyway. Microsoft won't even let DOS 2 into the public domain.

Yes, Apple does make some prior versions of Mac OS freely available, but it's still not "public domain" for several decades.

Apple HW still runs linux.

[Steveftoth]

Or whatever you want on it. You can easily take any recent mac and install Linux on it. Why don't most people? Probably cause the default OS is better.

x86 wouldn't cease to exist, but without Microsoft producing windows for it the market will shrink.

What's the difference between a X-Box and a PC? Custom bootloaders, strange BIOS?

Re:Ah, another MS lockdown

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

I agree with most of your points, but one...

And, you know what? It could happen. MS could develop the MS-2000 CPU that only runs their own code. Just like Apple.

Hmmm? Apple originally ran on the M68000, one of the most prolific chips in history, probably second only to the ia32 architecture. Everything: Lisa, MacOS, NeXT, SunOS, HPUX, Irix (I think) Amiga, AtariST, many real time OSes ran on it. It started running out of gas after the 68040 (though a few 68060s were sold). So they came up with the PowerPC with Motorola and IBM. The intention was for a new RISC architecture to become as ubiquitous as the 68000 series. Even though there were some ports (NT was on PowerPC, oddly enough I seem to remember a Solaris port as well, but I may be smoking too much). The problem was, at that time the market was already in two camps - those tied to the ubiquity of the x86 who didn't want a second platform no matter how much cleaner it was, and those with investments in proprietary systems (Sun pride with SPARC has hurt it other ways as well). If anything, Apple is hurt by the fact others aren't using PowerPC. They don't get the economies of scale Intel (and to a lesser extent AMD) get with ia32 production.

Microsoft: Good Luck!

[Spencerian]

Making a PC more "Mac-like" would create a computer that undermines the reason for the success of a PC: commodity.

While Apple's boxes aren't particularly special or different from PCs in basic parts (RAM, power supply, hard drives), the three core differences: processor, motherboard, and bootware, define what that box is and how it interacts.

Now, a PC bought today can still, in all likelihood, run MS-DOS 6.2, 3.3, Windows 3.1, or Windows 95. That is because the PC architecture hasn't really changed to the extent that operating systems and hardware are markedly different, speed improvements and interface additions notwithstanding. A PC has always been extensible, but such a new box may find it hard to get third-parties to make their hardware work.

If Microsoft were to build a Mac-like PC, they would need to make or use a smarter boot firmware. Bye-bye to the typical BIOS we know and love. That action alone would require various Linux distros to rewrite themselves for the new firmware. OK--not a biggie. Linux users did that for the Mac version of Linux. Next, the motherboard would need changes to make it smarter and work with the firmware. That's a lot of OS changes I presume, although IANAP.

Plug and play devices are still a laugh, and it would be the one thing I hope a plan would fix. Microsoft tried to dictate hardware changes during Windows 95's intro, and most of it was for the best. But even today, Windows takes several minutes to determine what the hell you have in your box. A Mac never goes through this process--at least not in a way that you are aware of. Plug and play on a Mac just works.

I don't know. I get it, but it seems that they are fighting a larger animal--the inertia of the marketplace and a desire to stay and do what they are doing. New stuff is shunned unless it looks like a gold mine. And this isn't golden, IMO.