Hi. My name's Bob. I'm an end user. I like computers, and I've had one around since the old days of Windows 3.1. Remember that? Anyway, I read magazines like everyone else, and I hate to think that my next door neightbor might have a faster computer than me, or that he got the office-supply store to get his copy of Windows 98SE first, so I make sure I do too.
I used to have Windows 95 on my machine, but they all changed to Windows 98 at work. I didn't like the difference so I bought Win98 as well. Then, I decided that my computer wasn't fast enough for Win98 so I bought a $2500 Intel system, since everyone I know uses Intel.
I've heard about things like Linux, but I'm afraid I won't be able to access things like my favorite game: Microsoft Golf (version 1.0). And what about my wife who still likes to use WordPerfect 5.1? And gosh, I just don't know if that digital camera I got to take pictures of my lawn will work with something other than Windows. And what about all the neat Norton software I have? I mean, I have Norton system utilities, Norton Anti-virus, Norton ass-wiper...you name it, I got it! And gosh, Windows98 came with a free browser and e-mail program, too. That's really neat. end fictional narrative
Microsoft definitely has a monopoly, but a lot of the reasons for it exist because 90% of users want something that is (appropriately enough) idiot-proof, and they perceive that Microsoft will give that to them. Their concerns are compatibility, backward compatibility, upgradeability, and universal application. Why would they choose anything else?
It seems to me that Micro [I have a] soft [penis] is doing is recognizing that the challenges of creating a universally available OS are too great for them. In essence, their response seems to be a reaction to us Linux users out there who know that there can be (*gasp*) a reliable O/S out there. MS2K+1?=planned obsolescence
Slashdot Mirror
Hi. My name's Bob. I'm an end user. I like computers, and I've had one around since the old days of Windows 3.1. Remember that? Anyway, I read magazines like everyone else, and I hate to think that my next door neightbor might have a faster computer than me, or that he got the office-supply store to get his copy of Windows 98SE first, so I make sure I do too.
I used to have Windows 95 on my machine, but they all changed to Windows 98 at work. I didn't like the difference so I bought Win98 as well. Then, I decided that my computer wasn't fast enough for Win98 so I bought a $2500 Intel system, since everyone I know uses Intel.
I've heard about things like Linux, but I'm afraid I won't be able to access things like my favorite game: Microsoft Golf (version 1.0). And what about my wife who still likes to use WordPerfect 5.1? And gosh, I just don't know if that digital camera I got to take pictures of my lawn will work with something other than Windows. And what about all the neat Norton software I have? I mean, I have Norton system utilities, Norton Anti-virus, Norton ass-wiper...you name it, I got it! And gosh, Windows98 came with a free browser and e-mail program, too. That's really neat.
end fictional narrative
Microsoft definitely has a monopoly, but a lot of the reasons for it exist because 90% of users want something that is (appropriately enough) idiot-proof, and they perceive that Microsoft will give that to them. Their concerns are compatibility, backward compatibility, upgradeability, and universal application. Why would they choose anything else?
--------
sig files are for weenies
It seems to me that Micro [I have a] soft [penis] is doing is recognizing that the challenges of creating a universally available OS are too great for them. In essence, their response seems to be a reaction to us Linux users out there who know that there can be (*gasp*) a reliable O/S out there. MS2K+1?=planned obsolescence