I'll give you another one. We eat McDonald's food and we use Microsoft software because they are convenient. The same things that we complain about (ie. opening files automatically) have been designed to be easy and fast to use/consume.
We eat at McDonald's because we don't have much time for someone to make us a great sandwich across the street. Just line up, wait 5 minutes even if there are 4 people in line ahead of you, and then order. Done. We use Windows because we don't have time to set up a PC with Linux. Just plug and go. So Windows crashes and has bugs, but when you just want to see a movie/read e-mail/listen to music/burn a cd it is faster and more convenient to get things going on Windows (for the majority of users).
I may be missing exactly what you are trying to get at, but the original poster is right. The Xbox is intended to eventually interface with whatever options MS will provide through.NET. The Xbox is already a PC (the components and MS Windows) and probably can already use a keyboard. "The Plan" is to have all your needs met through.NET. No need to have a separate PC -- just use the Xbox and read/write e-mail on Hotmail; write documents in Word.NET; get your news through MSN. The goal is to replace AOL and have those cutesy little buttons for every task you might want to accomplish on your screen.
Would that work for you and I? No. But would it work for a good 80% of the users out there? Sure. Our problems will begin when MS has 80% penetration and begins to stifle other avenues of communication.
Remember, the PC is still a complicated piece of junk for most people. Some OSs are simpler to use, but can be broken easily. Others are more robust, but require a serious learning curve. MS wants to get rid of the complexity and give the user everything s/he uses -- and to make lots of money from it.
While the article this story points to is an amusing read, I would say that the author is making mistakes he shouldn't be.
First off, I don't know how many people agree with the assessment of his "friend," but I for one do not. M$ is *not* releasing XP to kill Apple. Steve Jobs is doing that very well without any help. Apple is dying, and there does not seem to be anyone with half a brain around to make any difference. Only diehard Mac addicts care about the platform anymore, and they seem to drool every time Jobs steps on stage. OS X? Run a Unix-like OS on equipment considerably more expensive than PCs? Not for the majority, thank you.
M$ is aiming at all users with XP, and especially those that have been complaining for years that Win9x is not a "real" OS. That means many prospective Linux newbies.
The author states that people listen to calm arguments presented by corporations over passionate name-calling from Linux supporters. Where did that come from? Did you witness the last presidential election campaign? The theme is beat your opponent down with half-truths or outright lies, and keep hammering until everyone thinks that you must be telling the truth. Gore is such a liar, we all seem to know that -- even though/. carried a story about how that assertion was pattently untrue. Who cares; he's a liar anyway. We heard that too often for it *not* to be true. That's exactly what M$ is doing with Open Source and the GPL and Linux. Does the Linux community want to win? Here is how to get *many* people to try Linux: "Windows keeps crashing no matter how little you do with it; try Linux, it *never* crashes -- and it's *free*!" You will have thousands of people trying it *once*! If you have more there to hook them, they will stay. If it is too difficult, and they feel overwhelmed, they will go back to M$. But don't give me defeatist crap like "we have to point out what is good about Linux, and then we'll win." That's what the Democrats tried, too.
Please note that these are *my* opinions, slightly exaggerated to make a point.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll give you another one. We eat McDonald's food and we use Microsoft software because they are convenient. The same things that we complain about (ie. opening files automatically) have been designed to be easy and fast to use/consume.
We eat at McDonald's because we don't have much time for someone to make us a great sandwich across the street. Just line up, wait 5 minutes even if there are 4 people in line ahead of you, and then order. Done. We use Windows because we don't have time to set up a PC with Linux. Just plug and go. So Windows crashes and has bugs, but when you just want to see a movie/read e-mail/listen to music/burn a cd it is faster and more convenient to get things going on Windows (for the majority of users).
I may be missing exactly what you are trying to get at, but the original poster is right. The Xbox is intended to eventually interface with whatever options MS will provide through .NET. The Xbox is already a PC (the components and MS Windows) and probably can already use a keyboard. "The Plan" is to have all your needs met through .NET. No need to have a separate PC -- just use the Xbox and read/write e-mail on Hotmail; write documents in Word.NET; get your news through MSN. The goal is to replace AOL and have those cutesy little buttons for every task you might want to accomplish on your screen.
Would that work for you and I? No. But would it work for a good 80% of the users out there? Sure. Our problems will begin when MS has 80% penetration and begins to stifle other avenues of communication.
Remember, the PC is still a complicated piece of junk for most people. Some OSs are simpler to use, but can be broken easily. Others are more robust, but require a serious learning curve. MS wants to get rid of the complexity and give the user everything s/he uses -- and to make lots of money from it.
While the article this story points to is an amusing read, I would say that the author is making mistakes he shouldn't be.
First off, I don't know how many people agree with the assessment of his "friend," but I for one do not. M$ is *not* releasing XP to kill Apple. Steve Jobs is doing that very well without any help. Apple is dying, and there does not seem to be anyone with half a brain around to make any difference. Only diehard Mac addicts care about the platform anymore, and they seem to drool every time Jobs steps on stage. OS X? Run a Unix-like OS on equipment considerably more expensive than PCs? Not for the majority, thank you.
M$ is aiming at all users with XP, and especially those that have been complaining for years that Win9x is not a "real" OS. That means many prospective Linux newbies.
The author states that people listen to calm arguments presented by corporations over passionate name-calling from Linux supporters. Where did that come from? Did you witness the last presidential election campaign? The theme is beat your opponent down with half-truths or outright lies, and keep hammering until everyone thinks that you must be telling the truth. Gore is such a liar, we all seem to know that -- even though /. carried a story about how that assertion was pattently untrue. Who cares; he's a liar anyway. We heard that too often for it *not* to be true. That's exactly what M$ is doing with Open Source and the GPL and Linux. Does the Linux community want to win? Here is how to get *many* people to try Linux: "Windows keeps crashing no matter how little you do with it; try Linux, it *never* crashes -- and it's *free*!" You will have thousands of people trying it *once*! If you have more there to hook them, they will stay. If it is too difficult, and they feel overwhelmed, they will go back to M$. But don't give me defeatist crap like "we have to point out what is good about Linux, and then we'll win." That's what the Democrats tried, too.
Please note that these are *my* opinions, slightly exaggerated to make a point.