You describe the situation from about 10-5 years ago. Windows was supposed to replace everything else and was the "future" and the "only choice".
Now, this has changed. For more and more applications, Windows is no longer the only choice.
And Microsoft's anti-Linux rethoric just makes it even more clear that there is another choice.
Sure it will take a long time, especially on the desktop. Sure, at first the most visible effect is that people migrate away from Unix to Linux instead of to Windows, which is technically no loss for Windows (but if you look closer, it is because 10-5 years ago these migrations would have gone to Windows). The market is saturated, therefore any change takes a real long time, but it already started and Microsoft couldn't stop it in the past and they will be unable to stop it in the future.
I'll confidently assert that the majority of MSFT stockholders are US based, so they'll care not one jot about FX rates. 6% is not a bad return in the current environment
Wrong, they do care a lot because it makes all imports more expensive, especially oil.
Oil is the source of most energy, of most plastics and of most fertilizers. That means that all goods become more expensive when oil becomes more expensive.
the lower US dollar will boost revenues considerably next year (if it stays low)
Wrong, only if it will sink further, just staying won't be enough. But of course it will continue to sink, if you look at the trade deficit and the war costs, there is just no question about that.
Bill Gates is trying to maximize shareholder wealth.
I think they are failing at that.
IIRC the dollar lost 26% of it's value in 2004 (compared to Euro and Yen), so the 6% increase in revenue (10-12 2004/2005 in dollars) don't look so great anymore.
Sure, they have cut 1.5 billion of R&D costs, which is impressive, but only revenue can keep a company alive.
Currently Microsoft's anti-Linux strategy seems to be:
Constantly badmouthing Linux, thus keeping Linux in the mind of decision makers
Pushing XML which has it's roots (via SGML) in the Unix-community.
This won't work.
It will have these effects, all bad for Microsoft:
Big customers realize that Linux is a powerful way to threaten Microsoft, thus they have much more power during negotiations which means less margin for MS.
All customers realize that if Linux is such a threat to Microsoft, it can't be that bad.
Customers who realize the value of an open format like XML are also much more likely to realize the value of open formats and standards in general in which open source has a big advantage.
Unless and until large suppliers like Dell/HP/IBM make computers preconfigured with some flavour of Linux available, and make them cheaper than a comparable Windows box, then Linux will never be 'cheaper' or 'free' to the 99% of people out there who aren't geeks like us.
Sorry, but Dell/HP/IBMs combined marketshare isn't anywhere near 99%.
There are literally thousands of whitebox vendors and logic dictates that when they can survive, some people are buying their products.
Only a moron thinks that every company is exactly like the company he happens to work with.
Just some thoughts:
Some companies wipe the OEM-Windows anyway and use their own licenses. So Linux would reduce the costs for their own licenses regardless of wether their hardware ships with Windows or not.
Some companies lease their computers from intermediate support companies which are specialized in supporting these computers. Whatever this support company is using, will be used. I actually know a company which leases their hardware which happen to be whiteboxes.
And believe it or not, some companies have a competent IT-department and build their own hardware.
Lots of companies don't even have an IT-department and every department manages their IT themselves. (again whiteboxes are popular here)
When you need a computer really fast, you will have to settle for computer that is different from the "company standard" (if such standard even exists), you just buy one off the shelf. Any brand may find it's way into the company.
When a small company gets bought by a bigger one, it's often not practicable or even possible to replace the IT-infrastructure.
Every company is different. Actually sometimes every department in a company is different.
Some buerocracies will be Dell-only or HP-only or IBM-only while other companies wont.
The only thing I know for sure is that almost all "99%"-claims are made by morons who think that all the world is just a bigger version of their neighborhood.
Now it is time for slashdotters to say that businesses should Install all their systems from scratch or Buy the Walmart systems.
Nonsense.
We just have to point out the fact that most larger businesses throw away the bundled OEM-XP-home licenses anyway because they have their own licenses (which of course would no longer be needed if you have Linux).
And of course smaller businesses tend to buy whitebox or cheap systems which can be often had without Linux.
[..] but as near as I can figure, for Redhat Desktop Linux they are charging $13,500 (US) for '50 desktop entitlements'. That's $270 each.
Even if they will go for RedHat (unlikely because there are several Brazilian distributions out there) the RedHat personell will work in Brazil, be paid in Brazil, spend most money in Brazil and pay taxes in Brazil. Only a razor-thin margin (not nearly as much as Microsoft has as margin) is going out of the country.
But as I said, they are almost certainly using a Brazilian distro, so 100% of spendings will stay in country. Also because Brazilians don't earn as much, they will be able to do the same for much less than $270.
There is way too much hype about this technological policy in Brazil. The largest part of public spending in IT has never been on acquiring office licenses or MS-Windows stations. The largest piece of the pie has always gone to enterprise-wide systems. Unysis and Oracle are everywhere in government servers, and they get the big bucks. 28 million compared to a billionaire budget is pocket change. If they wanted to actually reduce costs, they would have to go after these guys.
Microsoft has much more revenue than Unisys and Oracle combined, so it's pretty likely that the Brazil revenue is also much more than Unisys' and Oracle's Brazil revenue combined.
AFAIK, about 25% of all software license payments go to Microsoft (I've read that figure somewhere, if anybody can confirm or disprove that figure, I'd appreciate it)
All but the last paragraph of my original posting refers to server penetration. Windows does not now have, nor has ever had, 80% share of servers. Last numbers I saw pegged it at somewhere in the mid-50% range (not sure if that was unit or revenue). I believe it'll pull another 10 percentage points, peak, and decline in that market.
Well, the server-market and the x86-server-market isn't the same thing. And of course Windows domination in the non-server market helps with drivers, etc.
It also offers more integrated solutions that at least have the appearance of being easier to support, which will appeal to some audiences. And we really can't count out the value of.NET, which is a remarkable system.
If driver support is there, Linux is much more "integrated" and easier than Windows because everything works right out of the box, while you have to feed driver CDs when installing Windows. Of course if there is no Windows-driver all "easy support" goes to hell, because there is no community to create it.
And.NET is just Java with more language bindings and less platform support.
[..] we'll see Windows stabilize at 40-45% market share [..]
I agree with most of your analysis, but not with the above.
Windows marketshare will not stabilize at any percentage lower than 80% [of the PC-centric market (=x86 and AMD64), not the whole computing market] because Windows needs domination to be viable. The Linux community can write most drivers for hardware, Microsoft is dependent on hardware vendors to write drivers for Windows, they just can't do it themselves.
Similar effects with software and support: The only real advantage Windows offers is a larger/better software library which is a result of their domination.
Without domination, Windows loses all it's advantages - but the disadvantages remain.
Therefore once Windows loses domination, it's fate is doomed and will become legacy software because it offers no advantages anymore.
But of course just because Windows is doomed, doesn't mean Microsoft is doomed. They have just too much money to be doomed...
Can anybody explain why *BSD can't catch a break? Everything is "linux this" and "linux that."
It has been tried and it failed.
Unix was released under the BSD-license, and what happened? Various hardware companies took it, modified it to run on their hardware and closed it so that effectively it was gone.
Everybody knows that.
That's why all commercial companies always do joint Linux (GPL) projects and never BSD-projects. They don't trust each other and the GPL guarantees that one company cannot steal the fruits of the whole group.
The real protection against nature is the wealth that arises from free societies. The third world would not only pollute less if they entered the first world, but they would also be much better prepared to handle any possible problems.
So essentially you say you have to pollute more (= not sign Kyoto agreement) to pollute less?
Your post is the dumbest post in this topic, and that by a large margin.
The thing is, yes - Qwerty is a hack to make the swing arms of a typewriter not jam up.
However the whole arrangement of the keys in both Qwerty and Dvorak is a hack to build mechanical typewriters, as a straightforward layout of clear rows and columns would be much better for our fingers.
The Dvorak-layout is already over 70 years old.
The optimal layout would probably use clear rows and columns (like currently on the number-pad) with a key-layout similar to Dvorak, but optimized by computer-aided statistic research.
You do realize that "the Internet" is essentially a bunch of protocols and pretty much all of them where developed by the open source community?
TCP, IP, HTTP, FTP, etc. etc.
You do also realize that the thing we call "web" was invented at CERN, a publicly funded institution that is also part of the open source community.
You should also realize that the early implementations of the Internet (Arpanet, etc.) was military, so it was again public taxpayer money and not private money.
The only part of the Internet that was really strongly innovated by private entities was the browser itself, Netscape and Opera really did a lot in that area. However lately, there is a lot more innovation in Firefox' extensions than in Internet Explorer and Opera combined.
So if you are "talking about the Internet", maybe you should realize how most of the Internet was innovated by the open source community.
Also, Firefox shows that after an open source product has catched up, development doesn't stop and innovation really gets going.
Same thing for Apache, BTW, it's AFAIK still the only webserver that can do HTTP-pipelining.
There is nothing magical about the CD, it's just the bits the recording organization has put on it, it is not "the original" any more than an mp3 is.
Of course, since the mp3 has been probably made from the CD, the CD is "closer" to the original, but the difference is neglectible for a high-quality rip.
The OASIS file-format, which is going to be used (natively) in OpenOffice2 (and backported to 1.1) and KOffice is being standardized by ISO.
If Apple also comes on board, this would help a lot in creating a true office standard-format (for the first time in computing history, until now we just have fluctuating quasi-standards set by whatever version of whatever office suite happens to be in the most widest use) benefit everybody except Microsoft.
I will be able to read OASIS-documents in 20 years, but I have my doubts about MSOffice documents...
Ogg has beaten every other codec at 64kbps and 128kbps in a double-blind listening test with thousands of contestants (slashdot story is somewhere), it was also the best at even higher bitrates judged by 5 listening experts during the same experiment.
The slashdot story was also available, the test was made by the german computer magazine ct.
And AFAIK, that was also the only double-blind listenting test that was ever made with a larger audience (several thousand).
Slashdot Mirror
So a cell is probably going to be faster, smaller, cheaper and runnig cooler than the usual CPU+GPU system we have in most highend PCs today.
This stresses hardware a lot.
Now, this has changed. For more and more applications, Windows is no longer the only choice.
And Microsoft's anti-Linux rethoric just makes it even more clear that there is another choice.
Sure it will take a long time, especially on the desktop. Sure, at first the most visible effect is that people migrate away from Unix to Linux instead of to Windows, which is technically no loss for Windows (but if you look closer, it is because 10-5 years ago these migrations would have gone to Windows). The market is saturated, therefore any change takes a real long time, but it already started and Microsoft couldn't stop it in the past and they will be unable to stop it in the future.
Wrong, they do care a lot because it makes all imports more expensive, especially oil.
Oil is the source of most energy, of most plastics and of most fertilizers. That means that all goods become more expensive when oil becomes more expensive.
the lower US dollar will boost revenues considerably next year (if it stays low)
Wrong, only if it will sink further, just staying won't be enough. But of course it will continue to sink, if you look at the trade deficit and the war costs, there is just no question about that.
I think they are failing at that.
IIRC the dollar lost 26% of it's value in 2004 (compared to Euro and Yen), so the 6% increase in revenue (10-12 2004/2005 in dollars) don't look so great anymore.
Sure, they have cut 1.5 billion of R&D costs, which is impressive, but only revenue can keep a company alive.
Currently Microsoft's anti-Linux strategy seems to be:
This won't work.
It will have these effects, all bad for Microsoft:
It seems Microsoft is getting pretty desperate.
Sorry, but Dell/HP/IBMs combined marketshare isn't anywhere near 99%.
There are literally thousands of whitebox vendors and logic dictates that when they can survive, some people are buying their products.
Only a moron thinks that every company is exactly like the company he happens to work with.
Just some thoughts:
Every company is different. Actually sometimes every department in a company is different.
Some buerocracies will be Dell-only or HP-only or IBM-only while other companies wont.
The only thing I know for sure is that almost all "99%"-claims are made by morons who think that all the world is just a bigger version of their neighborhood.
Nonsense.
We just have to point out the fact that most larger businesses throw away the bundled OEM-XP-home licenses anyway because they have their own licenses (which of course would no longer be needed if you have Linux).
And of course smaller businesses tend to buy whitebox or cheap systems which can be often had without Linux.
Even if they will go for RedHat (unlikely because there are several Brazilian distributions out there) the RedHat personell will work in Brazil, be paid in Brazil, spend most money in Brazil and pay taxes in Brazil. Only a razor-thin margin (not nearly as much as Microsoft has as margin) is going out of the country.
But as I said, they are almost certainly using a Brazilian distro, so 100% of spendings will stay in country. Also because Brazilians don't earn as much, they will be able to do the same for much less than $270.
Microsoft has much more revenue than Unisys and Oracle combined, so it's pretty likely that the Brazil revenue is also much more than Unisys' and Oracle's Brazil revenue combined.
AFAIK, about 25% of all software license payments go to Microsoft (I've read that figure somewhere, if anybody can confirm or disprove that figure, I'd appreciate it)
Well, the server-market and the x86-server-market isn't the same thing. And of course Windows domination in the non-server market helps with drivers, etc.
It also offers more integrated solutions that at least have the appearance of being easier to support, which will appeal to some audiences. And we really can't count out the value of .NET, which is a remarkable system.
If driver support is there, Linux is much more "integrated" and easier than Windows because everything works right out of the box, while you have to feed driver CDs when installing Windows. Of course if there is no Windows-driver all "easy support" goes to hell, because there is no community to create it.
And .NET is just Java with more language bindings and less platform support.
I agree with most of your analysis, but not with the above.
Windows marketshare will not stabilize at any percentage lower than 80% [of the PC-centric market (=x86 and AMD64), not the whole computing market] because Windows needs domination to be viable. The Linux community can write most drivers for hardware, Microsoft is dependent on hardware vendors to write drivers for Windows, they just can't do it themselves.
Similar effects with software and support: The only real advantage Windows offers is a larger/better software library which is a result of their domination.
Without domination, Windows loses all it's advantages - but the disadvantages remain.
Therefore once Windows loses domination, it's fate is doomed and will become legacy software because it offers no advantages anymore.
But of course just because Windows is doomed, doesn't mean Microsoft is doomed. They have just too much money to be doomed...
It has been tried and it failed.
Unix was released under the BSD-license, and what happened? Various hardware companies took it, modified it to run on their hardware and closed it so that effectively it was gone.
Everybody knows that.
That's why all commercial companies always do joint Linux (GPL) projects and never BSD-projects. They don't trust each other and the GPL guarantees that one company cannot steal the fruits of the whole group.
So essentially you say you have to pollute more (= not sign Kyoto agreement) to pollute less?
Your post is the dumbest post in this topic, and that by a large margin.
However the whole arrangement of the keys in both Qwerty and Dvorak is a hack to build mechanical typewriters, as a straightforward layout of clear rows and columns would be much better for our fingers.
The Dvorak-layout is already over 70 years old.
The optimal layout would probably use clear rows and columns (like currently on the number-pad) with a key-layout similar to Dvorak, but optimized by computer-aided statistic research.
You do realize that "the Internet" is essentially a bunch of protocols and pretty much all of them where developed by the open source community?
TCP, IP, HTTP, FTP, etc. etc.
You do also realize that the thing we call "web" was invented at CERN, a publicly funded institution that is also part of the open source community.
You should also realize that the early implementations of the Internet (Arpanet, etc.) was military, so it was again public taxpayer money and not private money.
The only part of the Internet that was really strongly innovated by private entities was the browser itself, Netscape and Opera really did a lot in that area. However lately, there is a lot more innovation in Firefox' extensions than in Internet Explorer and Opera combined.
So if you are "talking about the Internet", maybe you should realize how most of the Internet was innovated by the open source community.
Also, Firefox shows that after an open source product has catched up, development doesn't stop and innovation really gets going.
Same thing for Apache, BTW, it's AFAIK still the only webserver that can do HTTP-pipelining.
Do you have more information on this?
Actually I upgrade/support about a dozen computers with just one SuSE-box (and it's legal, too!). Try this with Windows...
I've heard that recently American institutions also started to support standards better, maybe switching to such institution would be possible?
It looks like SP2 was just the usual patch-collection and the crackers just needed a little bit time to adapt to it.
So?
Is the CD an "exact copy"?
Nope, it's just an "approximation" of the songs.
There is nothing magical about the CD, it's just the bits the recording organization has put on it, it is not "the original" any more than an mp3 is.
Of course, since the mp3 has been probably made from the CD, the CD is "closer" to the original, but the difference is neglectible for a high-quality rip.
= ASCII standard text which means no problems at all reading it now.
word,
Word in 1985? Must have been the Mac-only version IIRC, if that.
Would be an interesting experiment trying to read something like that.
If it goes well, fine, but if it fails, nobody can or will help you.
wordstar
Can't read that. Maybe I can read a 20 year old wordstar document with some converter/other software, maybe not. If not that's just too bad.
and wordperfect
Can't read that either. See above.
document saved on a 5.25" floppy.
I think it's pretty straightforward that you copy your backups onto another medium if you replace your current backup-medium.
If Apple also comes on board, this would help a lot in creating a true office standard-format (for the first time in computing history, until now we just have fluctuating quasi-standards set by whatever version of whatever office suite happens to be in the most widest use) benefit everybody except Microsoft.
I will be able to read OASIS-documents in 20 years, but I have my doubts about MSOffice documents...
Oh, and of course AAC was also part of the test.
The slashdot story was also available, the test was made by the german computer magazine ct.
And AFAIK, that was also the only double-blind listenting test that was ever made with a larger audience (several thousand).
And XVid was the winner last year and second this time - Vorbis is the best audio codec in most listening tests.