Microsoft, on the other hand, isn't about to go out of business; so, even if XBox software sales are miserable, developers will continue to target the XBox. After all, if a title flops on the XBox, they can always repackage it as a $20 PC game.
No, it doesn't work that way.
The most expensive things in selling computer games is not programming, it's artwork, marketing and the retail-channel.
That's right: It's pretty irrelevant how easy things can get ported, the only advantage is that you can put out ports faster, but porting isn't that costly compared to the other cost positions.
For many XBox-games, it's questionable wether XBox games other than Halo can support the retail channel. That means, even if you get the development for free, it's unclear if you will make a profit.
Thats pretty much the best idea yet, IMHO. It seems the biggest problem I have (switching my family to Linux) is people that just don't WANT to learn anything new. I don't know how the new StarOffice licences work, (is it single OS? Are there Windows and Linux installers on the same CD? Can you use the same registration code on both?)
AFAIK the answer to all 3 questions is "yes".
but it might be a better idea (if the SO licence does not allow you to install the Linux version after the Windows version is deleted) is to install OpenOffice.org on computers, unless the person specifically needs, say, the database.
Sure, I had some trouble with OO a couple of months ago, but I think it is by now or soon will be stable enough for production use.
A move to a completely different operating system and business suit will leave the employees feeling abandoned and useless and will more than likely hurt productivity.
That's true, but offtopic as Linux no completely different operating system from a office user's point of view (They won't handle any software-installs, they just have to click on icons to start apps. Just like in Windows), and StarOffice is also very similar to MS Office.
1) Install StarOffice and Mozilla on all computers and switch to multi-platform standards like rtf, pdf or Staroffices format.
2) Fade out IE, MS Office and all Windows-only apps. This will be the hardest thing to do. Don't buy any upgrades, tell users to use Staroffice when they notice that they can't read the newest.docs with MS Office anymore. If you need some Windows-only apps, you can check if they work reliably in Wine, which is likely with office-apps.
3) Don't switch PCs to Linux, just gradually replace Win PCs with Linux PCs when they are getting old and are renewed.
Only proceed to the next step when the current one is fully completed.
P.S.:
You can also run MS Office with CodeWeaver's CrossOver (also based on Wine), but since you want to cut costs, you probably don't want to run MS Office.
I said you have faith in the XBox as a platform by saying that "it's part of MS' plan"
There are certain actions that must be taken to ensure investors that the company has not lost its marbles... that is why they reduced their expectations in the European and Japanese markets, and overall. The plan is completely logical in analysis (long run: MS becomes a monopoly in the console market), but not logical at all in the eye of business (short run: losing money endlessly, and rather unethical business practices).
Eeek. XBox is a typical short-term project. Otherwise they wouldn't have chosen an off-the-shelf PC design and would have actually done some development to produce a platform that can be produced economically and can live longer.
No, XBox is a REACTION to the threat the PS2 poses and the failure of Dreamcast which should have brought WinCE into the livingrooms.
And it is an utter failure because a) they can't bundle it with PCs and Windows b) they can't give it away for free and c) Sony is no small internet-startup company.
i agree with you except for your statement that there will not be an Xbox2. I disagree. Yes, the Xbox1 was pretty much a failure and was overhyped, and those that bought it now have a sour taste in their mouth...
but remember when internext explorer came out and it was a big piece of poop and netscape kicked it's ass? the problem is that microsoft is such a big giant that it can afford to have losers, because it really cashes in when it makes a winner.
Well that's very different, because as you said, those who bought it have a sour taste in their mouth and would be even more pissed off if they would have to put up several hundred dollars for the next version.
XBox can't be given away for free, XBox can't be bundled with Windows or PCs and Sony is no small startup. That's why any comparison to IE is a bit far off.
I predict there will definately be an Xbox2, although I don't think it will be succesfull either.
That would be a pretty dumb move by MS because XBox2 would be doomed from the start. But of course MS has done stupid things in the past and will do stupid things in the future, so I'd say it's possible, though unlikely that there will be a XBox2.
Reducing their expectations from 6 to 4 million is part of their plan?
Reducing their price within 1 month of release in Europe is part of their plan?
Having European and Japanese stores cancel XBox orders is part of their plan?
Nonsense.
XBox is a failure, live with it. And there won't be a XBox2 because the few people (like you for example) who still have faith in Microsoft and XBox will be pissed off very much when it officially fails.
P.S.: And I didn't even start to point out how insane it is to compare a multi-billion dollar enterprise like Sony with a tiny startup like Netscape.
He's a PS2 fanboy, and a funny author, but his maths don't add up.
Your's neihter:
You assume everybody buys 3 controllers (!). Maybe one is appropriate. Royalties on games on the XBox is 8 - 9$ AFAIK, which is more than on any other console but still a lot less than 15$ you quoted. Also they are giving away games to people who bought at the expensive price, so your 4 games per console is also very optimistic.
The XBox will hurt Microsoft badly. Not only financially (where it is a desaster already, how much do they lose @ 200$ sales price?) but more importantly, they will lose their image of automatically succeeding and setting standards.
How often do people by MS because "it's the standard" or "it will become the standard"? Well the latter reason could evaporate because the XBox demonstrates that MS-technologies do not automatically become standards.
Not so sure about that; The Windows NT family still reigns as the most popular server OS. Linux is a close second,
Did you notice that IDC did not release numbers this year for the first time?
Probably because Windows is no longer number 1.
And Windows was only dominating "old" niches like printservers and fileservers. In every market that is younger than 10 years Windows presence is pretty weak.
You've never worked in a large organisation, did you? (despite the homepage you mentioned;-)
Actually big organizations with lots of money are much more likely to use a free OS for custom implementations because it's a lot more reliable, faster (and cheaper, but they have tons of cash, so that's not the deciding point) to modify Linux/BSD than to hope some other corp will put out an OS that works for you.
.... Server 2000 1.5 TB databases. USGS aerial imagery is partitioned across two 1.5 TB databases. The USGS topographical data is stored in a single 1.5 TB....
1. Microsoft agrees not to bundle IE with Windows.
2. Microsoft bundles IE with Windows
3. Microsoft sais it would be difficult/impossible to unbundle it again.
I just don't get it.
I also can't build an extension of my house on the neighbours ground (= violate a contract) and later say "hey, hey, it will cost me too much to tear that extension down"
Can please somebody enlighten me why it is relevant how difficult a modular version of Windows can be done?
think about it. the specs LOOK better than any other consoles out there. consumers get impressed.
Customers impressed about XBox?
Actually, the specs are making XBox look very bad compared to the PC already standing at home in the consumer's home.
If you think that specs and buzzwords impress consumers (actually they don't, a big game library will) 128-bit, emotion-engine and DVD-playing are much more impressing than an outdated Celeron.
MS has an innovative, technically superior product,
Innovative? Because of the A-20 gate?
Superior? At this price? (look at the game price, they somehow have to get back their losses - in the end the customer pays)
XBox is just a brute-force aproach of putting PC-components into a box. The PS2 on the other hand is a enterily new design. It may be superior because new manufacturing methods allow more MHz, but the design is the stupidest, least innovative and least cost-efficient possible.
Re:Doesn't the earth receive more?
on
Lunar Power
·
· Score: 2
4. Building Phase. The building of something like this would require enormous amounts of materials to be shipped somewhere.
Exactly, and becuase it's soo hard to ship it to the next desert, we'll just put it on the moon.
However, is this not supposed to be about choice? If someone wants to use an MS solution, let them. Or MAC/OSX, Sun, Amiga or a TRS80 for all I care. Last time I checked, my Red Hat T-shirt said "revolution of choice", not "zealots will conquer the earth" nor "MS must fall".
Sorry, but all the advantages (great software library, good education system, good driver support) of Windows are results of their surpreme marketshare.
If their dominating marketshare goes away, all their advantages will go away and they are pretty much toast.
So "revolution of choice" is EQUIVALENT to "MS must fall". Microsoft can't survive on a leveled playing field.
And MS knows that pretty well, that's why they care so much about that 1% - 2% of desktop-Linux users.
Linux will be ready for the Desktop when the majority of *neophyte computer users* don't need tech support and hand-holding to use it, or when the tech support which is available is as freely and ubiquitously available as it is for the Windows platform.
The words *neophyte computer users* were emphasized for a reason. Don't respond unless you have digested them.
I installed Linux (and before you ask: I also installed Windows for him, he is not willing to install *anything* by himself) for one of this kind.
One month ago, he calls me up for a need for a painting program, so I tell him on the phone: "Type Alt-F2 and then G-I-M-P Enter"
Problem solved. And much easier than in Windows where I would have to guide him through the start-menu where even I had no idea where the goddamn Photoshop/whatever is.
Actually supporting Linux on the phone or per E-Mail is much, much easier than supporting Windows over the phone, because you can do pretty everything with the commandline, and simple tasks in one line.
But how should an OS "agnostic" user who uses exclusively Windows know?
Even the most die-hard Microsoft supporters will admit that Linux is viable on the desktop right now.
Microsoft supporters usually cite "migration costs" or "training costs", or other shortsighted reasons why people should not switch to Linux.
This is shortsighted because corporations and organisations come and go -> If switching costs is the only thing in favor of Windows, then it will lose slowly, but steadily.
Of course, the massive Windows-exodus will not start before CodeWeavers and Transgaming make Linux "Windows compatible", but I see them doing exactly this in the next 2 years.
Then computer-makers will start putting Windows-compatible-but-cheaper-than-Windows Linux on their boxes.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it doesn't work that way.
The most expensive things in selling computer games is not programming, it's artwork, marketing and the retail-channel.
That's right: It's pretty irrelevant how easy things can get ported, the only advantage is that you can put out ports faster, but porting isn't that costly compared to the other cost positions.
For many XBox-games, it's questionable wether XBox games other than Halo can support the retail channel. That means, even if you get the development for free, it's unclear if you will make a profit.
XBox is dead.
Huh?
Can please somebody translate super-size in centimetres?
AFAIK the answer to all 3 questions is "yes".
but it might be a better idea (if the SO licence does not allow you to install the Linux version after the Windows version is deleted) is to install OpenOffice.org on computers, unless the person specifically needs, say, the database.
Sure, I had some trouble with OO a couple of months ago, but I think it is by now or soon will be stable enough for production use.
That's true, but offtopic as Linux no completely different operating system from a office user's point of view (They won't handle any software-installs, they just have to click on icons to start apps. Just like in Windows), and StarOffice is also very similar to MS Office.
Only proceed to the next step when the current one is fully completed.
P.S.:
You can also run MS Office with CodeWeaver's CrossOver (also based on Wine), but since you want to cut costs, you probably don't want to run MS Office.
I never claimed that.
I said you have faith in the XBox as a platform by saying that "it's part of MS' plan"
There are certain actions that must be taken to ensure investors that the company has not lost its marbles... that is why they reduced their expectations in the European and Japanese markets, and overall. The plan is completely logical in analysis (long run: MS becomes a monopoly in the console market), but not logical at all in the eye of business (short run: losing money endlessly, and rather unethical business practices).
Eeek. XBox is a typical short-term project. Otherwise they wouldn't have chosen an off-the-shelf PC design and would have actually done some development to produce a platform that can be produced economically and can live longer.
No, XBox is a REACTION to the threat the PS2 poses and the failure of Dreamcast which should have brought WinCE into the livingrooms.
And it is an utter failure because a) they can't bundle it with PCs and Windows b) they can't give it away for free and c) Sony is no small internet-startup company.
XBox is dead, end of story.
but remember when internext explorer came out and it was a big piece of poop and netscape kicked it's ass? the problem is that microsoft is such a big giant that it can afford to have losers, because it really cashes in when it makes a winner.
Well that's very different, because as you said, those who bought it have a sour taste in their mouth and would be even more pissed off if they would have to put up several hundred dollars for the next version.
XBox can't be given away for free, XBox can't be bundled with Windows or PCs and Sony is no small startup. That's why any comparison to IE is a bit far off.
I predict there will definately be an Xbox2, although I don't think it will be succesfull either.
That would be a pretty dumb move by MS because XBox2 would be doomed from the start. But of course MS has done stupid things in the past and will do stupid things in the future, so I'd say it's possible, though unlikely that there will be a XBox2.
Reducing their expectations from 6 to 4 million is part of their plan?
Reducing their price within 1 month of release in Europe is part of their plan?
Having European and Japanese stores cancel XBox orders is part of their plan?
Nonsense.
XBox is a failure, live with it. And there won't be a XBox2 because the few people (like you for example) who still have faith in Microsoft and XBox will be pissed off very much when it officially fails.
P.S.: And I didn't even start to point out how insane it is to compare a multi-billion dollar enterprise like Sony with a tiny startup like Netscape.
You assume that EVERY XBox owner invests
300 + 4 * 60 + 3 * 50 + 30 + 20 = 740$
in his XBox.
If that's not far off, I don't know what is.
Your's neihter:
You assume everybody buys 3 controllers (!). Maybe one is appropriate. Royalties on games on the XBox is 8 - 9$ AFAIK, which is more than on any other console but still a lot less than 15$ you quoted. Also they are giving away games to people who bought at the expensive price, so your 4 games per console is also very optimistic.
The XBox will hurt Microsoft badly. Not only financially (where it is a desaster already, how much do they lose @ 200$ sales price?) but more importantly, they will lose their image of automatically succeeding and setting standards.
How often do people by MS because "it's the standard" or "it will become the standard"? Well the latter reason could evaporate because the XBox demonstrates that MS-technologies do not automatically become standards.
Did you notice that IDC did not release numbers this year for the first time?
Probably because Windows is no longer number 1.
And Windows was only dominating "old" niches like printservers and fileservers. In every market that is younger than 10 years Windows presence is pretty weak.
Actually big organizations with lots of money are much more likely to use a free OS for custom implementations because it's a lot more reliable, faster (and cheaper, but they have tons of cash, so that's not the deciding point) to modify Linux/BSD than to hope some other corp will put out an OS that works for you.
1.5 TB 2 TB
If it's necessary, why did Microsoft sign the consent degree NOT TO bundle IE in the first place?
No MS-apologist could answer that question so far....
2. Microsoft bundles IE with Windows
3. Microsoft sais it would be difficult/impossible to unbundle it again.
I just don't get it.
I also can't build an extension of my house on the neighbours ground (= violate a contract) and later say "hey, hey, it will cost me too much to tear that extension down"
Can please somebody enlighten me why it is relevant how difficult a modular version of Windows can be done?
Why this strange double-standard?
SuSE (and every other distro) doesn't "make" you pick everything you want installed, it ALLOWES you to pick everything you want installed.
There is no "+/- 0 Hopeless" category, so I decided to post instead of moderate.
Customers impressed about XBox?
Actually, the specs are making XBox look very bad compared to the PC already standing at home in the consumer's home.
If you think that specs and buzzwords impress consumers (actually they don't, a big game library will) 128-bit, emotion-engine and DVD-playing are much more impressing than an outdated Celeron.
Innovative? Because of the A-20 gate?
Superior? At this price? (look at the game price, they somehow have to get back their losses - in the end the customer pays)
XBox is just a brute-force aproach of putting PC-components into a box. The PS2 on the other hand is a enterily new design. It may be superior because new manufacturing methods allow more MHz, but the design is the stupidest, least innovative and least cost-efficient possible.
Exactly, and becuase it's soo hard to ship it to the next desert, we'll just put it on the moon.
Sorry, but all the advantages (great software library, good education system, good driver support) of Windows are results of their surpreme marketshare.
If their dominating marketshare goes away, all their advantages will go away and they are pretty much toast.
So "revolution of choice" is EQUIVALENT to "MS must fall". Microsoft can't survive on a leveled playing field.
And MS knows that pretty well, that's why they care so much about that 1% - 2% of desktop-Linux users.
The words *neophyte computer users* were emphasized for a reason. Don't respond unless you have digested them.
I installed Linux (and before you ask: I also installed Windows for him, he is not willing to install *anything* by himself) for one of this kind.
One month ago, he calls me up for a need for a painting program, so I tell him on the phone: "Type Alt-F2 and then G-I-M-P Enter"
Problem solved. And much easier than in Windows where I would have to guide him through the start-menu where even I had no idea where the goddamn Photoshop/whatever is.
Actually supporting Linux on the phone or per E-Mail is much, much easier than supporting Windows over the phone, because you can do pretty everything with the commandline, and simple tasks in one line.
But how should an OS "agnostic" user who uses exclusively Windows know?
Microsoft supporters usually cite "migration costs" or "training costs", or other shortsighted reasons why people should not switch to Linux.
This is shortsighted because corporations and organisations come and go -> If switching costs is the only thing in favor of Windows, then it will lose slowly, but steadily.
Of course, the massive Windows-exodus will not start before CodeWeavers and Transgaming make Linux "Windows compatible", but I see them doing exactly this in the next 2 years.
Then computer-makers will start putting Windows-compatible-but-cheaper-than-Windows Linux on their boxes.