The forced upgrade comes because users depend on so much other MS software. You upgrade one thing and instantly just about everything else needs an upgrade or it won't work. Since MS integrates so tightly with its own code and rarely ever takes any consideration to forward/backward compat for interop between applications within the system it seems like the force upgrades. You can't just upgrade Word, you upgrade office, and then CRM, and then SBM (or whatever its called this year).
This is pretty much completely false. You can happily run old versions of Office on new versions of Windows, and vice versa - the same is true for most any piece of software. Indeed, it's quite unusual to find an application (or even game) that won't run happily across a decade or more worth of Windows releases.
About the only remotely mainstream OS vendor that has a comparable record of legacy support to Microsoft with Windows, is Sun with Solaris. Apple is a distant third, and nearly all Linux vendors are barely even in the race (though the situation is improving).
Windows path: 300+107+196 = $603, if I'm adding correctly.
You're not. The first number should be about $50, because that's roughly what the OEM version of Windows comparable to the version of OS X that comes with a Mac is.
Further, you should be using Home Premium, not Ultimate, if you want more honest feature comparison.
Why is a defense needed? Windows has been playing catchup in features for that entire time period.
The only feature it's been playing "catchup" at is the display system. For pretty much everything else, OS X only hit parity with Windows *2000* at about 10.4/10.5.
It's also the whole monopoly thing. They got into big trouble for bundling a free browser into windows. Because, I mean, what OS actually comes with a browser? (Of course things were a little different in 1995.)
In 1995, the two main alternatives to Windows - OS/2 and MacOS - both came with browsers.
They have more than enough resources to pour into security. Yet they don't... I refuse to cut them any slack, when open source projects which are powered by volunteers (I know not all are, but a significant number are) can produce (and do produce) results SIGNIFICANTLY faster than MS typically does... If a bunch of volunteers with VERY limited resources can do it, why can't a company with practically unlimited resources handle it?
It's pretty easy to patch software quickly when your testing and QA process barely extends past "does it compile".
I don't see much progress being made in terms of the design decisions and best practices that prevent (Windows) machines from getting compromised in the first place.
That's because you can't stop someone who wants to see the dancing bunnies.
A situation where there is truly only one seller is exceedingly rare. The term monopoly is used mostly for situations where one seller controls the vast majority of the market. Usually there are competitors or alternatives. Even just the potential of someone setting up business is enough.
A monopoly exists when one vendor can exclude others from the market, by simple virtue of their dominance. Ie: they have no _need_ to field a competitive product because their customers have no practical options (and, by extension, no incentive to).
Your argument is basically
"Monopolists charge high prices and sell and never develop products. Microsoft improved Windows. Therfore Microsoft is not a monopoly."
If you feel the need to reduce it to a comically absurd soundbite, then yes, I suppose that would be it.
Apart from being a logical fallacy (Affirming a disjunct), your proposition is simply wrong.
Your propostion, not mine. My point is that Microsoft improving their product at the same pace (on average) as their competitors, even though they (supposedly) had no real incentive to, suggests that they weren't a monopoly (or, at least, didn't think they were, which is what matters).
Yeah, Nothing at all/sarcasm
Your original statement was:
Or do you really believe Microsoft gave us all those "freebies" out of the goodness of their heart and could have sat on their asses for the last 15 years charging $99 for every copy of Windows 95?
At no point did I ever suggest that was my position. My point was that if you start from the presumption that Microsoft was a monopoly, then the argument that they improved their product(s) to remain competitive is nonsensical, since as a monopoly they would have neither reason, nor incentive, to do so. One of the key aspects of a monopoly provider is that they do not respond to market pressures, because (essentially by definition) market pressures do not apply to them. Improving your product to remain competitive with alternatives, is about as basic a response to market pressure as you can get.
Thing is, if you've been paying attention for last, say, thirty years, you'd know that the term has come to describe extremely dominant businesses which use anti-competitive 'monopolistic' practices to expand their share and supress rivals. And that certainly applies to Microsoft.
"Anti-competitive 'monopolistic' practices" is a circular definition - they're just normal business practices that continue _after_ a monopoly status has been reached.
Some of us use our phones for serious work like remote sysadmin tasks and document editing (to name just two).
I find it difficult to believe when people say they're doing "serious work" on the tidgy little keyboards on netbooks. The idea of someone claiming to be doing "serious work" on a smartphone just blows my mind.
Bzzz. Wrong answer. A Monopoly simply means that there's effectively one seller to all buyers.
Which, obviously, means they don't need to be competitive. It's not like their customers have a choice.
You're simply jumping to false conclusions if you think that means every monopolist is obliged to act like a dick.
I don't. I do think it's pretty much impossible for them to not be perceived as "acting like a dick", but that's a different thing.
Is it too much to ask to read my second sentence? Even Monopolists have to offer a product that people think is worth buying.
Why ? Their customers don't have any alternatives. That's what a monopoly is.
The first sentence in your reply:
Has nothing to do with it.
So I'm going to borrow one of your methods of argumentation: Come up with a reason why Windows has improved if not to prevent people jumping ship to something else.
I don't think there's another reason. That's _exactly_ why I think Windows has improved - to stay competitive. It's the premise that Windows is/was monopoly I disagree with.
Then you have learnt some fucked-up definition. A Monopoly is simply a state of the market.
A state of the market which dictates that the monopolist doesn't need to behave as they would in a competitive market - ie: improve their product, drop their prices, listen to customers, etc.
Ie: I am disagreeing with your argument that Microsoft improved Windows "to stay competitive" - they didn't need to "stay competitive", they were (supposedly) a monopoly.
Or do you really believe Microsoft gave us all those "freebies" out of the goodness of their heart and could have sat on their asses for the last 15 years charging $99 for every copy of Windows 95?
Of course not. Where did I even suggest such a thing ?
Intel is a multi-billion dollar company, most of that money is spent on R&D, not unlike a software shop, yet Intel's prices continue to drop, while Microsoft's are relatively stable, after you account for inflation.
This is not really true. The amount of performance you get per $ increases over time, but the price brackets where each CPU family's relative models fit into remains fairly stable.
Eg: You're never going to see the faster version of the latest and greatest Xeon for $100, even though in two years a $100 CPU will probably have better performance.
In a weird socialist kind of logic, one would expect that as the cost of hardware decreases, so should the cost of software [...]
Why ? Why would the costs involved in creating hardware and the costs involved in creating software be related ? Why should software - that does a lot more today than it did in the past - decrease in cost at the same rate as hardware, which is basically just doing the same thing today it did yesterday, only faster (or bigger, in the case of storage) ?
What if Windows was $50 and Windows + Office was $100 ?
That's about all most people pay anyway, because they get it with their computer.
But the fact that Windows has improved over the years is simply down to technological progress, the kind that any other business needs to stay competitive.
By definition, a monopoly doesn't need to "stay competitive". You'll need to find another reason why Windows has improved.
Windows as part of a whole PC purchase probably costs less than a quarter of that.
Also, Windows has a lot more functionality now than it did then. The PC's functionality has remained basically unchanged (possibly excepting networking and sound, depending on the PC), it's just gotten faster and bigger.
Wasn't Windows intentionally broken when run under DRDOS at one point [...]
No. Some Windows 3.x betas displayed a warning when installed onto a non-Microsoft DOS, but they still worked. The warning was also not present in any retail version.
I don't think any of them were "change for the sake of change", but I do think some of them are definite steps backward for particular types of users (eg: heavy multitaskers like me).
That's funny. I seem to remember numerous articles discussing just that, nevermind the fact that there were several opinion pieces relating how Microsoft used Apple to help leverage the DOJ to get off their backs.
Microsoft and Apple don't compete in any "markets". This was even more true then than it is today.
15 seconds of research would have saved you from looking stupid.
I've read that before, I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. Even the language of that post makes it clear the answer given isn't completely honest.
It's been said by Microsoft people before, that the original XBox OS was based off either the Windows 2000 or Windows XP (can't remember which) kernel and core. The XBox 360 OS was then a further development of that. Obviously - as pointed out in that post - significant parts of Windows are unnecessary on the XBox and would not have been included. However, I don't believe for a second that Microsoft had a solid, functional well-tested Operating System, and then chose to write a whole new one from the ground up to provide basically the same functionality. Especially when one considers the time involved (it took 5 years for the first version of NT to be built), the idea of them doing that becomes even sillier. It'd be a massive reinvent-the-wheel project with essentially no justification whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
The forced upgrade comes because users depend on so much other MS software. You upgrade one thing and instantly just about everything else needs an upgrade or it won't work. Since MS integrates so tightly with its own code and rarely ever takes any consideration to forward/backward compat for interop between applications within the system it seems like the force upgrades. You can't just upgrade Word, you upgrade office, and then CRM, and then SBM (or whatever its called this year).
This is pretty much completely false. You can happily run old versions of Office on new versions of Windows, and vice versa - the same is true for most any piece of software. Indeed, it's quite unusual to find an application (or even game) that won't run happily across a decade or more worth of Windows releases.
About the only remotely mainstream OS vendor that has a comparable record of legacy support to Microsoft with Windows, is Sun with Solaris. Apple is a distant third, and nearly all Linux vendors are barely even in the race (though the situation is improving).
Windows path: 300+107+196 = $603, if I'm adding correctly.
You're not. The first number should be about $50, because that's roughly what the OEM version of Windows comparable to the version of OS X that comes with a Mac is.
Further, you should be using Home Premium, not Ultimate, if you want more honest feature comparison.
Why is a defense needed? Windows has been playing catchup in features for that entire time period.
The only feature it's been playing "catchup" at is the display system. For pretty much everything else, OS X only hit parity with Windows *2000* at about 10.4/10.5.
It's also the whole monopoly thing. They got into big trouble for bundling a free browser into windows. Because, I mean, what OS actually comes with a browser? (Of course things were a little different in 1995.)
In 1995, the two main alternatives to Windows - OS/2 and MacOS - both came with browsers.
No, you should buy cars in cash. If you cannot afford a car in cash, you cannot afford that car.
That you can afford the cash value of a car does not always mean that paying for it in cash is the best use of your money.
They have more than enough resources to pour into security. Yet they don't... I refuse to cut them any slack, when open source projects which are powered by volunteers (I know not all are, but a significant number are) can produce (and do produce) results SIGNIFICANTLY faster than MS typically does... If a bunch of volunteers with VERY limited resources can do it, why can't a company with practically unlimited resources handle it?
It's pretty easy to patch software quickly when your testing and QA process barely extends past "does it compile".
I don't see much progress being made in terms of the design decisions and best practices that prevent (Windows) machines from getting compromised in the first place.
That's because you can't stop someone who wants to see the dancing bunnies.
A situation where there is truly only one seller is exceedingly rare. The term monopoly is used mostly for situations where one seller controls the vast majority of the market. Usually there are competitors or alternatives. Even just the potential of someone setting up business is enough.
A monopoly exists when one vendor can exclude others from the market, by simple virtue of their dominance. Ie: they have no _need_ to field a competitive product because their customers have no practical options (and, by extension, no incentive to).
Your argument is basically
"Monopolists charge high prices and sell and never develop products. Microsoft improved Windows. Therfore Microsoft is not a monopoly."
If you feel the need to reduce it to a comically absurd soundbite, then yes, I suppose that would be it.
Apart from being a logical fallacy (Affirming a disjunct), your proposition is simply wrong.
Your propostion, not mine. My point is that Microsoft improving their product at the same pace (on average) as their competitors, even though they (supposedly) had no real incentive to, suggests that they weren't a monopoly (or, at least, didn't think they were, which is what matters).
Yeah, Nothing at all /sarcasm
Your original statement was:
Or do you really believe Microsoft gave us all those "freebies" out of the goodness of their heart and could have sat on their asses for the last 15 years charging $99 for every copy of Windows 95?
At no point did I ever suggest that was my position. My point was that if you start from the presumption that Microsoft was a monopoly, then the argument that they improved their product(s) to remain competitive is nonsensical, since as a monopoly they would have neither reason, nor incentive, to do so. One of the key aspects of a monopoly provider is that they do not respond to market pressures, because (essentially by definition) market pressures do not apply to them. Improving your product to remain competitive with alternatives, is about as basic a response to market pressure as you can get.
Thing is, if you've been paying attention for last, say, thirty years, you'd know that the term has come to describe extremely dominant businesses which use anti-competitive 'monopolistic' practices to expand their share and supress rivals. And that certainly applies to Microsoft.
"Anti-competitive 'monopolistic' practices" is a circular definition - they're just normal business practices that continue _after_ a monopoly status has been reached.
Some of us use our phones for serious work like remote sysadmin tasks and document editing (to name just two).
I find it difficult to believe when people say they're doing "serious work" on the tidgy little keyboards on netbooks. The idea of someone claiming to be doing "serious work" on a smartphone just blows my mind.
Bzzz. Wrong answer. A Monopoly simply means that there's effectively one seller to all buyers.
Which, obviously, means they don't need to be competitive. It's not like their customers have a choice.
You're simply jumping to false conclusions if you think that means every monopolist is obliged to act like a dick.
I don't. I do think it's pretty much impossible for them to not be perceived as "acting like a dick", but that's a different thing.
Is it too much to ask to read my second sentence? Even Monopolists have to offer a product that people think is worth buying.
Why ? Their customers don't have any alternatives. That's what a monopoly is.
The first sentence in your reply:
Has nothing to do with it. So I'm going to borrow one of your methods of argumentation: Come up with a reason why Windows has improved if not to prevent people jumping ship to something else.
I don't think there's another reason. That's _exactly_ why I think Windows has improved - to stay competitive. It's the premise that Windows is/was monopoly I disagree with.
Then you have learnt some fucked-up definition. A Monopoly is simply a state of the market.
A state of the market which dictates that the monopolist doesn't need to behave as they would in a competitive market - ie: improve their product, drop their prices, listen to customers, etc.
Ie: I am disagreeing with your argument that Microsoft improved Windows "to stay competitive" - they didn't need to "stay competitive", they were (supposedly) a monopoly.
Or do you really believe Microsoft gave us all those "freebies" out of the goodness of their heart and could have sat on their asses for the last 15 years charging $99 for every copy of Windows 95?
Of course not. Where did I even suggest such a thing ?
Value?! Pre-Microsoft, an OS was something that came with the computer FOR FREE.
It still does. Slashdotters call it "the Microsoft tax".
Intel is a multi-billion dollar company, most of that money is spent on R&D, not unlike a software shop, yet Intel's prices continue to drop, while Microsoft's are relatively stable, after you account for inflation.
This is not really true. The amount of performance you get per $ increases over time, but the price brackets where each CPU family's relative models fit into remains fairly stable.
Eg: You're never going to see the faster version of the latest and greatest Xeon for $100, even though in two years a $100 CPU will probably have better performance.
In a weird socialist kind of logic, one would expect that as the cost of hardware decreases, so should the cost of software [...]
Why ? Why would the costs involved in creating hardware and the costs involved in creating software be related ? Why should software - that does a lot more today than it did in the past - decrease in cost at the same rate as hardware, which is basically just doing the same thing today it did yesterday, only faster (or bigger, in the case of storage) ?
What if Windows was $50 and Windows + Office was $100 ?
That's about all most people pay anyway, because they get it with their computer.
Interesting that the price didn't change. Because a huge thing has changed now : for $0, someone can have a feature-complete OS.
Depending on how you define "feature-complete", of course.
The parent was probably thinking of these bits of internal Microsoft memos:
Probably, but nothing ever showed up in any shipping version of Windows.
But the fact that Windows has improved over the years is simply down to technological progress, the kind that any other business needs to stay competitive.
By definition, a monopoly doesn't need to "stay competitive". You'll need to find another reason why Windows has improved.
Now, PC=£400 (dunno in $). Windows=$200.
Windows as part of a whole PC purchase probably costs less than a quarter of that.
Also, Windows has a lot more functionality now than it did then. The PC's functionality has remained basically unchanged (possibly excepting networking and sound, depending on the PC), it's just gotten faster and bigger.
Wasn't Windows intentionally broken when run under DRDOS at one point [...]
No. Some Windows 3.x betas displayed a warning when installed onto a non-Microsoft DOS, but they still worked. The warning was also not present in any retail version.
I don't think any of them were "change for the sake of change", but I do think some of them are definite steps backward for particular types of users (eg: heavy multitaskers like me).
1. Doesn't answer the question.
It does answer the question. The question is "how do I get an up to date Windows system".
2. Both options have one more step than the Linux alternative popularly available.
Actually they're the same as the Linux alternatives - Linux still needs to be updated after install.
However, the point is that the "extra step" is utterly irrelevant to anyone except a pedantic Slashdot nerd.
Why is this relevant?
Because "oh noes, lookit all those reboots ! Windoze sux LOL !" is basically the whole line of argument being put forth.
That's funny. I seem to remember numerous articles discussing just that, nevermind the fact that there were several opinion pieces relating how Microsoft used Apple to help leverage the DOJ to get off their backs.
Microsoft and Apple don't compete in any "markets". This was even more true then than it is today.
Most managers don't know or care if they are running Redhat, Ubuntu, Suse, or a home-roll.
Yes, they do - and if they don't, they're incompetent.
So you just like to make things up. Nice.
No, I like to logically analyse the situation and arrive at a reasonable and understandable conclusion.
15 seconds of research would have saved you from looking stupid.
I've read that before, I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. Even the language of that post makes it clear the answer given isn't completely honest.
It's been said by Microsoft people before, that the original XBox OS was based off either the Windows 2000 or Windows XP (can't remember which) kernel and core. The XBox 360 OS was then a further development of that. Obviously - as pointed out in that post - significant parts of Windows are unnecessary on the XBox and would not have been included. However, I don't believe for a second that Microsoft had a solid, functional well-tested Operating System, and then chose to write a whole new one from the ground up to provide basically the same functionality. Especially when one considers the time involved (it took 5 years for the first version of NT to be built), the idea of them doing that becomes even sillier. It'd be a massive reinvent-the-wheel project with essentially no justification whatsoever.
Windows XP/7, Windows Mobile, and Xbox are not all running Windows. They are all entirely independent code-bases that were developed separately.
This is not correct. The XBox [360] OS is a Windows NT fork (from Windows 2000, IIRC, or maybe XP).