You must also remember the demanding memory requirements of OS/2. OS/2 was quite memory hungry, and very few desktops were sold with more than a meg of ram standard.
What if this chip found its way into PC's. The article states that sony could produce these chips for $100. That could possibly make it an affordable alternative to other chips produced at his time. And just think. Not only could you surf, but you could provide all of the common household computer needs (word processing, spreadsheet, taxes, solitaire..) as well as play all of the Playstation and Playstation 2 games on a high resolution monitor. All at under $1000.
I think we are comparing oranges and tangerines here. Linux and Free BSD are very similar in theory. While FreeBSD is a little more mature when it comes to the enterprise, Linux is a little more scalable (both up AND down), and is now aiming towards enterprise use.
BOTH do a better job the NT, and cost much less..
It comes down to preference. Every OS has its pros and cons. Linux is middle of the road in usabilty. A compromise between the 'supposed' easy to use GUI of NT, which has still yet to be proven in the enterprise, and the raw power of unix (FreeBSD, HP/UX, Solaris, AIX, etc.)
It comes down to the fact that if you have enough resources, you can do anything.
Basic economics, the kind you learn in EC 101 at any college, will tell you that companies think at the margin. Microsofts prices will continue to stay at market equilibrium. Perhaps they will even come down due to competition. They might be willing to actually provide more services to business at a lower cost. Perhaps even spend more of their profits on R&D into improving existing code bases instead of their usuall methods of competition which are truly non-competitive.
However the point I am trying to make is that Internet2 has been under development for quite some time. It wasn't exactly a secret.
Why is MS, the largest software company in the world, with a CEO with more liquid assets than the FED, just now getting into the action?
Long run profits are potential for any corporation that invests in Internet2. However, I do not think that these are the profits that microsoft desired at this time. Their opportunity cost was better utilized elsewhere in their business model.
But..This is all just speculation based on previous happenings in the microsoft strategy. They only help when it is profitable in the short run.
I was under the impression that Internet2 was intended for use by universities and hospitals in order to facilitate work such as realtime medical operations, image processing, etc; Work which required greater amounts of bandwidth that the regular internet could not provide.
Where has microsoft been all this time? Internet2 has been in the planning for how many years now? A *supposed* IT leader such as Microsoft should have been in this from the get-go.
But I think I've got the answer. It simply is not as profitable as giving away IE4(and now 5) to millions in order to establish marketshare. Perhaps it seemed to MS that Internet2 simply was not a good business decision until NOW.
If I am right about the intended use for Internet2, only a company willing to invest in an intangible profit such as the increased knowledge benefit of high speed communications between learning and medical institutions would have interest in providing funds and/or software/equipment for R&D of this type. To me this proves that profit margins were microsofts only concern until they realized what kind of return could be reaped from R&D such as internet2.
I hope that microsoft not only realized that this could make the DOJ look differently at them, but also help the IT industry grow by assisting the university graduates who will eventually be working for and running microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Socialism does not work.
You must also remember the demanding memory requirements of OS/2. OS/2 was quite memory hungry, and very few desktops were sold with more than a meg of ram standard.
What if this chip found its way into PC's. The article states that sony could produce these chips for $100. That could possibly make it an affordable alternative to other chips produced at his time. And just think. Not only could you surf, but you could provide all of the common household computer needs (word processing, spreadsheet, taxes, solitaire..) as well as play all of the Playstation and Playstation 2 games on a high resolution monitor. All at under $1000.
Now all you need is an OS....hmm...
I think we are comparing oranges and tangerines here. Linux and Free BSD are very similar in theory. While FreeBSD is a little more mature when it comes to the enterprise, Linux is a little more scalable (both up AND down), and is now aiming towards enterprise use.
BOTH do a better job the NT, and cost much less..
It comes down to preference. Every OS has its pros and cons. Linux is middle of the road in usabilty. A compromise between the 'supposed' easy to use GUI of NT, which has still yet to be proven in the enterprise, and the raw power of unix (FreeBSD, HP/UX, Solaris, AIX, etc.)
It comes down to the fact that if you have enough resources, you can do anything.
Amen.
Basic economics, the kind you learn in EC 101 at any college, will tell you that companies think at the margin. Microsofts prices will continue to stay at market equilibrium. Perhaps they will even come down due to competition. They might be willing to actually provide more services to business at a lower cost. Perhaps even spend more of their profits on R&D into improving existing code bases instead of their usuall methods of competition which are truly non-competitive.
I agree...
However the point I am trying to make is that Internet2 has been under development for quite some time. It wasn't exactly a secret.
Why is MS, the largest software company in the world, with a CEO with more liquid assets than the FED, just now getting into the action?
Long run profits are potential for any corporation that invests in Internet2. However, I do not think that these are the profits that microsoft desired at this time. Their opportunity cost was better utilized elsewhere in their business model.
But..This is all just speculation based on previous happenings in the microsoft strategy. They only help when it is profitable in the short run.
NT is faster! Haven't you heard?!
Micros.... Umm..Urr.. I mean.... Mindcraft did this evaluation and proved that NT was.......
I was under the impression that Internet2 was intended for use by universities and hospitals in order to facilitate work such as realtime medical operations, image processing, etc; Work which required greater amounts of bandwidth that the regular internet could not provide.
Where has microsoft been all this time? Internet2 has been in the planning for how many years now? A *supposed* IT leader such as Microsoft should have been in this from the get-go.
But I think I've got the answer. It simply is not as profitable as giving away IE4(and now 5) to millions in order to establish marketshare. Perhaps it seemed to MS that Internet2 simply was not a good business decision until NOW.
If I am right about the intended use for Internet2, only a company willing to invest in an intangible profit such as the increased knowledge benefit of high speed communications between learning and medical institutions would have interest in providing funds and/or software/equipment for R&D of this type. To me this proves that profit margins were microsofts only concern until they realized what kind of return could be reaped from R&D such as internet2.
I hope that microsoft not only realized that this could make the DOJ look differently at them, but also help the IT industry grow by assisting the university graduates who will eventually be working for and running microsoft.