About $100 is the difference at the low end. But, there is little telling what it is on a $1000 PC.
What is important is for Hpaq, DELL, Gateway and IBM to correctly price their systems AND also provide them without any OS bundled in.
Until the consumer can see the difference in cost between a machine with and without the Microsoft brand, consumers will remain duped.
An OS may be necessary. But, an OS does not need to be purchased as the minimum deal as Microsoft has demanded.
Maybe when Wal-Mart sales take off for LIndows or bare systems, a few other OEMs will wise up. But, it is the major OEMs that need to correct their inappropriate behaviour (just because it pleases the idiots at Microsoft).
Even on a $1000 PC, $100 is significant. If not then all PCs would be loaded to the hilt because no single component matters much. But, of course, they are not. None are. Almost all models come with many choices on hardware. Different processors, different discs, different CDRom/DVD players. Different memory.
And, there is no reason why Hpaq does not offer just as many options on software.
Hpaq should show a $1000 PC costing about $100-150 less without the Microsoft crap. But, they do not. They will charge extra for XP Pro. But, are illegally restricted from charging less without XP at all. When that changes, the market will change. And, only then can other systems compete fairly with Microsoft.
Right now competition is precluded. And, OEMs are a major problem.
It does not matter what the customer does with the PC bought without an OS. Or, Lindows.
The point is that without Microsoft XP bundled in the PC can be a lot cheaper.
And, companies like Hpaq, IBM, Dell should without a doubt offer bare bones PCs without operating systems on them.
There is absolutely no reason not to do that. None. Zippo. There is none.
You can by the MB, chip, disc and keyboard and always have been able to do so. There is no reason why the parts you buy could not have a DELL or Hpaq lable on it.
Bundling XP is market manipulation by the monopolist. Nothing more. Nothing less. And, it done simply to benefit those idiots.
A radio signal is likely to be the first known contact with alien life.
There is no telling if the SETI@Home process will be the means of picking up that signal. But, the odds are actually quite good.
The problem is that no one knows how long it will take to find it (or them). But, in the end the chances of success are great. One day on the big dish could be like looking out into your neighborhood and expecting to see a new neighbor unloading their Ryer Van. One day is likely to be a bust. But, that does not mean it is not the right thing to do.
Chances are that we will be communicating with aliens via radio for thousands of years before we visit them or they visit us. It is a simple factor of how difficult the alternative tasks are. Radio communication is relatively easy. And, even if radio waves take some time to transverse the space it is so much more likely than a physical movement.
We will hear from them if they exist. Whether this current SETI project will do so is simply unknown.
But, few even know how to use them past the very basic functionality.
I would bet less than 5% of all spread sheet users even know what linear regression analysis is much less having the requirement to work it up as part of their job.
It simply does not matter is Excell is the best spread sheet or not. Nor does it matter that it is included in the Office XP suite.
The only question is what software applications are necessary for the various employees of the company. And, it is a rare company indeed that only hires employees capable of dealing with higher level math, operations research or curve fitting.
Even universities and research departments have plenty of clerical workers that do not need the $400 or $500 suite.
No doubt 80% to 90% of all Office XP users do not need support at all simply because they do not use those features, ever. They do not know how.
In fact I would guess that a high percentage of support personnel in most corporations are not capable of supporting the high level functionality anyway.
It is simply foolish to buy BMWs for all employees because some employees may earn them. And, the same is true with software.
You buy and support only the software needed by the various classes of employees. Secretaries, etc., do not need the spreadsheet capabilities nor the support associated with it much less the higher expense to give them the licenses. OpenOffice is fine for 80% to 90% of all employees.
And, that approach might save you 80% to 90% of your IT software budget. Take that $300 to $500 and give them all faster processors or faster printers.
The key is to target the employees with appropriate software not the most expensive of all alternatives. That is a waste and should rightly get you fired.
If you have specialized needs for higher math functions in a spread sheet then fine. But, that case is rare indeed.
The truth is that 80% to 90% of all office type workers have no idea about the mathematical functions you are talking about. They were never educated to deal with them either.
The point being that a very large percentage of office suite users simply do not need the most expensive version out there.
If your employees do, then fine.
But, it is stupid for a corporation to spend thousands if not millions just to buy the most expensive suite just because a few selected employees might know what those features are.
We are talking about the 80% to 90%, not the 10%. If you want to claim that all your employees fit in the top 10% then fine. You can spend your big money on the Microsoft brand. That is NOT typical.
90% of all employees do not need the applications that are incompatible.
If 90% of all employees do not need Office XP then you simply do not buy that them.
Can their spread sheets be read by others?
No doubt they can without a single problem. Heck, most of them do not even need a spread sheet at all.
The concept here which completely alludes you is that you only need to buy the applications that are actually needed.
That means that 90% of the employees get by just fine with OpenOffice or other selections.
Very few computer users need those higher math functions. And, a large percentage of the users who think they need Office XP have no idea what you are talking about.
Microsoft Office suites are not dominant because of their ability to do any high level function.
And, NO, it is not necessary to include all of the essoteric functions found in the highly overpriced applications for them to be highly marketable. And, why is that? Because 80% to 90% of the users simply do not need them.
If one or two do, then fine.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying one Microsoft box with every single application they write if you can find an employee that requires that exclusive capability. But, you do not buy a hundred or a thousand copies of a $400 application just because a few need this feature or that.
That is a complete waste of resources.
Sure, some users need highly specialized software. Some even need the more expensive versions of key applications. But, 80% do not.
So, you buy the least expensive (or free) for 80% of the employees and standardize on that. Not the other way around.
You do not find companies buying BMWs for all employees simply cause some idiot at the top thinks that is the car he must have.
If a corporation is only going to buy one brand of a given application then you may be forced to buy the highly overpriced version for everyone. But, almost no company needs to do that. Not mine. Not yours. Most likely none.
And, if Microsoft crap is so incompatible then exclude it. Maybe Quattro Pro does what you need. I do not know. It depends precisely upon what you need.
Maybe linear regression is a requirement for you. But, no company I can think of should be required to buy Office XP for all employees with that as an excuse.
The problem is in using a general example to reach a specific conclusion.
For those employees that do not need the more expensive applications you simply do not buy them.
OpenOffice, StarOffice, WordPerfect, etc meet the needs of 80% to 90%. So, buy those applications for the majority of the users and the high priced packages for those who can justify that expense. Otherwise, not.
But, they run the risk of being an Apple (fine products but highly overpriced and holding about 10% of the market).
That should be the case now with office suites.
About 10% of those who need an office suite may depend upon a Microsoft version. But, 90% simply do not need it and can save big time when they upgrade.
If they do not upgrade the chances are good that CrossOverOffice and Linux will permit them to keep their old version while running Linux. So, even if they do not drop the old Microsoft applications they can switch to Linux and save money there. Plus they can put OpenOffice on Microsoft now and begin to use OpenOffice which also runs on Linux.
Intelligent IT managers only buy cross-platform applications. Period.
There is no value to buying a proprietary solution run by a company that raises prices even during extremely difficult times just because they can screw their customers.
Microsoft is run by idiots. It is a brand that should be avoided if at all possible. And, to the fullest extent possible. The long run benefit in such a policy demands it.
I think you touched upon the key factors for business.
Reliability and Interoperability is important.
But, for corporate users the ability to manage the systems is going to be the key going forward. The total cost of PC systems is directly related to the cost of management.
Both Xandros and SuSE have announced their intention to develop enterprise management systems for PCs. IBM has done likewise but just not limiting themselves to Linux.
The key here is that more than one company is going to putting their resources into this problem. And, it will not be solved by automatic updates directly from the vendor. It will be solved by the corporate IT department directly managing the process. And, it will be solved in more than one way. And, that is key. Xandros and SuSE will not come to the same conclusion on how it should be done. And, that is the way it should be. Ximian also is looking to focus upon this issue.
Microsoft might address this issue too. But, they will only offer one solution. And, one solution is not going to fit all customers anymore than one OS does. One size can never fit all. Corporations do not want to operate the way someone else demands. And, that is true even if Microsoft is the idiot making the demand.
Microsoft products are simply overpriced and highly inappropriate for corporate use.
Bundling IE with the OS did illegally force a monopoly in browsers upon all consumers. But, that made the OS more expensive and single minded. And, it increased the support costs for all customers. Not to mention removing a key ability of corporate accounts to decide what software they buy and use.
On the contrary, Linux will not screw corporate accounts.
Right now you can get CrossOverOffice, StarOffice, OpenOffice, Netscape, Mozilla and other software (including a Windows Explorer for simple networking with Microsoft) all included with an OS distribution. But, if you do not want some of that technology you can get a Linux desktop without it or remove it when you want to.
The idiots at Microsoft will screw commerical accounts by taking away those options.
And, labeling Microsoft as being run by idiots is dead on.
Corporate accounts would all prefer a barebones OS. Or, a number of choices.
Microsoft will screw you by refusing to give you that choice and forcing the purchase of the highly overpriced bundle. And, that is simply not what a corporate IT department wants. Maybe those IT managers who do not possess the intelligence to evaluate software might want it. But, they are the only ones that do.
Businesses simply do not need the Microsoft bloated crap.
It is so true that a vast majority of all business PCs run a small number of applications.
Those companies that only need general office applications, Linux can already provide them at a number of price points.
Get Xandros with CrossOverOffice is you need support for older Microsoft Office applications. Xandros networks with the Microsnort boxes just as easily as they do. The MS Windows Explorer is cloned. And, it comes with Xandros.
A large number of office works would not even know the OS was switched to Xandros instead of Microsoft Windows. Just tell them it is XP with a different Window Manager (KDE). They would not know the difference. Heck, put them on OpenOffice a week or so before dropping out Microsoft and they may not even notice the change at all.
The point here is that the corporate market can easily switch to Linux desktops assuming only that the vertical applications they need are available.
For some businesses, that is not yet the case.
But, if you are a larger corporation and you contact the software developer of a key application. I will bet you they will put out a Linux version if you will sign up.
There is no reason why not to.
Kylix/Delphi now lets developers use either Pascal or C++ to write cross-platform applications. Java runs on both. And, browser based applications can easily be available on either as well.
The general statement that Microsoft crap is required is no longer true. In a specific case it may be true.
Quicken runs on Linux now with the help of CrossOverOffice. QuickBooks is sure to follow. And, that assumes that Intuit continues to refuse to write to the Linux platform because of the fear that Microsoft has put into them.
But, that can change too when the Linux market begins to grow and Intuit is not in it.
I would agree that the corporate market is a bit different than the consumer market.
Any large company can easily break down the number of applications they truly need to get their work done. And, not one of them dictates the Microsoft brand.
The recent developments in OpenOffice, StarOffice, CrossOverOffice and Corel's WordPerfect for Linux prove that any corporation can have a wide variety of office suite applications that are perfectly compatible with each other.
They only have to avoid using proprietary Microsoft formats. But that does not require the non-use of the application feature set.
The smart companies will give all general office employees a copy of OpenOffice when some getting StarOffice or even Corel WordPerfect for Linux. If anyone or any department can make a case why they have to waste $400 or so more per PC to buy Office XP, then let them try.
But, it is stupid for an IT Manager to buy XP Office across the company. Those idiots should be fired for wasting money.
Training a problem?
Give all employees their free copy of OpenOffice now and let them bone up on their home machines. Pay them $50 each when they are ready. My bet is 50% or more of all employees would claim they are ready for their $50 within a week.
400 million were forced to buy, install, support and use IE.
Period.
Every other reason is pure garbage because when all possible consumers are forced to buy IE first, install IE first, support IE first and regardless and in fact use IE no other product has a chance in hell of being successful.
You can lie all you want about what Netscape did or did not do.
But, no company ever wants to be in a situation where almost all of your potential customers are first required to buy, install, support and use a competitors product.
If the company you work for competes in that environment then you can talk. Otherwise you are just lying when you say that you can sell anything to anybody when they already have been forced to buy your competitors product.
End of story.
General Motors would go bankrupt in a year if all of their potential customers were first required to buy a FORD, right? Each and every time they buy a car?
1. the cost of a free download is not going to be decreased.
So, unbundling the free download is meaningless except to reduce its size.
But, as you know not all Linux distros include the same software. Some include CrossOverOffice and some do not. Some include StarOffice (which does cost money) and some do not. Some include a quality file manager that networks just like Windows Explorer and some do not.
The point being that if you offer enough alternative distributions, the fact that many packages are available does not harm consumers like what Microsoft does.
1. it does not increase the cost for everyone because not everyone has to buy the big fat expensive bundle. (see above for the examples)
2. bundling does not suppress new highly innovative technology because that technology has more than one OS to be packaged with. Witness the fact that CrossOverOffice is bundled with Xandros and the upcoming SuSE release but not with Lindows, Mandrake or RedHat. That may change too if they decide to offer another choice. But, all of them will never include the full boat of crap such that all Linux distros will be expensive.
And, that is why what Microsoft is doing is so harmful.
On the Microsoft platform the price is kept high because of the bundling AND it suppressed other technology because Microsoft illegally blocks it. That will not happen on the Linux desktop marketplace. And, that means that new technology is going to have fair markets on Linux that Microsoft will illegally block from the Microsoft systems.
Please note that Netscape was not at all interested in that deal where Microsoft gets the windows market and Netscape gets the others. But, in time that offer will no longer be offered by the monopolist. Yet, if it were ISV would take it.
There is a market for browsers and media players on Linux. Linux does not bundle either of those applications. One of more of the distributors might. But, they can not preclude a developer from finding business with other distributors. And, if the product is a good one that product can go somewhere.
For the idiots that limit their horizon to the Microsoft platforms they will have to restrain themselves from entering a number of key markets. There is not going to be a restriction on Linux.
As for Office XP not running on old Microsoft systems, it is not a conspiracy theory at all. Just bad product design. It is all being done by Microsoft. And, they could choose to do it either way. They just choose to try to force the upgrade to XP rather than permit current customers to buy just the new suite. But, that choice only increases the cost to Microsoft customers. From that I assume that Microsoft thinks they can screw their own customers some more.
Those idiots can keep screwing Microsoft customers all they want.
In time I agree that old technology perhaps should be retired. But for Microsoft to write Office XP to not run on Win98 or 2000 much less Win95 is stupid. A lot of customers are not going to want to be forced to upgrade.
Again, Microsoft can screw all their own customers as they wish. I am not one of them. And, I am very glad I am not. A lot of Microsoft customers wish they were not. And the intelligent IT managers will begin to lay the ground work for removing any and all dependancy upon Microsoft.
But, alternative office suites will not have to be 99.5% compatible with Office XP. Once consumer find out that some office suites are free and others cost a whole lot less, they will simply buy the cheaper version.
Sure some corporations may go ahead and spend the $500 extra to get Office XP or even wait until an office suite is 99.5% of Office XP. But, a very large percentage of all those who need an Office Suite simply do not need to have the Microsoft one nor one compatible with it.
And, you may not like the cheap $199 PC from Wal-Mart. But, there are millions of consumers that will. For me I have yet to buy a PC from HP, IBM, Compaq, Dell or Gateway. The last name brand PC I bought was a "Televideo" running DOS 3.0 or something. And, I use PCs for software develop and running law office. Neither function can stand stuff that does not work.
But, I agree that until HPaq, IBM and Dell offer quality priced PCs running Linux side by side with those running Microsoft for $100-200 less, many consumers will remain ignorant of their choices. And, if they really only want to buy a name brand PC, they may not have the choice of buying Linux instead. Oh, you can buy both. And, that is worth it for many. But, most people will "dance with the guy that brung 'em". And, that is why it is necessary for the DELLs and Hpaq to get off their duff and truly offer and support Linux based desktops.
I have often said it is stupid for IBM and HP to expect corporate accounts to buy a Unix server and Microsoft desktops. Those are oil and water. But, until they wise up little will happen.
SUN has the right idea. Or, at least one right idea. Come out with a Linux desktop and go after the numbers for corporate accounts least dependant upon the Microsoft technology. And, by doing so they can undercut the DELLs on price while delivering a higher quality product better suited to the customers needs. And, they will do that.
The slow thinkers at Hpaq and IBM may wake up once SUN starts taking all that business.
As for the kids games, they will begin to show up on Linux as Lindows and others sell into the consumer marketplace. Lindows machines will sell simply because they cost a whole lot less. About $100 off on a $300 machine. That is significant. And, while all home PCs do not consist of 4-5 machines, many do. And, Microsoft is pricing itself out of that market.
Sure other distros than Lindows permits multiple installs. But, Lindows is heavy on marketing. So many consumers will learn about the Lindows deal whereas they may not know that the Mandrake can be installed 100 times if you have the machines.
Personally, I could care less which version of Linux anyone installs. They will all add up together to form the Linux desktop market. And, that means an ever increasing customer base for Intuit and others to look at.
Microsoft may never put its apps on Linux. And, that is fine with me. They can remain the expensive overpriced alternative that constantly looses market share to the price leaders. And, the price leaders are not selling inferior software. It may not be quite as polished as some would like. But, both Xandros and Lindows have greatly improved the quality and ease of use available on Linux desktops.
And, guess what?
The competition between Xandros, Lindows, RedHat, Mandrake and others will assure everyone that the Linux desktop products will continue to advance. RedHat is interested again. SuSE has some great plans for a Linux desktop.
And, right now corporate accounts are going to have some real viable alternatives. The only real problem is a shortage of applications. So it depends what they need.
80% of all office suit users can get by just fine with OpenOffice, StarOffice or Wordperfect. The.doc files I get read just fine from OpenOffice. And, if they do not, I will send them back and reject the material.
Soon businesses will learn to stay away from documents that require a proprietary product to view it. And, that is the topic that XML file formats is adddressing. The idea is to convert everyone else to use XML file formats and just leave Microsoft as the odd man out.
Once major corporations stop using Microsoft proprietary formats it will be all over. And, they will because of the readily available alternatives using XML or reading enough of.Doc to get by.
Can the rest of the industry convert the consumers? Unix did. And, that was the original point of referring to Unix. Major corporate accounts just decided that buying a proprietary OS just did not make sense and began to require a Unix version so as to avoid the very harm Microsoft is now causing its customers. And, that is raising the price even during tough times.
Idiots run Microsoft. Proven idiots run Microsoft.
Some even get on/. and laugh about how much they screw consumers and get away with it. But, the chickens are coming home to roost.
Well, China may be a more significant player than you might first think. Sure piracy has cut into any money that Microsoft might otherwise hope to see. But, it is also true that a pirated copy of a Microsoft product is just as cheap as Linux anyway.
And, no doubt that friends and family have been illegally borrowing/installing the Microsoft disks for years.
In comes Microsoft with their "anti-piracy" technology: And, the result is an immediate price increase for individual customers. There a number of multi-PC families. But, the Microsoft licenses are anti-family compared to Lindows. Lindows specifically permits an entire family to share one copy of the OS. Microsoft makes they buy 5 copies if that is the number of machines they have.
Do you really think that family use of a PC is worth a thousdand dollars over a Linux version? I doubt it.
The low cost individual PCs will be going Linux. It is stupid for consumers to pay the premium. Oh, for awhile they will. As long as they go to the store and all games and applications only run on Microsoft crap, they will pay the extra price. But, now they know what it is. Retail outlets are now offering much lower cost PCs with Linux. Walmart is one. Tiger is another. And, the white box boys were the first to offer it when it made sense.
And, when Microsoft greatly increases its prices consumer figure it out fast.
Sure, if you are forced to use Microsoft at work you may want to have the same stuff running at home. But, few employers are going to fork over $500 for a home copy of XP Office. Consider the StarOffice license that suggests that each employee can install StarOffice on 5 PCs including a couple at home. That license term is being addressed to IT Managers of major corporations that want their employees to work on their own dime a bit.
And, the smart IT managers will figure out that switching to OpenOffice or StarOffice can greatly increase the number of employees they can help out at home. At little or not cost to the company that is.
If you think Linux is too hard for the average Joe, you need to look at the latest offerings. Xandros and Lindows are both easier to install than anything ever was from Microsoft. And, the typical install includes just about all the normal apps that individuals might want on their home PC.
If you like the idea of a Linux user logging on as root (but I do not), then install Lindows. It is just as insecure as the Microsoft crap. If you want greater control, then the other distros might be better.
But, the key here is that the Linux market can and will target particular market segments with different distributions while keeping all of the applications running across the selection. And, that is key.
Microsoft will not do that. They could. But they will not. They will continue to illegally bundle a bunch of crap and try to force a single solution down the throats of all of the fools. And, that means the system is inappropriate for all and much more expensive.
Adding CrossOverOffice to Linux increases the cost. Adding a clone of Windows Explorer (for easy networking with Microsoft) also increases the cost of Linux. But, not all customers need either one or even both. They get both with Xandros. But, if they do not need either they can buy a cheaper if not free distro. The same is true with StarOffice. If you want it, consider a distro that includes. If OpenOffice is fine, save your money.
The point here is that once ordinary consumers can see that PCs cost a whole lot less without the expensive Microsoft crap, they will consider and use a Linux system. Slowly at first. And, then it will pick up steam for as long as it costs significantly less. And, right now that is the case.
And, that will consistently increase the market for Linux applications.
Lindows and others are addressing the ease or difficulty of installing applications on Linux. Their Click-n-Run is a good idea. And, it puts Lindows in a position to sell or distribute a whole bunch of software as it comes available on Linux.
Sure most of what Lindows now "sells" is available for free on another distro. But, consumers do not know that. And, StarOffice is available on the clicker but not on the downloaded ISO.
It will not be long before other applications will also be available by that distribution method.
The whole point of this is that the Linux market can adjust in many ways that Microsoft simply will refuse. Microsoft will not put out 6-8 different consumer oriented versions of their OS. "Linux" already has. Some are targeted to the novice. Some to the software developer. Some to the corporate accounts.
Both Xandros and SuSE are getting ready enterprise versions of the Linux desktop for the purpose of marketing directly to the corporate IT department. Those distributions will be designed to make it more efficient to keep the company managed.
Microsoft may do that too. But Linux will benefit from true competition to do it the best way. Microsoft will cram down a bad solution. The result is likely to be that a better solution is always available on Linux.
Why?
Because the better solution is not being illegally (or legally) suppressed by some central authority figure. (Those in the industry who think they are god and therefore screw others simply because they can.)
Of course you have to ask what the customer needs to do.
But, that simply illustrates that "one size fits all" fails to fit anyone.
That does not mean that the kernel must be different for each customer. And, it does not even mean that the kernel must be subject to modification as is the case with open source software.
But, what it does point out is that bundling crap with the OS is always a bad idea.
1. bundling increases the cost for everyone 2. bundling suppresses advanced technology by eliminating fair and open markets
The result is harm to the industry and consumers.
As for the change in "threads", I doubt that threads have anything to do with the new features in Office XP. More likely than not any additions to Office XP could be completely contained in the application itself.
Gosh, if OpenOffice/StarOffice, Mozilla and others can run on Linux, Microsoft Windows, Unix, the Mac and others then the idea that the OS must be custom to permit the application to run is just silly.
Requiring the OS to be upgraded harms consumers directly by greatly increasing their costs to benefit from new applications. And, that additional cost should be avoided if at all possible.
Of course, Microsoft could care less about saving customers money and is only interested in forcing customers to upgrade so that the bundled applications are more pervasive. And, collecting more money from the fools, of course.
The government is NOT dictating what vendors can put into their product.
Or, at least they should not be doing so.
By the stupid settlement the DOJ has dictated that all consumers will be forced to buy IE and the Microsoft media player. And, that a good reason why the settlement/consent decree should be overturned.
But, the point is that illegally tying products so that people like you are screwed and forced to buy other products is illegal. And, that is not telling anyone what they must put into their products. It is telling them they must sell separate products separately.
And, that is what illegal tying is all about.
So, if you rely upon the laws changing before Microsoft is acting illegally you will wait for ever.
Right now Microsoft is acting in violation of the appellate court decision that found that commingling code was illegal. Has that ceased? Did the commingling stop? If not, Microsoft is acting in violation of the federal antitrust laws. And, NO, the trial judge does not have the authority to ignore the appellate court.
She has done so. And, her decision should be appealed on that grounds along. It remains to be seen if the States will appeal it. But, any lawyer or any technologies should have the level of intelligence to know that code commingling has not ceased and that the appellate court found that act to be illegal.
Buy the way, Microsoft does not even have the right to sell any product unless it is free of legal violations. There is no "right to package as you damn well please". There is not even a right to sell anything at all. Zero. None. No such right exists.
If Microsoft is acting illegally, they can be prohibited from selling a single copy of anything.
So when you find people claiming this right or that right in their effor to rationalize illegal activity, just remember that the "right to sell what you want" does not exist what so ever. It does not exist in the US, Europe or the State of Washington. There is no such thing.
Even a patent does not give you the right to sell the product you invented. At best it only allows you to prevent others from selling. But that does not mean you can do so. And, that applies to food, drugs, you name it. No product comes with a right on the part of anyone to sell it.
This is what I mean by Microsoft fabricating fake rights and laws so they look good. There is no such right.
Trade secrets are only secrets as long as they are secret.
That may read a bit strange but it is true. Once the "cat is out of the bag", the cat is out of the bag (and no longer in the bag).
And, yes, your point is well taken. If someone posted the document on a public web site, that material is no longer secret, right? And, if it is no longer secret, it is no longer a trade secret.
Someone may get sued for it. But, that someone would be a Microsoft employee who either did it deliberately or by mistake. It matters not. Out is out.
However, a vast number of the software patents are simply not enforceable.
Of course, you need the money to challenge them. And, if you do not, you may find that you have to leave the game early simply due to a shortage of funds for lawyers.
But, Lindows has shown that you can take on the big boys and win. Microsoft is on the verge of losing its "Windows" trademark. That will most likely occur.
And if you are facing a software patent suit, I do suggest you strongly consider contesting it. There is a fundamental requirement that a patent application list all prior art related to the patent application. Few if any software patent applications did that. And, while some truly new and innovative work may have occured and been the subject of a patent application, most software patents can be challanged simply on the basis of the application failing to disclose other known work.
Even if the earlier work was in fact not known by the patent holder, proof that similar work pre-existed the development can also invalidate it.
Patents are not worth much unless they truly added to the technology. Many of the software patents simply do not. It is not enough to simply have the earliest application. The patent also needs to not be the obvious solution to the problem. And, if someone already solved that problem in a similar way, the patent may not be validated.
Or, if you think you really have a new function for an OS to perform you can upgrade older systems.
Either way it is not necessary and harmful to force the upgrade. It raises prices for all consumers and increases their costs to use the new version.
What is Microsoft going to do? Upgrade the MAC too? Or split the Office product into two incompatable lines based upon some function that only XP provides and the MAC does not.
Some IT managers may be dumb enough to stick to proprietary solutions. But, they are expensive and getting even more costly. And, any IT manager by now should know and understand that Microsoft will raise prices on them just to put more of their money into Microsoft's bank account.
Microsoft will continue to screw their own customers.
If other applications can not read the data it could just as well be in French, German, Japanese or Italian.
The promise of XML is not the actual structure. The promise is that other applications will be able to read and understand the data and thereby use it.
So if you force your crapping software to be unusable you may get your wish.
Slashdot Mirror
About $100 is the difference at the low end. But, there is little telling what it is on a $1000 PC.
What is important is for Hpaq, DELL, Gateway and IBM to correctly price their systems AND also provide them without any OS bundled in.
Until the consumer can see the difference in cost between a machine with and without the Microsoft brand, consumers will remain duped.
An OS may be necessary. But, an OS does not need to be purchased as the minimum deal as Microsoft has demanded.
Maybe when Wal-Mart sales take off for LIndows or bare systems, a few other OEMs will wise up. But, it is the major OEMs that need to correct their inappropriate behaviour (just because it pleases the idiots at Microsoft).
Even on a $1000 PC, $100 is significant. If not then all PCs would be loaded to the hilt because no single component matters much. But, of course, they are not. None are. Almost all models come with many choices on hardware. Different processors, different discs, different CDRom/DVD players. Different memory.
And, there is no reason why Hpaq does not offer just as many options on software.
Hpaq should show a $1000 PC costing about $100-150 less without the Microsoft crap. But, they do not. They will charge extra for XP Pro. But, are illegally restricted from charging less without XP at all. When that changes, the market will change. And, only then can other systems compete fairly with Microsoft.
Right now competition is precluded. And, OEMs are a major problem.
It does not matter what the customer does with the PC bought without an OS. Or, Lindows.
The point is that without Microsoft XP bundled in the PC can be a lot cheaper.
And, companies like Hpaq, IBM, Dell should without a doubt offer bare bones PCs without operating systems on them.
There is absolutely no reason not to do that. None. Zippo. There is none.
You can by the MB, chip, disc and keyboard and always have been able to do so. There is no reason why the parts you buy could not have a DELL or Hpaq lable on it.
Bundling XP is market manipulation by the monopolist. Nothing more. Nothing less. And, it done simply to benefit those idiots.
A radio signal is likely to be the first known contact with alien life.
There is no telling if the SETI@Home process will be the means of picking up that signal. But, the odds are actually quite good.
The problem is that no one knows how long it will take to find it (or them). But, in the end the chances of success are great. One day on the big dish could be like looking out into your neighborhood and expecting to see a new neighbor unloading their Ryer Van. One day is likely to be a bust. But, that does not mean it is not the right thing to do.
Chances are that we will be communicating with aliens via radio for thousands of years before we visit them or they visit us. It is a simple factor of how difficult the alternative tasks are. Radio communication is relatively easy. And, even if radio waves take some time to transverse the space it is so much more likely than a physical movement.
We will hear from them if they exist. Whether this current SETI project will do so is simply unknown.
Many workers may need a spreadsheet.
But, few even know how to use them past the very basic functionality.
I would bet less than 5% of all spread sheet users even know what linear regression analysis is much less having the requirement to work it up as part of their job.
It simply does not matter is Excell is the best spread sheet or not. Nor does it matter that it is included in the Office XP suite.
The only question is what software applications are necessary for the various employees of the company. And, it is a rare company indeed that only hires employees capable of dealing with higher level math, operations research or curve fitting.
Even universities and research departments have plenty of clerical workers that do not need the $400 or $500 suite.
No doubt 80% to 90% of all Office XP users do not need support at all simply because they do not use those features, ever. They do not know how.
In fact I would guess that a high percentage of support personnel in most corporations are not capable of supporting the high level functionality anyway.
It is simply foolish to buy BMWs for all employees because some employees may earn them. And, the same is true with software.
You buy and support only the software needed by the various classes of employees. Secretaries, etc., do not need the spreadsheet capabilities nor the support associated with it much less the higher expense to give them the licenses. OpenOffice is fine for 80% to 90% of all employees.
And, that approach might save you 80% to 90% of your IT software budget. Take that $300 to $500 and give them all faster processors or faster printers.
The key is to target the employees with appropriate software not the most expensive of all alternatives. That is a waste and should rightly get you fired.
If you have specialized needs for higher math functions in a spread sheet then fine. But, that case is rare indeed.
The truth is that 80% to 90% of all office type workers have no idea about the mathematical functions you are talking about. They were never educated to deal with them either.
The point being that a very large percentage of office suite users simply do not need the most expensive version out there.
If your employees do, then fine.
But, it is stupid for a corporation to spend thousands if not millions just to buy the most expensive suite just because a few selected employees might know what those features are.
We are talking about the 80% to 90%, not the 10%. If you want to claim that all your employees fit in the top 10% then fine. You can spend your big money on the Microsoft brand. That is NOT typical.
You missed the point.
90% of all employees do not need the applications that are incompatible.
If 90% of all employees do not need Office XP then you simply do not buy that them.
Can their spread sheets be read by others?
No doubt they can without a single problem. Heck, most of them do not even need a spread sheet at all.
The concept here which completely alludes you is that you only need to buy the applications that are actually needed.
That means that 90% of the employees get by just fine with OpenOffice or other selections.
Very few computer users need those higher math functions. And, a large percentage of the users who think they need Office XP have no idea what you are talking about.
Microsoft Office suites are not dominant because of their ability to do any high level function.
And, NO, it is not necessary to include all of the essoteric functions found in the highly overpriced applications for them to be highly marketable. And, why is that? Because 80% to 90% of the users simply do not need them.
If one or two do, then fine.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying one Microsoft box with every single application they write if you can find an employee that requires that exclusive capability. But, you do not buy a hundred or a thousand copies of a $400 application just because a few need this feature or that.
That is a complete waste of resources.
Sure, some users need highly specialized software. Some even need the more expensive versions of key applications. But, 80% do not.
So, you buy the least expensive (or free) for 80% of the employees and standardize on that. Not the other way around.
You do not find companies buying BMWs for all employees simply cause some idiot at the top thinks that is the car he must have.
If a corporation is only going to buy one brand of a given application then you may be forced to buy the highly overpriced version for everyone. But, almost no company needs to do that. Not mine. Not yours. Most likely none.
And, if Microsoft crap is so incompatible then exclude it. Maybe Quattro Pro does what you need. I do not know. It depends precisely upon what you need.
Maybe linear regression is a requirement for you. But, no company I can think of should be required to buy Office XP for all employees with that as an excuse.
The problem is in using a general example to reach a specific conclusion.
For those employees that do not need the more expensive applications you simply do not buy them.
OpenOffice, StarOffice, WordPerfect, etc meet the needs of 80% to 90%. So, buy those applications for the majority of the users and the high priced packages for those who can justify that expense. Otherwise, not.
You waste money on 600 Microsoft PCs because the OpenOffice spredsheet does not do "linear regression"?
How many of those 600 employees do that work? One? Two?
If 10 need linear regression capability in their spreadsheet, then buy 10 copies of the software they need and 590 copies of OpenOffice.
Oh, I forgot. 590 copies of Openoffice are free. So, just buy the 10.
Microsoft has more than 5 years left.
But, they run the risk of being an Apple (fine products but highly overpriced and holding about 10% of the market).
That should be the case now with office suites.
About 10% of those who need an office suite may depend upon a Microsoft version. But, 90% simply do not need it and can save big time when they upgrade.
If they do not upgrade the chances are good that CrossOverOffice and Linux will permit them to keep their old version while running Linux. So, even if they do not drop the old Microsoft applications they can switch to Linux and save money there. Plus they can put OpenOffice on Microsoft now and begin to use OpenOffice which also runs on Linux.
Intelligent IT managers only buy cross-platform applications. Period.
There is no value to buying a proprietary solution run by a company that raises prices even during extremely difficult times just because they can screw their customers.
Microsoft is run by idiots. It is a brand that should be avoided if at all possible. And, to the fullest extent possible. The long run benefit in such a policy demands it.
Sure Microsoft may lower its price.
But, the bloated OS product is wrong for the marketplace.
Who wants to be forced to buy, install, support, manager and run IE?
Only idiots let others decide what they buy and use.
Only idiots let others decide that food they eat each day.
Only idiots let others decide what clothes they wear.
Oh, but you think that others can tell you what food you eat if they pay for it?
It is not only about price.
Microsoft XP could be free and it still would be the wrong solution because of the cost of supporting, maintaning and using software you do not want.
Software is just like clothing and food.
only idiots let others dictate to them what they consume.
I think you touched upon the key factors for business.
Reliability and Interoperability is important.
But, for corporate users the ability to manage the systems is going to be the key going forward. The total cost of PC systems is directly related to the cost of management.
Both Xandros and SuSE have announced their intention to develop enterprise management systems for PCs. IBM has done likewise but just not limiting themselves to Linux.
The key here is that more than one company is going to putting their resources into this problem. And, it will not be solved by automatic updates directly from the vendor. It will be solved by the corporate IT department directly managing the process. And, it will be solved in more than one way. And, that is key. Xandros and SuSE will not come to the same conclusion on how it should be done. And, that is the way it should be. Ximian also is looking to focus upon this issue.
Microsoft might address this issue too. But, they will only offer one solution. And, one solution is not going to fit all customers anymore than one OS does. One size can never fit all. Corporations do not want to operate the way someone else demands. And, that is true even if Microsoft is the idiot making the demand.
Microsoft products are simply overpriced and highly inappropriate for corporate use.
Bundling IE with the OS did illegally force a monopoly in browsers upon all consumers. But, that made the OS more expensive and single minded. And, it increased the support costs for all customers. Not to mention removing a key ability of corporate accounts to decide what software they buy and use.
On the contrary, Linux will not screw corporate accounts.
Right now you can get CrossOverOffice, StarOffice, OpenOffice, Netscape, Mozilla and other software (including a Windows Explorer for simple networking with Microsoft) all included with an OS distribution. But, if you do not want some of that technology you can get a Linux desktop without it or remove it when you want to.
The idiots at Microsoft will screw commerical accounts by taking away those options.
And, labeling Microsoft as being run by idiots is dead on.
Corporate accounts would all prefer a barebones OS. Or, a number of choices.
Microsoft will screw you by refusing to give you that choice and forcing the purchase of the highly overpriced bundle. And, that is simply not what a corporate IT department wants. Maybe those IT managers who do not possess the intelligence to evaluate software might want it. But, they are the only ones that do.
You are absolutely correct.
Businesses simply do not need the Microsoft bloated crap.
It is so true that a vast majority of all business PCs run a small number of applications.
Those companies that only need general office applications, Linux can already provide them at a number of price points.
Get Xandros with CrossOverOffice is you need support for older Microsoft Office applications. Xandros networks with the Microsnort boxes just as easily as they do. The MS Windows Explorer is cloned. And, it comes with Xandros.
A large number of office works would not even know the OS was switched to Xandros instead of Microsoft Windows. Just tell them it is XP with a different Window Manager (KDE). They would not know the difference. Heck, put them on OpenOffice a week or so before dropping out Microsoft and they may not even notice the change at all.
The point here is that the corporate market can easily switch to Linux desktops assuming only that the vertical applications they need are available.
For some businesses, that is not yet the case.
But, if you are a larger corporation and you contact the software developer of a key application. I will bet you they will put out a Linux version if you will sign up.
There is no reason why not to.
Kylix/Delphi now lets developers use either Pascal or C++ to write cross-platform applications. Java runs on both. And, browser based applications can easily be available on either as well.
The general statement that Microsoft crap is required is no longer true. In a specific case it may be true.
Quicken runs on Linux now with the help of CrossOverOffice. QuickBooks is sure to follow. And, that assumes that Intuit continues to refuse to write to the Linux platform because of the fear that Microsoft has put into them.
But, that can change too when the Linux market begins to grow and Intuit is not in it.
I would agree that the corporate market is a bit different than the consumer market.
Any large company can easily break down the number of applications they truly need to get their work done. And, not one of them dictates the Microsoft brand.
The recent developments in OpenOffice, StarOffice, CrossOverOffice and Corel's WordPerfect for Linux prove that any corporation can have a wide variety of office suite applications that are perfectly compatible with each other.
They only have to avoid using proprietary Microsoft formats. But that does not require the non-use of the application feature set.
The smart companies will give all general office employees a copy of OpenOffice when some getting StarOffice or even Corel WordPerfect for Linux. If anyone or any department can make a case why they have to waste $400 or so more per PC to buy Office XP, then let them try.
But, it is stupid for an IT Manager to buy XP Office across the company. Those idiots should be fired for wasting money.
Training a problem?
Give all employees their free copy of OpenOffice now and let them bone up on their home machines. Pay them $50 each when they are ready. My bet is 50% or more of all employees would claim they are ready for their $50 within a week.
Your point is right on.
A very high percentage of all office suite users would find OpenOffice works fine for them.
This is the case in business and personal use.
If OpenOffice does not have a feature you really need check out StarOffice. If StarOffice comes up short check out WordPerfect for Linux.
If you think paying $400+ for Office XP is worth it fine. Waste your money.
But, only idiots would buy Office XP for the entire company to run. That is simply a waste of precious resources and should get you fired on the spot.
IE is a forced sale product.
It is bundled with the Microsoft OS so that YOU are forced to buy it, install it, maintain it, support it and use it.
If idiots want to continue to fool themselves by claim that being raped is free sex, then fine.
But, with the sole exception of the very first version of Win95 all Microsoft customers have been forced to buy it.
Yet, some incrediably stupid people still think it was free.
YOU paid cash money in exchange for it.
That means that the copy you bought for cash was NOT free. It was paid for. And, you were forced to pay for it.
Netscape failed for one reason only.
400 million were forced to buy, install, support and use IE.
Period.
Every other reason is pure garbage because when all possible consumers are forced to buy IE first, install IE first, support IE first and regardless and in fact use IE no other product has a chance in hell of being successful.
You can lie all you want about what Netscape did or did not do.
But, no company ever wants to be in a situation where almost all of your potential customers are first required to buy, install, support and use a competitors product.
If the company you work for competes in that environment then you can talk. Otherwise you are just lying when you say that you can sell anything to anybody when they already have been forced to buy your competitors product.
End of story.
General Motors would go bankrupt in a year if all of their potential customers were first required to buy a FORD, right? Each and every time they buy a car?
1. the cost of a free download is not going to be decreased.
So, unbundling the free download is meaningless except to reduce its size.
But, as you know not all Linux distros include the same software. Some include CrossOverOffice and some do not. Some include StarOffice (which does cost money) and some do not. Some include a quality file manager that networks just like Windows Explorer and some do not.
The point being that if you offer enough alternative distributions, the fact that many packages are available does not harm consumers like what Microsoft does.
1. it does not increase the cost for everyone because not everyone has to buy the big fat expensive bundle. (see above for the examples)
2. bundling does not suppress new highly innovative technology because that technology has more than one OS to be packaged with. Witness the fact that CrossOverOffice is bundled with Xandros and the upcoming SuSE release but not with Lindows, Mandrake or RedHat. That may change too if they decide to offer another choice. But, all of them will never include the full boat of crap such that all Linux distros will be expensive.
And, that is why what Microsoft is doing is so harmful.
On the Microsoft platform the price is kept high because of the bundling AND it suppressed other technology because Microsoft illegally blocks it. That will not happen on the Linux desktop marketplace. And, that means that new technology is going to have fair markets on Linux that Microsoft will illegally block from the Microsoft systems.
Please note that Netscape was not at all interested in that deal where Microsoft gets the windows market and Netscape gets the others. But, in time that offer will no longer be offered by the monopolist. Yet, if it were ISV would take it.
There is a market for browsers and media players on Linux. Linux does not bundle either of those applications. One of more of the distributors might. But, they can not preclude a developer from finding business with other distributors. And, if the product is a good one that product can go somewhere.
For the idiots that limit their horizon to the Microsoft platforms they will have to restrain themselves from entering a number of key markets. There is not going to be a restriction on Linux.
As for Office XP not running on old Microsoft systems, it is not a conspiracy theory at all. Just bad product design. It is all being done by Microsoft. And, they could choose to do it either way. They just choose to try to force the upgrade to XP rather than permit current customers to buy just the new suite. But, that choice only increases the cost to Microsoft customers. From that I assume that Microsoft thinks they can screw their own customers some more.
Those idiots can keep screwing Microsoft customers all they want.
In time I agree that old technology perhaps should be retired. But for Microsoft to write Office XP to not run on Win98 or 2000 much less Win95 is stupid. A lot of customers are not going to want to be forced to upgrade.
Again, Microsoft can screw all their own customers as they wish. I am not one of them. And, I am very glad I am not. A lot of Microsoft customers wish they were not. And the intelligent IT managers will begin to lay the ground work for removing any and all dependancy upon Microsoft.
It seems we agree on most points.
.doc files I get read just fine from OpenOffice. And, if they do not, I will send them back and reject the material.
.Doc to get by.
/. and laugh about how much they screw consumers and get away with it. But, the chickens are coming home to roost.
But, alternative office suites will not have to be 99.5% compatible with Office XP. Once consumer find out that some office suites are free and others cost a whole lot less, they will simply buy the cheaper version.
Sure some corporations may go ahead and spend the $500 extra to get Office XP or even wait until an office suite is 99.5% of Office XP. But, a very large percentage of all those who need an Office Suite simply do not need to have the Microsoft one nor one compatible with it.
And, you may not like the cheap $199 PC from Wal-Mart. But, there are millions of consumers that will. For me I have yet to buy a PC from HP, IBM, Compaq, Dell or Gateway. The last name brand PC I bought was a "Televideo" running DOS 3.0 or something. And, I use PCs for software develop and running law office. Neither function can stand stuff that does not work.
But, I agree that until HPaq, IBM and Dell offer quality priced PCs running Linux side by side with those running Microsoft for $100-200 less, many consumers will remain ignorant of their choices. And, if they really only want to buy a name brand PC, they may not have the choice of buying Linux instead. Oh, you can buy both. And, that is worth it for many. But, most people will "dance with the guy that brung 'em". And, that is why it is necessary for the DELLs and Hpaq to get off their duff and truly offer and support Linux based desktops.
I have often said it is stupid for IBM and HP to expect corporate accounts to buy a Unix server and Microsoft desktops. Those are oil and water. But, until they wise up little will happen.
SUN has the right idea. Or, at least one right idea. Come out with a Linux desktop and go after the numbers for corporate accounts least dependant upon the Microsoft technology. And, by doing so they can undercut the DELLs on price while delivering a higher quality product better suited to the customers needs. And, they will do that.
The slow thinkers at Hpaq and IBM may wake up once SUN starts taking all that business.
As for the kids games, they will begin to show up on Linux as Lindows and others sell into the consumer marketplace. Lindows machines will sell simply because they cost a whole lot less. About $100 off on a $300 machine. That is significant. And, while all home PCs do not consist of 4-5 machines, many do. And, Microsoft is pricing itself out of that market.
Sure other distros than Lindows permits multiple installs. But, Lindows is heavy on marketing. So many consumers will learn about the Lindows deal whereas they may not know that the Mandrake can be installed 100 times if you have the machines.
Personally, I could care less which version of Linux anyone installs. They will all add up together to form the Linux desktop market. And, that means an ever increasing customer base for Intuit and others to look at.
Microsoft may never put its apps on Linux. And, that is fine with me. They can remain the expensive overpriced alternative that constantly looses market share to the price leaders. And, the price leaders are not selling inferior software. It may not be quite as polished as some would like. But, both Xandros and Lindows have greatly improved the quality and ease of use available on Linux desktops.
And, guess what?
The competition between Xandros, Lindows, RedHat, Mandrake and others will assure everyone that the Linux desktop products will continue to advance. RedHat is interested again. SuSE has some great plans for a Linux desktop.
And, right now corporate accounts are going to have some real viable alternatives. The only real problem is a shortage of applications. So it depends what they need.
80% of all office suit users can get by just fine with OpenOffice, StarOffice or Wordperfect. The
Soon businesses will learn to stay away from documents that require a proprietary product to view it. And, that is the topic that XML file formats is adddressing. The idea is to convert everyone else to use XML file formats and just leave Microsoft as the odd man out.
Once major corporations stop using Microsoft proprietary formats it will be all over. And, they will because of the readily available alternatives using XML or reading enough of
Can the rest of the industry convert the consumers? Unix did. And, that was the original point of referring to Unix. Major corporate accounts just decided that buying a proprietary OS just did not make sense and began to require a Unix version so as to avoid the very harm Microsoft is now causing its customers. And, that is raising the price even during tough times.
Idiots run Microsoft. Proven idiots run Microsoft.
Some even get on
Well, China may be a more significant player than you might first think. Sure piracy has cut into any money that Microsoft might otherwise hope to see. But, it is also true that a pirated copy of a Microsoft product is just as cheap as Linux anyway.
And, no doubt that friends and family have been illegally borrowing/installing the Microsoft disks for years.
In comes Microsoft with their "anti-piracy" technology: And, the result is an immediate price increase for individual customers. There a number of multi-PC families. But, the Microsoft licenses are anti-family compared to Lindows. Lindows specifically permits an entire family to share one copy of the OS. Microsoft makes they buy 5 copies if that is the number of machines they have.
Do you really think that family use of a PC is worth a thousdand dollars over a Linux version? I doubt it.
The low cost individual PCs will be going Linux. It is stupid for consumers to pay the premium. Oh, for awhile they will. As long as they go to the store and all games and applications only run on Microsoft crap, they will pay the extra price. But, now they know what it is. Retail outlets are now offering much lower cost PCs with Linux. Walmart is one. Tiger is another. And, the white box boys were the first to offer it when it made sense.
And, when Microsoft greatly increases its prices consumer figure it out fast.
Sure, if you are forced to use Microsoft at work you may want to have the same stuff running at home. But, few employers are going to fork over $500 for a home copy of XP Office. Consider the StarOffice license that suggests that each employee can install StarOffice on 5 PCs including a couple at home. That license term is being addressed to IT Managers of major corporations that want their employees to work on their own dime a bit.
And, the smart IT managers will figure out that switching to OpenOffice or StarOffice can greatly increase the number of employees they can help out at home. At little or not cost to the company that is.
If you think Linux is too hard for the average Joe, you need to look at the latest offerings. Xandros and Lindows are both easier to install than anything ever was from Microsoft. And, the typical install includes just about all the normal apps that individuals might want on their home PC.
If you like the idea of a Linux user logging on as root (but I do not), then install Lindows. It is just as insecure as the Microsoft crap. If you want greater control, then the other distros might be better.
But, the key here is that the Linux market can and will target particular market segments with different distributions while keeping all of the applications running across the selection. And, that is key.
Microsoft will not do that. They could. But they will not. They will continue to illegally bundle a bunch of crap and try to force a single solution down the throats of all of the fools. And, that means the system is inappropriate for all and much more expensive.
Adding CrossOverOffice to Linux increases the cost. Adding a clone of Windows Explorer (for easy networking with Microsoft) also increases the cost of Linux. But, not all customers need either one or even both. They get both with Xandros. But, if they do not need either they can buy a cheaper if not free distro. The same is true with StarOffice. If you want it, consider a distro that includes. If OpenOffice is fine, save your money.
The point here is that once ordinary consumers can see that PCs cost a whole lot less without the expensive Microsoft crap, they will consider and use a Linux system. Slowly at first. And, then it will pick up steam for as long as it costs significantly less. And, right now that is the case.
And, that will consistently increase the market for Linux applications.
Lindows and others are addressing the ease or difficulty of installing applications on Linux. Their Click-n-Run is a good idea. And, it puts Lindows in a position to sell or distribute a whole bunch of software as it comes available on Linux.
Sure most of what Lindows now "sells" is available for free on another distro. But, consumers do not know that. And, StarOffice is available on the clicker but not on the downloaded ISO.
It will not be long before other applications will also be available by that distribution method.
The whole point of this is that the Linux market can adjust in many ways that Microsoft simply will refuse. Microsoft will not put out 6-8 different consumer oriented versions of their OS. "Linux" already has. Some are targeted to the novice. Some to the software developer. Some to the corporate accounts.
Both Xandros and SuSE are getting ready enterprise versions of the Linux desktop for the purpose of marketing directly to the corporate IT department. Those distributions will be designed to make it more efficient to keep the company managed.
Microsoft may do that too. But Linux will benefit from true competition to do it the best way. Microsoft will cram down a bad solution. The result is likely to be that a better solution is always available on Linux.
Why?
Because the better solution is not being illegally (or legally) suppressed by some central authority figure. (Those in the industry who think they are god and therefore screw others simply because they can.)
Of course you have to ask what the customer needs to do.
But, that simply illustrates that "one size fits all" fails to fit anyone.
That does not mean that the kernel must be different for each customer. And, it does not even mean that the kernel must be subject to modification as is the case with open source software.
But, what it does point out is that bundling crap with the OS is always a bad idea.
1. bundling increases the cost for everyone
2. bundling suppresses advanced technology by eliminating fair and open markets
The result is harm to the industry and consumers.
As for the change in "threads", I doubt that threads have anything to do with the new features in Office XP. More likely than not any additions to Office XP could be completely contained in the application itself.
Gosh, if OpenOffice/StarOffice, Mozilla and others can run on Linux, Microsoft Windows, Unix, the Mac and others then the idea that the OS must be custom to permit the application to run is just silly.
Requiring the OS to be upgraded harms consumers directly by greatly increasing their costs to benefit from new applications. And, that additional cost should be avoided if at all possible.
Of course, Microsoft could care less about saving customers money and is only interested in forcing customers to upgrade so that the bundled applications are more pervasive. And, collecting more money from the fools, of course.
The government is NOT dictating what vendors can put into their product.
Or, at least they should not be doing so.
By the stupid settlement the DOJ has dictated that all consumers will be forced to buy IE and the Microsoft media player. And, that a good reason why the settlement/consent decree should be overturned.
But, the point is that illegally tying products so that people like you are screwed and forced to buy other products is illegal. And, that is not telling anyone what they must put into their products. It is telling them they must sell separate products separately.
And, that is what illegal tying is all about.
So, if you rely upon the laws changing before Microsoft is acting illegally you will wait for ever.
Right now Microsoft is acting in violation of the appellate court decision that found that commingling code was illegal. Has that ceased? Did the commingling stop? If not, Microsoft is acting in violation of the federal antitrust laws. And, NO, the trial judge does not have the authority to ignore the appellate court.
She has done so. And, her decision should be appealed on that grounds along. It remains to be seen if the States will appeal it. But, any lawyer or any technologies should have the level of intelligence to know that code commingling has not ceased and that the appellate court found that act to be illegal.
Buy the way, Microsoft does not even have the right to sell any product unless it is free of legal violations. There is no "right to package as you damn well please". There is not even a right to sell anything at all. Zero. None. No such right exists.
If Microsoft is acting illegally, they can be prohibited from selling a single copy of anything.
So when you find people claiming this right or that right in their effor to rationalize illegal activity, just remember that the "right to sell what you want" does not exist what so ever. It does not exist in the US, Europe or the State of Washington. There is no such thing.
Even a patent does not give you the right to sell the product you invented. At best it only allows you to prevent others from selling. But that does not mean you can do so. And, that applies to food, drugs, you name it. No product comes with a right on the part of anyone to sell it.
This is what I mean by Microsoft fabricating fake rights and laws so they look good. There is no such right.
Trade secrets are only secrets as long as they are secret.
That may read a bit strange but it is true. Once the "cat is out of the bag", the cat is out of the bag (and no longer in the bag).
And, yes, your point is well taken. If someone posted the document on a public web site, that material is no longer secret, right? And, if it is no longer secret, it is no longer a trade secret.
Someone may get sued for it. But, that someone would be a Microsoft employee who either did it deliberately or by mistake. It matters not. Out is out.
Patents can be a problem.
However, a vast number of the software patents are simply not enforceable.
Of course, you need the money to challenge them. And, if you do not, you may find that you have to leave the game early simply due to a shortage of funds for lawyers.
But, Lindows has shown that you can take on the big boys and win. Microsoft is on the verge of losing its "Windows" trademark. That will most likely occur.
And if you are facing a software patent suit, I do suggest you strongly consider contesting it. There is a fundamental requirement that a patent application list all prior art related to the patent application. Few if any software patent applications did that. And, while some truly new and innovative work may have occured and been the subject of a patent application, most software patents can be challanged simply on the basis of the application failing to disclose other known work.
Even if the earlier work was in fact not known by the patent holder, proof that similar work pre-existed the development can also invalidate it.
Patents are not worth much unless they truly added to the technology. Many of the software patents simply do not. It is not enough to simply have the earliest application. The patent also needs to not be the obvious solution to the problem. And, if someone already solved that problem in a similar way, the patent may not be validated.
Times are changing.
With the introduction of OpenOffice, StarOffice and now the movement behind XML file formats for data files, corporations will have a choice.
The dumb IT managers may continue to make bad decisions for their company and their company will pay because of it.
They do have the right to be stupid and waste their money. But, if their boss finds out they may loose their jobs.
You can put your new code inside Office XP.
Or, if you think you really have a new function for an OS to perform you can upgrade older systems.
Either way it is not necessary and harmful to force the upgrade. It raises prices for all consumers and increases their costs to use the new version.
What is Microsoft going to do? Upgrade the MAC too? Or split the Office product into two incompatable lines based upon some function that only XP provides and the MAC does not.
Some IT managers may be dumb enough to stick to proprietary solutions. But, they are expensive and getting even more costly. And, any IT manager by now should know and understand that Microsoft will raise prices on them just to put more of their money into Microsoft's bank account.
Microsoft will continue to screw their own customers.
Being XML is not where the value is.
If other applications can not read the data it could just as well be in French, German, Japanese or Italian.
The promise of XML is not the actual structure. The promise is that other applications will be able to read and understand the data and thereby use it.
So if you force your crapping software to be unusable you may get your wish.