Computer manufacturers are motivated to provide a product customers want to buy. The number of people that would buy machines with some flavor of Linux is very small. It would be foolish for computer manufacturers to make computers without Windows.
Um, that's because Microsoft has OEM contracts in place that raise Windows license fees if companies ship competing software, even if it's simply provided as an option. Why do you think Dell barely advertises Linux? Yes, it would be foolish for OEMs to cross Microsoft because they risk having their licensing fees raised, or worse, their license revoked, which would be commercial suicide. And so Windows stays firmly entrenched on OEM pre-installations.
True enough but you are forgetting that most people are getting what they want. Windows isn't simply being forced on them - they want Windows and don't want to try an alternate OS. "
This myth needs to die. People don't "want" Windows; they simply use whatever is installed on their computer. They barely even know what version of Windows they're even running. That's why OEM contracts are the lifeblood for Microsoft, because almost all Windows sales come from OEM pre-installations.
Again, people do not WANT Windows. Whatever starts up when they push the power button is what they'll use. Microsoft has spent decades using its power to negotiate itself onto that boot screen.
There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from using any number of other x86 operating systems on their PC.
There is plenty stopping people from using other operating systems on their PC, #1 being that it's difficult to find PCs that ship non-Windows on them. Dell doesn't even advertise it.
Don't like Windows? Fine, install Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc. Hell, buy a Mac and use MacOS X. This myth that you're somehow forced to use Windows if you buy a PC is ridiculous.
It's not a myth. If I go down to Wal-mart and buy a PC, it will have Windows on it. That's the result of decades of coercive OEM contracts.
You know why people use Microsoft Windows? Because they like it.
No, people use Microsoft Windows because it's what comes on their computers. They don't "like" it. Most users are confused and frustrated with Windows and PCs. Maybe you should try tech support sometime. You'll get a very clear idea of how poorly designed Windows is, how inconsistent its interface is, and how buggy the system is as a whole. My favorite part is the classic sequence of telling them to right-click on something to get a context-sensitive menu, which invariably makes them question "left click or right click" from that point onward whenever you tell them to click anything. And people wonder why Mac OS X is designed to only require one button for its interface?
It's stable, friendly, and well supported from both the vendor and third-party software point of view. It has awesome support for a huge variety of hardware devices and it's very easy to use.
No, Windows is difficult to use. It has bizarre paradigms. For instance, the Start menu looks like it has your programs on it, but those aren't actually your programs--they're merely "shortcuts" to your programs. You install and uninstall programs by running other programs, instead of simply dragging the programs to the Trash--er, sorry, Recycle Bin. Windows also requires apps bury their settings in a convoluted registry that is often exploited by malware, and the operating system as a whole generally requires a ton more clicks to accomplish something than, say, OS X.
It seems you aren't aware of the history of Microsoft in the early 1990s. They coerced OEMs into signing contracts that would raise Windows licensing fees considerably if manufacturers dared to ship competing software besides Microsoft's. If they didn't ship Windows, they risked having their Windows license revoked, even if they only provided a non-Windows PC simply as an option. Not having a Windows license would have been a death knell, so OEMs were forced into complying with Microsoft's abusive demands. They were leveraging their monopoly position to force competitors out of the market. Oxford says a monopoly is "a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service." That is what they achieved.
People do not choose Windows. The vast majority of Windows sales comes solely from OEM sales, which means people are simply using whatever is booting up when they first power on the machine. Your comments illustrate something of a lack of knowledge about most users, and if you've done any kind of large-scale tech support or IT management, you know exactly how people feel about PCs and Windows. But I think you were just playing devil's advocate in your post--no sane person would argue that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. That's just silly. The question is whether that monopoly is abusive, and they were found to be such in the antitrust trial.
Sadly, Vista will be even more confusing because it's got several inconsistent paradigms. I count at least five different styles of application menus, some of them not even visible until you press Alt. My favorite strange dialog actually has two Properties buttons on it. Classic.
I'm not a Republican. Can't "you Democrats" stop demonizing every critic of your beloved hero Bill Clinton, the guy who did more to encourage cronyism in the White House than any president in history? Pardoning all his buddies in the last hours of his administration was real slick.
It specifically DOES NOT SAY you cannot copy the Vista ISO for backup or to your hard drive.
A complete lie! It says right in the EULA that you cannot copy "the software" to a storage device, the software referring to the Vista installation disc. This means you cannot copy the disc image.
What it DOES say is you can't put it on a network store (like for volume installations - and this is only for the HOME and STARTER versions that have no business being MASS installed from a network location.)
It says storage device, which means any hard drive or other local store. It uses a network store as an example ("such as a network store").
As for MCE, barely anyone uses it, so I didn't feel it warranted a mention.
Apparently you're not aware that editors often shorten user submissions and remove words and phrases. Wanna bitch? Bitch at the editor who cut down my submission, which was longer and included more information.
They'll notice when publications like the NYT review Vista, compare it to the more advanced OS X Leopard, discuss the protracted and disappointing development cycle of the last half-decade, and mention the usage restrictions in the seven (!) different versions, not counting separate 32-bit and 64-bit versions which makes for a total of fourteen versions of Windows Vista.
If they don't notice Vista's limitations then, they'll notice when they start using it and get bugged by UAC every day.
I didn't fabricate it. I quoted the item from Robert McLaws, who cites page 11, that says you can't copy the software to a storage device. This means you can't copy Vista ISOs.
In crazy-land, where every year is the year of Linux on the desktop, the iPod is lame for having less space than a Nomad and no wireless, and you're evil if you "steal" GPL code but you're awesome if you "borrow" copyrighted music or software.
This patent was actually filed back in 2002 and was slated for OS X Panther but was pulled for whatever reason. It's not uncommon for a patent to take years to be granted, hence the term "patent pending."
That 7 million sales figure you're quoting is typical misleading from Microsoft. It's not the number of SALES, it's the number of OEM PCs that Microsoft licensed Windows XP to. Microsoft never did provide official sales figures in 2001 because it was so disappointing and lagged behind both Windows 95 and Windows 98.
Sorry, kid. I will say it amazes me that the American economy has come to rely on something so unreliable. But again, Microsoft was convicted of being an abusive monopoly, and the company had to cheat to get its inferior product all over the market (Jacking up licensing fees if OEMs dared sell competing Microsoft software? Revoking licenses if they even uttered the word "Linux?" Awesome...).
did Linux sell 7 million copies? I don't think so.
Linux is free. Of course it didn't sell 7 million copies.
Windows only has market share due to the crippling OEM deals of the 90s. As I said before, it amuses me that Microsoft fanbois obsess over market share metrics, because it's all they have left to defend the inferior Win32 codebase that makes up XP (and soon Vista).
Funny though, cause according to Netcraft IIS has been making solid gains since January. You will notice the GP says "continues to grow", as in a "rate of change" which is true according to Netcraft. You lied and said "Apache has twice the market share of IIS" which is barely true (won't be in a few months if the trends continue) but you ignored the valid point of the grandparent post. Fanboi.
Your anger amuses me. I didn't lie about anything (what the hell does "barely true" mean?). Maybe you should learn to read and see that Apache has 60% to Microsoft's 30%. Next.
Fact is Microsoft is the big gorilla in the OS business.
Just like IBM was?
And they haven't declined yet. Will Vista be the turning point? I don't know. But Windows is still **the** dominant OS. They are very relevant.
No, they are not. The tech industry is all about the web and digital media now, and Microsoft has nothing in those markets. They're not market leaders any more. They are irrelevant. Nobody's afraid of them anymore.
When IE7 comes out, that will change. I refuse to use Firefox due to its ridiculous memory usage. This is something that people would be mocking IE for, but it's Firefox, so it's given a pass.
Windows' market in both the desktop and server markets continue to grow.
No, it doesn't. Hell, Apache still has twice as much market share as IIS.
Enough said. That alone, considering they own over 92% of the desktop market, and over 55% of the server market makes them VERY relevant.
Again, their entrenched market share doesn't make them market leaders. XP did not sell over 7 million copies and was, in fact, a slow seller that only gradually replaced Windows 98 on users' desktops in the intervening years. Analysts are predicting even lower adoption rates for Vista, with figures as low as 35% by 2008. This is because Windows sales are directly tied to OEM sales of new PCs, not because users are rushing out and buying it off a shelf.
I have a theory about why Windows enthusiasts always cite market share figures as some sort of validator of quality. I think it's because they know Windows generally sucks and is based on an inferior, aging codebase, so to justify it in their minds, they say to themselves, "Well, it's #1, so it must be the best!" When you attack that fundamental premise, they go berserk. It's like clockwork--criticize Windows quality, and out comes the market share numbers, as if that justifies the inferior quality.
Regardless, IBM also owned the market, and we saw what happened to them. They had entrenched market share, but they were no longer leading that market and were eventually overtaken by smaller, nimbler competitors like Microsoft. Now Microsoft is in the same position.
Competitors once feared Microsoft, but now nobody does, and they're often the punchline of jokes. They'll always have their little core group of supporters (like yourself), but Microsoft defenders are like young Republicans--strange, militant outcasts who never get invited to parties and never get laid. All the hip products and technologies are elsewhere, and Microsoft has lost a ton of engineers to Google.
The new driving factors in technology are on the web and in digital media, the two markets Microsoft has virtually zero presence. They're an irrelevant company.
No, they don't. Microsoft is not relevant anymore. Tell me how they're leading the market these days? They have entrenched market share, and that's the only reason people are still using them. When Dell is telling the press that they wish they could sell OS X instead of Windows, you've got a problem. Vista and Office 2007 won't be big sellers outside the Microsoft enthusiast groups.
Yes, you are. Having the dominant market share doesn't mean you're the market leader. Microsoft hasn't led the market in a very long time.
People are calling Vista and Microsoft irrelevant because 1.) Microsoft itself is calling its shrink-wrapped business model irrelevant, and 2.) Windows hasn't seen any revolutionary updates since 1995, and everything else has gone web-based. More importantly, Microsoft isn't doing anything that competitors are clamoring to recreate--it's the other way around, with Microsoft repeatedly announcing their versions of web services that Google already does and their versions of digital media that Apple already does.
IBM was once #1 too, if you'll recall. They owned the market, but they became irrelevant.
If it was a major version release, it would've been 11. Going from 10.x to 10.y is by definition a point release, not a major release.
Wrong. A major version update includes a major point release.
That doesn't change the fact that if Apple want me to think that 10.3 is "a major version release" they should name it as such.
So all it will take to make you think that is bumping a number? Simply examining the changes yourself isn't enough? Take a visit to Arstechnica and read Siracusa's reviews sometime.
What's weird about Ballmer's comment is that Microsoft was reportedly one of the bidders for YouTube along with Yahoo. As for not having a business model, maybe Ballmer should take a look at their own web services sometime...
Some murderers might be "rehabilitated" according to the justice system, but the fact remains that the flaw exists in their personality that once drove them to kill someone. If you were angry enough to actually kill someone (not out of self defense), I'm sorry, but that's a major flaw in your mental makeup. You can't magically change someone's brain or their personality. I understand the need to feel sorry for someone who sat in jail for 8 years and is now "being a productive member of society," but that doesn't change the fact that their victim had their life taken from them, and the judicial system protects society from that threat by jailing these murderers because the risk is too great to hope that they aren't driven to that point again.
That "incremental update," as you ignorantly call it (nice nick, by the way), was a major version release with a whole new version of OS X, new features, and new technologies. It wasn't some minor service pack.
And that massive update in September isn't so massive when you point out that it's the most we'll see all year. Meanwhile, Microsoft released an IE patch, then released a patch to fix the patch, then released a patch to fix THAT patch. And you wonder why people complain about Microsoft?
Slashdot Mirror
Um, that's because Microsoft has OEM contracts in place that raise Windows license fees if companies ship competing software, even if it's simply provided as an option. Why do you think Dell barely advertises Linux? Yes, it would be foolish for OEMs to cross Microsoft because they risk having their licensing fees raised, or worse, their license revoked, which would be commercial suicide. And so Windows stays firmly entrenched on OEM pre-installations.
This myth needs to die. People don't "want" Windows; they simply use whatever is installed on their computer. They barely even know what version of Windows they're even running. That's why OEM contracts are the lifeblood for Microsoft, because almost all Windows sales come from OEM pre-installations.
Again, people do not WANT Windows. Whatever starts up when they push the power button is what they'll use. Microsoft has spent decades using its power to negotiate itself onto that boot screen.
They were found to be one in a court of law.
There is plenty stopping people from using other operating systems on their PC, #1 being that it's difficult to find PCs that ship non-Windows on them. Dell doesn't even advertise it.
It's not a myth. If I go down to Wal-mart and buy a PC, it will have Windows on it. That's the result of decades of coercive OEM contracts.
No, people use Microsoft Windows because it's what comes on their computers. They don't "like" it. Most users are confused and frustrated with Windows and PCs. Maybe you should try tech support sometime. You'll get a very clear idea of how poorly designed Windows is, how inconsistent its interface is, and how buggy the system is as a whole. My favorite part is the classic sequence of telling them to right-click on something to get a context-sensitive menu, which invariably makes them question "left click or right click" from that point onward whenever you tell them to click anything. And people wonder why Mac OS X is designed to only require one button for its interface?
No, Windows is difficult to use. It has bizarre paradigms. For instance, the Start menu looks like it has your programs on it, but those aren't actually your programs--they're merely "shortcuts" to your programs. You install and uninstall programs by running other programs, instead of simply dragging the programs to the Trash--er, sorry, Recycle Bin. Windows also requires apps bury their settings in a convoluted registry that is often exploited by malware, and the operating system as a whole generally requires a ton more clicks to accomplish something than, say, OS X.
It seems you aren't aware of the history of Microsoft in the early 1990s. They coerced OEMs into signing contracts that would raise Windows licensing fees considerably if manufacturers dared to ship competing software besides Microsoft's. If they didn't ship Windows, they risked having their Windows license revoked, even if they only provided a non-Windows PC simply as an option. Not having a Windows license would have been a death knell, so OEMs were forced into complying with Microsoft's abusive demands. They were leveraging their monopoly position to force competitors out of the market. Oxford says a monopoly is "a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service." That is what they achieved.
People do not choose Windows. The vast majority of Windows sales comes solely from OEM sales, which means people are simply using whatever is booting up when they first power on the machine. Your comments illustrate something of a lack of knowledge about most users, and if you've done any kind of large-scale tech support or IT management, you know exactly how people feel about PCs and Windows. But I think you were just playing devil's advocate in your post--no sane person would argue that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. That's just silly. The question is whether that monopoly is abusive, and they were found to be such in the antitrust trial.
Sadly, Vista will be even more confusing because it's got several inconsistent paradigms. I count at least five different styles of application menus, some of them not even visible until you press Alt. My favorite strange dialog actually has two Properties buttons on it. Classic.
I'm not a Republican. Can't "you Democrats" stop demonizing every critic of your beloved hero Bill Clinton, the guy who did more to encourage cronyism in the White House than any president in history? Pardoning all his buddies in the last hours of his administration was real slick.
Except that your articles will be subject to vandalism and editing by anonymous amateurs while Sanger's will remain pristine.
Not only are you an idiot for not knowing Wikipedia's copyright terms, but you contradict the standard Slashdot mantra that copying isn't theft.
As opposed to the Clinton administration which let the DMCA pass through?
As a fork of the current Wikipedia database, so will Citizendium.
A complete lie! It says right in the EULA that you cannot copy "the software" to a storage device, the software referring to the Vista installation disc. This means you cannot copy the disc image.
It says storage device, which means any hard drive or other local store. It uses a network store as an example ("such as a network store").
As for MCE, barely anyone uses it, so I didn't feel it warranted a mention.
Apparently you're not aware that editors often shorten user submissions and remove words and phrases. Wanna bitch? Bitch at the editor who cut down my submission, which was longer and included more information.
They'll notice when publications like the NYT review Vista, compare it to the more advanced OS X Leopard, discuss the protracted and disappointing development cycle of the last half-decade, and mention the usage restrictions in the seven (!) different versions, not counting separate 32-bit and 64-bit versions which makes for a total of fourteen versions of Windows Vista.
If they don't notice Vista's limitations then, they'll notice when they start using it and get bugged by UAC every day.
I didn't fabricate it. I quoted the item from Robert McLaws, who cites page 11, that says you can't copy the software to a storage device. This means you can't copy Vista ISOs.
In crazy-land, where every year is the year of Linux on the desktop, the iPod is lame for having less space than a Nomad and no wireless, and you're evil if you "steal" GPL code but you're awesome if you "borrow" copyrighted music or software.
This patent was actually filed back in 2002 and was slated for OS X Panther but was pulled for whatever reason. It's not uncommon for a patent to take years to be granted, hence the term "patent pending."
Nobody runs Apache on Win32. It's always coupled with BSD or Linux, which means Apache's market share reflects UNIX market share.
Absolutely. It totally decimates your point. Apache has TWICE the share of Microsoft's lame IIS. UNIX powers the web and always has.
HAHA. Linking to a Microsoft press release! Meanwhile, in the real world:
Windows XP sales lag
XP uptake 'too slow'
That 7 million sales figure you're quoting is typical misleading from Microsoft. It's not the number of SALES, it's the number of OEM PCs that Microsoft licensed Windows XP to. Microsoft never did provide official sales figures in 2001 because it was so disappointing and lagged behind both Windows 95 and Windows 98.
Sorry, kid. I will say it amazes me that the American economy has come to rely on something so unreliable. But again, Microsoft was convicted of being an abusive monopoly, and the company had to cheat to get its inferior product all over the market (Jacking up licensing fees if OEMs dared sell competing Microsoft software? Revoking licenses if they even uttered the word "Linux?" Awesome...).
Linux is free. Of course it didn't sell 7 million copies.
Windows only has market share due to the crippling OEM deals of the 90s. As I said before, it amuses me that Microsoft fanbois obsess over market share metrics, because it's all they have left to defend the inferior Win32 codebase that makes up XP (and soon Vista).
Your anger amuses me. I didn't lie about anything (what the hell does "barely true" mean?). Maybe you should learn to read and see that Apache has 60% to Microsoft's 30%. Next.
Just like IBM was?
No, they are not. The tech industry is all about the web and digital media now, and Microsoft has nothing in those markets. They're not market leaders any more. They are irrelevant. Nobody's afraid of them anymore.
When IE7 comes out, that will change. I refuse to use Firefox due to its ridiculous memory usage. This is something that people would be mocking IE for, but it's Firefox, so it's given a pass.
No, it doesn't. Hell, Apache still has twice as much market share as IIS.
Again, their entrenched market share doesn't make them market leaders. XP did not sell over 7 million copies and was, in fact, a slow seller that only gradually replaced Windows 98 on users' desktops in the intervening years. Analysts are predicting even lower adoption rates for Vista, with figures as low as 35% by 2008. This is because Windows sales are directly tied to OEM sales of new PCs, not because users are rushing out and buying it off a shelf.
I have a theory about why Windows enthusiasts always cite market share figures as some sort of validator of quality. I think it's because they know Windows generally sucks and is based on an inferior, aging codebase, so to justify it in their minds, they say to themselves, "Well, it's #1, so it must be the best!" When you attack that fundamental premise, they go berserk. It's like clockwork--criticize Windows quality, and out comes the market share numbers, as if that justifies the inferior quality.
Regardless, IBM also owned the market, and we saw what happened to them. They had entrenched market share, but they were no longer leading that market and were eventually overtaken by smaller, nimbler competitors like Microsoft. Now Microsoft is in the same position.
Competitors once feared Microsoft, but now nobody does, and they're often the punchline of jokes. They'll always have their little core group of supporters (like yourself), but Microsoft defenders are like young Republicans--strange, militant outcasts who never get invited to parties and never get laid. All the hip products and technologies are elsewhere, and Microsoft has lost a ton of engineers to Google.
The new driving factors in technology are on the web and in digital media, the two markets Microsoft has virtually zero presence. They're an irrelevant company.
No, they don't. Microsoft is not relevant anymore. Tell me how they're leading the market these days? They have entrenched market share, and that's the only reason people are still using them. When Dell is telling the press that they wish they could sell OS X instead of Windows, you've got a problem. Vista and Office 2007 won't be big sellers outside the Microsoft enthusiast groups.
Yes, you are. Having the dominant market share doesn't mean you're the market leader. Microsoft hasn't led the market in a very long time.
People are calling Vista and Microsoft irrelevant because 1.) Microsoft itself is calling its shrink-wrapped business model irrelevant, and 2.) Windows hasn't seen any revolutionary updates since 1995, and everything else has gone web-based. More importantly, Microsoft isn't doing anything that competitors are clamoring to recreate--it's the other way around, with Microsoft repeatedly announcing their versions of web services that Google already does and their versions of digital media that Apple already does.
IBM was once #1 too, if you'll recall. They owned the market, but they became irrelevant.
Wrong. A major version update includes a major point release.
So all it will take to make you think that is bumping a number? Simply examining the changes yourself isn't enough? Take a visit to Arstechnica and read Siracusa's reviews sometime.
What's weird about Ballmer's comment is that Microsoft was reportedly one of the bidders for YouTube along with Yahoo. As for not having a business model, maybe Ballmer should take a look at their own web services sometime...
Some murderers might be "rehabilitated" according to the justice system, but the fact remains that the flaw exists in their personality that once drove them to kill someone. If you were angry enough to actually kill someone (not out of self defense), I'm sorry, but that's a major flaw in your mental makeup. You can't magically change someone's brain or their personality. I understand the need to feel sorry for someone who sat in jail for 8 years and is now "being a productive member of society," but that doesn't change the fact that their victim had their life taken from them, and the judicial system protects society from that threat by jailing these murderers because the risk is too great to hope that they aren't driven to that point again.
Outside of a direct confession, all cases are circumstancial. I wish people would stop latching onto the idea like it's a bad thing.
Even weirder, it's posted in the "Your Rights Online" section. How are my rights being affected here?
That "incremental update," as you ignorantly call it (nice nick, by the way), was a major version release with a whole new version of OS X, new features, and new technologies. It wasn't some minor service pack.
And that massive update in September isn't so massive when you point out that it's the most we'll see all year. Meanwhile, Microsoft released an IE patch, then released a patch to fix the patch, then released a patch to fix THAT patch. And you wonder why people complain about Microsoft?