Sorry, submitted too early. If airman learn a skill like "enterprise"-level NT management, or fiber-optic installation, it takes two seconds to realize something. They make maybe $25,000 and have to take orders from superiors, and the skills that they just learned can net them $75,000-$90,000 in the civilian world. Airman can leave, not train a replacement, and the brain drain means that the existing facities are not used as they should. Put in two OSes and low training ops and watch the network go down permanently. Now, if you put Win NT on the desktops and have Linux w/Samba emulate PDC and BDC (domain controllers) in the back, perhaps it could fly. But keeping the information on base is a difficult prospect. Wouldn't you triple your salary if you could ?
I have trained air force personnel at Shaw in windows NT, and I have done help desk support for the national guard. A lot of the time, the "sys admin" was placed in that position because he knew how to use Word. In an environment where people go TDY for weeks, get transferred, get reassigned, get placed into a job where the previous occupant left without docs or training a replacement, you learn to think conservatively. People here know about Win95/98/NT. They know to double-click an icon, and how to start Outlook. For some, this is _very_ new technology that snuck in three years before they retire, and this might be the third iteration of computers in their office in fifteen years (dumb terms, Novell, Win). The advanced skills are not learned because not many people know about them. You should see how excited some airman became about setting file permissions!
The reason why FreePC failed but broadcast television works is that with television the user still pays for the receiving unit (the TV), while the PCs were given away for free. Everyone who wants radio has to buy a radio, while the radio station only has to get the license to broadcast (and renew occasionally), put up an antenna, pay for some talent, and broadcast away. The ads mostly pay for talent and execs salaries, with some remaining for profit and upkeep.
Compare to universities, in that students buy a computer, and then hook to a T1/T3 backbone and get the "bandwidth" as part of tuition. Internet is "essentially" free, and all it took was a receiving unit. Giving away the receiving units too might be a bit much, hoping to recoop ~$500 per consumer was pie in the sky.
Free internet access services (iNet)? Maybe, but here's a better idea.
New houses come with electric outlets and a connecteed power line (duh). Also, they have phone lines (double duh) because no one would want a house without them. In ten years, I believe that you would not want to rent a house or apartment unless it had some sort of high-speed internet access available. Once the cable line / phone line is set up for two-way digital access, then essentially all you have to do is hook up and tell the provider so (suspiciously like you would for cable TV today). Internet access could even be factored in with rent. Hey, my old dorm wae $350/month with free cable.
I tried to convince a friend to get a cable modem, and install ethernet 10base-T wire in the walls attached to a hub and the modem. Five rooms = $10 extra a month in rent for "free" unlimited internet connection as fast as you would want = free internet for landlord with tidy profit besides. He wouldn't do it though, I think he hates money.
Several items here. First, Microsoft has no qualms about selling items off at a loss to gain a foothold in an emerging market. For example, you can buy a WebTV unit for $99. The unit costs $199 to make. So, Microsoft has to reimburse the manufacturers $100 for every unit that they sell. It sounds like a ludicrous business plan (we'll make it up in volume!), until you realize that if Microsoft controls your internet gateway, there is a lot of subsidiary income to be made with ad banners, third-party contracts, and Microsoft "quick facts" that dis Novell or Linux. We're talking captive audience here. Also, remember that Internet Explorer by Microsoft's own numbers costs tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to support, maintain, and upgrade. How much would your company pay to give products away? Not much, unless you are trying to stop competitors from making competing APIs. Second, is there a mention of when this XBox will come out? The price might be based on optimistic expectations of processor deveolpment, hard drive storage density (already $10 a gig essentially), memory ($1 a meg now), modems ($5), and DVD development (if done in software, it's a lot cheaper, yet slower). Comparing today's prices with the prices of six months to a year from now is not always accurate. Besides, the OS costs nothing to them. and finally, it could be vaporware in the sense that why would you buy Nintendo if Microsoft's hardware kicked ass and was only, oh, a few months away? This is the same company that was going to release Windows NT 5.0 in 1998 as the synthesis of NT and 95. Now Windows 2000 is due in February with a number of bugs, and the 95/NT line will not converge until at least 2003. So, taking their first "crack at the ball" in terms of expectations seriously will just result in heartache and pain. Also, how enticing would it be for Microsoft to say, "Why would you want to code for Playstation when you could code for PCs and XBox simultaneously?". Two markets are better than one, and if the change in code from one system to another was accomplished by going into Visual Studio and clicking Compile -> x86 or Compile -> XBox, well then damn. So, if it's not true, it helps them. And if it is true, then Microsoft has done it again.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, submitted too early. If airman learn a skill like "enterprise"-level NT management, or fiber-optic installation, it takes two seconds to realize something. They make maybe $25,000 and have to take orders from superiors, and the skills that they just learned can net them $75,000-$90,000 in the civilian world. Airman can leave, not train a replacement, and the brain drain means that the existing facities are not used as they should. Put in two OSes and low training ops and watch the network go down permanently. Now, if you put Win NT on the desktops and have Linux w/Samba emulate PDC and BDC (domain controllers) in the back, perhaps it could fly. But keeping the information on base is a difficult prospect. Wouldn't you triple your salary if you could ?
I have trained air force personnel at Shaw in windows NT, and I have done help desk support for the national guard. A lot of the time, the "sys admin" was placed in that position because he knew how to use Word. In an environment where people go TDY for weeks, get transferred, get reassigned, get placed into a job where the previous occupant left without docs or training a replacement, you learn to think conservatively. People here know about Win95/98/NT. They know to double-click an icon, and how to start Outlook. For some, this is _very_ new technology that snuck in three years before they retire, and this might be the third iteration of computers in their office in fifteen years (dumb terms, Novell, Win). The advanced skills are not learned because not many people know about them. You should see how excited some airman became about setting file permissions!
The reason why FreePC failed but broadcast television works is that with television the user still pays for the receiving unit (the TV), while the PCs were given away for free. Everyone who wants radio has to buy a radio, while the radio station only has to get the license to broadcast (and renew occasionally), put up an antenna, pay for some talent, and broadcast away. The ads mostly pay for talent and execs salaries, with some remaining for profit and upkeep.
Compare to universities, in that students buy a computer, and then hook to a T1/T3 backbone and get the "bandwidth" as part of tuition. Internet is "essentially" free, and all it took was a receiving unit. Giving away the receiving units too might be a bit much, hoping to recoop ~$500 per consumer was pie in the sky.
Free internet access services (iNet)? Maybe, but here's a better idea.
New houses come with electric outlets and a connecteed power line (duh). Also, they have phone lines (double duh) because no one would want a house without them. In ten years, I believe that you would not want to rent a house or apartment unless it had some sort of high-speed internet access available. Once the cable line / phone line is set up for two-way digital access, then essentially all you have to do is hook up and tell the provider so (suspiciously like you would for cable TV today). Internet access could even be factored in with rent. Hey, my old dorm wae $350/month with free cable.
I tried to convince a friend to get a cable modem, and install ethernet 10base-T wire in the walls attached to a hub and the modem. Five rooms = $10 extra a month in rent for "free" unlimited internet connection as fast as you would want = free internet for landlord with tidy profit besides. He wouldn't do it though, I think he hates money.
Apparently, off camera he said he might open up the source code, "if that's all there is". Still makes me skeptical though.
Bloomberg originally ran this story, saying that Bill Gates said he would ``do our absolute best to achieve it" (meaning a settlement). The interpreted that to mean opening up the Windows source code, and ran the story. Here is the links where Bloomberg admits that Microsoft completely denies this story. contains
Several items here. First, Microsoft has no qualms about selling items off at a loss to gain a foothold in an emerging market. For example, you can buy a WebTV unit for $99. The unit costs $199 to make. So, Microsoft has to reimburse the manufacturers $100 for every unit that they sell. It sounds like a ludicrous business plan (we'll make it up in volume!), until you realize that if Microsoft controls your internet gateway, there is a lot of subsidiary income to be made with ad banners, third-party contracts, and Microsoft "quick facts" that dis Novell or Linux. We're talking captive audience here. Also, remember that Internet Explorer by Microsoft's own numbers costs tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to support, maintain, and upgrade. How much would your company pay to give products away? Not much, unless you are trying to stop competitors from making competing APIs. Second, is there a mention of when this XBox will come out? The price might be based on optimistic expectations of processor deveolpment, hard drive storage density (already $10 a gig essentially), memory ($1 a meg now), modems ($5), and DVD development (if done in software, it's a lot cheaper, yet slower). Comparing today's prices with the prices of six months to a year from now is not always accurate. Besides, the OS costs nothing to them. and finally, it could be vaporware in the sense that why would you buy Nintendo if Microsoft's hardware kicked ass and was only, oh, a few months away? This is the same company that was going to release Windows NT 5.0 in 1998 as the synthesis of NT and 95. Now Windows 2000 is due in February with a number of bugs, and the 95/NT line will not converge until at least 2003. So, taking their first "crack at the ball" in terms of expectations seriously will just result in heartache and pain. Also, how enticing would it be for Microsoft to say, "Why would you want to code for Playstation when you could code for PCs and XBox simultaneously?". Two markets are better than one, and if the change in code from one system to another was accomplished by going into Visual Studio and clicking Compile -> x86 or Compile -> XBox, well then damn. So, if it's not true, it helps them. And if it is true, then Microsoft has done it again.