That's a very interesting read of the subpoena. I would even suggest it was a sensationalist interpretation.
And you also believe that those 637,000 people will not be on some sort of gov't interest list? I know that speculation on my part is also "sensationalist", but really, do you think it wont happen? And do you think people should want to NOT be put on that list?
The US government are starting to embarrass themselves in front of an international crowd.
Starting?
The US government has been disgracing itself for decades.
-jcr
Definition: "starting"
to begin something numerous years ago and realize it will take the general public a decade or more to realize it's already begun.
So, why not "starting"? Numerous other words have been redefined during our time.
Or argue that it never made sense to ban it in the first place, because it was never anywhere near as dangerous as the government made it out to be.
I would additionally suggest that it might have been at least as much a making of the government as it was a making lobbied for by the legal drugs industry - tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceuticals. I can't provide a reference at this point but I remember seeing on documentary about the Iran-Contra affair a claim that the biggest funders for the War on Drugs were tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceutical industries.
...and cotton & the paper industry (hemp in both cases).
Don't even go down that road with the "a plant is a plant" or "God made weed, man made beer" bullshit. If I want to snort crystal drain cleaner it's nobody else's business. It's my life, my body, fuck off.
Yes, but wouldn't you snorting crystal drain cleaner be a service to this nation? You need a better analogy.
Who decides what is "the right type" though? In my books, you have to be a crackpot to work for the government. Which makes me a crackpot in their books. Who is right? The one with the bigger sacks of money and the heavier array of disinfo catapults.
Puleez! The right type is obviously decided by our wonderful, trustworthy, brilliant lawmakers who will create and implement this policy. So...
Oh, wait. Yeah, this could be a problem after all. Nothing to see here.
Actually, those are legal rights. Human rights are pretty much the amount to live free from slavery and a few similar ones. At least that is the distinction as it was always explained to me in philosophy class. All else are legal distinctions for groups of people. Freedom of religion does not apply to imposed religion on a minor by a parent or by an adult the parent has designated to do so. Same for circulation, speech, or right to refuse medication. Those are legal rights to certain classes.
Do a Google search on it, and you will find tons of similar papers on the subject. You will also find flaws in all of them in favor of downplaying dolphin intelligence and group structures. Like the brain/size ratio. Let's just analyze that one, shall we?
The entire discussion about brain size is ignoring the fact that brain structure is far more important. Birds have tiny brains, yet they're pretty smart in some ways. No animal has a brain that comes anywhere close to ours, however.
That's called human ego (that misbelief). Research it (not human ego; dolphin's brains). They are as complex or more complex in each and every area.
That aside, dolphins have shown as complex social structures as humans
Elephants have complex social structures too. They mourn their dead. And pubescent male elephants behave in some ways remarkably similar to human teenagers. But that doesn't mean they should be treated like human teenagers. They're elephants, completely different needs from humans.
No one said they should be. This is not discussion about granting them drivers licenses at 18, or let them drink beer at 21. This is discussion amount the very very few things that are considered basic human rights. Those pretty much about to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not being treated as slaves and... cant think of any others - but you get the idea I hope.
Perhaps with that distinction, you will see this whole set of threads in a different light.
Human anatomy, while distinct from other apes in a few areas, is mostly unremarkable from the neck down...
YOUR human "anatomy" may be mostly unremarkable from the neck down, but dont go speaking for the rest of us!!!;-)
No, all joking aside, well said. And another point, this is not discussing "legal rights" which is different from "person (currently human) rights". People keep comparing all of this to babies and "vegetables"... why, I dont know. No one is suggesting we give dolphins drivers licenses or ID so they can buy beer at 21.
Actually that is more or less what happens with children. Granted, they have far more rights than animals before 18, but some rights are stripped out of them because they are considered immature. Ditto for mentally handicapped.
This has been brought up by DOZENS of others besides you, so please keep in mind this is directed at everyone who's said something similar.
There is a BIG difference between basic human rights (which ALL humans in this country, regardless of age, are supposedly entitled to) and legal rights that confer privileges onto certain groups of people.
People need to stop confusing the two in the context of this conversation.
That's not circular reasoning, it's simply an observation. What better definition of person than "like us" do we have? If merely having a sense of self and a personality is enough to get the right to vote, then quite a lot of animals will fit that bill. Sure, dolphins are smart, but so are chimps and elephant. And whales, orang-utans and crows. But none of them come anywhere near any semblance of the kind of cultural ability that we have.
Learn something, wont you? Dolphins (other than war and senseless killing) have very complex societal and cultural existences. We have known that for DECADES.
Do a Google search on it, and you will find tons of similar papers on the subject. You will also find flaws in all of them in favor of downplaying dolphin intelligence and group structures. Like the brain/size ratio. Let's just analyze that one, shall we? Let's say you have an IQ of 140 and weigh 170lbs. Two years later, you weigh 300lbs. Are you any more stupid? Should we use your changing overall weight compared to your static brain weight to determine how intelligent you now are? Now, how much of a dolphin is blubber?
That aside, dolphins have shown as complex social structures as humans (again, sans the senseless violence and senseless wars and assignation of importance to trivial things).
Seems to me, they're SMARTER than humans. And the universe no longer revolves around the Earth. We DONT understand them, we DONT do any new research. We ALWAYS err on the side of "me human! me smart! that animal! that dumb!" whenever we dont understand anything. The human ego has gotten us into a lot of trouble that way.
..and find it amusing that people are making cracks about how the govt dropped the ball, instead of the obvious fact that the govt. chose MS after considering options and google is just jilted. Because that would be evil.
And I find it amusing that you spout off random nonsense, which happens to be the exact opposite of the article, Google's initial complaint, and what the court found, which was that the government did NOT provide proper justification or approvals, or considered any alternatives.
Let me quote the relevant part for you to save you from having to read the article (which you obviously (a) did not and/or (b) are simply trolling):
Judge Susan Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims wrote, in an order made public late Tuesday, that a July determination by an assistant secretary naming Microsoft's Business Productivity Online Suite-Federal (BPOS) as the agency's standard for messaging and collaboration did not include "proper justification or appropriate approvals."
and...
The agency's determination that BPOS was its standard included "no estimate of internal agency cost" of other options, Braden wrote. The determination also failed to list any potential alternatives, including Google's attempts to sell the agency on its products, she (the judge) wrote.
How does this Balkanize the Android platform? Just because there's an Amazon store doesn't mean you wouldn't be able to still use Google's store.
Until some carrier deal locks the app marketplace to Amazon and you cant get into the Google Apps Store? I am not saying it will happen, I am saying it's possible. Kinda like being locked into Bing Search, as noted by LockerGnome (and numerous others).
> to get the $.01 per transaction google currently gets.
more like 30% unfortunately for us Android developers... OK, that's shared with the carrier but still...
I suspect the payout via Amazon will be worse, just based off the fees for selling one's own products through their other services. I also suspect that if that is the case, it may make or break Amazon's plans (or at least limit their reach).
Since SOMEONE else created WebTV, and MS bought it, I would say they are still reactive.
I'd agree, except the time frame between WebTV being released and Microsoft buying them is rather small, and at that time, no one saw the value (and no one was really using WebTV). So... I wouldn't call it reactive. But you may be right, it's not quite proactive either since they didn't create the product. On that note though, it describes every product Microsoft has bought and rebranded, from DOS straight through the components of Office.
If I get in line early for concert tickets, then I fall asleep in line and everyone else gets ahead of me, do I deserve to be called "proactive"? MS might have done some work in this area but they never enthusiastically pursued it.
I'm not sure if I agree with this one, and as my comment history will show, I'm all for bashing Microsoft when they screw up (I can tell you nightmare stories about the deceptive and/or illegal things they've done to corner markets... but much of that came out already in their various lawsuits). But in this case, I don't think I can agree, because they did aggressively pursue this. Aggressively pursuing something, and knowing how to pursue something are two entirely different things.
If I am running a race and run the wrong direction, I'm not going to win, no matter how fast I run. For a time (quite a long one), Microsoft very actively promoted WebTV. For a time (quite a long one), Microsoft (or the OEMs they worked with) very actively promoted and pushed their Media Center products. They had numerous WebTV releases and fixes. They had almost ten releases of Windows Media Center and Media Center like products (ie: TV Pack, xBoxTV, etc).
They were not asleep... they weren't heading in the right direction (a direction that was compelling enough to the market), partially due to their own ineptitude, partially (at least early on) due to technology not being at a level where they could release a compelling product.
There's a difference between not really trying (falling asleep) and not knowing what the heck the market really wants or how to properly create a market (going the wrong direction at full tilt).
Though to be fair, I am not sure which is worse. In thinking about it, what did happen (going the wrong direction for 15 years) may be the worse of the two. Sometimes being reactive is better than being proactive. Think Google. Very late to most of the markets they currently dominate. Reactive entrances into those markets. But then ran full tilt in the correct direction and became the dominant force, all while creating compelling reasons to use their products (by going the extra steps in improving or revolutionizing those markets).
Microsoft's attempts have been warmed over and disconnected up to this point. Many of the things you mention are ample demonstration of that. This includes the previous generations of extender hardware that never really went anywhere and were quickly discontinued. MCE and friends continue to be fringe products used by people comfortable building their own custom PCs and cobbleware solutions. If this becomes less the case in future it will be due to the increasing prevalence of systems like the Acer Revo that are cheap and suitable. Although they are so cheap that Best Buy tends to hide them in a corner if they sell them at all (kind of like netbooks).
I agree. But that was not my point. As I think I mentioned, they messed up every attempt so far. My sole point was that this isn't so much reactionary, as opposed to continuing a battle they started in the mid/late 90's.
I also agree there are already viable options. And, to add to what neither of us has discussed, the days of people waiting with baited breath for an announced, but not released piece of vaporware or vaporproduct from Microsoft are long gone. They MUST win this one on compelling reasons to choose their solution. Whether or not that happens will be dependent on their implementation.
Honestly, they have EVERYTHING they need to make THE most compelling Internet TV experience ever. But that doesn't mean they will do so. So, the opportunity still exists for them to enter and conquer this market. Only time will tell whether they take advantage of it, or like we both noted, remain disconnected from reality and consumer wants/needs and squander yet another opportunity.
For client, Windows is MORE expensive than virtually any other OS when it comes to hardware costs - EXCEPT MacOSX.
In other words, on the client or for trivial server workloads, from most to least expensive: 1. Mac; 2. Windows; 3. everything else. I can get behind this. But does your analysis include the cost of replacing hardware that has a Windows driver and a Mac driver but lacks a Linux driver with hardware that has a good Linux driver, especially for things like graphics, WLAN, laptop webcams, flatbed scanners, and the like? And does it include a subscription to CrossOver so that more of your existing games and other non-free apps will keep running (vs. plain Wine) while you phase out their use?
Good point. I'd say that in most generic setups, it doesn't matter, as a suitable Linux/MacOSX capable piece of hardware is available. In specific needs ("I specifically need a GX42A scanner") then yes, I would agree. The costs may be more. You're definitely right that is something I should have considered. In the server arena, that isn't so much of an issue. The base graphics card support is more than sufficient, there usually won't be additional hardware attached that is "Windows only" and so on.
Similar to your CrossOver/Wine comment. In all of this, all I have in my defense was a very literal reading of the OP's comment, which made no mention of ancillary costs, thus I responded specifically to server/workstation costs only, without taking those factors into account.
Once again MS arrives late to the party with an offering that likely won't offer enough to be competitive. Good ol' MS: Reactive rather than proactive.
Not entirely accurate. Microsoft has went to this party before, and been "kicked out" before. This is just their most recent attempt. WebTV (launched 1996, bought by MS in 1997) being one such attempt. Followed by Windows Media Center. Followed by a "new and (un)improved" WebTV, followed by updated Windows Media Center, followed by even more Windows Media Center releases (in total, since and including launch, release/versions 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, Vista, Windows 7, and TV Pack 2008), xBox Media Center somewhere in that timeline, Portable Media Center for things like the Zune and so on.
Maybe this time they will succeed. The point above isn't slamming Microsoft. My point is you aren't quite correct in blaming Microsoft for being reactive instead of proactive. They were one of the first companies that saw the worth of this marketplace (even if they didnt figure out how to capitalize on it). Often it's hard to START a marketplace. Now, Microsoft has the advantage of seeing what's working for other companies in this marketplace. Thus my point is, it is NOT fair to claim they are reactive in this situation. They saw the potential gains of such a scenario when they purchased WebTV and later released WMC. They simply didnt know how to approach the market properly.
Now, it (if they want to succeed) will be a combination of their previous proactive attempts at Online TV plus a reactive look at ensuring their next offering addresses the needs, concerns and desires of those consumers who enjoy and use GoogleTV, AppleTV and NetFlix.
Further in Microsoft's defense, the technology has advanced light years since WebTV, making this marketplace a lot more attractive to the disaster that the initial WebTV boxes provided. And one step even further in that direction of defending them (at least for WebTV), besides the fact that the hardware was light years behind today's, WebTV and it's nightmare was an acquisition. MS did indeed try to rectify a lot of the issues with it, and in many cases definitely did so. But still ran into hardware limitations. Yes, there were still mistakes MS made in not judging what the majority of the marketplace wanted or needed, but my point is, it still would have been unlikely for them to succeed at THAT time (due to hardware and bandwidth limitations), even if they avoided their other mistakes.
Ok, I understand you don't like Windows. However, when you say things like "in some cases, has lots of issues with parts of those products); namely Apache, MySQL, PHP, Perl, etc (which semi-fully function at a big speed decrease over a LAMP or WAMP stack or Apple implementation."
Do you know what WAMP means?
Yes, I should have said AMPOS2. WAMP used to be Warp Server and AMP, but then was co-opted for Windows Server and AMP. Sadly, though OS/2 had it (AMP) long before Windows, it's a small enough niche market that no one noticed or cared when they decided to call the Windows AMP stack WAMP.
As for the issues running AMP on Windows, just check the release notes for the workaround, outstanding issues and so on for each component of AMP. Here's a page with some of the notes on just the Apache issues: http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/
Slashdot Mirror
That's a very interesting read of the subpoena. I would even suggest it was a sensationalist interpretation.
And you also believe that those 637,000 people will not be on some sort of gov't interest list? I know that speculation on my part is also "sensationalist", but really, do you think it wont happen? And do you think people should want to NOT be put on that list?
The US government are starting to embarrass themselves in front of an international crowd.
Starting?
The US government has been disgracing itself for decades.
-jcr
Definition: "starting"
to begin something numerous years ago and realize it will take the general public a decade or more to realize it's already begun.
So, why not "starting"? Numerous other words have been redefined during our time.
Or argue that it never made sense to ban it in the first place, because it was never anywhere near as dangerous as the government made it out to be.
I would additionally suggest that it might have been at least as much a making of the government as it was a making lobbied for by the legal drugs industry - tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceuticals. I can't provide a reference at this point but I remember seeing on documentary about the Iran-Contra affair a claim that the biggest funders for the War on Drugs were tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceutical industries.
...and cotton & the paper industry (hemp in both cases).
AC's would be at the top of my list.
Don't even go down that road with the "a plant is a plant" or "God made weed, man made beer" bullshit. If I want to snort crystal drain cleaner it's nobody else's business. It's my life, my body, fuck off.
Yes, but wouldn't you snorting crystal drain cleaner be a service to this nation? You need a better analogy.
Who decides what is "the right type" though? In my books, you have to be a crackpot to work for the government. Which makes me a crackpot in their books. Who is right? The one with the bigger sacks of money and the heavier array of disinfo catapults.
Puleez! The right type is obviously decided by our wonderful, trustworthy, brilliant lawmakers who will create and implement this policy. So...
Oh, wait. Yeah, this could be a problem after all. Nothing to see here.
I believe you are thinking of declassified.
Wow, maybe they could classify the constitution and then leak it. Would do a world of good.
Dammit!! I cant decide whether I should mod you Insightful or Funny...
Actually, those are legal rights. Human rights are pretty much the amount to live free from slavery and a few similar ones. At least that is the distinction as it was always explained to me in philosophy class. All else are legal distinctions for groups of people. Freedom of religion does not apply to imposed religion on a minor by a parent or by an adult the parent has designated to do so. Same for circulation, speech, or right to refuse medication. Those are legal rights to certain classes.
Do a Google search on it, and you will find tons of similar papers on the subject. You will also find flaws in all of them in favor of downplaying dolphin intelligence and group structures. Like the brain/size ratio. Let's just analyze that one, shall we?
The entire discussion about brain size is ignoring the fact that brain structure is far more important. Birds have tiny brains, yet they're pretty smart in some ways. No animal has a brain that comes anywhere close to ours, however.
That's called human ego (that misbelief). Research it (not human ego; dolphin's brains). They are as complex or more complex in each and every area.
That aside, dolphins have shown as complex social structures as humans
Elephants have complex social structures too. They mourn their dead. And pubescent male elephants behave in some ways remarkably similar to human teenagers. But that doesn't mean they should be treated like human teenagers. They're elephants, completely different needs from humans.
No one said they should be. This is not discussion about granting them drivers licenses at 18, or let them drink beer at 21. This is discussion amount the very very few things that are considered basic human rights. Those pretty much about to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not being treated as slaves and... cant think of any others - but you get the idea I hope.
Perhaps with that distinction, you will see this whole set of threads in a different light.
Human anatomy, while distinct from other apes in a few areas, is mostly unremarkable from the neck down...
YOUR human "anatomy" may be mostly unremarkable from the neck down, but dont go speaking for the rest of us!!! ;-)
No, all joking aside, well said. And another point, this is not discussing "legal rights" which is different from "person (currently human) rights". People keep comparing all of this to babies and "vegetables"... why, I dont know. No one is suggesting we give dolphins drivers licenses or ID so they can buy beer at 21.
Actually that is more or less what happens with children. Granted, they have far more rights than animals before 18, but some rights are stripped out of them because they are considered immature. Ditto for mentally handicapped.
This has been brought up by DOZENS of others besides you, so please keep in mind this is directed at everyone who's said something similar.
There is a BIG difference between basic human rights (which ALL humans in this country, regardless of age, are supposedly entitled to) and legal rights that confer privileges onto certain groups of people.
People need to stop confusing the two in the context of this conversation.
That's not circular reasoning, it's simply an observation. What better definition of person than "like us" do we have? If merely having a sense of self and a personality is enough to get the right to vote, then quite a lot of animals will fit that bill. Sure, dolphins are smart, but so are chimps and elephant. And whales, orang-utans and crows. But none of them come anywhere near any semblance of the kind of cultural ability that we have.
Learn something, wont you? Dolphins (other than war and senseless killing) have very complex societal and cultural existences. We have known that for DECADES.
Do a Google search on it, and you will find tons of similar papers on the subject. You will also find flaws in all of them in favor of downplaying dolphin intelligence and group structures. Like the brain/size ratio. Let's just analyze that one, shall we? Let's say you have an IQ of 140 and weigh 170lbs. Two years later, you weigh 300lbs. Are you any more stupid? Should we use your changing overall weight compared to your static brain weight to determine how intelligent you now are? Now, how much of a dolphin is blubber?
That aside, dolphins have shown as complex social structures as humans (again, sans the senseless violence and senseless wars and assignation of importance to trivial things).
Seems to me, they're SMARTER than humans. And the universe no longer revolves around the Earth. We DONT understand them, we DONT do any new research. We ALWAYS err on the side of "me human! me smart! that animal! that dumb!" whenever we dont understand anything. The human ego has gotten us into a lot of trouble that way.
Does that mean that foreign, non-English speaking slaves should still be legal?
According to the Bible. Though, the language requirements aren't part of it.
If is done by Microsoft, is probably vapor or smoke (and mirrors).
Are you saying that a company that has specialized in vapor for decades would know nothing about a cloud?
Hmmm... ironically, I guess that's true. ;-)
..and find it amusing that people are making cracks about how the govt dropped the ball, instead of the obvious fact that the govt. chose MS after considering options and google is just jilted. Because that would be evil.
And I find it amusing that you spout off random nonsense, which happens to be the exact opposite of the article, Google's initial complaint, and what the court found, which was that the government did NOT provide proper justification or approvals, or considered any alternatives.
Let me quote the relevant part for you to save you from having to read the article (which you obviously (a) did not and/or (b) are simply trolling):
Judge Susan Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims wrote, in an order made public late Tuesday, that a July determination by an assistant secretary naming Microsoft's Business Productivity Online Suite-Federal (BPOS) as the agency's standard for messaging and collaboration did not include "proper justification or appropriate approvals."
and...
The agency's determination that BPOS was its standard included "no estimate of internal agency cost" of other options, Braden wrote. The determination also failed to list any potential alternatives, including Google's attempts to sell the agency on its products, she (the judge) wrote.
How does this Balkanize the Android platform? Just because there's an Amazon store doesn't mean you wouldn't be able to still use Google's store.
Until some carrier deal locks the app marketplace to Amazon and you cant get into the Google Apps Store? I am not saying it will happen, I am saying it's possible. Kinda like being locked into Bing Search, as noted by LockerGnome (and numerous others).
> to get the $.01 per transaction google currently gets.
more like 30% unfortunately for us Android developers... OK, that's shared with the carrier but still...
I suspect the payout via Amazon will be worse, just based off the fees for selling one's own products through their other services. I also suspect that if that is the case, it may make or break Amazon's plans (or at least limit their reach).
I hope you get Slashdotted...
Since SOMEONE else created WebTV, and MS bought it, I would say they are still reactive.
I'd agree, except the time frame between WebTV being released and Microsoft buying them is rather small, and at that time, no one saw the value (and no one was really using WebTV). So... I wouldn't call it reactive. But you may be right, it's not quite proactive either since they didn't create the product. On that note though, it describes every product Microsoft has bought and rebranded, from DOS straight through the components of Office.
If I get in line early for concert tickets, then I fall asleep in line and everyone else gets ahead of me, do I deserve to be called "proactive"? MS might have done some work in this area but they never enthusiastically pursued it.
I'm not sure if I agree with this one, and as my comment history will show, I'm all for bashing Microsoft when they screw up (I can tell you nightmare stories about the deceptive and/or illegal things they've done to corner markets... but much of that came out already in their various lawsuits). But in this case, I don't think I can agree, because they did aggressively pursue this. Aggressively pursuing something, and knowing how to pursue something are two entirely different things.
If I am running a race and run the wrong direction, I'm not going to win, no matter how fast I run. For a time (quite a long one), Microsoft very actively promoted WebTV. For a time (quite a long one), Microsoft (or the OEMs they worked with) very actively promoted and pushed their Media Center products. They had numerous WebTV releases and fixes. They had almost ten releases of Windows Media Center and Media Center like products (ie: TV Pack, xBoxTV, etc).
They were not asleep... they weren't heading in the right direction (a direction that was compelling enough to the market), partially due to their own ineptitude, partially (at least early on) due to technology not being at a level where they could release a compelling product.
There's a difference between not really trying (falling asleep) and not knowing what the heck the market really wants or how to properly create a market (going the wrong direction at full tilt).
Though to be fair, I am not sure which is worse. In thinking about it, what did happen (going the wrong direction for 15 years) may be the worse of the two. Sometimes being reactive is better than being proactive. Think Google. Very late to most of the markets they currently dominate. Reactive entrances into those markets. But then ran full tilt in the correct direction and became the dominant force, all while creating compelling reasons to use their products (by going the extra steps in improving or revolutionizing those markets).
Microsoft's attempts have been warmed over and disconnected up to this point. Many of the things you mention are ample demonstration of that. This includes the previous generations of extender hardware that never really went anywhere and were quickly discontinued. MCE and friends continue to be fringe products used by people comfortable building their own custom PCs and cobbleware solutions. If this becomes less the case in future it will be due to the increasing prevalence of systems like the Acer Revo that are cheap and suitable. Although they are so cheap that Best Buy tends to hide them in a corner if they sell them at all (kind of like netbooks).
I agree. But that was not my point. As I think I mentioned, they messed up every attempt so far. My sole point was that this isn't so much reactionary, as opposed to continuing a battle they started in the mid/late 90's.
I also agree there are already viable options. And, to add to what neither of us has discussed, the days of people waiting with baited breath for an announced, but not released piece of vaporware or vaporproduct from Microsoft are long gone. They MUST win this one on compelling reasons to choose their solution. Whether or not that happens will be dependent on their implementation.
Honestly, they have EVERYTHING they need to make THE most compelling Internet TV experience ever. But that doesn't mean they will do so. So, the opportunity still exists for them to enter and conquer this market. Only time will tell whether they take advantage of it, or like we both noted, remain disconnected from reality and consumer wants/needs and squander yet another opportunity.
For client, Windows is MORE expensive than virtually any other OS when it comes to hardware costs - EXCEPT MacOSX.
In other words, on the client or for trivial server workloads, from most to least expensive: 1. Mac; 2. Windows; 3. everything else. I can get behind this. But does your analysis include the cost of replacing hardware that has a Windows driver and a Mac driver but lacks a Linux driver with hardware that has a good Linux driver, especially for things like graphics, WLAN, laptop webcams, flatbed scanners, and the like? And does it include a subscription to CrossOver so that more of your existing games and other non-free apps will keep running (vs. plain Wine) while you phase out their use?
Good point. I'd say that in most generic setups, it doesn't matter, as a suitable Linux/MacOSX capable piece of hardware is available. In specific needs ("I specifically need a GX42A scanner") then yes, I would agree. The costs may be more. You're definitely right that is something I should have considered. In the server arena, that isn't so much of an issue. The base graphics card support is more than sufficient, there usually won't be additional hardware attached that is "Windows only" and so on.
Similar to your CrossOver/Wine comment. In all of this, all I have in my defense was a very literal reading of the OP's comment, which made no mention of ancillary costs, thus I responded specifically to server/workstation costs only, without taking those factors into account.
Once again MS arrives late to the party with an offering that likely won't offer enough to be competitive. Good ol' MS: Reactive rather than proactive.
Not entirely accurate. Microsoft has went to this party before, and been "kicked out" before. This is just their most recent attempt. WebTV (launched 1996, bought by MS in 1997) being one such attempt. Followed by Windows Media Center. Followed by a "new and (un)improved" WebTV, followed by updated Windows Media Center, followed by even more Windows Media Center releases (in total, since and including launch, release/versions 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, Vista, Windows 7, and TV Pack 2008), xBox Media Center somewhere in that timeline, Portable Media Center for things like the Zune and so on.
Maybe this time they will succeed. The point above isn't slamming Microsoft. My point is you aren't quite correct in blaming Microsoft for being reactive instead of proactive. They were one of the first companies that saw the worth of this marketplace (even if they didnt figure out how to capitalize on it). Often it's hard to START a marketplace. Now, Microsoft has the advantage of seeing what's working for other companies in this marketplace. Thus my point is, it is NOT fair to claim they are reactive in this situation. They saw the potential gains of such a scenario when they purchased WebTV and later released WMC. They simply didnt know how to approach the market properly.
Now, it (if they want to succeed) will be a combination of their previous proactive attempts at Online TV plus a reactive look at ensuring their next offering addresses the needs, concerns and desires of those consumers who enjoy and use GoogleTV, AppleTV and NetFlix.
Further in Microsoft's defense, the technology has advanced light years since WebTV, making this marketplace a lot more attractive to the disaster that the initial WebTV boxes provided. And one step even further in that direction of defending them (at least for WebTV), besides the fact that the hardware was light years behind today's, WebTV and it's nightmare was an acquisition. MS did indeed try to rectify a lot of the issues with it, and in many cases definitely did so. But still ran into hardware limitations. Yes, there were still mistakes MS made in not judging what the majority of the marketplace wanted or needed, but my point is, it still would have been unlikely for them to succeed at THAT time (due to hardware and bandwidth limitations), even if they avoided their other mistakes.
Ok, I understand you don't like Windows. However, when you say things like "in some cases, has lots of issues with parts of those products); namely Apache, MySQL, PHP, Perl, etc (which semi-fully function at a big speed decrease over a LAMP or WAMP stack or Apple implementation."
Do you know what WAMP means?
Yes, I should have said AMPOS2. WAMP used to be Warp Server and AMP, but then was co-opted for Windows Server and AMP. Sadly, though OS/2 had it (AMP) long before Windows, it's a small enough niche market that no one noticed or cared when they decided to call the Windows AMP stack WAMP.
As for the issues running AMP on Windows, just check the release notes for the workaround, outstanding issues and so on for each component of AMP. Here's a page with some of the notes on just the Apache issues: http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/