Oh... sorry, I misunderstood. The "hidden API" issue isnt I think so much hidden APIs, but undocumented ones that give MS an edge in developing software... an issue MS lost in the EU where they were required to make that information available. Compatibility issues... as an example I was a part of, when Win95 was in beta, the RC versions ran many pieces of software that then suddenly didnt run in the GA due to last second code changes (well over a few day period) in the GA. This gave many developers no time to revise their software - after being promised compatibility (how many times has MS touted, "the most compatible version, the most..."?) This definitely affected WordPerfect and SmartSuite to name 2. These same issues happened again with later Windows releases. The issues were documented in the DOJ case, and many experts couldnt find the reason for some of the code changes except to introduce incompatibility with other vendors' apps. And by DOJ case, I mean the antitrust case that got "essentially dropped" with the equivalent being the EU case that MS lost.
DOJ against MS? How's that... read through the numerous depositions and you'll find tons of claims relating to previous complaints and previous actions.
Let's see... adding incompatibilities into the OS that affected WordPerfect and SmartSuite in the last few RCs or in the GA copies of various versions of Windows... and taken to court for it.
They won't have to pay for the investigation though.. the justice department will.
Pay for what investigation? How much do a few questionable screenshots from MediaSentry cost them? They may pay a lot for everything else (lawyers, and so on), but their "investigation" seems rather limited to... well not doing any real investigation at all.
Of course, this could be why they are happy with this all being civil... the Justice Dept would actually DO a REAL investigation...
Thank you:-) At least someone understood my post. And the ridiculousness of us unboxing brand new machines and upgrading them just so they have the same performance as the exact same model with XP - just to be able to sell them to customers with the same requirements.
And besides, I am not disagreeing with you - I am pointing out that Office loads faster BECAUSE of the DLL preload fact. My post was quite clear on that. If you are trying to start a flame war, dont bother with me. If you just didnt understand the post, my apologies, I thought I was clear enough. OO was written for platform independence and has it's own DLLs which Windows does not preload. Office does the exact opposite and loads faster. I'm not debating what the OO team could do/should do/shouldnt do/or why they didnt. Just pointing out that the original poster was incorrect in stating that preloaded DLLs that Office calls arent part of the reason Office loads quicker than OO.
No... but many of the DLLs it uses are already loaded into memory or the page file. Hence, while Office starts quicker, Windows starts slower once it is installed.
Yes I have, we have it at work... we run IE "locally". The machine bogs down to a crawl because it has very limited hardware - or the browser stops loading anything because the few megabytes of disk space gets overrun by the cache. Yes, that's a hardware choice, but it is a thin-client station solution based off Windows Fundamentals. And the whole basis of the product is that you arent running a "full sized"/current specs machine. Try running Office locally. Or other larger apps. Besides, a screenshot doesnt prove that Firefox is running locally - it just proves Firefox is running on the machine (but can be actually being served by the RD Server) - the screenshot doesnt prove anything either way.
You missed the point anyway... the point is, it's a thin client OS, not a faster version of XP.
The 9.x branch of Windows should be left as dead. The NT/2000/XP branch has more stability than the the 9.x branch. MS should actually create a slim downed version of NT/2000/XP for low end systems.
Believe it or not, Microsoft has actually done this. It's called Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs [microsoft.com]. The reason you haven't heard about it is because Microsoft does not advertise it at all, and also because it's only available to corporate customers.
Ummm... no, that's not what it is. It's a thin client OS running virtually everything off a server through RDP via a technology and software MS "licensed" from someone else. Ooooh, but you can run Telnet local!!!
Sorry, but if MS could have done this, they would have. There is no such thing unfortunately, though their little web page does make it sound like such a product as you described till you read deeper on the page.
Hmmmm... lets see now... these are HP and Compaq machines, with no updated drivers, and ONBOARD video... we'll just swap out the video cards... oh wait... onboard... guess we'll just add a new video card to the system (some dont even have certified drivers yet) put it all back together AND THEN sell it because HP screwed up. The IDENTICAL machines (with slightly different model numbers to denote they were running XP) ran the same videos far faster. It's a lack of finished, optimized, fixed drivers (and/or any combination of those three things).
Nor does Vista run as fast as XP with 512MB of RAM - on ANYTHING, running ANYTHING. Even MS would laugh and the ludicrousness of that statement (run the Vista Compatibility Tool on a machine with 512MB of RAM and see what it tells you).
And this isnt a CompUSA thing... and you are off the mark on the entire rest of your posts as well... we charge a restocking fee on *some* NON-DEFECTIVE stuff. We'll give you ALL of your money back on defective stuff. (until now, for the closing stores which are running liquidation sales with no returns). And as for background and/or training, our techs are REQUIRED to have more training and more certifications to back them up than Best Buy.
As for Best Buy having trained Vista Launch Personnel, they got the exact same training, FROM MICROSOFT, just like my guys.
Get a clue, get a life, and/or get your facts straight
- pick one or more of the above.
Funny.... not a single tech where I work thinks it's worth upgrading except to play with and learn to fulfill our job duties. We use it all the time. We field tons of questions that end up being answered with "Sorry you just bought a machine with Vista on it. Now you have to wait for the compatible ___________ (driver/app/game patch) to run that ___________ (piece of hardware/app/game)". We have a ton of HP laptops that dont even have proper webcam support in Vista - even though the webcam is built in to the machine. We have lots of multi-function "Vista Ready" printers that only print on Vista... no scan, no fax via computer, no reading from the card readers built into them. We have numerous machines with the most horrendous video support imaginable - right out of the box. The "lower end" systems running the Vista Demo video are getting 5-10 frames per second... and by lower end, I mean AMD 4000+ and similar speed Intels, with what otherwise would be at least mid-range or decent video chipsets. We have people coming in all the time asking why WoW (and dozens of other games) doesnt run properly, or does weird things. Or why Sleep/Suspend/Hibernate does weird things. Or why so many "Vista Capable"/"Vista Ready" pieces of hardware or software dont run or run poorly.
As for sales slumping... well, at the CompUSA we work at, we didnt start to move Vista until recently - and I think that was due to two factors (1) we sold out of XP finally and (2) since we are a closing store, we are discounting it by 15%. Yes, they are finally selling, but still at a snails pace... a handful before this change happened has become two handfuls now. Anyone wants to buy a copy or three, come on in, we have TONS still. And they are discounted 15% at my store at the least - if not in all the closing stores (some may even have higher discounts already). Our Mac sales, oddly, have tripled - we are near out of them (and they are more expensive and barely discounted at all), but have tons of Vista machines, and people coming in to buy every last XP machine we have (only thing left are some Systemax boxes that no one seems too keen on buying... anything else with XP RAN out the door rather quickly).
Run the burn-in tests on bootable media (USB, CDs, DVDs) like many manufacturers do - or from the Dell Diagnostics test menu for that purpose which can be left on the partition either way.
This is funny, I get a -1 Troll while others get +# Funny.... ah well... regardless, there still is no such thing as a secure version of Windows - thus I thought the statement was funny...
"No Vista application will be able to be sold to federal agencies if the application does not run on the secure version of Vista," explained Alan Paller, director of research at The SANS Institute.'"
All this proves is that MS has released the least patches and fixes - which fits with known facts such as that MS is working on a massive Service Pack for Vista to roll out a slew of them.
Keep in mind a few things. Regular "printer maintenance" is easy when it comes to preventing print head clogs. Just Chron or schedule a one page document print with the right content (something similar to an alignment sheet print) every couple of weeks.
As for ink costs... I am pretty sure a unit like this (or at least like the larger format versions) would come with ink tank capabilities, which DRASTICALLY reduces print costs.
Much thanks for the response. All their material states (c) them, and they select and use their own studios, release them through their record label, and it then gets distributed by an RIAA member - I should have clarified that. I guess this would apply to very few bands then, as most dont do their own recordings, or have their own label.:-)
I guess that's why non-RIAA music is generally so important (you thus cleared up another point for me as well).
I'm not being sued. I havent been threatened with a suit. I have never been suspected of such activities. I chose the examples I did because the band is very high profile, their statements are public record online and their label is definitely RIAA - and were using them for example purpose only.
I was more asking for an explanation of the relevant law as it pertained to my example - which could have included any number of bands (like numerous in Canada who have formed a coalition to fight against such issues).
Basically the real question is would the RIAA have the right to enter into such a suit? Insert any such band who fits those criteria. If you think still, that such an answer is legal advice, I apologize for asking. I figured such an answer would be far less likely to be legal advice than some of what is found on your site.
Either way, thanks - and thanks for keeping us up to date on the RIAA world.
I have a question for you... lets say hypothetically I listen to a band named Iron Maiden. Said band's releases are through an RIAA member (EMI or Sony). Said band maintains copyrights (and usually publishing rights) to all their music. Said band has stated publicly, on numerous occassions, that they (1) will refuse to sue fans, (2) see nothing wrong with fans sharing their music (even directly referring in the comment to file sharing and referenced the Napster suit), and (3) have went so far as to tell fans at concerts to record the concerts and post them online to share with the world. Hypothetically, what chance would the RIAA have of pulling off a suit against me if I hypothetically shared Iron Maiden albums with friends? As no RIAA member owns the copyrights to the music, and consent has been explicitly given, would they even be able to bring suit? And if so, would (should) it be thrown out?
Just curious... partially because I am interested in knowing how far you think the RIAA will go, partially because I am interested in your opinions of how the courts would handle it, and partially because I am very impressed with Maiden's attitude on file and music sharing.
Thanks for your time,
Robert
PS: They're one of the few bands under an RIAA label I will willingly buy nowadays (and only listen to the rest on the radio) - and often buy additional copies if a CD gets scratched, lost or a better release (ie: picture CD or CD with bonuses) comes out.
You are correct that this is a possiblity - BUT - it totally bypasses my question - which is how can Dell or any other manufacturer get OpenOffice as the pre-installed Office Suite on a desktop WITHOUT raising the costs of the PCs to the end users.
People dont want to buy a PC for $10 more because it comes with OpenOffice - especially when they "all" think they need MS Office.
Most of the people who come in the door to CompUSA (where I work - at least for now) dont seem to understand, no matter how many times you explain it, that the copy of MS Office on the machine is a 60 day trial and then they have to pay for it. You have no idea how many.
Put the two together and you have people who come in, see a machine with pretty MS Office icons (for a trial version they cannot understand will stop working), THINK they need it because the media force feeds them that idea (and the resellers are PAID to convince them it as well), and see the EXACT SAME machine sans MS Office Trial with Open Office instead - but $10 more expensive - which do you think will get bought 9 out of 10 times?
Keep in mind, computer saavy users would simply forgo buying MS Office at all (unless some job or project required it) and instead opt to DOWNLOAD OpenOffice themselves - to those people it doesnt matter if MS Office or OpenOffice get pre-installed. For the rest of the computer owning/using populace, it needs to be pre-installed. MS Office's market share is where it is for quite a few reasons - but ONE big reason is in 60 days you cant open all those neat documents that you created in your 60 day trial and THINK you need to buy it (as the stores, the media and the nag screen MS Office displays tell you that you must).
So, any other takers? How do we get OpenOffice installable by an OEM with no extra cost incurred by the end-user?
"A somewhat obvious question is raised: why isn't OpenOffice already available by default on new PC's and Workstations?"
The answer is money. MS, (Symantec, McAfee, AOL, etc), pay for the "real estate" for their software being preloaded on PCs. This is either with the expectation of generating revenues through sign-ups, subscriptions, "Full Version" purchases, or advertising revenue.
Tell me how that will work with OpenOffice.
That question isnt meant to be funny - I'd love to see two things... current OpenOffice on the Mac (heck, OS/2 has it already) and OpenOffice being the de-facto standard on new PCs. But, in order for that to happen, my question needs to be answered (to the PC Makers)... how can OpenOffice provide $$$ to the PC Makers for each copy installed (instead of lets say.... MS Office)? Ad revenue similar to Opera's method perhaps? I dont know.... but if one of the bright minds here on/. (and I think there must be at least 3 or 4... maybe 5 - of which I am not one;-) )comes up with a working idea, then OpenOffice has a far likelier chance of being pre-installed on consumer PCs (without it negatively impacting the price of the PC).
Give it some thought gang... smart minds like yours may be the ones that comes up with the solution(s).
Say what you will about Windows on the desktop, but the homogenization of the desktop OS is one of the main things that accelerated the growth of the PC.
You mean because each new version forced on people requires 2-4 times the hardware for a negligible gain in security and functionality? I dont see that as accelerating the growth of the PC market. The price drops as MS obsoletes relatively new hardware allowing people to buy entry level systems is what accelerates the growth of the PC (market).
I'm not saying that it would be good for the mobile market by any stretch of the imagination -- one of the reasons we have so many OSes is that we have so many devices, each targeted at different tasks.
No - that is not the reason, I personally prefer stability, ease of use, decent utilization of my hardware (ie: P100 or better), security and configurability - unless you categorize those as "devices"... "tasks" - but I dont... eComStation, Linux or MacOSX fit those bills (for me) - but not Windows Anything. Now, in one respect, you are correct (IMHO), which is gaming... then I (almost exclusively) run an XP machine.
However, in my mind only one OS could possibly fill the bill for all mobile devices, and that's Linux. Linux is easily and readily modifiable, not just by license, but by the way it's grown into a modular kernel that's fairly platform agnostic these days, one that can be stripped down to the tiniest sizes if necessary.
If I had one mobile OS to choose from -- well, Linux would be it. And it's not just because I'm a Linux-using geek, but because it really is the best tool for the job.
Perhaps, but you havent cited enough reasons why - yes modifiability, open source nature and so on may make it seem like a great platform for it, but phone manufacturers and wireless carriers are in this to make money... which you cant off the apps, extensions and OS derived from Open Source. Gotta cover some of those production costs in whatever way you can. AND... non-Linux solutions allow the developer (ie: company) to protect their intellectual rights on the software they developed - unless they are using entirely closed source tools and libraries to write the stuff - which would add to the development time - and thus the cost. Having a universal mobile API is one thing, but writing the newest and best widget/applet/whatever to run on my phone, and then having to release it to my competition isnt good business practice if I am in business to make as much money as possible by charging a reasonable cost for what my products do. Keep in mind, that income, those profits, go towards future R&D as well as future design.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh... sorry, I misunderstood. The "hidden API" issue isnt I think so much hidden APIs, but undocumented ones that give MS an edge in developing software... an issue MS lost in the EU where they were required to make that information available. Compatibility issues... as an example I was a part of, when Win95 was in beta, the RC versions ran many pieces of software that then suddenly didnt run in the GA due to last second code changes (well over a few day period) in the GA. This gave many developers no time to revise their software - after being promised compatibility (how many times has MS touted, "the most compatible version, the most..."?) This definitely affected WordPerfect and SmartSuite to name 2. These same issues happened again with later Windows releases. The issues were documented in the DOJ case, and many experts couldnt find the reason for some of the code changes except to introduce incompatibility with other vendors' apps. And by DOJ case, I mean the antitrust case that got "essentially dropped" with the equivalent being the EU case that MS lost.
DOJ against MS? How's that... read through the numerous depositions and you'll find tons of claims relating to previous complaints and previous actions.
Let's see... adding incompatibilities into the OS that affected WordPerfect and SmartSuite in the last few RCs or in the GA copies of various versions of Windows... and taken to court for it.
They won't have to pay for the investigation though.. the justice department will.
Pay for what investigation? How much do a few questionable screenshots from MediaSentry cost them? They may pay a lot for everything else (lawyers, and so on), but their "investigation" seems rather limited to... well not doing any real investigation at all.
Of course, this could be why they are happy with this all being civil... the Justice Dept would actually DO a REAL investigation...
Thank you :-) At least someone understood my post. And the ridiculousness of us unboxing brand new machines and upgrading them just so they have the same performance as the exact same model with XP - just to be able to sell them to customers with the same requirements.
Thanks,
Rob
SOME of the DLLs that Office use are available to OO (without lots of research into unpublished calls that only MS apps such as Office use).
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10533-0.html?foru mID=1&threadID=14492&messageID=291417&start=104
And besides, I am not disagreeing with you - I am pointing out that Office loads faster BECAUSE of the DLL preload fact. My post was quite clear on that. If you are trying to start a flame war, dont bother with me. If you just didnt understand the post, my apologies, I thought I was clear enough. OO was written for platform independence and has it's own DLLs which Windows does not preload. Office does the exact opposite and loads faster. I'm not debating what the OO team could do/should do/shouldnt do/or why they didnt. Just pointing out that the original poster was incorrect in stating that preloaded DLLs that Office calls arent part of the reason Office loads quicker than OO.
Sorry if you misunderstood.
No... but many of the DLLs it uses are already loaded into memory or the page file. Hence, while Office starts quicker, Windows starts slower once it is installed.
using it as such is like using a nuclear bomb to cut down a tree, or something.
Yeah, but that would be kinda fun... :-)
Yes I have, we have it at work... we run IE "locally". The machine bogs down to a crawl because it has very limited hardware - or the browser stops loading anything because the few megabytes of disk space gets overrun by the cache. Yes, that's a hardware choice, but it is a thin-client station solution based off Windows Fundamentals. And the whole basis of the product is that you arent running a "full sized"/current specs machine. Try running Office locally. Or other larger apps. Besides, a screenshot doesnt prove that Firefox is running locally - it just proves Firefox is running on the machine (but can be actually being served by the RD Server) - the screenshot doesnt prove anything either way.
You missed the point anyway... the point is, it's a thin client OS, not a faster version of XP.
The 9.x branch of Windows should be left as dead. The NT/2000/XP branch has more stability than the the 9.x branch. MS should actually create a slim downed version of NT/2000/XP for low end systems.
Ummm... no, that's not what it is. It's a thin client OS running virtually everything off a server through RDP via a technology and software MS "licensed" from someone else. Ooooh, but you can run Telnet local!!!
Sorry, but if MS could have done this, they would have. There is no such thing unfortunately, though their little web page does make it sound like such a product as you described till you read deeper on the page.
Hmmmm... lets see now... these are HP and Compaq machines, with no updated drivers, and ONBOARD video... we'll just swap out the video cards... oh wait... onboard... guess we'll just add a new video card to the system (some dont even have certified drivers yet) put it all back together AND THEN sell it because HP screwed up. The IDENTICAL machines (with slightly different model numbers to denote they were running XP) ran the same videos far faster. It's a lack of finished, optimized, fixed drivers (and/or any combination of those three things).
Nor does Vista run as fast as XP with 512MB of RAM - on ANYTHING, running ANYTHING. Even MS would laugh and the ludicrousness of that statement (run the Vista Compatibility Tool on a machine with 512MB of RAM and see what it tells you).
And this isnt a CompUSA thing... and you are off the mark on the entire rest of your posts as well... we charge a restocking fee on *some* NON-DEFECTIVE stuff. We'll give you ALL of your money back on defective stuff. (until now, for the closing stores which are running liquidation sales with no returns). And as for background and/or training, our techs are REQUIRED to have more training and more certifications to back them up than Best Buy.
As for Best Buy having trained Vista Launch Personnel, they got the exact same training, FROM MICROSOFT, just like my guys.
Get a clue, get a life, and/or get your facts straight
- pick one or more of the above.
Funny.... not a single tech where I work thinks it's worth upgrading except to play with and learn to fulfill our job duties. We use it all the time. We field tons of questions that end up being answered with "Sorry you just bought a machine with Vista on it. Now you have to wait for the compatible ___________ (driver/app/game patch) to run that ___________ (piece of hardware/app/game)". We have a ton of HP laptops that dont even have proper webcam support in Vista - even though the webcam is built in to the machine. We have lots of multi-function "Vista Ready" printers that only print on Vista... no scan, no fax via computer, no reading from the card readers built into them. We have numerous machines with the most horrendous video support imaginable - right out of the box. The "lower end" systems running the Vista Demo video are getting 5-10 frames per second... and by lower end, I mean AMD 4000+ and similar speed Intels, with what otherwise would be at least mid-range or decent video chipsets. We have people coming in all the time asking why WoW (and dozens of other games) doesnt run properly, or does weird things. Or why Sleep/Suspend/Hibernate does weird things. Or why so many "Vista Capable"/"Vista Ready" pieces of hardware or software dont run or run poorly.
As for sales slumping... well, at the CompUSA we work at, we didnt start to move Vista until recently - and I think that was due to two factors (1) we sold out of XP finally and (2) since we are a closing store, we are discounting it by 15%. Yes, they are finally selling, but still at a snails pace... a handful before this change happened has become two handfuls now. Anyone wants to buy a copy or three, come on in, we have TONS still. And they are discounted 15% at my store at the least - if not in all the closing stores (some may even have higher discounts already). Our Mac sales, oddly, have tripled - we are near out of them (and they are more expensive and barely discounted at all), but have tons of Vista machines, and people coming in to buy every last XP machine we have (only thing left are some Systemax boxes that no one seems too keen on buying... anything else with XP RAN out the door rather quickly).
Robert
Run the burn-in tests on bootable media (USB, CDs, DVDs) like many manufacturers do - or from the Dell Diagnostics test menu for that purpose which can be left on the partition either way.
This is funny, I get a -1 Troll while others get +# Funny.... ah well... regardless, there still is no such thing as a secure version of Windows - thus I thought the statement was funny...
"No Vista application will be able to be sold to federal agencies if the application does not run on the secure version of Vista," explained Alan Paller, director of research at The SANS Institute.'"
I didnt know there was such a thing... :-)
Laugh, it was supposed to be funny!
Read the data... not the article or the summary:
During this period, 8,258 new Win32 variants were reported to Symantec, an increase of 22 percent over the first half of 2006.
or
Symantec documented 54 vulnerabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer, 40 in the Mozilla browsers, and four each in Apple Safari and Opera.
I cant find where InformationWeek is getting their data without misconstruing Symantec's actual findings.
Though, its been a horrendously long day, so who knows... I might have missed something.
All this proves is that MS has released the least patches and fixes - which fits with known facts such as that MS is working on a massive Service Pack for Vista to roll out a slew of them.
Keep in mind a few things. Regular "printer maintenance" is easy when it comes to preventing print head clogs. Just Chron or schedule a one page document print with the right content (something similar to an alignment sheet print) every couple of weeks.
As for ink costs... I am pretty sure a unit like this (or at least like the larger format versions) would come with ink tank capabilities, which DRASTICALLY reduces print costs.
-Robert
Much thanks for the response. All their material states (c) them, and they select and use their own studios, release them through their record label, and it then gets distributed by an RIAA member - I should have clarified that. I guess this would apply to very few bands then, as most dont do their own recordings, or have their own label. :-)
I guess that's why non-RIAA music is generally so important (you thus cleared up another point for me as well).
Thanks again,
-Robert
Hi,
I'm not being sued. I havent been threatened with a suit. I have never been suspected of such activities. I chose the examples I did because the band is very high profile, their statements are public record online and their label is definitely RIAA - and were using them for example purpose only.
I was more asking for an explanation of the relevant law as it pertained to my example - which could have included any number of bands (like numerous in Canada who have formed a coalition to fight against such issues).
Basically the real question is would the RIAA have the right to enter into such a suit? Insert any such band who fits those criteria. If you think still, that such an answer is legal advice, I apologize for asking. I figured such an answer would be far less likely to be legal advice than some of what is found on your site.
Either way, thanks - and thanks for keeping us up to date on the RIAA world.
Hi Mr. Beckerman,
I have a question for you... lets say hypothetically I listen to a band named Iron Maiden. Said band's releases are through an RIAA member (EMI or Sony). Said band maintains copyrights (and usually publishing rights) to all their music. Said band has stated publicly, on numerous occassions, that they (1) will refuse to sue fans, (2) see nothing wrong with fans sharing their music (even directly referring in the comment to file sharing and referenced the Napster suit), and (3) have went so far as to tell fans at concerts to record the concerts and post them online to share with the world. Hypothetically, what chance would the RIAA have of pulling off a suit against me if I hypothetically shared Iron Maiden albums with friends? As no RIAA member owns the copyrights to the music, and consent has been explicitly given, would they even be able to bring suit? And if so, would (should) it be thrown out?
Just curious... partially because I am interested in knowing how far you think the RIAA will go, partially because I am interested in your opinions of how the courts would handle it, and partially because I am very impressed with Maiden's attitude on file and music sharing.
Thanks for your time,
Robert
PS: They're one of the few bands under an RIAA label I will willingly buy nowadays (and only listen to the rest on the radio) - and often buy additional copies if a CD gets scratched, lost or a better release (ie: picture CD or CD with bonuses) comes out.
/. is a great place for everyone who thinks he's a genius to rant.Hey, I know I think I am a genius!!! ;-)
You are correct that this is a possiblity - BUT - it totally bypasses my question - which is how can Dell or any other manufacturer get OpenOffice as the pre-installed Office Suite on a desktop WITHOUT raising the costs of the PCs to the end users.
People dont want to buy a PC for $10 more because it comes with OpenOffice - especially when they "all" think they need MS Office.
Most of the people who come in the door to CompUSA (where I work - at least for now) dont seem to understand, no matter how many times you explain it, that the copy of MS Office on the machine is a 60 day trial and then they have to pay for it. You have no idea how many.
Put the two together and you have people who come in, see a machine with pretty MS Office icons (for a trial version they cannot understand will stop working), THINK they need it because the media force feeds them that idea (and the resellers are PAID to convince them it as well), and see the EXACT SAME machine sans MS Office Trial with Open Office instead - but $10 more expensive - which do you think will get bought 9 out of 10 times?
Keep in mind, computer saavy users would simply forgo buying MS Office at all (unless some job or project required it) and instead opt to DOWNLOAD OpenOffice themselves - to those people it doesnt matter if MS Office or OpenOffice get pre-installed. For the rest of the computer owning/using populace, it needs to be pre-installed. MS Office's market share is where it is for quite a few reasons - but ONE big reason is in 60 days you cant open all those neat documents that you created in your 60 day trial and THINK you need to buy it (as the stores, the media and the nag screen MS Office displays tell you that you must).
So, any other takers? How do we get OpenOffice installable by an OEM with no extra cost incurred by the end-user?
The answer is money. MS, (Symantec, McAfee, AOL, etc), pay for the "real estate" for their software being preloaded on PCs. This is either with the expectation of generating revenues through sign-ups, subscriptions, "Full Version" purchases, or advertising revenue.
Tell me how that will work with OpenOffice.
That question isnt meant to be funny - I'd love to see two things... current OpenOffice on the Mac (heck, OS/2 has it already) and OpenOffice being the de-facto standard on new PCs. But, in order for that to happen, my question needs to be answered (to the PC Makers)... how can OpenOffice provide $$$ to the PC Makers for each copy installed (instead of lets say.... MS Office)? Ad revenue similar to Opera's method perhaps? I dont know.... but if one of the bright minds here on /. (and I think there must be at least 3 or 4... maybe 5 - of which I am not one ;-) )comes up with a working idea, then OpenOffice has a far likelier chance of being pre-installed on consumer PCs (without it negatively impacting the price of the PC).
Give it some thought gang... smart minds like yours may be the ones that comes up with the solution(s).
Robert
You mean because each new version forced on people requires 2-4 times the hardware for a negligible gain in security and functionality? I dont see that as accelerating the growth of the PC market. The price drops as MS obsoletes relatively new hardware allowing people to buy entry level systems is what accelerates the growth of the PC (market).
I'm not saying that it would be good for the mobile market by any stretch of the imagination -- one of the reasons we have so many OSes is that we have so many devices, each targeted at different tasks.No - that is not the reason, I personally prefer stability, ease of use, decent utilization of my hardware (ie: P100 or better), security and configurability - unless you categorize those as "devices"... "tasks" - but I dont... eComStation, Linux or MacOSX fit those bills (for me) - but not Windows Anything. Now, in one respect, you are correct (IMHO), which is gaming... then I (almost exclusively) run an XP machine.
However, in my mind only one OS could possibly fill the bill for all mobile devices, and that's Linux. Linux is easily and readily modifiable, not just by license, but by the way it's grown into a modular kernel that's fairly platform agnostic these days, one that can be stripped down to the tiniest sizes if necessary.If I had one mobile OS to choose from -- well, Linux would be it. And it's not just because I'm a Linux-using geek, but because it really is the best tool for the job.
Perhaps, but you havent cited enough reasons why - yes modifiability, open source nature and so on may make it seem like a great platform for it, but phone manufacturers and wireless carriers are in this to make money... which you cant off the apps, extensions and OS derived from Open Source. Gotta cover some of those production costs in whatever way you can. AND... non-Linux solutions allow the developer (ie: company) to protect their intellectual rights on the software they developed - unless they are using entirely closed source tools and libraries to write the stuff - which would add to the development time - and thus the cost. Having a universal mobile API is one thing, but writing the newest and best widget/applet/whatever to run on my phone, and then having to release it to my competition isnt good business practice if I am in business to make as much money as possible by charging a reasonable cost for what my products do. Keep in mind, that income, those profits, go towards future R&D as well as future design.
Just my 1.7 cents.
-Robert