backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 175 comment(s) - last by Jack Ripoff.. on Feb 20 at 10:55 PM

Despite analysts speculation that Microsoft can't keep up the pace, Ballmer states that Vista is a sign of things to come

It has been a huge endeavor to get Windows Vista out the door, but according to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, there's "plenty more where that came from.” Sure enough, there is more to come starting with Vista’s first service pack which should be released before the end of 2007.

There has been much speculation in the industry, however, that Vista (and similarly Office 2007) would be "last of its kind.” With the rise of the Internet and the "have it now" aspects of online applications like Google Docs & Spreadsheets and Google Calendar, many experts believe that Microsoft's model of doing business is going the way of the dinosaur.

"Microsoft made Vista the old-fashioned way, as a single packaged product that it puts on a disk so users can buy it in a store and load it onto their computers," said Dean Takahashi of the San Jose Mercury News.

Takahashi continues with this scenario, "By contrast, rivals such as Google are creating spreadsheets and browsers that you simply download from a computer server, which delivers what you need to your desktop as you need it. If Google follows through with more offerings of free, ad-supported software over the Internet, Microsoft won't be able to charge a premium for its operating systems anymore. Nobody will need its big upgrades anymore."

The Windows operating system has grown more and more complex requiring an immense amount of manpower and resources. Vista has been a 5-year endeavor and Takahashi estimates that over 10,000 employees working on the project have cost Microsoft over $10 billion USD in payroll costs alone. “That has to be close to the costs of some of the biggest engineering projects ever undertaken, such as the Manhattan Project that created the atomic bomb during World War II,” said Takahashi.

"The current, integrated architecture of Microsoft Windows is unsustainable - for enterprises and for Microsoft," said Gartner analysts Brian Gammage, Michael Silver and David Mitchell Smith.

Despite the skeptics, Microsoft is confident in the viability of the Windows platform. "We've got a very long list of stuff our engineers want to do, a long list of stuff all of the companies here want us to do," he said. "There are so many areas where we need innovation," said Ballmer.

When it comes to future variants of Windows, Fiji will be the first dramatic update to Vista and will arrive sometime in 2008. According to various reports, Fiji will include WinFS, better integration with Windows Live services, native HD DVD support and enhanced speech recognition, among other things.

Vienna, which is even further out on the timeline, is expected to be a more radical departure from what we all consider to be a "traditional Windows operating system." Although not much is known about this release, the leap in design/functionality is rumored to be akin to the OS 8-9 to OS X transition.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

<no subject>
By Scabies on 1/31/2007 2:31:46 PM , Rating: 5
Is this guy any form of intelligent? Tell me, mighty newswriter, how do you intend to download your free products? In DOS? from the BIOS?

/headshot




RE: <no subject>
By Flunk on 1/31/2007 2:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
Linux, which is modular, open-source and free.


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 1/31/2007 2:57:36 PM , Rating: 4
Yet, despite those obviously positive attributes, Linux still has practically zero desktop market share. Instead, people shell out hundreds of dollars per copy of Windows. So, bottom line, they can't even get people to take Linux for the desktop even though it is free. What does that tell you?


RE: <no subject>
By Ringold on 1/31/2007 3:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
Hey now, it's ~4.8% desktop market share, not 0%. Careful, TomZ, you might offend them!


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 1/31/2007 3:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
According to this source, Linux is 0.37%:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=...

I can't vouch for the accuracy of these figures, however.


RE: <no subject>
By Shining Arcanine on 2/1/2007 11:57:22 AM , Rating: 2
It is more likely that 4.8% of its marketshare is composed of desktops.


RE: <no subject>
By trupti on 2/2/2007 5:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
New Quote

This is my first quote


RE: <no subject>
By nothingtoseehere on 2/4/2007 9:34:07 PM , Rating: 3
I remember back in the day when Linux server marketshare was around 5%, Microsoft never even publically mentioned Linux, and in places like this many people where saying it wasn't ready for the enterprise and didn't stand a chance against the other servers out there...

Nobody was talking about Linux on the desktop then (was ignored for that)...

It's ghandi's "First they ignore you; then they mock you; then they punish you; then you win." all over again, but then for desktops and we're in the 'mock' stage now.

Linux isn't done yet, it's growing and keeps improving. Even in it's strongest field, embedded computing, it's still gaining marketshare (if you own a wireless router, you probably own a Linux device).

'Linux' is not afraid of 'Microsoft', but the reverse is true (as can be seen, among many places, in the risk statements in Microsoft's quarterly reports).


RE: <no subject>
By crimson117 on 1/31/2007 4:32:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yet, despite those obviously positive attributes, Linux still has practically zero desktop market share. Instead, people shell out hundreds of dollars per copy of Windows. So, bottom line, they can't even get people to take Linux for the desktop even though it is free. What does that tell you?
It tells me that people use whatever Dell installs for them. If Dell sold Desktops with Linux preinstalled, most users wouldn't know the difference, and Linux's market share would increase.

It also tells me that you're not saavy to the fact that OEM's get a significant volume discount and therefor do not pay anywhere near hundreds of dollars per Windows license.


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 1/31/2007 4:55:28 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, I'm aware that, by virtue of their volumes, System Builder licenses cost manufacturers less than "hundreds of dollars." Maybe I exaggerated a little there, but the point is still valid, right? People are paying for Windows, where they could be getting Linux for free.

Also, maybe you are not savvy to the fact that it is actually pretty easy to get Dell machines pre-loaded with Linux: http://www.dell.com/linux

So, your argument that more people would choose Linux if they could, pretty much ends there. The fact of the matter is, that most businesses and consumers like buying machines pre-loaded with Windows.


RE: <no subject>
By sprockkets on 1/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 1/31/2007 5:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, it's Windows by default dub ass. That's probably what 99% of Dell's customers want. Why would they make Linux the default if few people want that?

You guys are missing the point. It is not up to Dell, or Microsoft for that matter, to decide what operating system a particular customer buys. It is up to the customer to decide that. The customer decides, get it? And for whatever reason, good or bad, most customers decide to buy Windows and not Linux.

If suddenly Dell saw tons of demand for Linux, and flagging demand for Windows, you bet they would offer Linux systems off their front page, or even make Linux the default. But that is not the case.


RE: <no subject>
By sprockkets on 1/31/2007 5:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well, put in OS choice list, Windows XP, "Linux Distro", and we will see what happens. But, this whole crap of "Dell Recommends Windows XP Professional" for what reason, and now it is Vista Ultimate, and also ever manufacturer gets money to say that is NOT due to customer demand.

But hey, I like the market share as it is, because I want the "system" to target windows with their DRM and crap and us Linux people will remain off the radar. We like it that way.


RE: <no subject>
By Gatt on 1/31/2007 5:57:31 PM , Rating: 4
I can tell you what happens, it's really fairly obvious.

Linux still loses.

Linux will never be a mainstream OS, computers are commodities, and the average person couldn't reliably run Linux if their life depended on it.

I know those in the computer industry love to believe otherwise, but Microsoft is the only reason why computers are ubiquitous and why half the industry has jobs.

Without MS and Windows, the internet would still be used by only a very few people who're trained in computers and this very site would likely not exist because there'd be no traffic to support it. I'll also guarantee you there'd be no Nvidia, no ATI, and computers would still be running on 2D accelerators, because there'd be no PC Gaming market.

MS and Windows is the only reason why there's a computing market. If the market was still relying on educated people capable of command line computing, there'd be a very small market.


RE: <no subject>
By oab on 1/31/2007 6:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
Linux does loose, and if windows/MS failed, then there would still be a PC gaming market, except it would be called "Apple gaming market" "made for Mac". Where MS would have failed, Apple would have succeeded. MS would still be around, relegated to the 5% ownership market and have a niche lineup of some programs (whatever they would be), and the world would not be using the x86 chips, but instead would be using Motorola/IBM POWER chips (as Apple would have still switched architectures in teh mid 90s).

nVidia may not be around (I'm not sure when they were founded, and I don't want to look it up), but ATI has been around for 20+ years, AMD would still be making flash memory, and maybe some niche processors (like VIA is now), so would Intel, or Intel would ahev done something else (embeded machine processors maybe), who knows what would have happened.

There would be no PC gaming market, but there would be an Apple gaming market. MS/WIndows is not the reason there is a computing market, there was computing market before windows came out (DOS and POSTIX os flavours of various types).

What would have happened if MS didn't stab IBM in the back over OS/2? No idea, something different would have happened, but would have it been better or worse? I can't say, and neither could you, but there WOULD be games, and there WOULD be 3D accelerators, because someone would have built them.


RE: <no subject>
By StevoLincolnite on 1/31/2007 10:55:43 PM , Rating: 4
I'm sorry... There would be a gaming market, but don't ever expect it to pass doom or something.

Prior to 1996, there was not a standard for 3D graphics. Everything was just software rendered graphics, and therefore very pixelated as there was no dedicated graphics rendering hardware. But that all changed in 1996 with the release of the Voodoo Graphics chip set from 3dfx.
When Microsoft first Released its Direct X API, Older 3D accelerators Which had to be "Hard coded" into a game just so it was supported, no longer had to, Direct X handled everything, Which made making games for different hardware combinations easier! Then When 3dfx brought glide onto the scene, It was faster, Games looked better, And could beat DirectX in every way. Microsoft kept updating and improving the Direct X or more precisly Direct 3D upon every release, Which when it hit about Version 6/7 It was on par with Glide, The TNT/Nvidia had burst onto the scene, So had Matrox and ATI, S3, SiS, Intel So game developers either chose to stick with Glide, Or Direct X and sometimes Both. (Like Unreal Tournament).

It was Microsft Windows, And 3dfx that brought on the 3D gaming market, Apple had nothing to do with it, Microsoft Pushed developers to make 3D games for they're API as did 3dfx. Apple did no such thing, so guess what? They missed out. ANd because of the several different companies competing each other in the PC market technology improvements were much MORE noticeable on the PC, because makers was trying to be number 1, trying to have the best market, Alot of 3D accelerator companies failed, Like Rendition, 3dfx, S3 (who are back), matrox who are still alive. It was never Nvidia vs ATI back then, it was Nvidia vs 3dfx, ATI was more catered to the OEM market, and survived without much hassle because of it, Only with the Advent of the Rage Chipsets did they make themselves known.
The Mac, has never been the ideal platform, most people had to use some form of emulation to play PC games, and we all know that Emulation is another layer of bloat, so you don't ever get the same performance you could have if you bought a PC of similar spec.
There may have been 3D games and accelerators if Microsoft wasn't around... But I can tell you, that they wouldn't have been nearly as advanced, And not many companies would have tried, because of how small the market would have been.

The people want Windows, Not Linux or MacOS that has been clear for years and years now. Things may change in the future though.
but The PC is like my baby, You watch it grow and change over the years with various upgrades, New versions of the Windows Operating system, Driver changes, Different games, etc.


RE: <no subject>
By Rayz on 2/1/2007 5:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, they're right.

If MS had failed then your choice would be an Apple costing £10,000 for a desktop system, or a command line based Unix system. I still think open source would have come about, but without a vibrant computer ecosystem to copy its wares from, it would be extremely limited.

OS/2? An attempt to build a better desktop OS than Windows, that started off with Microsoft's help. If not for MS, then IBM would not have even bothered to start it.


RE: <no subject>
By Nekrik on 1/31/2007 7:23:31 PM , Rating: 5
"I know those in the computer industry love to believe otherwise, but Microsoft is the only reason why computers are ubiquitous and why half the industry has jobs. "

Gotta agree here, and this is what I find so funny about all the guys bashing Microsoft, kinda like biting the hand that really pushed it to a point to make what they do possible today. Apple was not going to bring PCs into the mainstream, even after hardware was widely accessible and 850MB hard drives no longer cost a grand or more they still had price points that were beyond the reach of most consumers. Anyone remember pricing Mac memory, which was the same as PC memory at the time I'm thinking, I think about 5 years ago? Linux wasn't so popular either, not popular enought to create a consumer demand for hardware that would make it possible to get a Dell for <$300 today. MS created a market that drove hardware prices down and made the machines accessible to most everyone, thus letting people throw RH, FreeBSD, or whatever they want on it.


RE: <no subject>
By Sunrise089 on 1/31/2007 8:33:40 PM , Rating: 2
You are completely correct in all respects. The fact that someone would be so asinine to imply that giving a more visible option to choose Linux at Dell's site would actully make a large difference shows just how out of touch some people are with the actual marketplace. Hey MS haters: ask yourself how many people out there want something akin to Linux and have the know-how to use it but don't already do so....THERE ARE NONE. The enthusiests who want an alternative OS have a good one that costs nothing. Surprise - 95% of the market couldn't give a $&%^ because they want the easy software to use that works with all of their stuff. We aren't all programmers out here.


RE: <no subject>
By cochy on 2/1/07, Rating: 0
RE: <no subject>
By MrPieGuy on 2/1/2007 12:54:14 AM , Rating: 1
Well I'm not one for replying but this one I had to. First off I'm a Computer Science student at the university of waterloo. In my house I have 4 computers. I installed Vista on all of them, easily, in less than a half hour for each one. So I'm not exactly new to computing.

Then my roommate and I decided we wanted to see what the Ubuntu linux hype was. We tried installing on ALL four of these computers. It did not work on a single one. Apparently our hard drives were confused, it would freeze, stream random string for hours, and there was never a progress bar in sight.

The reason it's not adopted is because it still does not match Windows in any field. I've used linux on other machines, and it is really not comparable. While I dislike linux for a long string of reasons, I have to say I'm not even mildly impressed.


RE: <no subject>
By cochy on 2/1/2007 1:11:26 AM , Rating: 3
Well I decided to stick up for the open-source community because most people seemed to think Linux is a solely command-line OS. Which at present it is not. My university has Fedora installed on it's Dell's and if not for the Fedora graphic on the desktop you'd think you were looking at a Windows desktop. I am in no way trying to bash on MS, as I use Windows 90% of the time. Just the misconceptions seem to be rampant.

As for your experience, I will say that my installations of Linux were done on clean hard drives with no prior partitioning. I have not tried to install Linux yet on an already present Windows partition. I'm sure the problems you encountered were rooted in that reason.

IMO Linux is good as a cheap alternative for a non-gaming computer. Say you want to build a low budget computer for web browsing, emailing and documents. Why spend the extra few hundred for Windows?

PS. I'm amazed how fast I was mod'ed down for defending Linus lol. Was I trolling?


RE: <no subject>
By cochy on 2/1/2007 1:12:38 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm I ment to reply to MrPieGuy. Not sure why I ended up here.


RE: <no subject>
By Rayz on 2/1/2007 5:27:53 AM , Rating: 2
I did manage an installation, but then I hit problems. No drivers for my kit. That's the real problem they need to overcome. Perhaps if they spent more time cleaning up their own backyard, instead of obsessing about Microsoft?


RE: <no subject>
By typo101 on 2/1/2007 7:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
drivers are a big problem for linux. But its not easy writing drivers when you have no access to design details, which is what the open source community must do. Most companies write drivers for their own products in windows, but since there is no money to be made in Linux, they do a shoddy job in that department.


RE: <no subject>
By metalqga on 2/1/2007 5:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
You make a great advertisement for your university. Your teachers should be proud of you...


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 2/1/2007 9:55:52 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You make a great advertisement for your university. Your teachers should be proud of you...

If you don't like the message, insult the messenger? Is that how it works?


RE: <no subject>
By metalqga on 2/1/2007 3:47:22 PM , Rating: 3
@TomZ
quote:
Your teachers should be proud of you...

He succeeded to install vista on 4 PCs :]
</joke>
I was simply irritated by his post. I can't imagine a computer science student not being able to install a popular OS...
I had used windows for almost 8 yrs and I am more than impresed by the "Ubuntu linux hype"...


RE: <no subject>
By typo101 on 2/1/2007 7:31:00 PM , Rating: 3
Waterloo computer science is a good program, but its mainly theoretical. These guys learn about Turing machines but not how to maintain current machines, that's for community college.


RE: <no subject>
By trupti on 2/2/2007 5:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cool

Practice makes man perfect


RE: <no subject>
By trupti on 2/2/2007 5:47:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Quote

Another Quote


RE: <no subject>
By DEredita on 2/1/2007 2:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
I had similar experiences with Ubuntu. I had a fresh new hard drive (Raptor drive) and wanted to see what all the fuss was about with this Ubuntu. It never installed successfully all three times I ran though it. Nor did Gentoo, which was a huge abortion of an install.
I have tested RC2 of both 32-bit Vista Ultimate and 64-bit. 64-bit was a nightmare - almost all my software had issues running on it. 32-bit was ok, but I was not happy with it and was back on XP Pro within 3 days.
I immensely enjoy using OS X, which is currently my favorite OS. Unfortunately, in order to enjoy using it - you need Mac hardware, which takes away the fun experience of building your own computer.




RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 2/1/2007 2:49:38 PM , Rating: 1
Vista RC2 != RTM. Much different experience. I also had lots of issues with RC2, and when I ran RTM, they were all gone, like magic. Despite what you might otherwise expect, Microsoft did a lot of bug fixes and performance improvements after RC2.

Caveat: I have only run 32-bit Vista in both cases. I have older devices for which 64-bit drivers are not available that I want to continue to use.


RE: <no subject>
By Nekrik on 2/1/2007 4:18:24 AM , Rating: 3
My point wasn't related to Linux being hard to use, especially not for anyone who can get so far as to post to a news group. But as far it user friendlyness goes it is intimidating and unusable for many people, maybe not anyone in a tech related industry, or even the slightly curious types who are willing to jump in and experiment, or read a help file. But there's tons people out there that don't get very simple concepts, such as deleting a shortcut on the desktop doesn't destroy a program, or that most things in the startup menu are wasting resources and increasing the boot time they whine about. To relate this to the comment I did make, twelve years ago Linux was not this user friendly, and was not in a position to create mass consumer demand that would develop the PC industry into what it is today. FWIW, I have been using Linux in my work environment for years and I'm pretty familiar with many of the flavors out there, unfortunately it does not do absolutely everything that I want my home machine to do, but another OS does, thus that particular OS is my OS of choice and the one I tend to promote.


RE: <no subject>
By wien on 2/1/2007 10:14:12 AM , Rating: 3
Personally, I find the people that have the hardest time with Linux, are the "semi professionals". The people that know how to install Windows. Know how to get drivers and install them. Know how to download programs/videos/music and run them.

For these people the change to Linux requires them to relearn everything they "know about computers". It's not that this stuff is that much more difficult to do in Linux, very often it's easier, it's just that it's different. That makes it frustrating. (I know, I've been there!)

For less experienced users, like the mythical "Joe Average" and "my grandmother", all you usually have to do, is to show them Firefox and OpenOffice, set up their mail account, install a card game or two, install their printer for them, and they're set. If stuff breaks, they will get you to fix it, just like with Windows.

I would never expect "my grandmother" to install Windows + drivers on her own, so why do so many people seem to think she should be able to so it with Linux? You install it for her. You show her how to do the stuff she needs to do.

For the casual user Linux does everything they need. The problem is that it's the "semi professionals" that maintain their boxes, and they only use Windows.


RE: <no subject>
By miekedmr on 2/1/2007 11:13:53 AM , Rating: 1
Windows has never been innovative. MS steps on other peoples shoulders and stays on top with good business tactics. They are they THE mainstream OS because they have always been in the position business-wise to be THE mainstream OS, by exploiting OEMs, developers, and squishing competition.
If there wasn't a Microsoft, it would be probably be someone else, but maybe we'd have something better? How about a standard interface between applications and operating systems, and some actual competition as far as which OS provided the best platform for your applications?

Microsoft did not make personal computing, or get us where we are. It simply clawed its way to the top and does what it has to to stay there. You are horribly naiive if you think no one would fill the gap were there not a MS, and IMO, wrong if you think there's no way we'd be better off without them.


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 2/1/2007 11:20:46 AM , Rating: 2
Innovation is not required for business success. Planning, strategy, and execution are more important. These are the reasons that Microsoft is where they are today - mostly because they execute well.


RE: <no subject>
By Jack Ripoff on 2/1/2007 12:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
No, Microsoft isn't. Gary Kildall of DRI is.

http://www.cadigital.com/kildall.htm


RE: <no subject>
By WhiteBoyFunk on 2/1/2007 1:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
These are some really good, valid points that I have never actually thought of (maybe I'm slow), but I just can't help to disagree. I think that MS did what they did due to demand. If you believe that Linux, Unix, BSD or Apple would all have done things the same exact way they have I might go as far as to call you naive. Someone ELSE would have stepped up to the plate and achieved the same things that MS has via another method.


RE: <no subject>
By nothingtoseehere on 2/4/2007 9:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
"Well, put in OS choice list, Windows XP, "Linux Distro", and we will see what happens."

I don't think that will happen... Dell is now being accused of accepting, and keeping secret, large kickbacks from Intel for not selling AMD. Knowing that, wouldn't it be likely to behave in the same way for Microsoft and Linux?

In fact, at any time when Dell had Linux (or No-OS) as an option, the same systems actually cost more... If that isn't a gigantic hint of what may really be going on there, then Michael Dell is a monkey.


RE: <no subject>
By Jack Ripoff on 2/1/2007 12:08:38 PM , Rating: 1
You're wrong:
http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/07/2...

Most costumers don't even know they have a choice. They just don't want to care about technical stuff (and they shouldn't), so they just pick the default. Consider Microsoft's historic for a moment, read the article and (probably) you'll get what I mean...


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 2/1/2007 12:30:15 PM , Rating: 4
First, let me first say that I think that "NewsForge, The Online Newspaper for Linux and Open Source" might be just a wee bit biased on this topic, you think?

Second, the article's thesis is based on the assertion that "OEMs get paid by Microsoft not to pre-load Linux, so they can make more money by not pre-loading it than they can by doing so." That is clever wordsmanship, to say the least. Actually it is misleading. What they are really saying is that OEMs make money by preloading Windows, just like they make money with any other add-on sales like monitors, printers, other software, etc. Not exactly a big surprise. And how much do OEMs get paid to pre-load Linux on their machines? Zero. What do you expect an OEM to favor - making money, or not making money?

The other thing the article makes a big deal about is what they call the "mark of the beast" (maybe some bias there?). They are referring to the "<OEM name> recommends Windows <version>" statements on the OEM web sites. That's called ADVERTISING, and I'll bet that Microsoft pays for that. Again, is this supposed to be wrong somehow? Is advertising against some moral principle, as implied by the article.

I'm glad you brought up the topic so that we could explore some more why Linux has failed in the desktop market. We see two more reasons here - a lack of financial incentive for OEMs to preload, and a lack of advertising. The bottom line is that Linux is incapable of executing the business model that would be required to effectively compete with Microsoft at the OEM level. Change this, and you could see Linux more widely used.


RE: <no subject>
By Jack Ripoff on 2/1/2007 12:52:05 PM , Rating: 1
Hummm... no! You haven't gotten my idea, probably because you didn't follow my advice.


Quote
As noted above, elsewhere in the world, things are different. A recent story in the Hindu Times reports on a pent-up demand for Linux on laptops. All the major players there -- IBM (now Lenovo), Dell, HP, and Acer -- are offering their customers a choice between Linux and Windows. Pre-loading makes a difference.

The story says, "Laptops pre-loaded with Linux operating system are gaining in popularity among Indian customers as well." It bolsters that claim with a quote from Rajiv Grover, HP's country manager for consumer portables, who says "between 20 and 22% of our laptop business came from notebooks loaded with Linux."

So why do consumers have more freedom of choice in India and elsewhere than they do in the United States? My hunch is that we don't really need to look any further than the mark of the beast. It's because in North America, OEMs get paid by Microsoft not to pre-load Linux, so they can make more money by not pre-loading it than they can by doing so.
Unquote

The matter is: Microsoft knows what I said before is true (costumers don't know they have a choice, they just pick the default), so it takes advantage on this (rather dishonestly, in my personal opinion) to destroy the competition.

There is no "lack of financial incentive for OEMs to preload" (don't believe me, ask Red Hat or Novell if you doubt), there is just a greater incentive (from Microsoft) for not to preload. There is no "lack of advertising", there is a lack of money for advertising as much as Microsoft.


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 2/1/2007 1:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure your point. Customers always have choice. The customer always decides on the OS they purchase, and vendors work hard to give customers what they want. Like in India, apparently there is actually some demand for Linux, and of course OEMs follow that demand and give customers what they want. Don't you think that if Dell saw marketing data saying that 20% of U.S. customers wanted Linux, and that they could sell more machines by making that option more visible, that they wouldn't do it? After all, if they don't, some other company will, subsequently reducing Dell's sales. But we don't see that happening, do we?

OS awareness is really a marketing issue. It's no different than any other product or service. "Bob's Burgers" may have the best food, but McDonalds gets more business because they advertise a lot more. And furthermore, I don't see how the OEM has any moral duty to change this situation. It is up to the manufacturer to drive demand. It's just like the situation Apple has - they drive demand for their products by advertising, and because they do, they gain market share. Market share will not be gained by the pure "virtue" of Linux. It has to be earned the old-fashioned way - it has to be bought.


RE: <no subject>
By Jack Ripoff on 2/20/2007 10:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think they wouldn't. Remember we are talking about Microsoft here. Customers don't have a choice with Microsoft.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17317/Linux-Is-Top...


RE: <no subject>
By maxusa on 2/1/2007 6:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
Jack Ripoff, you're missing the point about 3rd world countries. They are poor, and a tiny difference between an HP laptop with Windows and Linux, as low as $30, is significant. They get Linux pre-loaded HP and re-load pirated Windows for $1.50.


RE: <no subject>
By Jack Ripoff on 2/1/2007 1:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and by the way, they surely are biased, but I doubt someone here isn't (including myself).


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 2/1/2007 1:19:02 PM , Rating: 1
It's not really about bias, it's about honesty. I have some bias as well, however, I don't believe that I am distorting the truth, making up facts, etc. Not to imply that you are, but that article clearly does, IMO.


RE: <no subject>
By zsouthboy on 2/1/2007 1:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link!

I (seriously) couldn't find any laptops without an OS, from any maker, that were cheaper than one with just windows.

So I went to that link, configured a D820, with no OS, then went back to small business, configured a D820 exactly the same, and left Win XP Home on there.

I have screenshots showing the price difference.

Seriously, it's exactly the same hardware, without an OS, yet.. it's about $40 MORE expensive than buying the one with XP!

(Yes, I know why, as does everyone: "value added" software that makes money for dell - it isn't on that no OS laptop)

^^%*&#@$!

And yet, I don't particularly care. It just seems like a waste, if all I'm going to do is wipe the drive. Bleh.


RE: <no subject>
By darkpaw on 1/31/2007 5:29:15 PM , Rating: 3
Sure, they could put Linux on by default. Then average Joe Idiot would be a bit pissed off when he went to buy any software at all and found maybe 1 in 50 that actually ran on it.

I just picked up an old PIII-800 for my grand mother and reinstalled Windows on the wiped drive. Sure I could have downloaded Ubuntu and saved me the hassel of finding my old Win2K OEM CD, patching, etc, but I knew she'd eventually want to do more then just browse the web with it. What do you know, first thing she installed was a casino game she picked up. Sure wouldn't have worked on Linux.

Linux is great for servers, but it will never be a viable desktop OS. Don't really get why people hate MS so much, standardization is a good thing for the average consumer. When I started in computers there were several competing OS that actually got software to market (commodore, apple, ibm, tandy, probably some others) and of course nothing was compatible with anything. For the average consumer, things had to go to a single solution.


RE: <no subject>
By sprockkets on 1/31/2007 5:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
she can always browse to a casino game, that and linux comes with the games already. If you like paying $10-$30 for each add on from a computer store, then by all means.

Oh, and I'm sure as hell that win2k disc is also pirated :) (mine is too)


RE: <no subject>
By oab on 1/31/2007 6:55:44 PM , Rating: 3
Part of reason people hate MS so much is because they are arrogant (but its okay for apple because they are the 'little guy'), downplay security problems, and when it comes to standards, MS looks at the standard, then changes it to whatever they want, and say they invented it.

CSS, Javascript, Java (though that was different, Sun LET them make their own VM, at first), it all has MS quirks because IE dosn't comply to the standards set out for them.

That and tech-heads like linux because its tech-head friendly (EVERYONE loves editing settings via weirdly named text files right?)

Linux may become a viable desktop os, but unless something major happens (a bomb blows up all of redmond washington and its impossible to resume development on the next windows, then eventually, the market would move away from Windows and to something else, be that Mac OS, BSD/POSTIX flavour of your choice).

It could happen, but its not going to. MS would have to take even longer (10 years or so) with their next windows (assuming its anything like Vista and its predecessors) for any kind of dent to be made in their market share.

Free office suites have a better chance (i.e. OpenOffice)


RE: <no subject>
By darkpaw on 2/1/2007 8:38:42 AM , Rating: 2
Complete agreement on the Office Suites, open office is an excellent alternative as are some of the online options. Businesses will continue to use MS office, but I always recommend home users and small businesses at least look into the free options.


RE: <no subject>
By Jack Ripoff on 2/1/2007 1:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of standardization, do you know POSIX and X11? Did you know POSIX is an ISO/IEC standard that predates Windows? Did you know KDE runs on any of the following OSes: Linux, FreeBSD, Darwin, Solaris and most other Unixes?


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 2/1/2007 1:23:07 PM , Rating: 1
ISO standards do little to assure to an end user that an application they are about to download or purchase will run on their computer. What is important is the vendor's assurance of the same. The problem with Linux is that, despite the claims made to adherence to "standards," the fact is that there is a lot of splintering and variation, and you can never be sure that a particular application or device will run on your particular Linux system - it's always a crap shoot. That is not a problem with Windows, which is the OPs point, I think.


RE: <no subject>
By Jack Ripoff on 2/1/2007 3:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
How do you explain the fact that KDE runs on all those platforms then?


RE: <no subject>
By rushfan2006 on 2/1/07, Rating: 0
RE: <no subject>
By wien on 2/1/2007 9:48:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Guess what the VAST majority of computer users don't view things like we do -- they view a computer as merely a tool, and they prefer that tool to work as effortlessly as possible and when it doesn't they want to turn to ONE definite source who takes responsiblity for supporting them.
Like on Windows? Who do you go to when your Dell dies? You go to Dell. So, why couldn't Dell provide Linux support instead of Window support? Is there really something fundamentally crazy about that idea? If they really wanted to they could even create "Dell-linux", complete with a software repository back end (all Linux distros have them) filled with "Dell tested and approved" software. This way they could provide instant security/feature updates for all the software on their customers' computers. Try that on Windows.


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 2/1/2007 9:58:45 AM , Rating: 1
If you have a Windows problem, you should call Microsoft, not Dell. Microsoft has excellent technical support, in my experience. Much better than Linux.

Microsoft also provides security updates automatically for the OS, so I'm I not sure what your point is regarding security updates.


RE: <no subject>
By wien on 2/1/2007 10:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't that what the whole OEM thing is about? Dell provides support, so they get Windows on the cheap?

But anyway. Say Dell installed RedHat/Mandriva/SUSE then. (And paid for support from them of course.) That would be exactly the same thing as with Microsoft and Windows. Users call the people who created the software. It doesn't have to be a monopoly to be centralized.

My point about the repository system in most Linux distros is that updates are provided for all installed software. Not just the OS bits. Microsoft update only provides updates for Microsoft software (obviously).


RE: <no subject>
By rushfan2006 on 2/1/2007 2:10:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Like on Windows? Who do you go to when your Dell dies? You go to Dell. So, why couldn't Dell provide Linux support instead of Window support? Is there really something fundamentally crazy about that idea? If they really wanted to they could even create "Dell-linux", complete with a software repository back end (all Linux distros have them) filled with "Dell tested and approved" software. This way they could provide instant security/feature updates for all the software on their customers' computers. Try that on Windows.


First...thanks to the folks who proved my very point by modding down my post to "zero". :) I appreciate that. I enjoy knowing when I'm right. ;)

Secondly, wien, do you have something specifically against Dell you keep pointing them out -- did they sell you crap before or something. As I mentioned NO PC manufacturer at all in my post. Oh and btw, I've been building my own computers for years now - so if your "Dell" comment was meant for me directly -- you missed your mark. In fact considering a job I had was building computers -- there's a fair chance I've probably diagnosed, configured and assembled more PC's than you.

Moving on to who you call....this has to do with how savy the user in question is -- but yes they'd call either the PC vendor or Microsoft. This stated though, you still miss the whole initial point.

A PC Vendor right now can offer centralized support on a Windows platform, because their is an organized and professional support structure in place from all software companies and hardware vendors for the Windows platform.

Linux on the other hand has separate communities that vary from distro to distro -- oh yeah their are "pockets" of support for maybe the most popular Linux apps....but still a large part of apps requires you go to a geekified website troll forums, or the like to get a simple answer. Now granted part of this is because the Industry is resisting change from Windows to Linux and therefore there is MUCH less incentive for widespread support on part of hardware and software vendors for Linux.


Finally for crying out loud don't you understand with Windows things are unified - there aren't 8200 variations of the OS, and don't BS me with "dude um all the distro's perform and act the same" -- they most certainly do NOT.

So then what solution does DELL support -- what distro? What applications? What incentive does DELL have to do all the huge amount of research and work to get all these help docs and support together into a centralized form -- when their sales department is telling them how much of their ca$h flow is in Windows?




RE: <no subject>
By kerpwnt on 2/1/2007 2:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
I never thought I would type this, but I actually have to agree with rushfan. The linux community is far too messy to ever take over the average joe's desktop. I won't even run it on my main computer, because I just don't have the time anymore to devote to my operating system alone. Linux is great for specialized devices like routers and game consoles, where the scope of their use is so small. People need a PC operating system that "just works" so they actually run any application they might need. Not even I want to scour those troll infested forums for some hours, just to get one non-distro-native application installed.

Even though I agree with rushfan this once, I'll still always vote for donkeys. ;P


RE: <no subject>
By rushfan2006 on 2/1/2007 3:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I'm glad someone got what my point was. I know what I mean but sometimes I'm bad at expressing it.

I don't hate Linux, on its own merits alone -- removing all the "mainstream ready" stuff from the picture...Linux is by itself a very worthy OS.

I just can't understand why Linux junkies themselves don't understand why the world doesn't turn upside down for it.

As for who you vote for, um...vote for whom ever you want...I've said it before and I'll say it again..my handle has NOTHING to do with the conservative talkshow host.....its talking about Rush, as in the Canadian band...you know Geddy Lee and Neil Peart --- "Tom Sawyer", "Red Barchetta"...etc.

I just post what I feel -- if the world disagrees with me, I'll rethink what I said --- then I may or may not change my position on how I feel on something.

Ratings mean nothing. Standing for your convictions does.


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 2/1/2007 3:35:09 PM , Rating: 1
Lots of us got your point.
quote:
Ratings mean nothing. Standing for your convictions does.

QFT.

OMG, it's the feel-good post of the day. Sheesh, I'd better get back to work.


RE: <no subject>
By Pythias on 2/1/2007 3:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct on several things. I dont wanna send granny to some forum where they can "OMFG N00B!! RTFM!! ROFLCOPTERBBQ!!!111".

and

quote:
Even though I agree with rushfan this once, I'll still always vote for donkeys. ;P


You've got to understand, they're ALL Donkeys, my friend. All of them, regardless of what letter they have in front of their name.


RE: <no subject>
By wien on 2/1/2007 3:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First...thanks to the folks who proved my very point by modding down my post to "zero". :) I appreciate that. I enjoy knowing when I'm right. ;)
I think you'll find that has more to do with your tact and tone, than with the content of your post.

quote:
Secondly, wien, do you have something specifically against Dell you keep pointing them out
Heh. I have absolutely nothing against Dell. They build fine computers. I mentioned them instead of building my example around "some vendor". Exchange all instances of "Dell" with "HP" or "ACME" if you feel I was targeting them unfairly. :)

quote:
A PC Vendor right now can offer centralized support on a Windows platform, because their is an organized and professional support structure in place from all software companies and hardware vendors for the Windows platform.
Organized support structure? In what way? You go to individual vendors with problems with their product. It just so happens that everyone supports Windows, but there's nothing organized about it.

Anyway, I don't see how this relates to ACME Computers (Just so I don't pick on Dell again.) providing support for their Linux computers. They would of course only sell computers with hardware/software supported on Linux by the respective vendors. Any 3rd party hardware/software installed by the user is not their problem.
quote:
Linux on the other hand has separate communities that vary from distro to distro -- oh yeah their are "pockets" of support for maybe the most popular Linux apps....but still a large part of apps requires you go to a geekified website troll forums, or the like to get a simple answer.
Yes (though I disagree strongly with your stereotype), but this is only true if you install it on your own. If you buy RedHat, you call RedHat for support. That's why you pay them good money for a free product.
quote:
Finally for crying out loud don't you understand with Windows things are unified - there aren't 8200 variations of the OS, and don't BS me with "dude um all the distro's perform and act the same" -- they most certainly do NOT.
No they are not. But they are very similar. Personally I'm used to Ubuntu, but it wouldn't take me long to get comfortable in RedHat or SUSE. It's about the same as going from Windows 2000 to XP. Most of your (support-team's) knowledge still applies. (As long as you stay with the same desktop manager.) Anyway, this is all beside the point since an OEM would simply go with one distro, and stick to that. There is no reason for them to provide and support every distro out there.

Now, granted, unification has it's positive sides, especially for developers of binary-only software as they don't have to take API differences into consideration, but again; that really isn't ACME Computers' problem. They sell the system and provide support for the stuff they installed on it. What users do with the system after that, is their problem, just like it is now.
quote:
So then what solution does DELL support -- what distro? What applications? What incentive does DELL have to do all the huge amount of research and work to get all these help docs and support together into a centralized form -- when their sales department is telling them how much of their ca$h flow is in Windows?
They don't have to do this themselves. They are perfectly free to buy a pre-assembled Linux package (with support) from someone else and install that. The point is that they can choose what suits them and their business-model best. If rolling their own distro makes sense for their requirement, they are free to do so. It's entirely up to them.

As for incentive. Right now, probably not much, but if demand for Linux boxes increases I just don't see why it would be more difficult for them to support Linux than it is to support Windows today.


RE: <no subject>
By rushfan2006 on 2/1/2007 4:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Heh. I have absolutely nothing against Dell. They build fine computers. I mentioned them instead of building my example around "some vendor". Exchange all instances of "Dell" with "HP" or "ACME" if you feel I was targeting them unfairly. :)


Actually its EXTREMELY rare when I never put some amount of sarcastic humor in my replies on here -- the thing is many people don't see it that way I guess....I was being sarcastic here...because "Dell" is like the most popular PC maker right now.

quote:
Organized support structure? In what way? You go to individual vendors with problems with their product. It just so happens that everyone supports Windows, but there's nothing organized about it.

Anyway, I don't see how this relates to ACME Computers (Just so I don't pick on Dell again.) providing support for their Linux computers. They would of course only sell computers with hardware/software supported on Linux by the respective vendors. Any 3rd party hardware/software installed by the user is not their problem.


What I meant by organized is just that -- organized and user-friendly to find and figure out virtually anything you need to on any app or hardware piece for Windows. Everyone knows Windows, as companies and inviduals - there for the help is organized in that you know right where to go to get help on something. I know in the past with instances with Linux the resources available were not conducive to a warm and fuzzy "don't worry we got your back if this doesn't work" feeling. A lot of Linux "Open Source" apps have no professional support -- its just the "community"...so you are telling me comparing a "community" of "open source enthusiasts" is ORGANIZED when compared to a professional software company, hardware vendor or what not? Keep mind you aren't telling me something I don't know by saying "that just because Windows is what the world uses"...I know this and that's exactly a basis of my whole point. End users need the "warm and fuzzies".

quote:
Yes (though I disagree strongly with your stereotype), but this is only true if you install it on your own. If you buy RedHat, you call RedHat for support. That's why you pay them good money for a free product.


No you pay them now because they want to turn a profit. But I'm not saying that's wrong -- heck Linux NEEDS a profit incentive it is key to its success.

But isn't that one of the key points of user-friendly OS...doing as much as you can ON YOUR OWN with little to know help from ANYWAY....despite the pain of accepting this fact....(and BY NO MEANS IN HELL AM I SAYING WINDOWS IS THE UBER OS OF THE WORLD.) My sister who knows very close to nothing about computers or software....re-installed XP on her own. A simple example ...yes...but the point is the baseline has to be the "average user" -- and if the 'average user" needs to call support to just INSTALL an application or the OS (barring that they have an adequate IQ to begin with mind you) than that OS is not meeting a good defintion of user friendly.

quote:
Anyway, this is all beside the point since an OEM would simply go with one distro, and stick to that. There is no reason for them to provide and support every distro out there.


Well unless all Linux distro's changed since I used them last year...its not beside the point because some distros don't run all apps the same or with the same ease of configuration or stability. I'm not even going to get into the constant changing kernel issue here either.

Thanks for your time..I have to jet.






RE: <no subject>
By kerpwnt on 2/1/2007 7:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry I went assuming rush. You know what happens when we assume...
Anyway, that statement about your sister re-enforces my "just works" statement. People can't always rely on tech support for help. Sometimes they will have to figure out their own software issues. Some issues that may be trivial in Windows Mac OSX are infinitely more daunting in Linux.

Often times I don't even have the patience to rummage through my Ubuntu install, looking for the reason why my update manager keeps telling me theres some missing dependency. Then later find that a program that I want to run requires some other app, which requires yet another app, which requires a newer kernel. Just when I decide to sit down with this problem, I become overwhelmed with this feeling that these problems will never end; it will just cascade until I or the computer die. I'll admit that I am a Linux newbie, but nothing as fundamental as an operating system should be that difficult.

Windows just has the usability that takes the kind of research a big company like Microsoft can invest. Apple has it too (to be fair to the Mac lovers out there). You get what you pay for. It just seems that the Linux community as a whole does not care as much about making something "your mom can use" as they do about making something free and unique. Unity is what the Linux community needs before they can even consider putting their OS on any serious amounts of computers. Time for those Linux guys to start gobbling each other up. But if they want to keep it free, they will just have to accept the fact that Linux will never "just work" like something you pay for.

One distro to rule them all, One distro to find them, One distro to bring them all, And in the darkness bind them


RE: <no subject>
By rushfan2006 on 2/2/2007 9:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
Yep yep..I pretty much agree with you. You said in some ways much better than what I was trying to say.

I'm trying to be a voice on the side of the "average user" point of view.

However, PERSONALLY....I agree that Linux has some very attractive features and heck I even plan (how long it takes is based on finances) to have a second computer in my computer room this spring/summer and that will be a Linux box. For fiddling and for my own geekish reasons and tendencies.

As for the Rush thing...I wasn't thinking / realizing how political a LOT of folks get on this site when I registered the name....trust me at least a dozen times now people have flamed me with such things as "coming from a Limbaugh fan that doesn't surprise me" or "given your handle name I'm not shocked..."...etc. etc.

The only time I'd listen to Limbaugh is when I'm constipated and need something to help me remedy that situation. ;)



RE: <no subject>
By Shining Arcanine on 2/1/2007 11:58:30 AM , Rating: 2
People probably would know the difference, because they are used to using Windows computers.


RE: <no subject>
By jarman on 1/31/2007 4:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
How is desktop market share relevant? If Google deploys an effective set of software applications that businesses can use to streamline their organizations and reduce SG&A costs using thin linux clients (assuming security issues are addressed), what justification would businesses have to continue to spend money on services that they could get elsewhere for less (or even) free?


RE: <no subject>
By TomZ on 1/31/2007 4:46:12 PM , Rating: 1
Desktop market share is relevant, because this article is about Vista, which is a desktop operating system. It is clear from the data that neither businesses nor consumers see Linux as an effective choice for desktops.


RE: <no subject>
By bhieb on 1/31/2007 5:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what justification would businesses have to continue to spend money on services that they could get elsewhere for less (or even) free


Traing cost for one thing. I am a network admin with 100 or so clients and I don't think any savings I encounter would offset the $$ to teach the 40-60 year old clerks here how to use it. The training cost alone would offset the OS cost.


RE: <no subject>
By RogueSpear on 1/31/2007 6:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Traing cost for one thing.

Exactly. Well almost. Where I work they refuse to pay for training at all. It's sink or swim. And it has taken me the better part of 10 years to get half of these numbskulls even barely competent in using Windows.

There are other issues as well. We have several proprietary applications that I really don't think would work under wine. And even if they did today, who knows if they would tomorrow. Then there's the issue of management, deployment, etc. Over the years I have transformed from a real Microsoft supporter and advocate to someone who can't complaint about them enough. I really like the philosophy behind Linux and I like the technology behind it as well. But even with all that there just isn't any way I could transition over to Linux.


RE: <no subject>
By FITCamaro on 1/31/2007 6:30:36 PM , Rating: 3
No large corporation is ever going to use online tools to edit their documents containing proprietary information. The security risk is too high.


RE: <no subject>
By jarman on 1/31/2007 8:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
... which is why I stated this assumption.

quote:
(assuming security issues are addressed)


RE: <no subject>
By cochy on 2/1/2007 12:17:27 AM , Rating: 2
Business will never use Google products because of one minor concern. Security and privacy of data. No business would consider keeping their sensitive information on Google's servers. Information is regularly parsed for targeted ad delivery. Google docs could be fun to use for academic or personal use, I dont particularly find it too useful at present. However for business? forget about it. Not as it stands now, not even close.


RE: <no subject>
By fxnick on 1/31/2007 9:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
maby if linux was actually usable and user friendly people would use it


RE: <no subject>