Linked by Adam S on Mon 19th Sep 2005 10:45 UTC
Windows The news has been around, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says the development process at Microsoft has to change after Windows Vista. The time between releases is just too long, and Microsoft has to show profit to keep shareholders happy. Some say the Redmond empire is due for a slow collapse, but I think there exists an amazing opportunity.
Order by: Score:
No way
by evangs on Mon 19th Sep 2005 10:55 UTC
evangs
Member since:
2005-07-07

That would be too much of a cut in MS's income. I did a quick Google to get the details on MS's revenue breakdown, and I came across this site. http://www.microsoftmonitor.com/archives/003977.html

Out of a quarterly revenue of $9.19 billion, $2.99 billion comes from client sales, with Windows XP OEM licenses growing year on year. If Vista were free, that will be a big dent in MS's revenue, which as Adam notes is something the shareholders will not stand for.

I like alternatives as much as the next geek. While it is true that Linux and Macs (and others) are giving MS a bit of competition, their bottom-line is hardly dented. It makes no sense for MS to give away Vista just yet. Maybe in the future.

Reply Score: 5

RE: No way
by TBPrince on Mon 19th Sep 2005 13:52 UTC in reply to "No way"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

+1 and I totally agree. I've read tons of articles (actually, I don't read them anymore...) predicting that Vista will be free. This simply a joke. As you pointed out people who predict that simply didn't understand where MS gets its money, which is Windows and Office. Nothing else is fundamental to Microsoft and that's why they can give so much software away for free. Now this is not meant to bash anyone here but just to say people should pay more attention.

Plus, let's wipe away a mith: Microsoft doesn't get its money from Windows by direct retails sales. They mostly milk their cow via OEMs and that's the channel they need to care. So a 0 Linux won't ever affect Windows unless such system will be so easy to sell that OEMs will sell it pre-installed. Though some OEM is start selling Linux pre-installed, that's a little drop in the ocean. No way this can hurt Microsoft (yet)

I don't mean that Microsoft will never be forced to give Windows out for free but that won't happen anytime soon. That would be a very last measure if Microsoft gets into REAL trouble, which won't happen for many years.

Before giving Windows away for free Microsoft can destruct market by lowering (at least two times in a 4 years term) prices (say, if they drop from 90% of PCs to 80%, they might decide to drop a 100USD price to 60USD and less for OEMs, plus if they drop to 75% or 70% in - say - 4 years, they could decide to re-gain market share by dropping price to 35-45USD and on and on). That's a long road before they will ship Windows for free.

But most of all, remember that this will need TIME. If you think MS will drop from 90+% to anything than 85% in a 2-3 years term you're a dreamer.

The bare fact that they didn't need to substantially change XP price for many years shows by itself how worried they are about Linux menace on desktop systems.

Finally, remember that computer ecosystem is supposed to gain MANY users in 2-3 years (the whole Asia plus Latin America zones account for almost 50% of world people). Even if most of such people was able to enter this market and they *all* used Linux/Apple, MS could drop to (say) 50% of the market WITHOUT loosing a penny for their revenues in a 5-6 years term. Plus they have tons of cash and they could afford not to sell a single product for 3-4 years and still being in business...!

So please, let's stop predicting that Microsoft will crumble, collapse, fail, file for bankruptcy. If that will ever happen, we will probably be old enough to have kids or to see children of our own kids. Dreaming costs nothing but if you really want to achieve real goals, it's better to let your feet be firm on the ground.

My .02

Reply Score: 4

Better double check your
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 10:57 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Information concerning the MSFT XML format. It's a hybrid binary text setup so it's not human readable , and is that much harder to parse.

It's how MSFT are keeping their patents on it, it's a combo system designed so MSFT can say they are using XML while still insuring lock-in.

Reply Score: 5

The stake of shareholds
by mlopes on Mon 19th Sep 2005 11:10 UTC
mlopes
Member since:
2005-07-18

Shareholders control the company. If they did sell their shares the company would collapse. They know which products generate revenue to Microsoft: Windows and Office. Everything else is landscape.

So, if Microsoft would be giving Vista for free the shareholders wouldn't like. It could be a good move to impress people, but certainly it wouldn't impress who puts money on it. Why? Because people know that Microsoft's business is dependent on Windows/Office and not the other way around. People don't buy MS Exchange to run Windows, they buy it because people use Windows! Got the point?

Reply Score: 1

RE: The stake of shareholds
by unoengborg on Mon 19th Sep 2005 11:57 UTC in reply to "The stake of shareholds"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

If they give Vista away for free, they need to make money on something else. That something else could be support. By giving Vista away they would have more people to sell support to, and the shareholders could be kept happy.

The problem is, that to do that, they need to change the common opinion that support and Microsoft is two separate things that never meet. That would require a lot of money spent on organizational changes, education and PR.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The stake of shareholds
by evangs on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:15 UTC in reply to "RE: The stake of shareholds"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

The question then becomes, how much will they be able to charge for support? Most home users will never pay for support (try telling your mum that she needs to pay $$$ monthly to use her computer). It will kill the incentive to upgrade. That is why MS makes loads of money on Windows XP OEM sales.

Corporate users are a different matter, and there I think it might work.

Reply Score: 1

Re: Stake of Shareholds
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 11:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

However, msft are losing a slight amount of these Windows users to people loking for free alternatives...

So, if msft releases a version of Vista for free, they can at least hope to regain those lost, and those lost would then buy into the msfty server stuff...

In order to take advantage of the lock-in, you first need people using your OS, and in order to regain that, it just might mean release a stripped version for free.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Re: Stake of Shareholds
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 11:24 UTC in reply to "Re: Stake of Shareholds"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"I think there exists an amazing opportunity"... Yeah, you and this guy: http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2005090902026OPMSSW

Reply Score: 0

v Vista for free? No thanks...
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 11:24 UTC
v Hrm.
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 11:37 UTC
so what ?
by raver31 on Mon 19th Sep 2005 11:43 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

Most people do not switch to linux because it is free. They do it for a number of reasons;

1: Malware on Windows
2: Stability (less of a problem with XP, but still there)
3: The WHOLE system can be free, not just the OS.
4: Freedom to alter it as I please.

So, you see, even if Microsoft did give Vista away, it is not stop the migration to linux.

Reply Score: 5

RE: so what ?
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 11:49 UTC in reply to "so what ?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

For me, it was the flexibility and security.

I get to choose what I want, and adapt it to whatever application I need, and drop the crap I don't need!

Reply Score: 1

RE: so what ?
by Adam S on Mon 19th Sep 2005 11:55 UTC in reply to "so what ?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Most people do not switch to linux because it is free.

I'd argue that. They *absolutely* switch to Linux because it's free. I think what you mean it say is that they don't move off of Windows because of the cost.

If I just want off of Windows, don't you think the logical choice for the standard consumer is s Mac? I doubt Joe Shmoe is going to up and switch to Linux, which he likely has no experience with, because he's tired of spyware. He'll go to a store and likely find NO BOXES of Linux. He'll have to figure out what to do with an ISO, or worse, how to use BiTorrent. People may not switch because of the cost, but the **average** person that does choose Linux likely does so because its free.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: so what ?
by Moulinneuf on Mon 19th Sep 2005 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE: so what ?"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

And you base your argument on the biased opinions you have. Ask why people switch to GNU/Linux and the cost is almost never mentionned. Its the reason given by Windows zealot and apologist.

" don't you think the logical choice for the standard consumer is s Mac?"

No , because most people own X86 system. Its easier to switch to GNU/Linux then to go and buy a new Apple computer.

"I doubt Joe Shmoe is going to up and switch to Linux"

I dont know Joe Shmoe but there is nothing stopping him from switching to GNU/Linux if thats what he whants. With Live-CD and the Support group from corporation its easier then to try and install Windows.

"which he likely has no experience with"

Someone who as never used a computer as no experience in anything. When you try something new you dont have any experience. Switchin to Win 98 to win 2k to Win XP its always a new experience.

"He'll go to a store and likely find NO BOXES of Linux."

Thats a supply problem , if you whant a ferrari do you go to the next door wall-mart and look for one ? No you go to the Ferrari specialist.

"He'll have to figure out what to do with an ISO, or worse, how to use BiTorrent."

There are million of service specialist who offer GNU/Linux install and there is boced product and cheaptbytes like store who send you working CD.

The average people switch because GNU/Linux offer more.

- More security
- More software
- More liberty ( legal to install on 5 computer )
- More freedom ( you get to change it the way you like it )
- Etc ...

- Because they can and they whant to ...

BTW most people who use Windows do so illegally , because they cant legally afford it or they dont whant to pay for something tey already paid for. Making it Free whont change the real reason *why* people switch.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: so what ?
by Adam S on Mon 19th Sep 2005 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: so what ?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I'm sorry, but your responses are just as biased as mine, except you state your opinions as facts. All of my statements come from experience. I've been in this field, and I have seen many people attempt Linux and fail.

You make the mistake of assuming (ASSUMING!) that most people have the knowledge and experience that you do. But the truth is that my experience, as well as every article in all the trade magazines, disagree with you. Linux - of which I am a very big supporter - is certainly not an attractive option for a "normal" computer user in the US today. If it were, you'd see more vendors preinstalling it. But they aren't. Most of them are merely thinking about it or rolling it out onsie twosie. But you won't find large vendors pushing it hard to home consumers. You just won't. Just as its virtually impossible to find Linux boxed in a store. It's not supply, it's lack of demand. Those who want it that way aren't prevalent, those who don't know how to get it - and probably a more recent version - online.

BTW most people who use Windows do so illegally

Yeah, right. Care to back that up with some evidence? You're completely deluded. You're suggesting to me that the hundreds of thousands of computers sold each year are done so with illegal copies of Windows, right? That XP upgrades, sold online in droves via CDW, PC Mall, and Zones, as well as in stores like CompUSA and Best Buy -- they are all pirated, right?

No, sorry -- you're completely misinformed. Perhaps your friends pirate software like that, but most people wouldn't have the foggiest idea where to get a pirated version of Windows if it weren't for the tech savvy.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: so what ?
by Emil on Mon 19th Sep 2005 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: so what ?"
Emil Member since:
2005-06-29

,,Yeah, right. Care to back that up with some evidence?''

I work and live in Poland. People I know (geeks and non-geeks) who uses Windows.. well.. they all use pirate Windows. Except for my friend who got brand new laptop with OEM Windows. People consider Windows being free as in beer, really.

I'm using Linux not because of a price tag. I use it because of technological merits.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: so what ?
by Moulinneuf on Mon 19th Sep 2005 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: so what ?"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

For GNU/Linux to have so many offer there are more that are sucessfull then there are of your failure :

http://distrowatch.com/

There is more trade magazine then WINDOWS MAg :

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/602324/104-9069195-92...

This Year GNU/Linux offer are better then last year but less then next year. Normal computer user in the US are finding out everyday that GNU/Linux is a really atractive option.

The number of OEM brand vendor installing GNU/Linux is increasing at a fast pace. There is more this year then there whas last year at this date and there are less then next year at this date.

The reality is that GNU/Linux distribution can now affor to make there own rolling out ;-) , you will see more often as time goes by ;-)

Wallmart , HP , Dell , Apple are big enough vendor for me.

The GNU/Linux box absence is due to shortage of stocks , most often then not there sold out. Just ask any computer store in your area if they can get GNU/Linux for you.

"Care to back that up with some evidence?"

Yes : Moulinneuf ( thats me ) said there are more Windows in use that are illegal then there are of legal copy.

- China
- Africa
- Middle east
- Europe

BSA Global reports. Microsoft Global reports.

There are more whitebox ( 80% of the market ) then there are of all OEM brand name put togheter.

" That XP upgrades, sold online in droves via CDW, PC Mall, and Zones, as well as in stores like CompUSA and Best Buy -- they are all pirated, right?"

You know that There is more computer OS license that where bought for 95 , 98 and 2000 then there whas for XP. If you dont , now you do. Also a couple of those where sold illegally as OEM license , OEM license are supposed to be sold with new complete assembled computer.

Dont be sorry for me , be sorry for yourself, you live in your own little rich area of teh United states and dont even see whats under your nose.

Most people dont even know they are using Illegal copies of windows , they got it from there local vendors.

Its not because your blind and assume that all your friends and familly are legal and can afford the same as you that they do. I am sure that you dont have to go far from yourself to find a pirated windows or someone with one pirated games or application.

BTW the day ATI , nvidia , Matrox and computer hardware maker started to make GNU/Linux drivers whas long past the point GNU/Linux whas Mainstream , if they keep adding staff and offer for it its because its a market that is growing. ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: so what ?
by jptros on Mon 19th Sep 2005 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: so what ?"
jptros Member since:
2005-08-26

I don't think so buddy. I work in IT and am often confronted by friends and family about windows, what to do to fix it and if there is something else they can use. I've mentioned linux and 95% of the time the people I'm talking to don't know what it is and they would never take the time to try and really learn how to use it. I can't say that I blame them either. The 'free' part always catches their attention, I've even set some folks up on it. In the end it's just as much trouble as windows because they still call you to fix this, install that or I need to to do this, what can I use?

We had a LUG at the university I attended and an install fest every semester. We tried handing out cd's with free software that existed on linux and windows, put up flyers with "FREE FREE FREE! STABLE! NO MORE VIRUSES" or whatever we thought would catch peoples attention. The crowds at every install fest were very sparse, I mean asside from the few members that would show up to do it, there would be maybe 2 or 3 folks turn up.

In the end most average people don't care about linux or any other free operating system, they care about what they bought and paid for and just want it to work. Most of them are not using windows illegaly because it came preinstalled on their laptop or desktop they purchased from whatever big name computer manufactuer that included a license with it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: so what ?
by Moulinneuf on Mon 19th Sep 2005 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: so what ?"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Off course you where paid for the service of helping them like on windows right ? Or you made the mistake of saying Everything is free all the time ?

I know the LUG episode , you put it on a day or night everybody else is doing something else and nobody shows up ... There is more to LUG then just installing softwares too.

Not everyone buys there computer at the big name computer manufacturer. Even if I grant you that if they buy it from the store it come with a a legal OS , there is also the applications and games that get pirated too ...

Time is not a problem for GNU/Linux , its probably a good thing they dont try what you have to offer , because from the look of it your not offering the best or not even that much interested in supporting it.

Just for fun what distribution did you use ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: so what ?
by Ravnos on Mon 19th Sep 2005 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE: so what ?"
Ravnos Member since:
2005-07-06

He'll go to a store and likely find NO BOXES of Linux.

Then he's going to the wrong store. I haven't been to Future Shop (Canadian Best Buy equivalent/subsidiary) in a while, but I used to see boxed SuSE CDs all the time in the software aisles. They didn't have a HUGE selection of distros, but they did sell it (and regardless, if I'm going to recommend a boxed version of Linux to anyone, I'm going to recommend SuSE.)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: so what ?
by Adam S on Mon 19th Sep 2005 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: so what ?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Yeah, they USED to carry SuSE and Red Hat. Not anymore.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: so what ?
by Moulinneuf on Mon 19th Sep 2005 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: so what ?"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp;jsessionid=3KXOBYY3SLFK3KC4...

Red Hat never whas about the consumer Market. There for the corporate market.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: so what ?
by shiro on Tue 20th Sep 2005 03:53 UTC in reply to "RE: so what ?"
shiro Member since:
2005-07-20

I never got tired with worms, spyware, viruses because I've never had one, let me remind you why people move to linux, why people develop linux


http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bs...

That said it all

Reply Score: 1

v RE: so what ?
by rajan r on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:07 UTC in reply to "so what ?"
RE[2]: so what ?
by raver31 on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:17 UTC in reply to "RE: so what ?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

I will understand completely if English is not your first language, but,

Just as stupid is the previous reason, "3: The WHOLE system can be free, not just the OS." So when you use Windows, you can't use open source software just as when you use Linux you can't use propreitary software?

You picked that up wrong. You can indeed use OSS on Windows, but you cannot have a complete FREE system. Microsoft will not allow this. BTW - I mean free as in speech - not free as in free beer.

Honestly, how many started using Linux because it has the "4: Freedom to alter it as I please."?

I don't know. Me for one.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: so what ?
by Adam S on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: so what ?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

You can indeed use OSS on Windows, but you cannot have a complete FREE system. Microsoft will not allow this. BTW - I mean free as in speech - not free as in free beer.

You know how many people I know in real life that actually care about free-as-in-speech? I can count them on one hand. Anyone who objects to software on moral grounds and is willing to settle on anything less than the right tool to get the job done right isn't someone I want to work with, certainly isn't someone I want on my team, and is exactly the kind of person I would call "fanatic" or a "zealot."

I use open source tools all the time, and prefer most of them, but you can be guaranteed that if a commercial app comes along that is best of breed and accomplishes something I can't do with alternatives (or accomplishes it better, faster, or cheaper), I will use it, and my company expects me to.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: so what ?
by Daniel Borgmann on Mon 19th Sep 2005 13:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: so what ?"
Daniel Borgmann Member since:
2005-07-08

Now wait a minute. OSS isn't (just) about morals, it is about very real practical advantages and above all independence. It is about the guarantee that your chosen software will be useful and available for you in the future. The guarantee that there is always a way out in case you get stuck because your software unexpectedly doesn't do exactly what you need it to do.

People who care about this are hardly "fanatics" or "zealots".

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: so what ?
by Adam S on Mon 19th Sep 2005 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: so what ?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Fair. But would you agree that consciously choosing a tool when there is a better* one out there is a poor business decision?

* better being all-inclusive

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: so what ?
by Daniel Borgmann on Mon 19th Sep 2005 14:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: so what ?"
Daniel Borgmann Member since:
2005-07-08

Not necessarily, for the reasons I mentioned. The all-around better tool could very well end up as a liability in the future. Of course this doesn't matter for simple and finite tasks, but I wouldn't want to depend on something I have no control over.

Obviously this isn't always a matter of choice and depends on the situation, but more and more (non-fanatic) people seem to consider open source a strong argument in itself for good reasons.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: so what ?
by Adam S on Mon 19th Sep 2005 14:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: so what ?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

The all-around better tool could very well end up as a liability in the future. Of course this doesn't matter for simple and finite tasks, but I wouldn't want to depend on something I have no control over.

In fairness, open source presents its own risks. If I standardize on an open source program, the possibility someone loses interest and it goes stale exists. Now, of course, I could always pick up the code and go, but then, what if it isn't my business' core competency? What if we're not an IT shop? What if it simply not cost effective?

All I'm saying is that it goes both ways.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: so what ?
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 14:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: so what ?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Fair. But would you agree that consciously choosing a tool when there is a better* one out there is a poor business decision?"

Free as in freedom in software is sometimes crucial for big companies. Ever wondered why Hollywood film studios migrated their SGI/IRIX workstations and render farms into Linux? They don't want to depend their deadlines on some other companies' interests. If they need to change the platform somehow, they can do it by themselves immediately. They don't have to wait for anyone else to do it, and thus postpone their product release dates. So freedom isn't actually only a way of doing a product, but also its attribute.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: so what ?
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE: so what ?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Um, last time I looked the #1 and #2 distros out there (Red Hat and Novell/SUSE) were almost 100% open source.

Novell and Red Hat have both added some non open source software here and there but that does not stop you from using the open source parts and having full up and running OS's (Like CentOS and WhiteBox, Open Suse etc)

I like how Novell has done. If you have a small business and you want to be full Open Source you can use Suse Enterprise Linux 9. You get your file sharing from Samba, Directory Services from Open LDAP etc. Or if you want Novell non open source software you can pay more and get e-directory for directory services, IFolder for file sharing etc.

You have choice! No such thing on Windows. You use what they give you, you wait till they upgrade it and you have no control over it. You hope that it works the same etc. For instance, if I want the features of Apache 1.3 but Suse 9 Enterprise comes with Apache 2 (Which it does) I uninstall Apache 2 and install Apache 1.3xxx! Let me see ya do that with IIS? You can't you stuck with what they give you and you hope it works like the last version!

That is the freedom we talk about!

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: so what ?
by captain_knobjockey on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE: so what ?"
RE: so what ?
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:18 UTC in reply to "so what ?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Free as in beer here.

Reply Score: 0

RE: so what ?
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 02:23 UTC in reply to "so what ?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

" 1: Malware on Windows
2: Stability (less of a problem with XP, but still
there)
3: The WHOLE system can be free, not just the OS.
4: Freedom to alter it as I please. "

You just put your finger on the problem. Even *IF* Vista were given away, the problem is still one of *perception* : M$ is a GREEDY SELF SERVING company that ONLY cares about the bottom line, and nothing about the user -- the end user is seen is nothing more than a endless source of money. M$ over the years has done nothing but turn out piles of JUNK software that does not even come close to living up to the promises made. Users have been burned over and over by M$. M$ *knows* it has a huge installed base, but the sound of revolution is in the air and it grows by the day: M$'s answer: INTEGRATE EVERYTHING so that ONLY M$ products will work with a M$ OS. The problem is that the world is becoming more and more computer dependent. There are SUN systems, Apples, Linux, BSD, etc. and they must all communicate -- and there is M$ saying -- "We don't want to play and share our sandbox with you". And now along comes LINUX, who *WILL* share his sandbox, but everything else. So who do you go play with, someone who is as STINGY and SELFISH as MICROSOFT?? Or someone who will work with and share their snadbox like LINUX and the Open Source World??

And then there is the issue of VIRUSES and WORMS. I saw the figure that there were litterally THOUSANDS of virses last year alone for Windows based systems.

So even *IF* M$ were to give away Vista for Free, look at what they are giving away: 1) would probably be the cheapest verson available -- just to get the end user hooked on an inferior product, then hope to bleed them dry via the upgrade path -- M$ your friendly drug pusher. 2) Like all drugs it is JUNK: While the world is moving away from 32 bit systems and towards 64 bit systems, Vista is still being designed for 32 bit systems. 3) In order to run Vista at close to its "promised" specs, you need to go out and buy a NEW COMPUTER. You go out and buy a NEW COMPUTER JUST TO RUN an OS?!? And the NEW COMPUTER is still running 32 bit code?? Are you CRAZY. 4) Vista will still be a security nightmare.

So *IF* M$ were to give away their junkware the question is SO WAHAT, and besides, WHO CARES. M$ would have to PAY ME to USE THEIR JUNKWARE. What M$ fails to realize is that no matter how much money they throw at their OS the world has passed them by. The ONLY way *I* weould even consider using a M$ OS is *IF* 1) It were MODULAR so I don't have to use M$ cr@pware 2) It played well with every other platform out there 3) It had a resonable cost. 4) They released all their API etc. so that others could build to those standards without having to be ONLY a M$ product.

As I said, SO WHAT and WHO CARES -- there is NO WAY I will EVER USE VISTA (or whatever M$ decides to release there after) or ANY M$ product. They can keep their BLOATED BUGGY MALWARE to themselves.

Reply Score: 0

RE: so what ?
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Sep 2005 02:27 UTC in reply to "so what ?"
Anonymous Member since:
---
wierd source
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 11:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Has anyone else read the other articles on that India Daily site that is being linked to in the summary? Hillarious, but I'm not sure if they are ment to be.

"Extraterrestrial UFOs racing through the wormholes with escape velocities slightly higher than light into the Hyperspace"

"4.5 Billion years back how a type III alien civilization guided the construction of our solar system"

"Extraterrestrial UFOs use slow earthquake the stealth tectonic movements to build sub-tectonic bases"

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

For all the faults and flaws of its products, people would never leave Windows en masse, or even in any great flow over the next ten years at least. I have tried many many times, but have not managed to convince only a handful of people to try Linux or FreeBSD. None have persisted with them. They have their Windows boxes full of malware and even more full of firewalls, antivirus, antispyware and other arcane Windows-only stuff and just keep plodding along. That's why Linux commentators go on about the failure of the Linux desktop - people just wont leave Windows.

Reply Score: 0

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

yeah, and I think I know the reason why.

somoeone learns how to use windows and his mates call him a "guru", he thinks he "knows" computers.

put this person in front of linux and he has not a clue how to do some familiar things. Thus his ego gets dented and he goes back to Windows, saying Linux is crap. and he tells all his mates the same.

The only reason Windows has the amount of users it has, is EGO.

Reply Score: 1

Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

So it has nothing to do with the lack of specialised applications/games or the simple fact that people with a working setup won't bother to seek alternatives, right?

Reply Score: 0

captain_knobjockey Member since:
2005-08-23

yeah I have a fully working windows system,,,,,, however, as you well know, there is bound to be loads of spyware on there that I dont know about.
but why should I switch to a system where I have to type to get it to do anything ?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Everybody can use Windows, not everybody can use Linux. The number of people using an OS does not make the OS better is just a number. Linux is better in every aspect people don't use it since the average user does not know it exists. I've seen lots of Tech profesors who don't know what is Linux.

Reply Score: 0

v Vista not suitable for home use (yet)
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 11:53 UTC
Evaluation version
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 11:56 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Whilst I agree that it is unlikely that MS will offer Vista for free, perhaps an alternative would be to offer an evaluation version (or even a live cd) so people can "see what they'd be missing". It would give those who are happy to stick with XP the chance to preview Vista and maybe swing the undecided users.
Of course I imagine all the hardware manufacturers are jumping up and down at the thought of all the sales generate from Vista's hardware requirements.

Reply Score: 0

MS
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is how MS got into the enterprise in the first place. They almost gave their software away to businesses and governments which is how they knocked out better products like OS2, Lotus Notes, Wordperfect, Netscape, Banyan Vines, Novell Netware etc.

The things (Like AD) that Microsoft have brought to the table are copies of things like Banyan Vines, Banyan Street talk etc. Microsoft has not created much, they normally follow, yet their stick was always to bring people things that others had done but at a lower cost and claim they work better together because they came from one company. Yet in reality the only thing better in the past had been the price and then the lock in. (It's hard to get off MS once you are on) Everyone knows that Word was not better then WP and Excel is not better then Lotus Notes and for sure that AD is not better then Novell NDS (e-directory).

The thing that keeps MS on top today is the IBM factor. The IBM factor used to be the fact that if you were in a company and bought IBM you would NEVER loose your job, even if the IBM crap didn't work. Same thing now applies to MS. If you are in the US government for sure (Which I work for) if you buy and go standard on MS. No matter the problems you will NEVER loose your job. So people continue to buy it. No if ands or buts. People don't even think about looking at other products!

That is why MS is back porting some of their features from Vista to XP because people are going to buy into the license for 3 or more years anyway, so it won't matter if they don't actually go to Vista. Like right now the agency I work for (U.S.A.I.D) is standard on Windows 2000. But we long ago paid for Windows XP in our volume license agreement, even though we don't use it and at this rate may never use it. MS has still made their money. And that is all that matters to them and their shareholders (Bill Gates being one of the biggest! Share prices fall by even 2% and he is no longer the richest man on earth! Can't have that now can we?)

Reply Score: 0

RE: MS
by John.Gustafsson on Mon 19th Sep 2005 23:00 UTC in reply to "MS"
John.Gustafsson Member since:
2005-08-08

I'm fairly sure you were thinking of Lotus 1-2-3 and not Lotus Notes, since Notes isn't anything like Excel in the first place:) (http://www.lotus.com/products/product4.nsf/wdocs/noteshomepage)

I personaly would be very happy indeed for Microsoft made a "Lotus Notes killer" and I never had to use Notes again in my life. While a good idea it has by far THE worst UI of all the applications I use on a regular basis. Had the developers read Microsofts style guides and followed them, it would have been so much easier to use.

(And btw, Wiki nor Usenet has the features that Notes does:))

Reply Score: 1

Double agents in the world of OSS
by w-ber on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:28 UTC
w-ber
Member since:
2005-08-21

How many would upgrade to Vista if it were available as a free download?

Unfortunately, quite a few. I'd even be bold enough to say that half of the current OSS fanatics – those running GNU/Linux/*BSD systems daily – would download it, and maybe a bit fewer would run it daily.

You see, when the average user installs GNU/Linux, what he expects to see is a kind of "Super Windows", with no malware, viruses, crashes, etc., and which still functions as Windows, where Windows programs work as usual, etc. They're awfully disappointed when this isn't the truth. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them that Windows programs in general don't run. Those adventurous enough to install a *BSD system usually understand a bit more about their computers, so they're not included in this bunch.

I've seen it happen many times among my friends and acquintances; some install GNU/Linux (any distribution) full of hope, and then come back to me in a week saying "Windows is better, because this and that is different and I don't know how to install programs. I don't want to learn anything! Everything should work as in Windows!" No amount of reason will change their minds. Other users are content for a while, but if a free (as in beer) version of Windows were available, they'd switch back the same day.

People are lazy (this sounds more negative than it is). They don't want to change their habits, to learn anew where files are located, how to run programs, or even how to shut down the system.

If you could download an ISO of Vista "Home Basic," wouldn't you?

No. I like the freedom I got with GNU and Linux.

Reply Score: 3

markjensen Member since:
2005-07-26

Unfortunately, quite a few. I'd even be bold enough to say that half of the current OSS fanatics – those running GNU/Linux/*BSD systems daily – would download it, and maybe a bit fewer would run it daily.

I agreed with most of what you had to say, but this part really begged me to reply.

I think that nearly 100% of OSS "fanatics" (I prefer the term "users", but your term does apply to a rather vocal minority) realize that Microsoft Windows can already be downloaded and installed for free. Yet, we still use an alternative. ;)

For some people, an alternative OS is the better OS for them. BSD, Linux, et al, aren't for everyone; but those of us that use it, generally do so because we prefer it.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

I think that nearly 100% of OSS "fanatics" realize that Microsoft Windows can already be downloaded and installed for free. Yet, we still use an alternative. ;)

Anybody could download a crack for Opera 8, but as soon as they offered it for free, how many people lept at the chance?

There's a bigger difference between free as in theft and free as in beer than you give credit for.

Reply Score: 1

IT community on board?
by pauls101 on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:31 UTC
pauls101
Member since:
2005-07-07

Giving Windows away and charging for support could be the biggest boost they've ever had, as in dumping their worst quality product (the OS) on the market and profiting from their most vital (help in getting it to work.)

I don't see the "IT community" embracing Windows just because it's free, though. MS bases its business on a huge mass of customers who don't know any better, who see only slick ads, and who primarily care about having the latest scanner drivers and games. As far as usability, stability, support, etc, there are many superior free solutions out there already (any Linux flavor, and at least one vastly superior non-free solution (OSX.) None of them hurt MS that much now, because there just aren't that many users who ubnderstand the difference, compared to the herd Bill milks so successfully year after year.

Reply Score: 0

markjensen
Member since:
2005-07-26

Some of the things that I think get in the way of Microsoft offering a "free as in free beer" Windows is that they have lucrative contracts with PC OEMs like Dell, HP and all the others to pre-install Windows. And each of these is a sale, and brings in profit. The number of people buying the box off the shelf is much smaller than the OEM business (which merely passes on the cost to the customer, so the price is a non-issue to them).

Microsoft, as a publicly traded business, also needs to be mindful of its investors. Stockholders generally do not like to see a business start turning away from selling their flagship product, and start giving it away. There is the very real potential of a backlash against this change in policy. Stock investors can be fickle and are frequently prone to "panic" reactions. Any negative shift in the stock value may correct itself, but this is a real concern that would have to be considered before making a sweeping business model change.

Finally, Microsoft sees that there is a benefitial side to the "piracy problem". Yes, they would like to have every user of their products pay full price, but it is also nice to be in the position where your product is considered a 'must have', and you have the ability to use the leverage of vendor lock-in to keep the overall market dependant on your product to a significant extent. A large portion of the world thinks that there are two OSes: Windows, and pirated Windows. All they applications they can think of are Windows apps. They exchange emails with MS Word attachments. In some ways "warez" keeps driving the Microsoft engine. Sure, the fuel/air ratio may not be right, but as long as Microsoft is able to keep it going strong enough for a good return, they aren't going to crack down too hard.

Reply Score: 1

Give it another five or ten years
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Microsoft are never going to to be liked or trusted. That's the price you pay for being a monopoly. They've managed to upset just about everybody by now and. besides, they have a whopping headcount of around 61,000 salaries to pay.

Personally I don't see anything changing until the Gates/Ballmer world domination gig is over. At that stage, anxious stockholders will probably parachute in a Lou Gerstner corporate-axe-man type to sort out an increasingly cornered and bewildered mammoth. Then, yes, things may well change a great deal.

Reply Score: 0

vista for free
by captain_knobjockey on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:35 UTC
captain_knobjockey
Member since:
2005-08-23

I dont think so... not when they tried to charge me 85 euro for a beta !

Reply Score: 1

IT community on board?
by pauls101 on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:36 UTC
pauls101
Member since:
2005-07-07

Giving Windows away and charging for support could be the biggest boost they've ever had, as in dumping their worst quality product (the OS) on the market and profiting from their most vital (help in getting it to work.)

I don't see the "IT community" embracing Windows just because it's free, though. MS bases its business on a huge mass of customers who don't know any better, who want the lowest price and the latest games no matter what they pay later (Most corporate CIO's are at least this clueless, in different ways.) As far as usability, stability, support, etc, there are many superior free solutions out there already (any Linux flavor), and at least one vastly superior non-free solution (OSX.) None of them hurt MS that much, because there just aren't that many users who understand the difference, compared to the huge herd Bill milks so successfully year after year.

Reply Score: 1

It will never be free
by astroraptor on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:51 UTC
astroraptor
Member since:
2005-07-22

Windows is costing more and more and thus, people are getting richer and richer. There will never be a free, legal version of Windows. Money is power and power is godliness.

On another note, MacOS is MacOS, it is not a *NIX, it is not a flavour if BSD, it is MacOS.

Reply Score: 0

RE: It will never be free
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 13:31 UTC in reply to "It will never be free"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Last time I looked the Mac OS is based on the Mach kernel and the BSD implementation of UNIX.

It's just as UNIX as Linux is (Even though it's hidden under the pretty GUI)

But you go to the command line and the filesystem layout and commands are almost the same as any Linux/Unix distro.

Reply Score: 0

RE: It will never be free
by bogomipz on Mon 19th Sep 2005 13:36 UTC in reply to "It will never be free"
bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

On another note, MacOS is MacOS, it is not a *NIX, it is not a flavour if BSD, it is MacOS.

Except its kernel and command-line tools are based on Mach 3.0 and FreeBSD 5.

Reply Score: 1

RE: It will never be free
by Adam S on Mon 19th Sep 2005 13:38 UTC in reply to "It will never be free"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

MacOS is MacOS, it is not a *NIX, it is not a flavour if BSD, it is MacOS.

Hmmm... well, you might want to tell that to Apple so that they can update their website.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: It will never be free
by astroraptor on Mon 19th Sep 2005 14:12 UTC in reply to "RE: It will never be free"
astroraptor Member since:
2005-07-22

Notice the suffix "based". It does not mean it is a *NIX. In the end, every OS derived from UNIX. So, on that note: Windows is Mac OS is UNIX? Chrysler is GMC is Ford is Mercedes? To me, it'd be like telling me that my Chrysler Intrepid is actually a Ford because it was made in a mass production plant based on what Henry Ford and company devised. Glad to see I got replies, however, though negative.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: It will never be free
by aesiamun on Mon 19th Sep 2005 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It will never be free"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

um...

MacOSX has UNIX underpinnings, it's built on UNIX.

The 2006 Dodge Neon is going to be built on the Mitsubishi Lancer platform...it essentially is a Lancer.

The Eagle Talon was a Mitsubishi Eclipse

What's the differences? Presentation...Lexus puts a fine polish on Toyota. Scion puts fun on top of a Toyaota. Accura puts luxury finish on Hondas...

Underneath they are still Toyotas and Hondas.

The end product is what it is built off of...a different label is just a label.

OSX is a UNIX operating system without the ability to say it's UNIX...if they wanted it to be UNIX they would pay for the right to say it is UNIX.

But it's a UNIX operating system...with a Luxury finish on it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: It will never be free
by aesiamun on Mon 19th Sep 2005 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It will never be free"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

No your Chrylser Intrepid is actually a Dodge Avenger ;)

Reply Score: 1

anti-competitive behavior
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:57 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

i think there would be a regulatory problem since microsoft is a monopoly. selling a product below cost (or for $0) would be anti-competitive.

Reply Score: 0

no way
by Robocoastie on Mon 19th Sep 2005 12:58 UTC
Robocoastie
Member since:
2005-09-15

they wouldn't ever "give" it away but I do think they should (if they aren't already considering this) change the licence to be per person/household instead of by machine. You're passport account you enter when you log onto the computer verfies YOU now instead of the machine.

Reply Score: 1

ms
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 13:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

A free OS from MS is unrealistic, but one substantially reduced in price might work. It's possible that they wouldn't lose any revenue at all, as people would be much more willing to upgrade. However, I'm hesitant to see anything that reinforces a major monopoly as a good thing...

Reply Score: 0

Pointless
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 13:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It's absolutely pointless for them to give it away. At the moment many major OEM's are restlessly counting the days until they can SELL a system loaded with Vista.

The part some fail to understand "others" want to SELL Vista. It's not only Microsoft who is planning to cash in on this release.

Reply Score: 0

Windows 9x Usable?
by ma_d on Mon 19th Sep 2005 13:03 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

You're kidding right? People spent more time dealing with crashes and data loss than doing work. The only people who could finish work on the OS's were those with a large IT staff to help them avoid the clicks that cause crashes. Of course, 99% of those people were on NT: The first usable OS Microsoft shipped.

Reply Score: 1

growchie
Member since:
2005-07-07

I am mechanical engineer, not software one. If we start with the statement, that vista will be more costly than the Apollo project, then we will soon find ourselves in situation, when the cost of the next OS will exceed the cost a single company can pay.
how it is in the mechanical engineering world. to start with APOLLO nasa didn't build the whole thing. Grumman build the lunar module, another company build saturn 5 and so on. Ferrari are building their engines and cockpit but not the brakes and the tires. for that they rely on 3th parties.
I don't know what part of the windows code is actually written at redmond, but I think there will be time when even they will rely heavily on 3th parties for the software equivalent of tires, gearboxes etc.

Reply Score: 1

Fear of the dark
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 13:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

As said many times before, the problem why GNU/linux is having a hard time breaking through as a wide-spread desktop OS is that people are afraid of the unknown, it is so good to embrace the good old windows, no matter how much trouble they have with it.

My mom is just one of those people. She works mostly from her home office, and the day when her pirated anti-virus subscription expired and I told her that most of the stuff on her computer is pirated, she was shocked. And I suspect that 80% of the population of the world that uses computers have no idea wheter they have licences for the apps that they use daily. The OS is just something that you see through the screen, and they really dont care wheter it is Windows, Linux or OSx. As long as you can read your mail and surf the internet, play games... whatnot. They dont care. So I installed Linux for my mom, assuring her that none of this stuff required licenses and there was no need to pay silly amounts of money for bad operating system design (Anti-virus).

I showed her around: "..Click here for internet.. here you type the URL.. It looks the same.. blabla... Click here to read your e-mail.. yaddayadda...". And she is happy with that, as she doesnt care what it sais when the OS boots. It all looks the same, and works more or less the same way.

The only problem with Linux is the lack of DirectX, as games work really bad (Not very impressed by cedega). But this is completely controlled by the market, not Linux.

And Vista is going to be yet another bloated pile of binary design flaw, redmond style.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Fear of the dark
by Adam S on Mon 19th Sep 2005 13:48 UTC in reply to "Fear of the dark"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I've tried that. But inevitably, someone wants to bring home a spreadsheet made with Excel that contains a macro, or some odd formatting, or a Word document with some funky tables -- and it all falls apart.

Without MS Office, many people who work from home are in a bind.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Fear of the dark
by raver31 on Mon 19th Sep 2005 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Fear of the dark"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

your point is moot

office works flawlessly under crossover. and FASTER than it does under windows

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Fear of the dark
by Adam S on Mon 19th Sep 2005 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fear of the dark"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

But that's closed-source, commercial software again. Which is the argument? That using closed-source is bad? Or using non-free as in beer software is bad?

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Fear of the dark
by raver31 on Mon 19th Sep 2005 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fear of the dark"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

neither,
using closed-source is not bad
paying for software (that works properly) is not bad either

the point was this... use the BEST option

which for MS Office means running on Linux through Crossover

Reply Score: 1

screw vista...
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 13:48 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

...give us free 2000! lol

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

So Microsoft is going to give away Vista for free to make the geeks happy? BAHAHAHAHA!!!! The only way Microsoft is going to make the geeks happy is if it gives away the source code to everything it owns. Nothing less will do the trick. Giving away Windows for free (binaries only) will probably have the same affect as giving away Internet Explorer did - it'll make their image worse not better. "See, M$ is giving away Windows for free so they can kill open source, yada yada yada yada ..."

As for Linux, as I said before .. some people have switched to it and people will continue to do so a few at a time. But for better or worse, you're not going to have this mass exodus away from Windows on the day that Vista comes out. Most people who know about and have an interest in using Linux have either tried it and went back to Windows, or are using it full-time by now.

Reply Score: 0

Evil
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 14:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You know if I was evil, and Bill Gates, I'd give away Windows 95 (maybe NT) for free (as in beer), get all the up and comming nations use to running Windows, and stop people becoming Linux types.

And make a big thing of this being good while laughing all the way to the bank. As I say evil.

Reply Score: 0

upgrades
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 14:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

you will generally notice that places like redhat or suse will lock you into a specifif version of software and thus it means that you cant just upgrade straight away, you are stuck with open source stuff at times too (do you really think RedHat would support a 100 different flavours of apaceh?!)
apologies if this looks dodge as it is being typed in lynx...

Reply Score: 0

MS and mass-culture
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 14:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

MS business model will fail one day, that's obvious. And it'll fail not because MS is "bad" or because people will understand the meaning of "freedom" (they never will). It'll fail because MS has serious problems being innovative.

Some years ago, it was a significant (financial) effort for me to upgrade my hardware to run Windows95 (instead of win 3.11 I was running). But It was obvious what I paid for -- a better desktop that gave me new possibilities to work with the computer. A desktop that was revolutionary because it allowed me to do more things.

Same thing, but to a greatly lesser extent, can be said about the Windows95/98 -> WindowsXp transition.

Now, testing the betas, I can't find a single reason to possibly upgrade to Vista. We can argue that beta is not a final version. But It's obvious, that from the end-user point of view, there is nothing new in Vista. The stuff that's marketed as being "new" is already present on the market in some forms.

MS and Windows is the biggest element of the 100 years old mass-culture. Mass-culture is based on copyright-laws, intelectual rights and controlled product flow. This concept is being redefined right now -- thanks to internet, p2p, free downloads and all the stuff no one can stop (yes, no one can stop that. We might like it or not, but this is a fact)

While talking to young people I'm always amazed, how they consider EVERYTHING on the internet being free -- be it legal or not.

The world that's slowly coming is a world where big companies (Microsoft, Emi, Disney...) fail, because the intelectual content they sell can't be protected anymore. People will be willing to pay only for stuff that's truly innovative/stuff they haven't seen already. The old business model that worked well for so long ("produce crap, market it, sell it in billions") will fail.

Reply Score: 1

RE: MS and mass-culture
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 14:28 UTC in reply to "MS and mass-culture"
Anonymous Member since:
---

" The old business model that worked well for so long ("produce crap, market it, sell it in billions") will fail."

Word!

Things take time, and the OSS will continue to evolve no matter what. Have you ever heard of a GNU/Linux user switching back to Windows? (Not the "try it once, I dont understand, its crap, let switch back" people)

Reply Score: 0

The problem with Linux
by DigitalAxis on Mon 19th Sep 2005 14:27 UTC
DigitalAxis
Member since:
2005-08-28

Is that it's NOT WINDOWS. People think of computers, they think (unconsciously, probably) of Windows. Thus, a Mac or Linux computer isn't a real computer, because REAL computers all run that Microwave stuff with those icons on the desktop... (check out http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/) It's sad, because Linux already CAN do pretty much anything anyone wants, they'd just have to re-learn new programs or at the very least, get used to the idea that Internet Explorer is not 'the internet'.

Thus, any Linux distribution hoping to actually interest people would have to have all the flashy eyecandy of E17 and KDE, the simplicity of Gnome and XFCE4, and... I don't know, be insanely fast.

But even then, there'd be problems. I know someone who tried to get her sister to switch to Firefox because her sister was downloading all these ActiveX virii. Firefox was always too slow, it crashed, SOMEthing wasn't right... My friend solved this problem by changing THE ICON to the Internet Explorer E. Suddenly, 'the internet' was working again.

Think about it, the panel in XFCE4 would confuse people; the different ambience and styling in Gnome and Gnome HIG apps would perplex them, and the icons being in the Kicker in KDE would confuse people who expect a desktop littered with icons.

Like w_ber said, people think Linux is a super-Windows that will run all their programs. Thus people won't switch until it CAN do voice chat, run Outlook, and run all the latest games you picked up from "reallycoolgames4kids.com". Something will not work the same, and that will be the reason why they won't use it.

What REALLY has to be done is to convince people that Windows =|= computer. Because I really don't like the idea of turning Linux into Windows just so that people who don't understand computers can use it.

Reply Score: 3

Redmond running dry
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 14:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Microsoft might be doing well with their mice and keyboards but in terms of Windows the development costs are already eating them alive and they are beginning to loose an increasing number of users to the Linux world. Microsoft's stocks have started to reflect those issues and I am very glad I've sold mine.

Reply Score: 0

gratis junk is still junk
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 16:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

thanks, but no thanks. I've had it with windows.

Reply Score: 0

lawsuits
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 18:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

One aspect I haven't seen mentioned is that MS would be sued.

Let's say MS did release Vista free and regarded it as a "platform" for which it would maintain dominance for all of it's other applications.

Well, then you have lawsuits.

MS bundled a free browser and was sued despite the fact that every OS now bundles a free browser. It was a rather forward-looking move at the time, but they were tried for it. MacOS freely bundles its iLife suite of apps with PowerMacs and QT into OS X, but MS gets sued in Europe for bundling WMP. In fact, any consumer-targeted OS that doesn't bundle media capabilities of some kind is dead out of the gate. Look at the integration of browser and media player in a KDE-based distro. In fact any Linux distro comes with loads of software. It may not be tied into the OS as tightly, but it is bundled. I've seen plenty of humorous Windows vs Linux posts on here, where Windows loses because it is lacking a free bundled Office Suite or free this or that. So MS was correct to bundle free apps and now everyone else goes even farther than they simply because MS' hands are tied.

I'm betting that the entities who hypothetically sue them will be the exact companies who give away free software. Everyone here knows it. It would kill off most Linux distros since "free" is their only real advantage. The companies trying to make $$ from value-added services or apps on top of Linux (as platform) would suddenly lose their only selling point. All of the other advantages (security, reliability, etc) are in the hands of the user/ admin. Linux's scalability is only an advantage to a few niche scientific groups.

So we have free. And if MS gave Vista away for free, we'd be in another 10 years of lawsuits whose only real purpose isn't justice, but distracting MS from being a good capitalist and wiping the floor with their competitors.

Reply Score: 2

Free Willy
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Sep 2005 20:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

A free Vista would not change much of anything. As far as most consumers are now concerned, Vista is free--they get it with their new desktop, whether they want it or not. Furthermore, the development model of Microsoft does not support a free Vista; too many are employed full time, the revenue from PC makers is needed to support them.

Those who use Linux for various reasons would not change just because Vista is "free"; to use Vista presupposes that Vista has an advantage over say, Fedora in the first place. Many would say that it doesn't.

As for Joe Sixpack currently using the WinXP he got for 'free' when he got his PC, well all he cares about is doing his business and I don't think he will upgrade to a free Vista anyways-why take the time?

The money lost to a free Vista would be astonishing-Microsoft would do better, in that scenario, with firing 2/3 of their windows vista programmers and delivering their own Linux distro, leveraging existing code available to all.

Reply Score: 0

Awesome
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 04:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Either way, you have Windows beaten.

Reply Score: 0

Linux
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 05:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I still think the biggest problem with Linux is that it's a pain in the ass to use....at least the last time I tried it. I have no problem with the learning curve. I don't really mind spending a couple hours here and there trying to figure out how things work. My biggest issue is that you would install a program but it needs 5 other dependencies. So you'd install those dependencies and those would require other ones. So after fumbling around for a while you get everything installed and the program is nowhere to be found. Of course being a windows user I'd check the "start" menu and of course it wouldn't be in there. Then it's off to search all the directories to see where it was installed and hopefully figure out which file actually starts the program. Tell me this isn't a reason why more people haven't switched to Linux. And I haven't even covered the 10 ways of compiling binaries and the 500 switches that go along with it.

I know quite a alot has changed since then and I've exaggerated a bit but my point is still valid. And even with the massive amounts of tutorials and guides I've gone through you are either stuck with the idiot version that doesn't explain anything or the expert one which just complicates the crap out of it and leaves you scratching your head. And it's not like I'm a complete idiot...really. I have no problems building and repairing computers. I'll play around in the registry without worry as I know what not to do. And even without a real time virus scanner, firewall, spyware, malware etc I still have a prefectly clean computer and haven't had a virus in 2 years now. Hell, I don't even bother with the updates very often. I do check things once a month or so with Fix It Utilities or online virus scanner without any problems. So it's not like I have no idea how to figure things out.

Well, a couple years have passed since my last forey into Linux and I'm almost at the point of trying it again.

Reply Score: 0

Nice dream
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Sep 2005 17:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If Microsoft were to give away Vista, there is no way shareholders could not punish them. This is why I think it won't happen.

But you might see a cheaper vista. With more opportunities to get it free or close to free. When XP came out, I got a full copy of pro for about $40 via a MS's channel partner program. I would expect something similar, perhaps expanded to include more of the general public (like all IT pros, retail store employees, students, etc.)

http://mrshiney.froppy.com/blog/

Reply Score: 0

Giving away VISTA at the beach ..
by Pressanykey on Sat 24th Sep 2005 17:38 UTC
Pressanykey
Member since:
2005-09-24

How would you distribute it?

98% of people would not download it. I have 44K dial-up. But are people in Europe buying the 'N' version and downloading WMP. Think not.

You could distribute on PC Mag's free DVD cover disks, but then you would have to buy a $10-20 magazine.

Mum & dad shareholders who sell would be picked up by the Pension & Fund Managers. So shares would not suffer as these investors buy big and look to the long term.

Microsoft could probably write off the cost of producing VISTA plus an agreed profit with the Tax Commissioner over a five year period. So, any profits on OFFICE, or even the billion dollar profit from MICE alone would not be taxed.

Microsoft would pick up enormous public goodwill. And dominate desktops for five years.

If MS charged for updates or any other services now free, people would not update. A lot don't now anyway.

Microsoft would achieve what it really needs - EVERYONE TOGETHER on VISTA. Scrap all previous versions of the operating system. You don't updated now for free - goodbye.

Reply Score: 1