posted by camo on Tue 12th Feb 2008 04:03
Conversations Having a good think last night about this very question. Apart from the obvious 'money spending answers', what would you change about their software (Windows especially), licensing issues, etc, and would you open source it?

Personally, the first thing I would do was to get rid of windows activation (grrrr..) and relax the license to allow for use on more than one computer, but only on computers that the licensed user owns (or maybe family owned computers), and only for non-commercial-use.

Would I open source Windows? Not at first, but I would open source Windows after seeing the pitchforks and torches of the shareholders as they break down my fence chanting <insert profanity here> as my last dying wish.
Permalink for comment 661
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Hmm...
by Almafeta on Tue 12th Feb 2008 13:33 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

Myself, the only major change I'd make would be to make basic Windows dirt cheap or freeware. Lower the bar to entry of Windows even further and do away with piracy worries in one fell swoop.

Office? Profitable, industry leaders, don't need my meddling.

Visual Studio? Profitable, industry leaders, don't need my meddling.

XBox/Microsoft Game Studios? Profitable, talented, don't need my meddling (I might boost them).

ERP taken as a whole? Profitable, talented, don't need my meddling.

Windows Mobile? Profitable, talented, don't need my meddling.

Research? Profitable (in an intellectual sense, I know it's a money pit), crazy gifted, don't need my meddling (if anything I'd give them insane boosts).

Live? Not leading but alive, self-sustaining, don't need my meddling.

Mac Office? Still makes more money off of Macs than Apple. Why would I change a thing?

(I might start an ad campaign pointing out the silliness and hypocracy of Apple/Linux FUD. But then again, why outshout them when you can outdo them?)

Reply Score: 2